American Registry, LLC v. Hanaw et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying without prejudice 53 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production; denying as moot 57 Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Leave to File Reply. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/19/2014. (ALB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
AMERICAN REGISTRY, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-352-FtM-29CM

YONAH HANAW, MICHAEL
LEVY, SHOWMARK HOLDINGS,
LLC and SHOWMARK MEDIA,
LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Responses to
Requests for Production and Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Motion to Compel”)
(Doc. 53), filed on April 21, 2014, Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion
to Compel and Motion for Stay of Discovery (“Response”) (Doc. 56), filed on May 12,
2014, and Plaintiff’s Agreed Motion for Leave to File Reply and Supporting
Memorandum of Law (“Agreed Motion”) (Doc. 57), filed on May 14, 2014.

The

Motions are thus ripe for review. For the foregoing reasons, the motions are due to
be denied.
Plaintiff filed its Renewed Motion to Compel asking the Court to require
Defendants to provide “full and complete responses” to various Requests for
Production to which Defendants objected. Doc. 53. As part of its Motion to Compel,
Plaintiff included a certification of compliance with Middle District of Florida Local

Rule 3.01(g), which requires parties to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve
the issues. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). In their Response, Defendants highlight that the
3.01(g) certification is “not entirely accurate” because, although counsel for Plaintiff
conferred with counsel for Defendants prior to filing a previous motion to compel,
counsel for Plaintiff did not do so prior to filing the instant Motion to Compel. Doc.
56 at 2.
Defendants note that “several months have elapsed” since Plaintiff filed its
first motion to compel and that, since then, “Defendants’ counsel has learned of more
than 3,000 documents that were previously produced to Plaintiff in prior, related
litigation between the parties.” Id. at 3. Thus, Defendants contend that counsel for
Plaintiff should have conferred again “[p]articularly in light of these circumstances.”

Id. The Court agrees. Local Rule 3.01(g) requires counsel to meet in confer in good
faith “[b]efore filing any motion in a civil case.” M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). The rule does
not except renewed motions.

See id.; see also Communications Center, Inc. v.

Komatsu, No. 6:05-cv-1254-Orl-31GJK, 2008 WL 1777725, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 9,
2009) (noting previous denial of a renewed motion to compel without prejudice in part
for for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g)); Durden v. Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB,
No. 3:07-cv-974-J-34JRK, 2010 WL 2105924, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2010)
(requiring parties to meet and confer pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g) before filing a
renewed motion).
Also within Defendants’ Response are requests for a protective order or to stay
discovery until Plaintiff identifies its alleged trade secrets.

-2-

See id. at 1, 3.

Defendants also note, however, that “[i]f discovery is not stayed, Defendants
withdraw their objections to Requests 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 24, and 25.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff
then filed the Agreed Motion because,
although Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery would
appear to require Plaintiff to file a response under Local
Rule 3.01(b) for which leave would not be required, in an
abundance of caution, Plaintiff seeks leave to file said
response because the Motion to Stay is embodied as part of
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to
Compel.
Doc. 57 at 2.
In light of counsel for Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer with counsel for
Defendants as required by Local Rule 3.01(g) prior to filing the Motion to Compel,
and because the motions and response suggest that some issues raised in Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel may be resolved by a good faith conference, the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel without prejudice to refiling after the parties meet and
confer in good faith pursuant to the Local Rules. See Kimbrough v. City of Cocoa,
No. 6:05-CV-471-ORL-31, 2006 WL 1540256, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) (denying
without prejudice motion to compel where it was “difficult to determine from the
motion and response thereto what is still in dispute”).

The Agreed Motion is

therefore moot.
If, after meeting and conferring, the parties are unable to resolve issues in the
Motion to Compel or the parties seek to stay discovery, they may file appropriate

-3-

motions with the Court.1 The Court reminds the parties that any such motion must
comply with the Local Rules.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for

Production and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 53) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
2.

Plaintiff’s Agreed Motion for Leave to File Reply and Supporting

Memorandum of Law (Doc. 57) is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 19th day of May, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

1

The Court cautions the parties, however, that any requests for relief buried in
responses to motions or not otherwise properly before the Court will be denied. See Estate
of Miller ex re. Miller v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 6:07-cv-1358-Orl-19DAB, 2008 WL 899054,
at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2008) (noting plaintiff’s request was denied in part because it was
buried in a response to a motion).

-4-