Comfort Line Products, Inc. v. Oceantis LLC et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying without prejudice 46 Defendants, Oceantis, LLC's, and Michael Shawn O'Brien's, Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 10/25/2018. (DRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
COMFORT LINE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-198-FtM-99CM

OCEANTIS LLC and MICHAEL
SHAWN O’BRIEN,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendants, Oceantis,
LLC’s, and Michael Shawn O'Brien’s, Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed on
October 23, 2018.

Doc. 46.

Defendants seek to compel documents identified in

Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Disclosures, documents Plaintiff failed to provide in the Rule 26
Disclosures, answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production. Id.
at 1-4.

Plaintiff has not responded as the time to do so has not yet passed.

Nevertheless, for the reasons stated herein, the motion will be denied without
prejudice.
First, the motion is untimely. The original Case Management and Scheduling
Order (“CMSO”) in this case clearly states: “The Court may deny as untimely all
motions to compel filed after the discovery deadline.”1 Doc. 27 at 7. The Rule 26
Disclosures were served on July 21, 2017, and Defendants provide no reason for the
The Amended CMSO indicates all directives set forth in the original CMSO remain
in effect. See Doc. 41 at 2.
1

delay in seeking the documents that should have been included in the Rule 26
Disclosures or that were identified in the same. See Doc. 46 at 2-3. Additionally,
the extended deadline for Defendants’ discovery requests was on August 6, 2018, but
Defendants fail to explain why they waited until over a month after the September
14, 2018 discovery deadline to file the present motion. See id. at 3-4; see also Doc.
44.

Further, the parties twice requested extensions of the discovery deadline

without ever referencing the long-standing discovery disputes. See Docs. 39, 43.
This unexplained untimeliness is reason enough to deny the motion.
Second, Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that each motion
filed in a civil case, with certain enumerated exceptions not at issue here, “stat[e]
whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion.” M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). Here,
Defendants’ motion references emails or discussions as to particular discovery issues,
and “Defendants certify that they have made a good faith effort to obtain the subject
discovery without court action prior to the filing of the present motion.” Id. at 2-4.
There is no indication, however, the parties meaningfully conferred about the present
motion.

Therefore, the Court directs Defendants to meaningfully confer with

Plaintiff about the requested relief to try to reach an agreeable resolution of the
discovery issues, and, if motion practice is still necessary, to refile the motion in
accordance with the Local Rules.2 Further, if Defendants determine a motion to

The Court is aware of the parties’ requirement to file a joint status report on or
before November 2, 2018, as directed by the Honorable Sheri Polster Chappell. The Court
expects the parties will be able to resolve or narrow the discovery issues raised in this motion
while discussing the overall case and preparing the required report. See Doc. 47.
2

-2-

compel is necessary, Defendants are directed to address why its motion should not be
denied as untimely.
The Court expects the parties—as officers of the Court—to cooperate with each
other. The parties are reminded, “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced
with a spirit of cooperation and civility.” See Middle District Discovery, A Handbook
on Civil Discovery Practice in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida § I.A.1. From this point forward, the parties are expected to facilitate the
discovery process, meaningfully confer about disputes, and engage in civil and concise
motion practice when necessary. Failure to comply with these directives could result
in sanctions.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED:
Defendants, Oceantis, LLC’s, and Michael Shawn O'Brien’s, Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses (Doc. 46) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 25th day of October,
2018.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-