Kajoshaj v. Circle K Stores, Inc.

Filing 20

ORDER denying without prejudice 5 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Production of Surveillance Tape; denying without prejudice 12 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Video Surveillance and Other Photographic Material of Accident and Accident Scene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/23/2014. (ALB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SKENDER KAJOSHAJ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-170-FtM-29CM

CIRCLE K STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding
Production of Surveillance Tape (“Motion for Protective Order”) (Doc. 5), filed on
March 24, 2014, Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion
for Protective Order Regarding Production of Surveillance Tape (Doc. 6), filed on
March 26, 2014, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Video Surveillance and
Other Photographic Material of Accident and Accident Scene (“Motion to Compel”)
(Doc. 12), filed on April 24, 2014, and Defendant’s Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Video Surveillance and Other
Photographic Material of Accident and Accident Scene and Memorandum of Law in
Support Thereof (“Response in Opposition”) (Doc. 18), filed on May 9, 2014
(collectively, “Motions”).
Although the parties may have engaged in some discovery while the case was
pending in state court, pursuant to Rule 26(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
parties are prohibited from seeking discovery prior to conferring as required by Rule

26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). The Related Case Order and Track
Two Notice entered in this case on May 8, 2014 directs the parties to meet and
prepare a Case Management Report and specifically states: “Unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the
meeting.” Doc. 16 at 1 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d); M.D. Fla. R. 3.05(c)(2)(B)).
Since there is no indication that the parties have completed their Case
Management meeting, the Motions will be denied without prejudice. Should they
choose to do so, the parties may refile the Motions at the appropriate time after they
have completed the Case Management meeting in accordance with the Court’s prior
Order. The parties are reminded, however, that all filings must comply with the
Middle District of Florida Local Rules.1
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Production of

Surveillance Tape (Doc. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1

In its Response in Opposition, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s Motion should be
denied as Plaintiff failed to confer with the undersigned counsel before filing this Motion and
failed to make a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the Motion in violation of
Local Rule 3.01(g).” Doc. 18 at 3.
Local Rule 3.01(g) requires the parties to meet and confer before filing “any motion in
a civil case” except as to certain motions not presently before the Court. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g).
It is therefore worth noting that, although Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel does not include the
certification required by Local Rule 3.01(g), neither does Defendant’s Motion for Protective
Order. See Doc. 5.

-2-

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Video Surveillance and Other

Photographic Material of Accident and Accident Scene (Doc. 12) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 23rd day of May, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-