Anderson v. Groveland Police Department et al
Filing
72
ORDER terminating as moot 65 Defendant's first Motion to Compel and deferring ruling on 71 Defendant's second Motion to Compel. Plaintiff is directed to respond to Defendant's second motion to compel on or before March 21, 2016. See the Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 3/3/2016. (CAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
GEOFFREY H. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 5:15-cv-26-Oc-30PRL
JOHN MOORE, CHARLES W.
RUSSELL, JOHN FLYNN, ANDY
AULD, SCOTT PENVOSE, GARY S.
BORDERS, CITY OF GROVELAND
and LAKE COUNTY FLORIDA
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant, the Sheriff of Lake County Gary S. Borders’s second
motion to compel Plaintiff to comply with Defendant’s discovery requests.
(Doc. 71).
According to Defendant, on December 18, 2015, he requested that Plaintiff answer a set of
interrogatories and produce documents, all of which were due thirty days later. Plaintiff failed to
timely respond to these requests, which necessitated Defendant’s first motion to compel. (Doc.
65).
Although Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant’s first motion to compel (as
required by Local Rule 3.04(a)), Plaintiff did belatedly submit answers to the interrogatories and
responses to the document request. But a review of Defendant’s new motion to compel reveals
that Plaintiff’s answers to the interrogatories appear to be woefully inadequate. For example, in
response to Defendant Sherriff’s Interrogatory No. 2, which was a request for very basic
information (e.g., Plaintiff’s aliases, where he has lived for the past ten years, his Social Security
number, date of birth, and marital status), Plaintiff replied “Go to Google.” (Doc. 71, Ex. A).
Plaintiff’s remaining answers also appear to be inadequate.
Upon due consideration, the Court will DEFER ruling on Defendant’s second motion to
compel (Doc. 71). Plaintiff has a duty, under Local Rule 3.04(a), to respond to any motion to
compel that is filed against him, thus Plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond to Defendant’s second
motion to compel (Doc. 71) on or before March 21, 2016. Given that Defendant has filed a
second motion to compel, his first motion (Doc. 65) is due to be TERMINATED AS MOOT.
Importantly, Plaintiff is invited to consider the following guidance.
Where a court grants a motion to compel or discovery is provided after the filing of a
motion to compel, then under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), the court must, after
giving an opportunity to be heard, require that a party—whose conduct necessitated the motion to
compel—pay the movant’s reasonable expenses in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.
Here, to date, it appears that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the discovery requests has
necessitated the filing of not one, but two motions to compel. Thus, it is possible that upon
resolution of this matter, the Court will direct Defendant to provide an assessment of his reasonable
expenses, including attorney’s fees, necessitated by Plaintiff’s failures. If that occurs, then after
Defendant files that assessment, the Court will, of course, give Plaintiff an opportunity to show
cause why costs and fees should not be awarded to Defendant in the amount stated.
Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is obliged to participate in the discovery
process and any intentional failure to do so will not be tolerated. Thus, he is cautioned that
the failure to comply with this Order will likely result in the imposition of sanctions.
Further, Plaintiff is cautioned that despite proceeding pro se, he is required to comply with
all of this Court’s Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of
-2-
Evidence.
Plaintiff may obtain a copy of the Local Rules from the Court’s website
(http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov) or by visiting the Office of the Clerk of Court. Also, 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 March 3, 2016.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-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?