Anderson v. Groveland Police Department et al

Filing 74

ORDER granting 71 Defendant Gary S. Border's second Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 3/22/2016. (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 belatedly submitted answers to the interrogatories and
responses to the document requests, but the answers to most of the interrogatories were inadequate.
Thus, Defendant filed his second motion to compel (Doc. 71) and—given Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to the first motion to compel—the Court directed Plaintiff to respond to the second motion
to compel by March 21, 2016. (Doc. 72). Yet, Plaintiff has again failed to respond to the motion

to compel pending against him. Importantly, under the Case Management and Scheduling Order,
discovery closes today, March 22, 2016.
Regarding the merits of Defendant’s second motion to compel, the Court agrees that
Plaintiff’s answers to Interrogatory Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13 are 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 are also inadequate and it is noteworthy that Plaintiff has
failed to respond to both of Defendant’s motions to compel.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, Defendant’s second motion to compel (Doc. 71) is
GRANTED.

Plaintiff is compelled to provide full and accurate responses to Defendant’s

Interrogatories, Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13 on or before March 29, 2016, failing which
sanctions may be imposed, including the dismissal of this action.
Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs for bringing its motions to compel is due
to be granted pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 10
days of the entry date of this Order, Defendant is directed to provide an assessment of its
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, necessitated by Plaintiff’s inadequate discovery
responses. Plaintiff shall then have 14 days within which to show cause why costs and fees
should not be awarded to Defendant in the amount stated, failing which the requested costs and
fees may be imposed as requested.

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on March 22, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-