The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ERIC DE FORD and SANDRA BADER,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No: 6:22-cv-652-PGB-DCI
JAMES KOUTOULAS, JEFFREY
CARTER, ERIK NORDEN, BRANDON
BROWN, BRANDONBILT
MOTORSPORTS, LLC, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK CAR
AUTO RACING, LLC, CORPORATE
DEFENDANT DOE, ARIS GEORGE
MICHALOPOULOS, THOMAS
MCLAUGHLIN, CORAL CAPITAL
LLC, CORAL CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LLC and CORAL
DEFI LP,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel Defendant Koutoulas (for purposes
of this Order, “Defendant”) to comply with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Docs. 161, 163, 166
(the Motions). The Court held a hearing on the Motions on February 7, 2023. The Motions are
due to be granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.
As stated at the hearing, Defendant’s boilerplate objections to the requested discovery are
without merit or effect and deemed waived. See, e.g., Polycarpe v. Seterus, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-
1606-ORL-37TBS, 2017 WL 2257571, at *1–2 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2017) (collecting cases and
noting that “generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at
all. . . . Their use obstructs the discovery process, violates numerous rules of civil procedure and
ethics, and imposes costs on litigants that frustrate the timely and just resolution of cases. . . .
Objections which state that a discovery request is vague, overly broad, or unduly burdensome are,
by themselves, meaningless, and are deemed without merit”) (internal citations and quotations
omitted).
Accordingly, within thirty days, Defendant must produce to Plaintiffs all non-privileged
responsive information and documents that Plaintiffs sought in the discovery requests at issue in
the Motions. To the extent that Defendant asserts that any responsive information or document is
protected as work product or by the attorney-client privilege, within thirty days Defendant must
produce a privilege log to Plaintiffs. The privilege log must contain the following information:
a. The name and job title or capacity of the provider of the information or author
of the document;
b. The name and job title or capacity of each recipient of the information or
document;
c. The date the information was learned or the document was prepared and, if
different, the date(s) on which it was sent to or shared with persons other than
its provider(s) or author(s);
d. The title and/or description of the information or document;
e. The subject matter addressed in the information or document;
f. The purpose(s) for which the information or document was prepared or
communicated;
g. The degree of confidentiality with which the information or document was
treated at the time of its creation and transmission, and since; and
h. The specific basis for the claim that it is privileged or protected.
Defendant is not required to disclose the contents of any privileged matter in the privilege log.
Should Plaintiffs challenge any of Defendant’s privilege assertions, the parties must confer
in good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute without court intervention. If the parties are
unable to resolve the dispute, Defendant must file a motion for a protective order regarding the
challenged assertions of privilege within fourteen days of the production of the privilege log.
Briefing concerning such a protective order will not be subject to the word limitations set forth in
the Court’s Standing Order on Discovery Motions (Doc. 47) but will be governed by Local Rule
3.01(g). In any such motion for protective order, Defendant must provide the following:
1) a memorandum of law discussing the elements of each privilege or protection asserted;
2) the privilege log for any document or information at issue;
3) an appendix containing affidavits, deposition testimony, other sworn statements or
other evidence upon which Defendant relies to support each element of each asserted
privilege or protection in dispute.
Defendant must organize the appendix so that the evidence submitted in support of the
privileges or protections asserted is specifically correlated with the information or document to
which the evidence applies. In response, Plaintiffs must state with particularity the factual and
legal basis why each assertion of privilege should be overruled; a failure to do so will result in the
privilege being upheld. Seven days after Plaintiffs file a response, Defendant may file a seven-
page reply.1
To the extent Plaintiffs request the Court to order some additional search of electronics or
electronic accounts in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control—such as a forensic search of
Defendant’s iCloud account or iPhone by an independent forensic examiner—that request is
denied without prejudice. On this record, Plaintiffs have established a factual basis for, a legal
right to, or the proportionality of such a request. Further, Defendant’s requests for relief that are
1 The foregoing procedures concerning assertions of privilege apply to any party that asserts a
privilege in this case.
contained within responses to the Motions (e.g., Doc. 164 at 3) are denied; a party cannot assert a
request for relief in response to a motion. See Local Rule 3.01(a).
By February 13, 2023, Plaintiffs must provide notice of this Order to nonparty LGBCoin
Foundation. Nonparty LGBCoin Foundation has until February 23, 2023, to attempt to seek any
relief in this case in relation to this Order or Plaintiffs’ discovery requests that are at issue in the
Motions.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1) The Motions (Docs. 161, 163, 166) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part,
such that:
a. On or before March 10, 2023, Defendant must produce to Plaintiffs all non-
privileged responsive information and documents that Plaintiffs sought in the
discovery requests at issue in the Motions;
b. To the extent Defendant asserts any responsive information or document is
protected as work product or by the attorney-client privilege, on or before
March 10, 2023, Defendant must produce a privilege log to Plaintiffs as to that
information and any such document;
c. Should Plaintiffs challenge any assertions of privilege, the parties must confer
in good faith to resolve the dispute;
d. If the good faith conferral does not resolve the dispute, Defendant must file a
motion for a protective order regarding the challenged assertions of privilege
within fourteen days of the production of the privilege log;
To the extent Plaintiffs request the Court to order some additional search of
electronics or electronic accounts in Defendant’s possession, custody, or
control—such as a forensic search of Defendant’s 1Cloud account or 1Phone by
an independent forensic examiner—that request is DENIED without
prejudice;
e. The Motions (Docs. 161, 163, 166) are DENIED in all other respects;
2) Any requests for relief contained in Defendant’s responses (e.g., Doc. 164 at 3) are
DENIED;
3) On or before February 13, 2023, Plaintiffs must provide notice of this Order to
nonparty LGBCoin Foundation; and
4) On or before February 23, 2023, nonparty LGBCoin Foundation may intervene and
file an appropriate motion.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 8, 2023.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE