Epstein Secrets

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 informat

ee Fed. R. Civ. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 377 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2009 Page 4 of 12 5 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

. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro 33(b)(4)(Plaintiffs must show that the requests are unreasonable or burdensome, which they

ntiffs must show that the requests are unreasonable or burdensome, which they have failed to do in the instant matter); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11 th Cir. 1985); Ward v. Estaleiro Itajai SIA, 541 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1353-54 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (discussing the rules' intended

ed discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (“The

R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Rossbach,