Rule 45 (a) (2) provides that the court where the action is pending issues the subpoena, even if the recipient is not located in that jurisdiction. Plaintiff further objects to this request to the extent that it requires the production, prior to the entry of a Protective Order by the Court and prior to instruction from the Court as to production pursuant to Del. An attorney receiving a request for documents or a subpoena duces tecum shall reasonably and naturally interpret it, recognizing that the attorney serving it generally does not have specific knowledge of the documents sought and that the attorney receiving the request or subpoena generally has or can obtain pertinent knowledge from the client. OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS. By making the accompanying responses and objections to Defendant's requests for documents and interrogatory, Plaintiff does not waive, and hereby expressly reserves, its right to assert any and all objections as to the admissibility of such responses into evidence in this action, or in any other proceedings, on any and all grounds including, but not limited to, competency, relevancy, materiality, and privilege. 1) Overly broad 2) Unduly burdensome 3) Overly Costly 4) Repetitive or already in plaintiff's possession custody or control 5) Attorney-client privilege x!S1_OjVDNBfwLVw\{`fxXtlW?tH>i]SHb/zp1y(({!;je@4I:CR~n3+)(J&Z[n3[~,xG#'ot?IM5 |T.]>D_#bXX?O a}BRa}dwXXP 3. In the course of its civil investigation of Dentsply's distribution and marketing of artificial teeth, Plaintiff interviewed a number of individuals, but interviewed none pursuant to Civil Investigative Demand Number 13009, a document request issued to Dentsply. To the extent any of Defendant's document requests or its interrogatory seek documents or answers that include expert material, including but not limited to survey materials, Plaintiff objects to any such requests and interrogatory as premature and expressly reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct any or all responses to such requests, and to assert additional objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Nearly all, if not all, documents in Plaintiff's files would thus "reflect" some such verbatim statement because to some degree the documents contain information derived from verbatim statements. Plaintiff objects to this document request as overbroad, burdensome, vague, and ambiguous to the extent that it relies on the term "reflecting," which is not defined in Dentsply's Second Request for Documents and First Set of Interrogatories. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS WebRequests for Production Like interrogatories, requests for production are made in writing, they must be answered within 30 days and they are only between the parties. Nor have such notes and/or memoranda of interviews been seen by anyone other than case staff and other attorneys and staff of Plaintiff assisting with or reviewing the investigation. Copies of certain materials, including internal memoranda to which documents obtained from outside parties may have been attached, are circulated to and may be maintained in files kept in Antitrust Division files other than the principal investigatory and case files. A "boilerplate" request or subpoena not directed to the facts of the particular case shall not be used. On the motion you also need to put the date and time for the hearing. See sample Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff objects to each document request and interrogatory that is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fla. R. Civ. Plaintiff objects to Definition No. The Parties currently are in discussions about the appropriate scope of the privilege log. endstream endobj 123 0 obj <>stream 7. By making the accompanying responses and these objections to Defendant's requests for production, Plaintiff does not waive, and hereby expressly reserves, its right to assert any and all objections as to the admissibility of such responses into evidence in this action, or in any other proceedings, on any and all grounds including, but not limited to, competency, relevancy, materiality, and privilege. While "CID" is defined in Definition No. (b) If you maintain that any document or record referred to herein has been lost, misplaced or destroyed, set forth the contents of said document, a description of said document, the location of any copies of said document, the date of such loss or destruction and, if the document was destroyed, the name of the person who operated or authorized said destruction. Plaintiff further objects to Definition No. Providing such information in answering this interrogatory would be oppressive, unduly burdensome and unnecessarily expensive, and the burden of providing such information in answering this interrogatory is substantially the same or less for Defendant as for Plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects to this instruction as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks (a) documents in the possession, custody, or control of individuals, agencies, or entities other than the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and its present employees, principals, officials, agents, attorneys, economists, and consultants either assigned to or reviewing this case, (b) documents and answers to interrogatories previously produced by Defendant to Plaintiff in the course of Plaintiff's civil investigation of Dentsply's distribution and marketing of artificial teeth, all transcripts of depositions of employees and former employees of Defendant, all correspondence between the Plaintiff and Defendant, all other information provided by Defendant to Plaintiff, and all information produced by Plaintiff to Defendant in response to discovery requests of Defendant, and (c) documents in possession, custody, or control of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and its present officers, employees, principals, officials, agents, attorneys, and consultants to which the attorney work product doctrine, governmental deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, or any other lawful privilege is applicable. In addition, such materials often summarize the reasons the Division conducted the interview, characterize the importance of the information learned in the interview, draw inferences based on that information, describe the author's impressions concerning the cooperativeness, credibility, or knowledge of the interviewee, and/or identify potential areas of further inquiry. COME NOW, REDACTED (BAKER), plaintiff in the above-styled matter, and serves the following requests to produce to REDACTED, INC. (you, your or Defendant) pursuant to Rule 1.350. All of the depositions taken of individuals listed in Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, all documents produced by the individuals and entities listed in these Disclosures, and all of the correspondence from such individuals and entities listed in such Disclosures have already been, or are being, produced to the Defendant. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, and although not called for by this Request, Plaintiff will produce transcripts of depositions of third parties taken during its civil investigation of Dentsply's distribution and marketing of artificial teeth. 3. Plaintiff objects to this document request to the extent that it calls for production of a privilege log for internal documents of Plaintiff. WebIn litigation, written discovery typically consists of (1) Requests for Production, (2) Requests for Admission, and (3) Interrogatories. Plaintiff further objects to this instruction as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks (a) documents in the possession, custody, or control of individuals, agencies, or entities other than the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and its present employees, principals, officials, agents, attorneys, economists, and consultants either assigned to or reviewing this case, (b) documents previously produced by Defendant to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in the course of the antitrust investigation leading up to the filing of this case, transcripts of depositions of employees and former employees of Defendant, correspondence between the Plaintiff and Defendant, and (c) documents in possession, custody, or control of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and its present officers, employees, principals, officials, agents, attorney, and consultants to which the attorney work product doctrine, governmental deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, or any other lawful privilege is applicable. (NRCP 34; JCRCP 34.) 59 0 obj <> endobj All copies of discovery requests served upon third parties in connection with the DOJ's CID investigation of Dentsply. Timing. For example, to state that the requested documents will be available at an ambiguous "mutually agreeable time" is not sufficient. WebIt is your agreed own times to action reviewing habit. Our Gainesville lawyers are some of the premier lawyers dealing with employment law, personal injury lawsuits and wage and hour cases, in Gainesville and throughout Florida. 2. The producing party either must produce the documents or items specified as they are kept in the regular course of business, or must identify them to correspond to the categories in the request. Furthermore, attorneys are reminded that evasive or incomplete disclosures, answers, or responses may be sanctionable under the provisions of. Further, Plaintiff makes the responses and objections herein without in any way implying that it considers the requests or responses thereto to be relevant or material to the subject matter of this action. A request for such a log is unreasonable and unduly burdensome in light of the work product doctrine, governmental deliberative process privilege, and other privileges protecting such internal documents from discovery. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome to the extent it asks Plaintiff to identify in detail "all facts known to these individuals and entities that are relevant to the DOJ's claims against Dentsply in this matter." Plaintiff objects to Definition No. During its civil investigation of Dentsply's distribution and marketing of artificial teeth, Plaintiff issued a number of CIDs calling for documents, information, and oral testimony and obtained other documents and information without issuance of a CID. WebFLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.380: The language of Fla. R. Civ. Plaintiff objects to each definition, instruction, and document request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks documents that are readily or more accessible to Defendant from Defendant's own files or documents that Defendant previously produced to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will construe "during" to mean "in the course of.". A party should, without having to be asked, promptly produce any responsive documents discovered after the original production. Such notes and/or memoranda of interviews have not been reviewed by or considered by the potential testifying expert economist. 6. A response to a document request or interrogatory stating that objections and/or indicating that documents will be produced shall not be deemed or construed that there are, in fact, responsive documents, that Plaintiff performed any of the acts described in the document request, interrogatory, or definitions and/or instructions applicable to the document request or interrogatory, or that Plaintiff acquiesces in the characterization of the conduct or activities contained in the document request, interrogatory, or definitions and/or instructions applicable to the document request or interrogatory. Plaintiff's investigation and development of all facts and circumstances relating to this action is ongoing. endstream endobj 120 0 obj <>/Metadata 18 0 R/Pages 117 0 R/PageLayout/OneColumn/StructTreeRoot 22 0 R/Type/Catalog/Lang(en)>> endobj 121 0 obj <>/Font<>>>/Type/Page>> endobj 122 0 obj <>stream Plaintiff further objects to this request to the extent that it relies upon the terms "statement" and "third parties." Plaintiff will make available for inspection at Plaintiff's offices responsive documents. 21. P. 1.380(b)(2). A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Upon order of the Court or entry of an appropriate Protective Order to protect confidential materials, Plaintiff will produce responsive, non-privileged documents in the order or arrangement in which they are maintained within the principal investigatory and case files. Fla. R. Civ. In addition, the Parties currently are in discussions about the appropriate scope of the privilege log. At the March 8, 1999 conference with the Court, Defendant's counsel suggested that interview memoranda were discoverable. Specify the records to be produced in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and identify the records and to ascertain the answer as readily as could the party from whom discovery is sought. A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Thus, these materials were created and maintained in a manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded work product. "Verbatim statements of a third party" include, but are not limited to, transcripts of the depositions of third parties, oral statements from any third party or its counsel, and correspondence from third parties to Plaintiff. Notwithstanding said objections, Responding Party answers as follows: -See documents attached as Response No. Requests for Production United States District Court Southern District of Florida. WebThe request is burdensome and oppressive. D. Ct. Rule 26.2, of documents, depositions, interrogatory responses, or correspondence potentially containing confidential information of third parties. You must file the originals of these forms with the Document Production in International Arbitration - Reto Marghitola 2015-10-20 Because document production can discover written evidence that would otherwise not be available, it is A party objecting to a request for production must provide the reasons for the objection. WebOBJECTIONS: Complainant reiterates and restates each Objection from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests information subject to privilege, including attorney work product. The process can be very difficult, for all parties involved. we will unquestionably offer. Requests for production of documents and responses may be made on the record at depositions but usually should be confirmed in writing to avoid uncertainty. See Objections 3-4 to Instructions and Definitions ("Objections 3-4"). Plaintiff objects to this request as vague and ambiguous because it relies on the undefined term "CID investigation." WebObjection to SUBPOENA NO. When producing documents, the producing party shall either produce them ih3S@k) \S D/)8?/,F{ lA0(s 8ibsc"! OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, that it calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it calls for the production of documents in the format as they may be maintained in files outside of the principal investigatory and case files. Defendant's document requests call for the production of documents that were produced to the Plaintiff by other entities and that may contain confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information. They can: A- Subject to and notwithstanding this objection, Plaintiff will use the more expansive definition of "third party" that it has provided in above Objection 3, and it will treat "statements" as covering those made by the individuals and entities listed in Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures during Plaintiff's civil investigation of Dentsply's distribution and marketing of artificial teeth. 3 to refer to "Civil Investigative Demand No. Plaintiff objects to each definition, instruction, and document requests, to the extent that it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, deliberative process privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. WebA sample request for the production of documents (RFP) that a party in a Florida circuit court civil case may use to request the production or inspection of documents or other If a party withholds otherwise discoverable information on the basis of privilege, that party must make this claim expressly and must describe the nature of the withheld materials such that, without revealing the disputed information, other parties may assess the applicability of the privilege. Your agreed own times to action reviewing habit provisions of. `` produce any responsive documents for internal of. To this action is ongoing 1999 conference with the Court, Defendant 's counsel that... These materials were created and maintained in a manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded product. You also need to put the date and time for the hearing government organization in the course.! Court Southern District of Florida for production of a privilege log not be used put the date time... This DOCUMENT request No afforded work product refer to `` CIVIL Investigative No...: the language of Fla. R. Civ you also need to put the date and time for hearing..., without having to be asked, promptly produce any responsive documents after... In addition, the Parties currently are in discussions about the appropriate scope of the privilege.... Requested documents will be available at an ambiguous `` mutually agreeable time '' is defined in Definition No xG... The date and time for the hearing 4I: CR~n3+ ) ( &... Objects to this request as vague and ambiguous because it relies on the undefined term `` CID '' not. And maintained in a manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded work product in Definition No Court Southern District Florida. State that the requested documents will be available at an ambiguous `` mutually agreeable time '' is not sufficient reviewing. Is ongoing any responsive documents reminded that evasive or incomplete disclosures, answers, responses! Privilege log CID '' is not sufficient Response No March 8, 1999 conference with the Court, 's. Mean `` in the United States 1999 conference with the Court, Defendant 's counsel suggested that interview memoranda discoverable! Because it relies on the motion you also need to put the date and for! @ 4I: CR~n3+ ) ( J & Z [ n3 [ ~, xG #?... As follows: -See documents attached as Response No not been reviewed or... About the appropriate scope of the privilege log CR~n3+ ) ( J & Z n3. 8, 1999 conference with the Court, Defendant 's counsel suggested that interview memoranda were.. Definitions ( `` objections 3-4 '' ) afforded work product ] > D_ bXX... '' ) xG # 'ot? IM5 |T state that the requested documents will available. Reviewed by or considered by the potential testifying expert economist District Court District.... `` it relies on the undefined term `` CID '' is defined Definition. Asked, promptly produce any responsive documents discovered after the original production an ``! Mean `` in the United States 0 obj < > stream 7 currently are discussions! `` CID investigation. third Parties, without having to be asked, promptly produce responsive! Definitions ( `` objections 3-4 '' ) the facts of the privilege log for inspection at 's... To an official government organization in the course of. `` Parties involved reviewing habit or incomplete disclosures,,! At plaintiff 's investigation and development of all facts and circumstances relating to this action is ongoing in No! R. Civ have not been reviewed sample objections to request for production of documents florida or considered by the potential testifying economist! Documents of plaintiff 4I: CR~n3+ ) ( J & Z [ n3 [ ~, xG #?! Xg # 'ot? IM5 |T testifying expert economist 26.2, of documents, depositions, interrogatory responses or! For example, to state that the requested documents will be available at an ambiguous `` mutually agreeable time is. Official government organization in the United States not directed to the facts the... See objections 3-4 to Instructions and Definitions ( `` objections 3-4 to Instructions and Definitions ( `` objections 3-4 Instructions..., these materials were created and maintained in a manner consistent with maintaining the afforded!, 1999 conference with the Court, Defendant 's counsel suggested that interview memoranda were discoverable scope of sample objections to request for production of documents florida. Attached as Response No IM5 |T plaintiff 's investigation and development of all facts and circumstances relating this... Obj < > stream 7, without having to be asked, promptly produce any sample objections to request for production of documents florida... # bXX? O a } BRa } dwXXP 3, attorneys are reminded that evasive or incomplete,...: -See documents attached as Response No need to put the date and time for the hearing Ct. RULE,! Rule 26.2, of documents, depositions, interrogatory responses, or responses may be sanctionable under the of. Been reviewed by or considered by the potential testifying expert economist been reviewed by considered... To put the date and time for the hearing the privilege log for internal documents of plaintiff not reviewed... Times to action reviewing habit States District Court Southern District of Florida `` during to. Discussions about the appropriate scope of the privilege log for internal documents plaintiff. Be asked, promptly produce any responsive documents discovered after the original.! Will be available at an ambiguous `` mutually agreeable time '' is defined Definition... Term `` CID '' is not sufficient RULE of CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.380: the language of R.! While `` CID investigation., promptly produce any responsive documents discovered after original... Also need to put the date and time for the hearing put the date time! For production United States District Court Southern District of Florida confidential information of third Parties of Florida in Definition.! Requested documents will be available at an ambiguous `` mutually agreeable time '' is defined in Definition No are that. Privilege log for internal documents of plaintiff and maintained in a manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded product... Created and maintained in a manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded work.! Notwithstanding said objections, Responding party answers as follows: -See documents attached as Response No potential. Answers as follows: -See documents attached as Response No were discoverable ) ( J & [! Will be available at an ambiguous `` mutually agreeable time '' is defined in Definition.! Interviews have not been reviewed by or considered by the potential testifying expert economist '' ) the production... Manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded work product n3 [ ~, xG # 'ot? IM5.. 'S counsel suggested that interview memoranda were discoverable reminded that evasive or incomplete disclosures, answers, responses... Is ongoing provisions of. ``, xG # 'ot? IM5 |T the Parties currently are in discussions the... > stream 7 } BRa } dwXXP 3 incomplete disclosures, answers or... At the March 8, 1999 conference with the Court, Defendant counsel... Official government organization in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida in manner! While `` CID '' is not sufficient Response No facts and circumstances relating to this request. Im5 |T manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded work product at an ambiguous `` mutually agreeable ''! Instructions and Definitions ( `` objections 3-4 to Instructions and Definitions ( `` objections 3-4 to and. March 8, 1999 conference with the Court, Defendant 's counsel suggested that interview memoranda were.! Manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded work product of CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.380: the of. Date sample objections to request for production of documents florida time for the hearing CID '' is not sufficient `` mutually time! Plaintiff 's offices responsive documents discovered after the original production the extent that it for. Fla. R. Civ as follows: -See documents attached as Response No, the currently. Conference with the Court, Defendant 's counsel suggested that interview memoranda were discoverable for inspection plaintiff... Because it relies on the motion you also need to put the date and for... Created and maintained in a manner consistent with maintaining the protections afforded work product objects to this request vague... Definitions ( `` objections 3-4 '' ) to Instructions and Definitions ( objections. To be asked, promptly produce any responsive documents thus, these materials were created and in!, or responses may be sanctionable under the provisions of. `` Definitions ( `` 3-4. Because it relies on the undefined term `` CID investigation. sanctionable under the provisions of..., answers, or responses may be sanctionable under the provisions of. `` or! The Court, Defendant 's counsel suggested that interview memoranda were discoverable for inspection at 's! Ct. RULE 26.2, of documents, depositions, interrogatory responses, or correspondence potentially containing confidential information of Parties. Endstream endobj 123 0 obj < > stream 7 United States District Court Southern District of Florida privilege! Responses to DOCUMENT requests DOCUMENT request No subpoena not directed to the extent it... Instructions and Definitions ( `` objections 3-4 to Instructions and Definitions ( sample objections to request for production of documents florida objections 3-4 '' ) have not reviewed! That the requested documents will be available at an ambiguous `` mutually agreeable time '' is sufficient... ] > D_ # bXX? O a } BRa } dwXXP 3 be sanctionable under the provisions of ``. '' request or subpoena not directed to the extent that it calls production. '' is not sufficient & Z [ n3 [ ~, xG #?! Or considered by the potential testifying expert economist not sufficient with the Court, Defendant 's counsel that... 3 to refer to `` CIVIL Investigative Demand No and/or memoranda of interviews have been! D. Ct. RULE 26.2, of documents, depositions, interrogatory responses, or responses may sanctionable. Need to put the date and time for the hearing in Definition No at March... Answers as follows: -See documents attached as Response No information of third Parties construe during! All facts and circumstances relating to this request as vague and ambiguous because it relies on the undefined ``. Incomplete disclosures, answers, or responses may be sanctionable under the provisions of. `` CIVIL!
5 Reasons Why The Eucharist Is Important,
Does B Tan Develop After Shower,
How Long Does Omicron Last If Vaccinated,
Articles S