Latell v. Sovereign Bank et al

Filing 62

ORDER striking 61 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 8/28/2014. (BLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
FRANK LATELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-565-FtM-29CM

PETER C. TRIANO and
SANTANDER BANK,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 61,
“Renewed Motion”) filed on August 27, 2014. Plaintiff is requesting that the Court
reinstate his Motion to Compel (Doc. 35) which was denied as moot when the Court
stayed this case on February 28, 2014 for a period of 90-days. Doc. 41, “Stay Order.”
In its Stay Order, the Court stated that Plaintiff may re-file the Motion to Compel
when and if discovery recommences in this case. Id. at ¶ 3. Discovery currently is
ongoing.
The Court notes that the original Motion to Compel was filed by Plaintiff when
he was proceeding pro se and simply stated that no timely responses were received
to his discovery requests.

Doc. 35.

Defendants responded at that time that no

responses were provided to the discovery requests because it had moved for a stay of
discovery and accordingly had moved for an extension of the time to respond to the

discovery requests. 1 Docs. 37, 39. Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, did not refile the Motion to Compel; rather, counsel merely submitted the interrogatories and
request for production at issue, with no memorandum of law as required by Local
Rule 3.01(a). Doc. 61. Further, counsel’s Local Rule 3.01(g) certification states that
Defendants’ counsel did not provide a substantive response as to whether they oppose
the Renewed Motion.

Id. at 3.

Local Rule 3.01(g) specifically states that a

certification that opposing counsel was unavailable for a conference before filing the
motion is insufficient to satisfy the parties’ obligation to confer.
3.01(g).

M.D. Fla. Rule

Given that Plaintiff is now represented by counsel and discovery has

recommenced, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the outstanding
discovery requests in an attempt to come to an agreement prior to involving the
Court. Thus, the Renewed Motion will be stricken for failure to comply with the
Local Rules.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 61) is

STRICKEN.
2.

1

The Clerk is directed to remove the stay flag from this case.

These motions were denied as moot when the Court stayed the matter. Doc. 41.

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 28th day of August, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-