Brinegar v. Doyle

Filing 7

ORDER terminating without prejudice 4 Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 5/5/2017. (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ANGELA MARIE BRINEGAR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:17-cv-190-Oc-30PRL

SHEILA FAYE DOYLE
Defendant.

ORDER
This personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident was removed to this Court
on April 21, 2017, from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County,
Florida. (Doc. 1). Prior to removal, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery
Responses. (Doc. 4).

Defendant’s motion seeks to compel answers to discovery requests,

specifically answers to interrogatories. Defendant’s motion recites that the parties had agreed
upon a one-week extension, but that extension expired and the responses were not provided.
Because the motion was filed as part of the proceeding in state court it doesn’t comply with
the requirements of this Court’s Local Rules. For example, it doesn’t comply with the meet and
confer requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g) and doesn’t appear to comply with the requirements of
Rule 3.01(a). Also, to the extent necessary, it may need to comply with Rule 3.04. Lastly, it’s
unclear whether the timing of the motion and request for discovery itself is consistent with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(d)(1). As such, the motion is due to be terminated, without prejudice to Defendant to
seek appropriate relief consistent with this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on May 5, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-