Ocasio v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage Services, LLC shall serve its responses to Plaintiff's discovery request no later than July 25, 2017. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy on 6/29/2017. (JTM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
AMARILYS OCASIO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-40-FtM-38MRM

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests (Doc. 28) filed on June 20, 2017. Plaintiff timely filed an
expedited response (Doc. 30) to Defendant’s motion as ordered on June 27, 2017. This matter is
ripe for review.
Defendant requests an extension of time of thirty (30) days to respond to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff opposes the requested relief. (Id.). Specifically, Plaintiff
contends that Defendant’s counsel failed to fully comply with M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g) by not
conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel by phone. (Id. at 2-3). Additionally, Plaintiff argues that a
delay by Defendant in responding to the discovery requests is not conducive to Plaintiff’s ability
to mitigate damages. (Id. at 3-4). Finally, Plaintiff argues that good cause does not exist for an
extension because Plaintiff’s discovery requests are not numerous or excessive. (Id. at 4-5).
Upon review, Plaintiff makes a legitimate argument that Defendant failed to adequately
comply with M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). Specifically, Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that “the moving
party must confer with the opposing party in a good[-]faith effort to resolve the issues raised by
the motion, and file with the motion a statement certifying that the moving party has conferred

with the opposing party, and that the parties have been unable to agree on the resolution of the
motion.” Selectica, Inc. v. Novatus, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-1708-ORL-36, 2014 WL 1930426, at *2
(M.D. Fla. May 14, 2014). “The term ‘confer’ in Rule 3.01(g) requires a substantive
conversation in person or by telephone in a good[-]faith effort to resolve the motion without
court action. Counsel who merely ‘attempt’ to confer have not ‘conferred.’” Id. at *2 (emphasis
added). Here, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s counsel only emailed Plaintiff’s counsel regarding
the relief requested. (Doc. 30 at 2). There is no indication that Defendant’s counsel called
Plaintiff’s counsel or that they met in person. Thus, the Court finds that the steps taken by
Defendant’s counsel were not enough to satisfy Local Rule 3.01(g).
Notwithstanding this failure, however, the Court is reluctant to deny a reasonable request
to extend time to respond to discovery requests when doing so will not jeopardize any existing
case management deadlines. Here, the requested extension by Defendant appears reasonable on
its face and does not implicate any impending case management deadlines. Thus, the Court sees
no reason to deny the requested relief by Defendant even with the insufficient effort by
Defendant’s counsel pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g).
The Court will, however, take this opportunity to admonish Defendant’s counsel to
comply strictly with the Court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 3.01(g), in the future. Failure
to do so may result in the summary denial or striking of any offending filing.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
1) Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Discovery
Requests (Doc. 28) is GRANTED.

2

2) Defendant Nationstar Mortgage Services, LLC shall serve its responses to Plaintiff’s
discovery request no later than July 25, 2017. Defendant is warned that the Court is
not inclined to grant any further extensions of this response deadline.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 29, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

3