Opinion

Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Filed: Jul 21, 2026
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 42.1%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EXACTDISTRIBUTION, LLC * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 25-931

BERGERON FREIGHT SERVICES, * SECTION “O” (2)

INC., ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS

Pending before me is Plaintiff Exactdistribution, LLC’s Motion to Compel. ECF No. 22.

Defendant Sure Logix, LLC filed an Opposition, Plaintiff filed a Reply, and Defendant filed a Sur-

Reply. ECF Nos. 33, 35, 40. No party requested oral argument in accordance with Local Rule

78.1, and the Court agrees that oral argument is unnecessary.

Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments of counsel, and the

applicable law, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

for the reasons stated herein.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Exactdistribution, LLC contracted with Defendant Bergeron Freight Services,

LLC to warehouse and deliver certain furniture, fixtures and equipment in relation to Plaintiff’s

remodeling of the Monteleone Hotel. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 6-8. Defendant Sure Logix, LLC later

purchased certain assets from Bergeron, including the sale and assumption of Bergeron’s contract

with Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Plaintiff filed suit for damages, alleging that its property was

mishandled, damaged and/or lost by Bergeron and/or Sure Logix. Id. ¶ 11. Bergeron filed an

Answer and asserted a Cross-Claim against Sure Logix, and Sure Logix filed an Answer to

Plaintiff’s Complaint and Bergeron’s Cross-Claim and asserted counterclaims against each of

them. ECF Nos. 4, 7, 8.

Plaintiff issued discovery to Sure Logix on November 21, 2025, to which Sure Logix

responded on January 30, 2026. ECF Nos. 22-4, 22-5. The parties met and conferred, after which

Sure Logix agreed to supplement. ECF Nos. 22-6, 22-7, 22-8. Plaintiff filed this motion to

compel, asserting that Sure Logix failed to properly supplement. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff seeks to

compel a verification of the responses and more complete answers to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9,

12, and 21 and Requests for Production Nos. 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 21, and 22. ECF No. 22-1.

Sure Logix filed an Opposition agreeing to provide the required verification and asserting

that, when new counsel enrolled just a week earlier, they undertook efforts to compare the more

than 2,000 documents produced with the Initial Disclosures and initial responses to confirm full

and complete responses. ECF No. 35 at 1-4. Sure Logix asserts that it has now supplemented the

responses and agreed to produce its principal for deposition. Id. at 2, 5. Sure Logix argues that its

prior production of its Monteleone project file as maintained in the ordinary course of business

satisfies its obligations under Rule 34, served as an appropriate response to interrogatories under

Rule 33(d), and that no additional responsive documents have been located. Id. at 6-8.

In Reply, Plaintiff asserts that Sure Logix has still failed to fully respond, produced no

additional documents whatsoever, and does not provide any further information in the

supplemental responses. ECF No. 33 at 3, 5-10. In its Sur-Reply, Sure Logix corrects Plaintiff’s

assertion that it had failed to provide the verification as promised, which it did before Plaintiff

filed its Reply. ECF No. 40 at 1.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Scope of Discovery

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the parties to

obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within

this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Information need not be admissible into evidence to be discoverable.1 Rather, information merely

needs to be proportional and relevant to any claim or defense.2 The party claiming it would suffer

an undue burden or expense is typically in the best position to explain why, while the party

claiming the information is important to resolve the issues in the case should be able “to explain

the ways in which the underlying information bears on the issues as that party understands them.”3

The relevancy evaluation necessarily begins with an examination of the pending claims

and defenses.4 The threshold for relevance at the discovery stage is lower than the threshold for

relevance of admissibility of evidence at the trial stage.5 This broader scope is necessary given

the nature of litigation, where determinations of relevance for discovery purposes are made well

in advance of trial; facts that are not considered in determining the ultimate issues may be

eliminated in due course of the proceeding.6 At the discovery stage, relevance includes “any

matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that

is or may be in the case.”7 Discovery should be allowed unless the party opposing discovery

establishes that the information sought “can have no possible bearing on the claim or defense of

the party seeking discovery.”8 However, the comments to Rule 26 “confirm that requiring

1 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).

2 Id.

3 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee’s notes to 2015 amendment.

4 Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., No. 02-3398, 2006 WL 378523, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb.

17, 2006) (Zainey, J.).

5 Rangel v. Gonzalez Mascorro, 274 F.R.D. 585, 590 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (citations omitted).

6 Id. at 590 n.5 (citation modified).

7 Id. at 590 (citations modified).

8 Dotson v. Edmonson, No. 16-15371, 2017 WL 11535244, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2017) (Morgan, J.) (citing Merrill

v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 467, 470 (N.D. Tex. 2005)).

relevance to a claim or defense ‘signals to the court that it has the authority to confine discovery

to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings, and signals to the parties that they have no

entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or defenses that are not already identified in the

pleadings.’”9 Discovery directed only to dismissed claims and not any remaining claim is simply

not relevant to the litigation nor proportional to the needs of the case.10

While the discovery rules are accorded broad and liberal treatment to achieve their purpose

of adequately informing litigants in civil trials,11 discovery does have “ultimate and necessary

boundaries.”12 The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to ensure that discovery

is proportional, and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) mandates that the Court limit the frequency or extent of

discovery otherwise allowed, if it determines:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information

by discovery in the action; or

(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).

“The court’s responsibility, using all the information provided by the parties, is to consider these

and all the other factors in reaching a case-specific determination of the appropriate scope of

discovery.”13

1. Duties in Responding to Interrogatories and Requests for Production

Both Rules 33 and 34 require a party to serve responses within 30 days of service, absent

9 Waste Mgmt. of La., LLC v. River Birch, Inc., No. 11-2405, 2017 WL 2271982, at *4 (E.D. La. May 24, 2017)

(quoting Whitney v. Krystal Co., No. 10-773, 2012 WL 777161, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 7, 2012)).

10 See Ganpat v. E. Pac. Shipping, PTE, Ltd., 611 F. Supp. 3d 305, 311 (E.D. La. 2020) (Morgan, J.); see also Johnson

v. Hope Vill. Apartments, No. 10-385, 2011 WL 13217330, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2011) (noting impropriety of

seeking discovery on dismissed claims); Socol v. Haas, No. 18-90, 2021 WL 2635847, at *7 (W.D. Va. June 25, 2021)

(denying discovery directed to dismissed claims but allowing discovery that also related to remaining claims).

11 Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979) (citations omitted).

12 Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507

(1947)).

13 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee’s notes to 2015 amendment.

court order or stipulation. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(2); 34(b)(2)(A). A party served with written

discovery then must fully answer each request to the full extent that it is not objectionable and

affirmatively explain what portion of an interrogatory or document request is objectionable and

why, affirmatively explain what portion of the interrogatory or document request is not

objectionable and the subject of the answer or response, and affirmatively explain whether any

responsive information or documents have been withheld.14

“Discovery by interrogatory requires candor in responding. . . . The candor required is a

candid statement of the information sought or of the fact that objection is made to furnishing the

information.”15 Although a party responding to interrogatories is not required to make an

extensive investigation in responding to an interrogatory, it must review all sources of responsive

information reasonably available and provide the responsive, relevant facts reasonably available.16

The fact that an interrogatory calls for a thorough response—one that will take time and effort to

answer—does not make it improper.17 Where an interrogatory answer “‘as a whole discloses a

conscientious endeavor to understand the question and to answer fully that question,’ a party’s

obligation under Rule 33 is satisfied.”18

Pursuant to Rule 33(d):

If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,

compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records (including

electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the

answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may

answer by:

14 Lopez v. Don Herring Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 567, 580 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (citation omitted).

15 Dollar v. Long Mfg., N.C., Inc., 561 F.2d 613, 616 (5th Cir. 1977).

16 Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 579 (citing 8B WRIGHT & MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2174 (3d ed. 2013)).

17 Areizaga v. ADW Corp., 314 F.R.D. 428, 437 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (citing Burns v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 483 F.2d 300,

307-08 (5th Cir. 1973)).

18 Id. (citation modified) (quoting Meltzer/Austin Rest. Corp. v. Benihana Nat'l Corp., No. 11-542, 2013 WL 2607589,

at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 10, 2013) (quoting 8B WRIGHT & MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2177 (3d ed.

2010))).

(1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to

enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the

responding party could . . . .

A reference to business records must be provided with specificity and sufficient detail; it is

improper for a party to cite those records in toto.19

Likewise, a party responding to requests for production must produce responsive

documents within that party’s actual or constructive possession, custody or control, which

production must occur “no later than the time for inspection specified in the request or another

reasonable time specified in the response.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1), (b)(2)(B). A party has

“control” over documents or materials that it has the legal right to obtain even though it has no

copy and even if the documents are owned or possessed by a nonparty.20 Thus, documents owned

or possessed by agents, attorneys, hired consultants, and other third parties hired by a party that

the party can reasonably obtain the requested information from upon request fall within that party’s

custody or control.21 The burden is on the party seeking discovery to show that the other party has

control over the material sought.22 To establish control over documents in the possession of a non-

party, the movant must typically show that there is “a relationship, either because of some

affiliation, employment or statute, such that a party is able to command release of certain

19 KeyBank Nat’l Ass'n v. Perkins Rowe Assocs., LLC, No. 09-497, 2011 WL 765925, at *3 n.14 (M.D. La. Feb. 25,

2011) (“Rule 33(d)(1) requires that answers using the business records option must specify the records to be reviewed

in enough detail so that the interrogating party can locate and identify them as easily as the responding party. Thus,

it is improper to direct the interrogating party to a mass of business records or offer to make all of the party's business

records available.” (citations omitted)).

20 Becnel v. Salas, No. 17-17965, 2018 WL 691649, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2018) (citations omitted); Est. of Monroe

v. Bottle Rock Power Corp., No. 03-2682, 2004 WL 737463, at *10 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2004) (citation omitted).

21 Becnel, 2018 WL 691649, at *3 (noting that control extends to materials over which the subject party has the legal

right to obtain even though she has no copy (citing cases)); Dillard Univ. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 06-4138, 2008

WL 11350306, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2008) (finding materials provided to consultants within that party’s possession,

custody, or control (citing cases)).

22 Washington-St. Tammany Elec. Coop., Inc. v. La. Generating, L.L.C., No. 17-405, 2019 WL 1804849, at *7 (M.D.

La. Apr. 24, 2019) (citation omitted).

documents by the non-party person or entity in actual possession.”23 The key is whether the

responding party could come into possession of the requested document upon reasonable inquiry.24

Documents must be produced as maintained in the usual course of business or organized

and labelled to correspond to the categories in the request. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). This

prohibits a party from producing a disorganized document dump, requiring the other party to

laboriously comb through the documents to find what it requested.25 Thus, the producing party

must turn over the documents in an organized, comprehensible arrangement—either by

specifically indexing each document to the request to which it was responsive or by delivering the

documents in the business’s ordinary filing system or other organizational structure that is intact

and useable by the requesting party.26

The Court cannot, however, compel a party to produce documents that do not exist.27

When an officer of the court represents that documents do not exist, courts may require a

certification or “confirm[ation]” that the discovery at issue does not exist.28 If the other party has

or acquires evidence that the response is incomplete or affidavit is false, other remedies may be

23 S. Filter Media, LLC v. Halter, No. 13-116, 2014 WL 4278788, at *5 (M.D. La. Aug. 29, 2014) (citations omitted).

24 Ruby Slipper Cafe, LLC v. Belou, No. 18-1548, 2020 WL 4905796, at *4 (E.D. La. Jan. 15, 2020) (citing Becnel,

2018 WL 691649, at *3 (“Rule 34’s definition of possession, custody, or control, includes more than actual possession

or control of [documents]; it also contemplates a party's legal right or practical ability to obtain [documents] from a

[non-party] to the action”)).

25 Dodd v. Hendrickson USA, LLC, 349 F.R.D. 286, 299 (W.D. Ky. 2025).

26 United States v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., No. 12-920, 2015 WL 13529562, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 13, 2015) (Vance,

J.) (quoting Anderson Living Tr. v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC, 298 F.R.D. 514, 522 (D.N.M. 2014)).

27 Butler v. La. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr., No. 12-420, 2014 WL 3867552, at *1 (M.D. La. Aug. 6, 2014); Payne

v. Forest River, Inc., No. 13-679, 2015 WL 1912851, at *4 (M.D. La. Apr. 22, 2015) (“The court cannot order the

production of documents that no longer exist or, despite a diligent search, cannot be found in the possession, custody,

or control of a party.”); Callais v. United Rentals N. Am., Inc., No. 17-312, 2018 WL 6517446, at *7 (M.D. La. Dec.

11, 2018) (same); Terral v. Ducote, No. 15-2366, 2016 WL 5017328, at *2 (W.D. La. Sept. 19, 2016) (same).

28 Nguyen v. La. State Bd. of Cosmetology, No. 14-80, 2016 WL 67253, at *2 (M.D. La. Jan. 5, 2016) (requiring

plaintiff to “confirm that the requested information does not exist”); see Callais, No. 2018 WL 6517446, at *7

(ordering qualified representative to provide a sworn certification that no responsive documents exist); Brookshire v.

Jackson Pub. Schs., No. 13-772, 2015 WL 11018443, at *1 (S.D. Miss. May 8, 2015) (“If the document does not exist,

then Defendants are to certify that the document does not exist.”); Beasley v. First Am. Real Est. Info. Servs., Inc., No.

04-1059, 2005 WL 1017818, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2005) (“[D]efendant is entitled to an unequivocal

representation . . . that the documents specified in this request for production do not exist.”).

sought.29

2. Objections Must Be Stated With Specificity

A party served with written discovery must fully answer each request to the full extent that

it is not objectionable and affirmatively explain what portion of an interrogatory or document

request is objectionable and why, affirmatively explain what portion of the interrogatory or

document request is not objectionable and the subject of the answer or response, and affirmatively

explain whether any responsive information or documents have been withheld.30 Likewise, for

each request for production, the respondent must either state that the inspection or production will

be permitted or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reason.

FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(B).

Courts throughout the country have long interpreted the federal rules to prohibit general,

boilerplate objections.31 Boilerplate objections use standardized, ready-made or all-purpose

language without regard to the particular discovery request.32 General objections refer to

objections that a party responding to discovery asserts as applicable to multiple individual requests

29 Henderson v. Compdent of Tenn., Inc., No. 97-617, 1997 WL 756600, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 4, 1997) (denying motion

to compel based on representation that documents that do not exist and noting other remedies are available if

representation is untrue).

30 Lopez, 327 F.R.D. at 580 (citation omitted).

31 See Chevron Midstream Pipelines LLC v. Settoon Towing LLC, No. 13-2809, 2015 WL 269051, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan.

21, 2015) (noting that an objection is boilerplate and insufficient “when it merely states the legal grounds for the

objection without: (1) specifying how the discovery request is deficient and (2) specifying how the objecting party

would be harmed if it were forced to respond.” (citation omitted)); see also McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C.

v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485-86 (5th Cir. 1990) (simply objecting to requests as “overly broad, burdensome,

oppressive and irrelevant,” without showing “specifically how . . . each [request] is not relevant or how each question

is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive” is inadequate to “voice a successful objection”).

32 See Tim Long Plumbing, Inc. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 20-42, 2020 WL 6559869, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2020)

(providing examples for boiler plate language, such as “Defendant objects to this Request, as it is overly broad and

vague” and “Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks discovery of information that is irrelevant and not

proportional to the needs of the case”). Objections are deemed “boilerplate” when they are identical and not tailored

to the specific discovery request. Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno, No. 19-1349, 2020 WL 5440050, at *5 (E.D. Cal.

Sept. 10, 2020) (citation omitted).

set forth in a given set of discovery requests.33 A general objection untethered to specific requests

(and is thus also a boilerplate objection) is improper.34

When objecting to a discovery request, the objection must state how the objection “relates

to the particular request being opposed, and not merely that it is overly broad and burdensome or

oppressive or vexatious or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.”35 Any objection must clearly state how the information sought is not relevant to any

claim or defense, or how the request is overbroad, burdensome or oppressive.36 And when a party

objects to a request for production, the “objection must state whether any responsive materials are

being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the

part and permit inspection of the rest.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(C).37 Objections interposed

without also indicating whether any document or information is being withheld are improper.38

3. Invocation of Privilege Requires Delivery of a Privilege Log

A responding party withholding information based on privilege “must (i) expressly make

the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not

produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged

or protected, will enable the other parties to assess the claim.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5)(A). The

“privilege log’s description of each document and its contents must provide sufficient information

33 Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., 580 F.3d 119, 134 n.16 (3d Cir. 2009).

34 See DL v. Dist. of Columbia, 251 F.R.D. 38, 43 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation omitted) (“When faced with general

objections, the applicability of which to specific document requests is not explained further, this Court will not raise

objections for the responding party, but instead will overrule the responding party's objections on those grounds.”

(citation modified)).

35 Cheshire v. Air Methods Corp, No. 15-933, 2015 WL 7736649, at *2 (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2015) (citation modified)

(quoting Reyes v. Red Gold, Inc., No. 05-191, 2006 WL 2729412 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2006)).

36 Chevron, 2015 WL 269051 at *3.

37 accord. Orchestrate HR, Inc. v. Trombetta, 178 F. Supp. 3d 476, 507 (N.D. Tex.), objections overruled sub nom,

Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, No. 13-2110, 2016 WL 5942223 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2016).

38 See Chevron, 2015 WL 269051, at *4 (holding that objections fall woefully short of objecting party’s burden when

party objected to documents and information protected by privilege but did not describe whether any documents were

withheld or the nature of withheld documents).

to permit courts and other parties to ‘test[ ] the merits of’ the privilege claim.”39 It “should not

only identify the date, the author, and all recipients of each document listed therein, but should

also ‘describe the document’s subject matter, purpose for its production, and specific explanation

of why the document is privileged or immune from discovery.’”40

When faced with either the absence of a privilege log or an inadequate privilege log, the

court may: (1) permit the party another chance to submit a more detailed log; (2) deem the

inadequate log a waiver of the privilege; (3) conduct an in camera inspection of the withheld

documents; or (4) conduct an in camera inspection of a select sample of the withheld documents.41

Most courts take a flexible approach, particularly when there is an insufficient privilege log but no

evidence of bad faith, finding waiver only for flagrant or willful failures.42

III. THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE AND ANALYSIS

The following are the Interrogatories and Requests for Production at issue, along with the

Responses and Supplemental Responses (ECF Nos. 22-5, 35-1):

Interrogatory No. 5

Identify all communications between Defendants and Plaintiff regarding the

alleged mishandling, damage, or loss of Plaintiff’s product.

39 Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. BDO USA, L.L.P., 876 F.3d 690, 697 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v.

El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530, 541 (5th Cir. 1982); and citing N.L.R.B. v. Interbake Foods, LLC, 637 F.3d 492, 502 (4th

Cir. 2011) (“When a party relies on a privilege log to assert these privileges, the log must ‘as to each document . . .

set[ ] forth specific facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that is

claimed.’” (quoting Bowne, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)))).

40 See Peacock v. Merrill, No. 08-01, 2008 WL 687195, at *3 (M.D. La. 2008) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Jones v.

Hamilton Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 02-808, 2003 WL 21383332, at *4 (S.D. Ind. 2003); and citing Compaq Comput.

Corp. v. Packard Bell Elecs., Inc., 163 F.R.D. 329, 338 (N.D. Cal. 1995)).

41 RPM Pizza, LLC v. Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co., No. 10-684, 2014 WL 12660120, at *4 (M.D. La. Jan. 14, 2014)

(quoting N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 307-08 (D.D.C. 2009)).

42 Id. (citing United States v. Brit. Am. Tobacco (Invs.) Ltd., 387 F.3d 884, 890-91 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Novelty, Inc. v.

Mountain View Mktg., Inc., 265 F.R.D. 370, 381-82 (S.D. Ind. 2009) (foot-dragging and failure to comply with court’s

order showed willfulness and bad faith); Muro v. Target Corp., 250 F.R.D. 350, 365 (N.D. Ill. 2007), aff'd, 580 F.3d

485 (7th Cir. 2009)).

January 30, 2026, Response to Interrogatory No. 5:

Sure Logix objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,

overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it is not limited to a reasonable time frame,

a reasonable factual scope, or the basic facts and circumstances surrounding this

litigation. Additionally, Sure Logix objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks

information that may be within the knowledge, possession, custody, and/or control

of individuals and/or entities other than Sure Logix. Notwithstanding these

objections, Sure Logix specifically denies that it mishandled, damaged and/or lost

any of Plaintiff’s products. Any mishandling, damage or loss of Plaintiff’s product

occurred while Bergeron was still in possession of the product.

June 26, 2026, Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 5: