PHI THETA KAPPA HONOR SOCIETY, Plaintiff, v. HONORSOCIETY.ORG, INC., Defendant. HonorSociety.Org, Inc., Counter-Claimant, v. Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society, Counter-Defendant. HonorSociety.Org, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Dr. Lynn Tincher-Ladner, Third-Party Defendant Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-208-CWR-FKB United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division, Northern Division Signed November 02, 2023 Counsel Michael B. Wallace, Charles E. Cowan, Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, PA, Jackson, MS, J. Mitchell Tanner, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan G. Polak, Pro Hac Vice, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Rachel A. Smoot, Pro Hac Vice, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. Jonathan G. Polak, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Michael B. Wallace, Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, PA, Jackson, MS, for Third-Party Defendant. W. Whitaker Rayner, Andrew S. Harris, Jones Walker, LLP, Jackson, MS, Daniel A. Rozansky, Pro Hac Vice, Michael A. Bernet, Stubbs, Alderton & Markiles, LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Third-Party Plaintiff. W. Whitaker Rayner, Andrew S. Harris, Jones Walker, LLP, Jackson, MS, Michael A. Bernet, Stubbs, Alderton & Markiles, LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendant Michael Moradian. Ball, F. Keith, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter is before the Court on the motion to compel [73], filed by Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society (“PTK”) and Third-Party Defendant Dr. Lynn Tincher-Ladner (“Tincher-Ladner”). Defendant, Counter-Claimant and Third-Party Plaintiff HONORSOCIETY.ORG, INC. (“Honor Society”) filed a response [77] and supporting memorandum in opposition [78], and PTK and Tincher-Ladner filed a reply [81]. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. INTRODUCTION In the instant motion, PTK and Tincher-Ladner request that the Court compel Honor Society to provide additional information and documents in response to certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The specific discovery requests raised in the motion include: Request for Production Nos. 9, 20, 21, 22, and 23 and Interrogatory Nos. 9, 11, and 18, propounded by PTK; and Request for Production Nos. 38, 39, and 45, propounded by Tincher-Ladner. However, in its reply PTK withdrew Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 18 from consideration. See [81] at 15 (“no ... action is required from the Court on” Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 18). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets forth the permissible scope of discovery. It provides: “Parties may 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.” HONOR SOCIETY'S “GENERAL OBJECTIONS” In the preface to its discovery responses, Honor Society includes a section entitled, “GENERAL OBJECTIONS.” See, e.g., [77-1] at 54-57, 203-206. The section lists numerous objections and states that “[t]hese objections form a part of and are specifically incorporated into each of the Responses and Objections to Propounding Party's Requests, even though they may not be specifically referred to in each and every response to each request.” Id. at 54 and 203. Objections asserted generally and not in direct response to a specific discovery request do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are a nullity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) and (C) (“For each item or category, the response must either state that [production will be made] as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons[,]” and “[a]n objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit [production] of the rest.”); Waters Edge Living, LLC v. RSUI Indem. Co., No. 4:06cv334-RH/WCS, 2008 WL 1816418, at *4 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (“Prefatory general objections that have no narrative connection to a specific discovery request and the specific information sought are a nullity.”); Bailey v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Civil Action No. 4:04-cv-124-LN, 2006 WL 1666275, at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 13, 2006) (acknowledging the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) and 34(b)(2)(B) and (C) and requiring “self-contained and specific” responses to each discovery request). *2 Accordingly, Honor Society's objections asserted in its “GENERAL OBJECTIONS” are not “incorporated” into Honor Society's responses to any specific discovery requests and will not be considered by the Court in ruling on the subject discovery requests. The Court will only consider the objections in Honor Society's direct response to each request raised in the motion. RULINGS ON HONOR SOCIETY'S OBJECTIONS BASED ON CONFIDENTIALITY, PROPRIETARY BUSINESS INFORMATION, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE In response to every request at issue, Honor Society objected on the grounds that the request seeks “confidential and/or proprietary business information, including sensitive financial information, marketing plans and/or trade secrets.” However, in response to the instant motion, Honor Society represents that “Honor Society is not withholding any information or documents based on its confidentiality objections unless Honor Society has also objected ... on other grounds, ... relevancy in particular.” [78] at 5. Honor Society states that it “has already produced substantial amounts of confidential information, ... subject to its confidentiality objections and the Protective Order [entered in this case], and designated the materials as confidential.” Id. Honor Society asks this Court to consider its “confidentiality objections ... in tandem with its relevancy objections,” id., and it appears that Honor Society agrees that if the Court denies its relevancy and other objections, the Protective Order [34] provides sufficient protection against the public disclosure of the allegedly confidential information. If that is Honor Society's argument, the Court agrees. Regardless, where the Court denies Honor Society's relevancy and other objections below, the Court also hereby denies Honor Society's confidentiality and business proprietary information objections as a basis to withhold information and documents and finds that the Protective Order (which allows for “Confidential” and “Attorneys Eyes Only” levels of protection) provides Honor Society sufficient protection from disclosure. See [34] at 2. Honor Society also objected on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, in response to every request at issue. Honor Society's counsel attests that “Honor Society is not withholding any information or documents based upon that objection because Honor Society is not currently aware [of] any responsive privileged documents, other than communications with its ... counsel of record about this lawsuit.” [78] at 5. But Honor Society wishes to reserve its right to assert such privileges, if it “learn[s] of any responsive privileged documents.” Id. The Court finds that Honor Society should be allowed to assert the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, if applicable. The Court further instructs that as to each request for production on which the Court grants the instant motion below, Honor Society must, if withholding responsive documents under a claim of attorney-client privilege or as work product, supplement its discovery response to state “with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons[,]” and that documents “are being withheld on the basis of that objection” (as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) and (C)), as well as identify those documents on a privilege log in compliance with L.U.Civ.R. 26(e). RULINGS ON PTK'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS *3 Request for Production No. 9. The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 9. The Court finds that this request seeks documents relevant to claims and defenses in this case, including PTK's trade dress infringement claim (particularly on the issue of “customer confusion”[1]) and PTK's defenses to Honor Society's claims of defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and false advertising (for example, “that Honor Society intentionally selected its generic name to mislead customers into thinking it is an actual ‘honor society’ when it is not”[2]). Further, the Court finds that this request is proportional to the needs of this case and denies Honor Society's objections that the request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, or unduly burdensome. See Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 490 (N.D. Tex. 2014)(“A party resisting discovery must show specifically how each ... document request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive. This requires the party resisting discovery to show how the requested discovery was overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden.”)(citing McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990)). The Court finds that “related process” is not vague or ambiguous, and Honor Society has failed to present evidence showing that the request would impose an undue burden. Accordingly, the Court orders Honor Society to produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to this request and supplement its response to state that all such documents have been produced. If Honor Society withholds any responsive documents, it must include in its supplemental response the information required above and produce a privilege log identifying all such withheld documents. See supra pp. 4-5. Request for Production No. 20. The motion is denied as to Request for Production No. 20. This request, as worded, is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Requests for Production Nos. 21, 22, and 23. The motion is granted as to Request for Production Nos. 21, 22, and 23. The Court finds that these requests seek documents relevant to claims and defenses in this case, including PTK's trade dress infringement claim and PTK's defenses to Honor Society's claims of defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and false advertising. PTK claims (and has presented evidence supporting) that some of the allegedly infringing activity occurs through Honor Society Foundation (“Foundation”) and that due to the connection between Honor Society and the Foundation, an investigation of Honor Society's alleged damages on its claims against PTK would include the requested documents and information related to the Foundation. Further, the Court finds that these requests are proportional to the needs of this case and denies Honor Society's objections that the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, or ambiguous. See Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 490. Honor Society has failed to show that “promotional activities” or “Documents, including Communications, relating to” are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, or unduly burdensome. Accordingly, the Court orders Honor Society to produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to these requests and supplement its responses to state that all such documents have been produced. If Honor Society withholds any responsive documents, it must include in its supplemental responses the information required above and produce a privilege log identifying all such withheld documents. See supra pp. 4-5. Interrogatory No. 9. The motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 9. As explained above, the requested information is relevant to PTK's trade dress infringement claims and defenses to Honor Society's claims. Further, the Court finds that this interrogatory seeks information proportional to the needs of this case and denies Honor Society's objections that it is overbroad or unduly burdensome. See Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 490. Accordingly, the Court orders Honor Society to supplement its response and provide the information requested. RULINGS ON TINCHER-LADNER'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS Request for Production Nos. 38 and 39. The motion is granted as to Request for Production Nos. 38 and 39. The Court finds that these requests seek documents relevant to claims and defenses in this case, including Honor Society's defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and false advertising claims against Tincher-Ladner and her defenses to those claims. These requests seek documents related to scholarships advertised by Honor Society. Whether the scholarships are available and have been distributed, as advertised on Honor Society's website and other marketing materials, is relevant to Honor Society's claims and Tincher-Ladner's defenses, including that Honor Society is not a “legitimate honor society.” Further, the Court finds that these requests are proportional to the needs of this case and denies Honor Society's objections that the requests are overbroad or unduly burdensome. See Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 490. Honor Society has failed to show that these requests are overbroad or unduly burdensome. The Court also denies Honor Society's objection that the request seeks information that would “invade the privacy interests of natural persons who are not parties to this litigation”; the Court finds that the Protective Order [34] provides sufficient protection from improper disclosure of the requested information. Accordingly, the Court orders Honor Society to produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to these requests and supplement its responses to state that all such documents have been produced. If Honor Society withholds any responsive documents, it must include in its supplemental responses the information required above and produce a privilege log identifying all such withheld documents. See supra pp. 4-5. *4 Request for Production No. 45. The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 45. The Court finds that this request seeks documents relevant to claims and defenses in this case, particularly the damages portion of Honor Society's claims against Tincher-Ladner and her defenses to those claims. Honor Society alleges that due to Tincher-Ladner's actions, it suffered decreased membership and product sales, and it seeks recovery of the resulting decreased revenue from Tincher-Ladner as actual damages. See, e.g., [62] at 16-17. By asserting these claims and seeking those damages, Honor Society has placed its financials in issue in this case, and the requested documents and information (which would be part of those financials) are, therefore, relevant to Honor Society's claims and Tincher-Ladner's possible defenses. Further, the Court finds that this request is proportional to the needs of this case and denies Honor Society's objections that the request is overbroad or unduly burdensome. See Heller, 303 F.R.D. at 490. Honor Society has failed to show that this request is overbroad or unduly burdensome. The Court also denies Honor Society's objection that the request seeks information that would “invade the privacy interests of natural persons who are not parties to this litigation”; the Court finds that the Protective Order [34] provides sufficient protection from improper disclosure of the requested information. Accordingly, the Court orders Honor Society to produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to this request and supplement its responses to state that all such documents have been produced. If Honor Society withholds any responsive documents, it must include in its supplemental response the information required above and produce a privilege log identifying all such withheld documents. See supra pp. 4-5. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion [73] is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above and as follows: The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 9. The motion is denied as to Request for Production No. 20. The motion is granted as to Request for Production Nos. 21, 22, and 23. The motion is granted as to Interrogatory No. 9. The motion is granted as to Request for Production Nos. 38 and 39. The motion is granted as to Request for Production No. 45. Any relief requested in the motion and not specifically granted above is hereby denied. Honor Society must comply with this Order by November 20, 2023. SO ORDERED, this the 2nd day of November, 2023. Footnotes [1] See Sparrow Barns & Events, LLC v. Ruth Farm Inc., No. 4:19-CV-67, 2019 WL 1560442, at *4 (E.D. Tex Apr. 10, 2019)(listing, among other elements of a trade dress infringement claim, the “likelihood that the defendant's trade dress will lead to customer confusion”). Part and parcel of PTK's trade dress infringement claim is that Honor Society chose a name that would also create confusion in the market. See, e.g., [73] at 10-11. [2] PTK's Motion to Compel, [73] at 11.