SOUTHEAST POWER CORPORATION
v.
BRADY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a party answering discovery requests subject to objections waives those objections, but it cannot compel answers to interrogatories or requests for production that are not phrased to elicit responsive information.
Plaintiff moved to compel better discovery responses from its former Vice President, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a separa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Privilege Log cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Short Form) (the “Motion”) (Doc. 39), filed May 4, 2023. Defendant responded in opposition on May 16, 2023.1 (Doc. 45.) Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part. In this case, Plaintiff sues its former Vice President for misappropriation and use of Plaintiff’s confidential and trade secret information and for breach of Defendant’s separation agreement. (Doc. 16.) Relatedly, a Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction is pending before the presiding district judge. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff now seeks to compel from Defendant better answers to Interrogatories2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Doc. 39-1) and better responses to Requests for Production1, 6, 7, and 10 (Doc. 39-3). (Doc. 39.)
Interrogatories As to Interrogatories2 and 3, Plaintiff takes issue with the fact that Defendant has not identified documents Plaintiff believes are responsive to these Interrogatories that have been listed on Defendant’s privilege log or otherwise identified on his Rule
26 Disclosures. (Docs. 39 at 1, 2; 39-2.) While not briefed in the Motion, from what the Court gathers from the record, Plaintiff asserts Defendant executed a Severance Agreement, wherein he agreed to return and not take Plaintiff’s confidential trade secret information in exchange for severance payout. Plaintiff states that because Defendant has listed items, such as communications between himself and another employee of Plaintiff’s, on his privilege log or has otherwise identified people with knowledge in his Rule 26 Disclosures, he has not fully answered these Interrogatories. (Doc. 39 at 1–2.)
Defendant responds that he has not retained or used Plaintiff’s confidential or proprietary information in competition with Plaintiff, which is what the Interrogatories request. (Doc. 45 at 1, 2.) As Defendant asserts, the parties differ on their factual interpretations of the case, and as far as these Interrogatories are concerned, there are no responsive persons or documents to identify. (Id.). Plaintiff does not appear to assert that the documents listed on the privilege log are not entitled to privilege.2 Nor does Plaintiff identify by Bates number the documents on Defendant’s privilege log it claims to support its argument. In any event, the Court cannot compel Defendant to provide a different answer to these Interrogatories as they are currently phrased. Therefore, the Court will deny the Motion as to these two
Interrogatories. Regarding to Interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 9, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s stated responses of “[n]one.” (Docs. 39 at 2–3; 39-1 at 7–9.) Again, Defendant says that Plaintiff’s basis for moving to compel better answers is based on Plaintiff’s version of events, but that he is not otherwise withholding responsive documents. (Doc. 45 at
2–3.) As there is nothing responsive to compel, the Court will deny the Motion as to
As to Request for Production1, Defendant states that he has produced all documents in his possession. (Doc. 45 at 3.) Once more, since there is nothing further to compel, the Court will deny the Motion as to Request for Production 1. As to Requests for Production 6, 7, and 10, Plaintiff again takes issue with Defendant’s stated responses of “[n]one” because Defendant has not identified documents that Plaintiff believes are responsive to this request for production and that have been listed on Defendant’s privilege log. (Docs. 39 at 3; 39-3 at 4–6.) But Defendant once again refutes Plaintiff’s contentions that the documents identified on his privilege log are responsive to the Requests as phrased, and Plaintiff has again not identified to the Court by Bates numbers the documents it contends support its argument. (Doc. 45 at 3.) Because Defendant has not otherwise withheld responsive documents (id. at 1), the Court will deny the Motion as to these Requests for Production. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 39) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that, as to Interrogatories 2 and 3 and Request for Production 1, Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED.
2. The Motion is otherwise DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June2, 2023.
A [...] KIDD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Se. Power Corp. v. Brady, 2015 WL 1470971 (M.D. Fla. 2023)…t, in general, answering a discovery request subject to an objection is improper, and courts have found this tactic to result in a waiver of the party’s objections. See, e.g., Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14–cv– 749–Orl–41TBS, 2015 WL 1470971, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015) (“Courts in this district and elsewhere have explained that producing documents (or saying that no responsive documents exist) ‘notwithstanding’ objections preserves nothing and wastes the time and resources…
-
Turner v. Ocala Breeders' Sales Co., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…equest is irrelevant must include a specific explanation describing why." Id. at *1–2. Finally, “[o]bjections based on privilege or work product protection must be made expressly.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-CV-749-ORL-41, 2015 WL 1470971, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015) (noting that "[a] party cannot assert a privilege by saying that responsive documents might be privileged"). II. Discussion Requests for production numbers 48, 49, 50 relate to Plaintiff's medical and psychological…
-
U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Qualtool, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2022)…is irrelevant . . . must include a specific explanation describing why.” Id. at *1–2. Finally, “[o]bjections based on privilege or work product protection must be made expressly.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-CV-749-ORL-41, 2015 WL 1470971, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015) (“A party cannot assert a privilege by saying that responsive documents might be privileged”). III. ISSUE #1—BATES NUMBER REFERENCES First at issue is the EEOC’s request for this Court to prohibit Qualtool from ob…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Se. Power Corp. v. Brady, 2015 WL 1470971 (M.D. Fla. 2023)