CS Business Systems, Inc. et al v. Schar et al

Filing 84

ORDER granting #77 the Motion to Compel filed by Defendants Bella Collina Towers, LLC, DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC, and DCS Real Estate Investments II, LLC. See the order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 6/6/2017. (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CS BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC., JAMES
L. SHELTON, VIRGINIA L. SHELTON,
BRAD HECKENBERG, LANA C.
HECKENBERG, PJS RENTAL, LLC,
WON Y. SHIN TRUST, WON Y. SHIN,
BART
SUTHERIN,
KATHRYN
SUTHERIN and ITZ GROUP, LLC, a
foreign for-profit corporation
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 5:17-cv-86-Oc-PGBPRL

DWIGHT C. SCHAR, PAUL E.
SIMONSON,
DCS
INVESTMENTS
HOLDINGS GP, LLC, DCS REAL
ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, DCS
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS I, LLC,
DCS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS II,
LLC,
DCS
REAL
ESTATE
INVESTMENTS III, LLC, DCS REAL
ESTATE INVESTMENTS IV, LLC, DCS
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS IV-A,
LLC,
DCS
REAL
ESTATE
INVESTMENTS V, LLC, BELLA
COLLINA
PROPERTY
OWNERS
ASSOC., INC., DAVID BURMAN,
AEGIS COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., RANDALL F.
GREENE, KEITH CLARKE, PAUL
LEBREUX, RICHARD C. ARRIGHI,
JAMES D. RYAN, MICHAEL J. RYAN,
THE RYAN LAW GROUP, LLC,
CULLEN D’AMBROSIO, ROCKING
RED H, LLC, RICKY L. SCHARICH and
BELLA COLLINA TOWERS, LLC
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion to compel filed by Defendants Bella Collina Towers, LLC,
DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC, and DCS Real Estate Investments II, LLC, (collectively
“DCS”). (Doc. 77). DCS asserts that Plaintiffs CS Business Systems, Inc., Bart Sutherin, and
Kathryn Sutherin (collectively “CSBS and Sutherins”) failed to respond to its First Request for
Production and that Plaintiff ITZ Group, LLC, (“ITZ”) failed to respond to its First Set of
Interrogatories. DCS also seeks attorney’s fees.
According to DCS, it served CSBS and the Sutherins with its First Request for Production
on April 12, 2017. (Doc. 77 at p.2). DCS also served ITZ with its First Set of Interrogatories on
that day. To date, neither CSBS and the Sutherins, nor ITZ, has responded to DCS’s discovery
request or requested an extension of time from DCS or this Court. See United States v. Arnao,
No. 8:16-CV-2553-T-30JSS, 2017 WL 1251582, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2017) (“Responses and
objections to discovery requests must be made within thirty days of being served.”) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(b)(2); 34(b)(2)(A)). Further, CSBS and the Sutherins and ITZ have not responded to
the instant motion and the time for doing so has now passed. See Local Rule 3.01(b) (“Each party
opposing a motion or application shall file within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion or
application a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority in opposition to the request
. . . .”); 3.04(a) (stating that the party opposing of motion to compel shall respond as required by
Local Rule 3.01(b)).
Given CSBS and the Sutherins and ITZ’s complete failure to respond to DCS’s discovery
requests (and the instant motion), the motion to compel (Doc. 77) is due to be GRANTED.
Arnao, 2017 WL 1251582 at *1 (noting that the “court may enter an order compelling discovery

-2-

when a party fails to respond or make objections to discovery requests”). CSBS and the Sutherins
and ITZ are compelled to respond to DCS’s discovery requests on or before June 20, 2017.
Finally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), if a motion to compel is granted,
then “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose
conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the
movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” The
court must not, however, order this payment if: “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting
in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party’s
nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make
an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(i–iii).
Thus, on or before June 20, 2017, DSC is directed to provide an assessment of its
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, necessitated by CSBS and the Sutherins and ITZ’s
discovery failures. CSBS and the Sutherins and ITZ shall then have until on or before July 4,
2017, to show cause why costs and fees should not be awarded to DCS, failing which the requested
costs and fees may be imposed as requested.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on June 6, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-