HANDY
v.
UNITED STATES
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 unopposed motion to compel discovery, ordering the plaintiff to produce documents and amended interrogatory answers.
The defendant filed an unopposed motion to compel the plaintiff to provide documents, produce materials from a deposition duces tecum, and amend inter…
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 Discovery Requests cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. No. 52) FILED: February 28, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide documents responsive to Request for Production 20, to produce materials responsive to a deposition duces tecum, to provide an amended answer to Interrogatory 10, and to verify all interrogatory answers previously provided. Doc. No. 52. According to the motion, Plaintiff does not oppose, if given two weeks for compliance. Id. at 3–4. Nor has Plaintiff filed a timely response opposing the motion. See Doc. No. 37 ¶ 5 (providing that opposition briefing to a discovery motion must be filed no later than five days after the motion). Accordingly, the Court deems Defendant’s motion to be unopposed in all respects. See id. (stating that failure to file a timely response will result in the discovery motion being deemed unopposed). See also Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Paramount Disaster Recovery, LLC, No. 6:18-cv-1738-Orl- 37DCI, 2019 WL 5294804, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2019) (“The Court routinely grants motions as unopposed where the opposing parties have not filed a response in opposition to the motion.”); Bercini v. City of Orlando, No. 6:15-cv-1921-Orl-41TBS, 2016 WL 11448993, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016) (granting in full unopposed motion to compel); Daisy, Inc. v. Pollo Operations, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-564-FtM-38CM, 2015 WL 2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2015) (when defendant did not respond court could consider motion to compel unopposed). Upon review, the Court finds the unopposed motion well taken.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant all documents within his current possession, custody,
or control responsive to Request for Production 20. See Doc. No. 52-1, at 6. 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant all documents in his current possession, custody, or control responsive to the requests made in the Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum. See Doc. No. 52-3. 3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve
on Defendant an amended answer to Interrogatory 10, as well as verify all Interrogatory responses. See Doc. No. 52-5. 4. All objections to the discovery at issue have been waived by the failure
to timely respond to the motion to compel. See, e.g., Jackson v. Geometrica, Inc., No, 3:04-cv-640-J-20HTS, 2006 WL 213860, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2006) (objections not addressed in response to a motion to compel are deemed abandoned); Bercini, 2016 WL 11448993, at *2 (same); LIMU Co., LLC v. Burling, No. 6:12-cv-347-Orl-TBS, 2013 WL 1482760, at *1 (M.D. Fla. April 11, 2013) (same). 5. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 7, 2023.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties