Rhea v. Checksmart Financial, LLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 32 Defendant's Opposed Motion for Enlargement of Time; denying without prejudice 33 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Discovery Responses; denying as moot 28 Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery and for Protective Order. Defendant shall have up to and including December 29, 2017 to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests served on October 6, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 11/30/2017. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MARY RHEA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-448-FtM-38CM

BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING OF
FLORIDA, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant’s Motion to Stay
Discovery and for Protective Order (Doc. 28) filed on October 25, 2017, Defendant’s
Opposed Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. 32) filed on November 6, 2017 and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Discovery Responses (Doc. 33) filed on
November 7, 2017. On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff served her first set of discovery
requests on Defendant.

Doc. 33 at 2.

renewed motion to stay all proceedings.

On October 19, 2017, Defendant filed a
Doc. 25.

Subsequently, Defendant filed a

motion to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on the motion to stay and a
motion for extension of time seeking additional thirty (30) days to serve discovery
responses.

Docs. 28, 32.

Plaintiff opposes the requested relief and also filed a

motion to compel Defendant to produce discovery requests.
opposes the motion to compel.

Doc. 36.

Doc. 33.

Defendant

On November 21, 2017, United States

District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell denied Defendant’s motion to stay all
proceedings.

Doc. 37.

The Court first will deny as moot Defendant’s motion to stay discovery because
it seeks to stay discovery pending judicial resolution of Defendant’s motion to stay all
proceedings, which Judge Chappell already denied.

Docs. 28, 37. Next, Defendant

seeks additional thirty days to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests given its
motions to stay all proceedings and discovery.

Doc. 32.

Plaintiff opposes the

requested extension, arguing that Defendant’s request for an extension of time did
not comply with the Local Rules and is an attempt to justify Defendant’s noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Doc. 35.

seeks to compel Defendant to serve discovery requests.

Instead, Plaintiff

Doc. 33.

Defendant

responds that its request for an extension of time is to provide enough time for judicial
resolution of the pending motions and not to incur unnecessary discovery costs.

Doc.

36 at 3.
As noted, Judge Chappell denied Defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings,
and this Court will deny as moot Defendant’s motion to stay discovery, both of which
resolve Defendant’s underlying concerns.

Doc. 37.

Furthermore, Defendant’s

response makes clear that Defendant seeks additional time to respond to, not to
avoid, Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Docs. 36 at 3.

Accordingly, the Court does not

find necessary at this time to grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery.

Doc. 33.

The Court also will grant Defendant’s motion for extension and direct Defendant to
produce discovery requests within thirty (30) days of this Order, as it promised to do
in its motion for extension.

Doc. 32 at 2.

-2-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and for Protective Order (Doc. 28)

is DENIED as moot.
2.

Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. 32) is

GRANTED.

Defendant shall have up to and including December 29, 2017 to

respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests served on October 6, 2017.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Discovery Responses (Doc. 33) is

DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 30th day of November,
2017.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-