Pimentel et al v. Strength20, LLC et al

Filing 145

ORDER granting 137 Motion to Compel discovery responses from Defendant Rommel Ariza. Within 7 days of this order, Defendant Rommel Ariza must produce the discovery outlined in the motion. Within fourteen days of this order, the parties must also meet and confer about the expenses FSG reasonably incurred in making the motion. If the parties cannot agree on a fee award, FSG must submit a motion, which includes necessary supporting documents detailing its reasonable expenses and fees, if it wishes to pursue such relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 9/24/2024. (CGW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EMMANUEL PIMENTEL,
RANCEL MORENO, JOHNNY
CUEVAS, RAMON CUEVAS,
ADAM OROZCO, IRVIN
MALDONADO, TRENT BARKER,
CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL,
KHADEJHA DUBOSE, JOHN
FABIEN, TOMAS SANCHEZ,
TERRANCE STOUTE, RAYMOND
WALLS, ALFRED CLARK,
ALEXANDER DIAZ-BENITEZ,
CARLOS GUERRA, RAFAEL
ARMANDO LEVYA MARTINEZ,
LENIER MACHIN, JORGE
QUINONES, JACOB POWELL,
FIDEL RODRIGUEZ, TAYLOR
SAMS, RONALD THOMAS and
ANYEL DELGADO, individually
and on behalf of others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 2:23-cv-544-JLB-KCD

STRENGTH20, LLC, GLOBAL
STRATEGIES CONSULTANT
GROUP, CORP., ROMMEL A.
ARIZA and FLORIDA
STRUCTURAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Florida Structural Group, Inc.’s (“FSG”)
motion to compel discovery responses from Defendant Rommel Ariza. (Doc.
137.) Ariza has not responded and the time to do so passed, so the Court treats
the motion as unopposed. See Local Rule 3.01(c).
FSG served discovery on Ariza (Doc. 137-1), and his answers were due
by August 14. Neither responses nor objections were received from Ariza. The
Federal Rules provide that a party may move for an order compelling
compliance in such circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3), (b)(2)(A).
FSG attempted to confer with Ariza’s counsel in a good faith effort to
resolve this dispute to no avail. (Doc. 137 at 5.) And now Ariza failed to respond
to the motion, thereby waiving any objections. See Siddiq v. Saudi Arabian
Airlines Corp., No. 6:11-CV-69-ORL-19GJK, 2011 WL 6936485, at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Dec. 7, 2011). Having received no response in opposition, the Court grants
the motion to compel (Doc. 137). Within 7 days of this order, Ariza must serve
full and complete responses to the outstanding discovery requests.
FSG also asks for “an award of attorney’s fees associated [with] the
preparation and filing of this motion.” (Doc. 137 at 3.) If a motion to compel is
granted (or if a discovery order is not obeyed), “the court must” require the
disobedient party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
caused by the failure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), (b)(2)(C). These sanctions are

2

self-executing. The court must award expenses. KePRO Acquisitions, Inc. v.
Analytics Holdings, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00842-SRW, 2021 WL 6883475, at *2
(M.D. Ala. Mar. 22, 2021); see also Devaney v. Cont’l Am. Ins. Co., 989 F.2d
1154, 1162 (11th Cir. 1993).
No doubt sanctions are appropriate here. Ariza did not provide the
discovery and is now being compelled to do so. Thus, “an award of attorney’s
fees and expenses is mandated.” Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. River’s Edge
Pharms., LLC, No. 1:11-CV-1634-RLV-ECS, 2014 WL 12789352, at *6 (N.D.
Ga. Mar. 21, 2014).
Rule 37 does have a safe-harbor provision. The court need not order
sanctions if the disobedient party’s conduct was “substantially justified” or
“other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A), (b)(2)(C). The burden of avoiding sanctions rests on the disobedient
party. See, e.g., Eichmuller v. Sarasota Cnty. Gov’t, No. 8:20-CV-47-T-33SPF,
2020 WL 10318567, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2020); Arugu v. City of Plantation,
No. 09-61618-CIV, 2010 WL 11520180, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2010).
Ariza has not carried his burden. Indeed, he offers no opposition to the
motion. That ends the matter—the Court “must order [them] to pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure.” Sanchez
v. City of St. Cloud, No. 6:22-CV-11-CEM-DCI, 2023 WL 6809621, at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 16, 2023).
3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1.

Defendant Florida Structural Group, Inc.’s motion to compel (Doc.

137) is GRANTED.
2.

Within 7 days of this order, Defendant Rommel Ariza must

produce the discovery outlined in the motion.
3.

Within fourteen days of this order, the parties must also meet and

confer about the expenses FSG reasonably incurred in making the motion. If
the parties cannot agree on a fee award, FSG must submit a motion, which
includes necessary supporting documents detailing its reasonable expenses
and fees, if it wishes to pursue such relief.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 24, 2024.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4