UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ORLANDO HEART & VASCULAR CENTER, 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.
The court granted the relator's motion for additional depositions as unopposed and granted in part the motion to compel production of documents from the defendant's eMDs database.
The relator sought to take additional depositions and compel the production of documents from the defendant's eMDs database. The defendant had previou…
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
This cause comes before the Court for consideration on two motions: Relator’s Motion for Leave to Take Additional Fact Witness Depositions (Doc. 174; the Deposition Motion) and Relator’s Motion to Compel Response to Fifth Request for Production to OHVC (Doc. 176; the Motion to Compel).
The Court held a hearing on these motions on July 20, 2023. The Deposition Motion is granted. Defendants did not respond to the Deposition Motion, so the Court takes the Deposition Motion as unopposed. Local Rule 3.01(c).
The Court routinely grants motions that are unopposed. See, e.g., Foster v. The Coca-Cola Co., 2015 WL 3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015) (“Based upon Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendant's motion, the Court proceeds on the basis that Plaintiff does not oppose any of the relief requested by Defendant.”).
Therefore, the Deposition Motion is granted as unopposed. The Motion to Compel is granted in part. Six months ago, the Court overruled Defendant Orlando Heart & Vascular Center, LLC’s (OHVC) objections and compelled Defendant OHVC to produce documents responsive to Relator’s First RFP (Doc. 98-1). Doc.
107. That production was due on or before February 8, 2023, but that deadline was extended to February 17, 2023. Docs. 107; 112. Then, when considering a subsequent motion to compel, the Court again compelled Defendant OHVC to “provide a supplemental, unredacted production in response to Relator’s RFP” and to “certify whether [its] production is full and complete.” Doc. 157 at 1.
Defendant OHVC was to do so on or before May 14, 2023. Id. Despite these orders, Defendant OHVC has still not fully responded to Relator’s first RFP (Doc. 98-1). Docs. 176 at 1–2; 177 at
4.
Now, in the Motion to Compel, Relator seeks to inspect and copy Defendant OHVC’s eMDs database (where the documents that the Court required to be produced in prior Orders are stored) in order to acquire the full production that they are due.1 Doc. 176 at 5. For the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court finds Relator’s request well-taken. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A) (“(a) A party may serve on any other party a request . . . (1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect [or] copy . . the following items in the responding party's possession, custody, or control: any . . . electronically stored information— including . . . other data or data compilations—stored in any medium from which information can be obtained . . . directly . . . .”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:1) The Deposition Motion (Doc. 174) is GRANTED, such that each party2 may take up to thirty depositions;
— =
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sapp v. Marcum, 2017 WL 445713 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…osed where the opposing parties have not filed a - 2 - ---PAGE 3--- Case 6:21-cv-01515-PGB-DCI Document 105 Filed 05/31/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3872 response in opposition to the motion. See Local Rule 3.01(c); see also Foster v. The Coca-Cola Co., 2015 WL 3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015) (finding that a motion to compel was unopposed because the opposing party failed to timely respond to the motion). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Motion is due to be granted. Upon due consideration…
-
Kloster v. Clear Blue Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…osition to the motion. See Local Rule 3.01(c) (“A party may respond to a motion with fourteen days after service of the motion . . . If a party fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed.”); Foster v. The Coca-Cola Co., 2015 WL 3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015)). Defendant filed the Motion on February 28, 2025 and Plaintiff has filed no response. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends treating the Motion as unopposed.¹ 1 1 The Local Rules require a party seeking post-j…
-
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Larralde (M.D. Fla. 2025)…sed. As stated in the Court's November 4, 2024 Order, the Court routinely grants motions as unopposed where the opposing parties have not filed a response in opposition to the motion. Doc. 136 (citing Local Rule 3.01(c); Foster v. The Coca-Cola Co., 2015 WL 3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015)).² Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiffs latest request for sanctions to be unopposed. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. 137) is GRANTED to the extent that on or before January 23, 2025, D…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence