EFTA Document EFTA01377946

Page 10 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * As for Epstein's non-privileged based objections, ["20] such as relevance, over breadth, over burdensomeness, and alleged HIPAA protection, said objections are also rejected. Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows any party to serve on any other party written interrogatories concerning matters within the scope of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(b). The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is broad: "[plarties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party involved in the pending action." Id. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947); Farnsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)(the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "strongly favor full discovery whenever possible"); Canal Authority v. Froehlke, 81 F.R.D. 609, 611 (M.D. Fla. 1979). Thus, under Rule 26, relevancy is "construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352, 98 S. Ct. 2380, 57 L. Ed. 2d 253 (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings because "discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues." Id. at 352. In short, information can be relevant and therefore discoverable, even if not admissible at trial, so long as the information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery r21] of admissible evidence. Dunbar v. United States, 502 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1974). Under Fed. R. Civ. P., 26(b)(1) a court may limit discovery of relevant material if it determines that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicitive, or obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to information is unnecessary, unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome."); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25205, 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)("the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party resisting discovery")(citation omitted); Gober v. City of Leesberg, 197 F.R.D. 519, 521 (M.D. Fla. 2000)("The party resisting production of information bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden in supplying the requested information"). To meet this burden, the party resisting discovery must demonstrate specifically how the objected-to request is unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, to even merit consideration, "an objection must show specifically how a discovery r22] request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. Duke & Co., 177 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is relevant and necessary. Gober, 197 F.R.D. at 521; see also Hunters Ridge Goff Co. Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 233 F.R.D. 678, 680 (M.D. Fla. 2006). For internal use only For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0075105 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00221289 EFTA01377946