Dilts et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 69

ORDER terminating 49 Defendant's Motion to Compel; and granting 68 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Reply to the extent stated in the Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 1/25/2017. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ADAM M. DILTS and RACHEL M.
DILTS, Husband
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 5:16-cv-453-Oc-37PRL

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to compel (Doc. 49). In response,
Plaintiffs represent that they have produced (or will soon produce) additional discovery responses
and have withdrawn various objections, thus, significantly narrowing the scope of the motion.
(Doc. 67).
Now, Defendant seeks leave to file a reply to address Plaintiffs’ claim that deficiencies
have been cured and to advise the Court of the scope of remaining issues. (Doc. 68). Defendant
points out that it has not yet received the supplemental discovery responses that Plaintiffs stated in
their response that they would provide so it can evaluate if those issues have been resolved. In
addition, Defendant states that prior to filing their response, Plaintiffs had not provided a rationale
for their objections. Thus, it appears that the parties have not had a substantive discussion
regarding the merits of the disputed discovery.
Because there is uncertainty as to the scope of issues before the Court, I believe that the
best course of action is to terminate the pending motion to compel (Doc. 49). Defendant’s
motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. 68) is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs are directed to

provide all supplemental discovery responses on or before January 28, 2017. If issues still
remain, Defendant may file a renewed motion to compel, but only after the parties have conferred
in good faith.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on January 25, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-