Davis v. City of Leesburg et al

Filing 88

ORDER denying 47 Plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees and denying as moot 77 Defendant, Gary S. Borders' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 4/7/2014. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ASHLEIGH DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:12-cv-609-Oc-10PRL

CITY OF LEESBURG, GARY S.
BORDERS, CHRISTOPHER ALANIZ,
KENNETH LANE, NICK ROMANELLI,
RYAN ABSTON, MICHAEL
GODIGKEIT, J. G. SOMMERSDORF,
THOMAS BROWN, SHAWN LUKENS
and RICHARD SYLVESTER
Defendants.

ORDER
On March 4, 2014, the Court denied as moot Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel
Discovery from Defendant Gary S. Borders. (Doc. 75). However, because Defendant Borders
provided the requested discovery after Plaintiff filed the Renewed Motion to Compel, the Court
found that an award of attorney’s fees was mandated under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) unless one of the
exceptions in Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii) applied. Although it did not appear that any of the
exceptions applied, the Court afforded Defendant Borders an opportunity to be heard on the matter
before the Court issued a ruling.
Based on the representations made in Defendant Borders’ Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court’s Order (Doc. 77), Amended Rule 3.01(g) certification (Doc. 78), and response and
Objection to Plaintiff’s Affidavit for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 86), the Court finds that an award of
fees is not warranted based on the parties ongoing discussions regarding the discovery and

agreements to modify the subject discovery requests to address some of Defendant Borders’
objections only days before the Renewed Motion to Compel was filed.

Under these

circumstances, the Court finds that an award of fees would be unjust. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
request for attorney’s fees in its Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 47) is DENIED.
Defendant, Gary S. Borders’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order (Doc. 77) is
DENIED as moot. As discussed above, the Court deferred ruling on the request for fees to afford
Defendant Borders an opportunity to address entitlement; thus, the Motion for Reconsideration
was filed unnecessarily.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on April 7, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-