ADAM LEVOWITZ
v.
PERSONIFY HEALTH INC. AND PERSONIFY HEALTH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a discovery dispute within a civil employment case, the district court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel depositions without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's standing order on discovery motions and relevant procedural rules. The court emphasized that all parties, including pro se litigants, must adhere to applicable rules, local rules, and court orders.
The court denied the motion to compel without prejudice because it failed to comply with the standing order on discovery motions and procedural requirements. The court also ordered the separately filed deposition notices stricken as not permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
“the motion (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED without prejudice, for failure to comply with the Standing Order on Discovery Motions”
The primary ruling denying the motion to compel based on procedural non-compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Adam Levowitz filed a motion to compel depositions against Personify Health Inc. and Personify Health Holding Company, LLC. The motion viola…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standing Order On Discovery Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Depositions. Doc. No. 47. On review, the motion (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED without prejudice, for failure to comply with the Standing Order on Discovery Motions. See Doc. No. 37. Specifically, the motion fails to comply with the word limitations, does not attach any of the discovery at issue, and indicates that Plaintiff conferred with Defendants via email, rather than via telephone or in person. See Doc. No. 47; see also Doc. No. 37 ¶¶ 1-3. It also appears that Plaintiff filed the notices of depositions as a separate docket entry, (Doc. No. 48), which is not permissible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(A). The notices are therefore ORDERED STRICKEN. Plaintiff is advised that any renewed motions must comply with all applicable Local Rules, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Court orders. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989) (pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 15, 2025.
LESLIE 3 AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Flores-Dominguez v. United States, 493 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1989)