LLB Convenience & Gas, Inc. v. Southeast Petro Distributors, Inc., 6:18-cv-00914

LLB Convenience & Gas, Inc. operates a Shell-branded gas station in Orlando and buys fuel under a Dealer Supply Agreement (DSA) with Southeast Petro Distributors, which in turn sources fuel from Motiva under a Wholesale Marketer Agreement (WMA).
In Jan 2018 Motiva sent Southeast a Notice alleging customer complaints and low sales volume at LLB’s station; Southeast forwarded that notice to LLB. LLB disputes Motiva’s allegations and claims they were pretextual and an attempt to influence retail pricing.
In May 2018 Southeast sent LLB a notice to debrand the station and indicated it would stop supplying Shell-branded fuel; LLB sued under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and for anticipatory repudiation of the DSA.
Discovery: Plaintiff served requests for production and interrogatories in Oct 2018; plaintiff moved to compel more complete responses after finding defendant’s responses vague, referencing burdensomeness, and asserting privileges without a privilege log.
The Court found many of Southeast’s objections were boilerplate and insufficient, ordered production for RFPs 1–38 within 14 days, and required a privilege log for any asserted privileged materials or waiver would result.
The Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel additional information for certain interrogatories (Interrogatory No. 2 time-scope objection sustained; other interrogatories found sufficiently answered) and declined to award fees to either party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Properness/sufficiency of responses to RFPs 1–38	Responses were incomplete, objection language boilerplate; plaintiff sought compelled production	Responses claimed burdensomeness, duplication, and asserted privilege/work-product protections without log	Court granted motion; ordered production within 14 days and required privilege log or waiver
Sufficiency of privilege assertions	Defendant withheld materials as privileged but provided no log; plaintiff sought disclosure or log	Defendant asserted attorney-client and work-product protections generally	Court held blanket privilege claims insufficient; required detailed privilege log or waiver
Interrogatory No. 2 (identifying Motiva contacts & communications; unlimited time/scope)	Plaintiff sought detailed IDs, dates, means, subjects of communications	Defendant said interrogatory is unlimited in time/scope and unduly burdensome; answered as to dispute-related matters	Court sustained defendant’s time-scope objection; treated subparts as one interrogatory; motion to compel denied as to this interrogatory
Interrogatories re: Citgo and Valero communications (Nos. 7 & 8)	Plaintiff sought detailed three-party communications and particulars	Defendant said no three-way communications occurred, gave summary of phone coordination and referenced produced documents; no written records kept	Court found answers sufficient at this stage; motion to compel denied

Farnsworth v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985) (courts favor broad discovery)
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (relevance for discovery construed broadly)
Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (discovery relevant if any possibility it may bear on the action)
Deitchman v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 740 F.2d 556 (7th Cir. 1984) (doubt about relevancy favors permitting discovery)
Panola Land Buyers Assoc. v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985) (objections must be plain and specific)
Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1981) (objections must allow court to understand why discovery is objectionable)
Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (boilerplate objections insufficient)
Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc., 320 F.R.D. 168 (N.D. Iowa 2017) (objections under Rules 33 and 34 require specificity)
Rep. of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2013) (party asserting privilege bears burden of proof)
United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991) (attorney-client privilege requires showing of relationship and confidentiality)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225 (11th Cir. 1987) (privilege asserted must be shown document-by-document)