Sheets v. Presseller et al
Filing
55
ORDER denying 52 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 10/25/2024. (CGW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ANDREW BRYANT SHEETS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:24-CV-495-JLB-KCD
v.
JERRY PRESSELLER, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; THE DOWNTOWN
MERCHANTS COMMITTE OF
PUNTA GORDA, INC, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; OFFICER DAVID
JOSEPH LIPKER, IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; AND CITY OF PUNTA
GORDA, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
Defendants,
/
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Andrew Bryant Sheets’ Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses. (Doc. 52.)1 The defendants who have appeared—Jerry
Presseller, City of Punta Gorda, and Joseph Lipker—responded in opposition
(hereinafter, “Defendants”). (Doc. 54.)
On September 3, 2024, Plaintiff emailed Defendants’ counsel. (Doc. 52
at 2.) The subject line read “discovery sheets v. preseler,” while the body
Plaintiff’s motion is not paginated. So the Court refers to the page numbers generated by
its electronic filing system.
1
contained a single sentence: “wheres yours?” (Id.) Also attached to the email
were two documents. (Id.) The first contained interrogatories and document
requests. (Doc. 54-2.)
Defendants have not answered the discovery. (See Doc. 54.) So Plaintiff
seeks an order compelling them “to provide full and complete responses to
[the] requests within 10-14 days.” (Doc. 52 at 5); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(3)(B) (“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer, designation, production, or inspection [if] a party fails to answer an
interrogatory submitted under Rule 33[,] or a party fails to produce
documents.”).
To excuse their noncompliance, Defendants first claim they “were
unaware that the Plaintiff was serving discovery requests.” (Doc. 54 at 2.)
The Court is unconvinced. Plaintiff’s email is titled “discovery.” (Doc. 54-1.)
And the attached word document is captioned: “PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF
WRITTEN DISCOVERY TO DEFENDANT.” (Doc. 54-2.) It’s obvious what
Plaintiff was seeking.
Defendants also argue they were not properly served with the discovery
requests. (Doc. 54 at 3.) But Plaintiff emailed them to defense counsel, which
is allowed here because Defendants did not lodge “an express objection [to
electronic service] in the CMR.” (Doc. 3 at 10.)
2
That said, the Court cannot grant the motion to compel because
Plaintiff’s discovery is improper as currently formatted. Many of the requests
fail to differentiate between the various defendants, instead referring to them
jointly. And the interrogatories are specifically “Directed to All Defendants.”
Although jointly represented, the defendants here are not related such that
they can be treated as a cohesive unit. The liability of Pressler (a private
individual), the City (a municipal entity), and Lipker (a police officer) is not
joint or interdependent. The Court agrees with Defendants that the
discovery, as currently drafted, “makes it implausible for [them] to respond.”
(Doc. 54 at 4.)
While Plaintiff is certainly allowed to propound discovery, it must be in
a format that gives reasonable notice of what is requested and from whom.
The discovery at issue here falls short of that standard. While the Court
cannot give Plaintiff legal advice, discovery is typically served on each party
individually to avoid the problems identified above.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. 52)
is DENIED.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 25, 2024.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?