Epstein Secrets

te 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 (11 th Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, to even merit consideration, "an objection must show specifically ho

4/28/2010 Page 5 of 9 overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. duke & Co .. , 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Plaintiff has failed to make such a showing. Therefore, her Motion for Protective Order sh

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

w a discovery request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden.” Coker v. Duke & Co., 1777 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 i

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

evidence which reveals the nature of the burden.” Coker v. Duke & Co., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 19