In Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc., 2008 WL 1733613 (S.D.Fla.), the district court
held that a party's answer to a discovery request "subject to and without
waiving" to an objection "preserves nothing, and constitutes only a waste of
effort and the resources of both the parties and the court." Id. at *1. The
court condemned such a practice due to its tendency to "leave[] the
requesting party uncertain as to whether the question has actually been
fully answered, or only a portion of it has been answered." Id. Other
courts have ruled similarly. See, e.g., Meese v. Eaton Manufacturing Co., 35
F.R.D. 162, 166 (N.D. Ohio 1964) (holding that "[w]henever an answer
accompanies an objection, the objection is deemed waived and the answer, if
responsive, stands"); Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., 2007 WL 1192401,
at *2 (M.D.Fla.) (stating that "[o]rdinarily, by voluntarily answering an
interrogatory, the party waives objection to that interrogatory").