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

2 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-08 (1947); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). In Oppenheimer, the Supreme Court discussed the concept of relevance in relation to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and noted that: The key phrase in this definition - "rel

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

bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

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

Motion to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978);

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

bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).