LUIS ANGEL SANTIAGO GARCIA
v.
AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP.
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.
The court granted the defendant's motion to compel discovery because the plaintiff failed to respond to the motion or the discovery requests.
The defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce documents and respond to interrogatories and requests for admissions. The court ordere…
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 Unopposed Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant American Strategic Insurance Corp (ASI) requests that the court compel Plaintiff Luis Angel Santiago Garcia to produce documents responsive to ASI's Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents (collectively, ASI's discovery requests) (Doc. 14-1). (Doc. 14). When Mr. Garcia failed to timely respond to the motion, the court directed a response by September 26, 2025. (Doc. 16). The court warned Mr. Garcia that the failure to respond would result in the motion being treated as unopposed. [fn 1] (Id.). To date, no response has been filed.
[fn 1]: See Local Rule 3.01(c), M.D. Fla. (“If a party fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed.").
A party may obtain discovery about any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery helps parties ascertain facts that bear on issues. ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 859 F. 3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).
A party may move for an order compelling discovery from the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party moving to compel discovery has the initial burden of proving the requested discovery is relevant and proportional. Douglas v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-1185-Orl-22TBS, 2016 WL 1637277, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (quotation and citation omitted). The responding party must then specifically show how the requested discovery is unreasonable or unduly burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Assʼn v. Shuman, 762 F. 2d 1550, 1559–60 (11th Cir. 1985). ASI's discovery requests seek information that is relevant to the present breach of contract action. Moore v. Lender Processing Servs. Inc., No. 3:12-cv-205-J, 2013 WL 2447948 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2013). Mr. Garcia did not respond to the motion.
Accordingly, ASI's motion to compel (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. By October 14, 2025, Mr. Garcia must provide responses to ASI's discovery requests.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 1, 2025.
Amanda Arnold Sansone
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union OF Fla., Inc. v. City OF Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2017)