Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-389
August 15, 2001
HEARING ON MOTION
MOTION: Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents
ORDERED:
XXX: GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: The motion is granted as to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 and 21, all of which seek relevant information and/or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All objections to these requests are overruled. The motion is denied as to Request for Production No. 9. The current response is sufficient. The motion is granted in part as to Request No. 17, limited to the time period 1999 to the present. The motion is granted as to Request for Production Nos. 5, 20, 22, 25 and 27. No objections to these requests were asserted in the written Rule 34 responses submitted to defendant by plaintiff, so that the objections plaintiff now attempts to assert in its opposition memorandum have been waived. See Poulos v. Naas Foods. Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 74 (7th Cir. 1992) (finding plaintiff "had probably already waived any objection to production by failing to object when disclosure was due"); Marx v. Kelly. Hart Hallman. P.C., 929 F.2d 8, 10, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1991) (district court order that objections to requests for production were waived by failure to make timely objections affirmed on appeal); McLeod, Alexander, Powell Apffel v. Ouarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1484 (5th Cir. 1990) (vague objections lacking in specificity held invalid); In re United States, 864 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1989) ("We readily agree with the district court that as a general rule, when a party fails to object timely to interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, objections thereto are waived."); Krewson v. City of Quincy, 120 F.R.D. 6, 7 (D.Mass. 1988); Perry v. Golub, 74 F.R.D. 360, 362-63 (N.D. Ala. 1976). Supplemental written responses, together with all responsive documents, must be produced within ten (10) days of entry of this order.