Pastrana v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 7/3/2024. (EE)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION DANNY ANTONIO PASTRANA Plaintiff, v. Case No: 5:24-cv-161-TJC-PRL CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. ORDER This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff generally states that Defendant “[h]as not provided any of the plaintiffs answers or documents” and has failed “to show any proof They are the rightful owners of such claims.” Plaintiff also raises various arguments and issues related to the merits of the case, which are not properly the subject of a motion to compel. Pursuant to Rule 37(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a party may move for an order compelling a discovery response if the other party fails to respond to a discovery request. However, “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) … or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Here, the parties have not met and conferred under Rule 26(f), and no scheduling order under Rule 16 has been issued. And, even if it had, no discovery requests have been served by either party. Simply stated, there is nothing for this Court to compel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 10) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 3, 2024. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties -2-

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?