Securities and Exchange Commission v. Hoffman et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 35 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 5/23/2014. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:13-cv-455-Oc-10PRL

JENIFER E. HOFFMAN, JOHN C.
BOSCHERT and BRYAN T. ZUZGA
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants Jenifer E.
Hoffman and John C. Boschert to comply with their discovery obligations.

(Doc. 35).

Defendants have failed to respond to the instant motion and their time to do so has expired.
Pursuant to the parties’ Case Management Report (Doc. 26), as confirmed by the Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 28), the deadline for the parties to exchange
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures was February 14, 2014. Because Defendants failed
to timely serve their Initial Disclosures, on February 24, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed
Defendants reminding them of the passed deadline. (Doc. 35-1). Defendants did not respond to
the email nor did they provide their Initial Disclosures.
Then, on February 25, 2014, Plaintiff served its Requests for Production of Documents on
Defendants, with responses due by March 31, 2014. (Docs. 35-2, 35-3). On April 2, 2014, after
receiving no response, counsel for Plaintiff emailed Defendants advising that their Initial
Disclosures and responses to the Requests for Production of Documents were past due and that he

would be seeking relief from the Court. (Doc. 35-4). Once again, Defendants did not respond
to the email nor did they provide responses to the discovery requests.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff
moves the Court for an Order compelling discovery responses from Defendants.
Because Defendants have failed to serve Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures, and responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 35) is hereby
GRANTED. On or before June 6, 2014, Jenifer E. Hoffman and John C. Boschert shall serve
their Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures, and shall produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production of Documents.
Although Defendants are proceeding pro se, their failure to participate in the
discovery process will not be tolerated. Defendants are cautioned that the failure to comply
with this Order will likely result in the imposition of sanctions. Notably, resources and
information related to proceeding in court without a lawyer, including a handbook entitled Guide
for

Proceeding

Without

a

Lawyer,

can

be

located

on

the

Court’s

website

(http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm).
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on May 23, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

1

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that both Defendants have engaged in email correspondence with him on
other subjects; and thus, he has no reason to believe that they did not receive his discovery-related emails.
-2-