Lengua v. Uno Restaurants, LLC.

Filing 27

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 10/26/2015. (JMP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ANDRES LENGUA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:15-cv-00057-Orl-22TBS

UNO RESTAURANTS, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Defendant’s Motion to
Compel (Doc. 23). Defendant’s motion seeks to compel responses to interrogatories
and document requests propounded to Plaintiff, and leave to re-depose Plaintiff
concerning his alleged damages and the identities of police informants. Plaintiff
originally responded to most of the interrogatories by asserting vague objections and
referencing other documents. Plaintiff objected to providing financial information on the
basis that it was privileged, and he frequently objected to document requests on the basis
that Defendant was seeking documents “prepared in anticipation of litigation and are work
product” or that are “attorney work product.” (Doc. 23, p. 10). Plaintiff, who is
proceeding without the assistance of counsel, did not file a response to Defendant’s
Motion to Compel. Because Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, the Court construes
it as being unopposed. Defendant’s motion is therefore GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff is ORDRED to supplement his responses to Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, 9, 10,
11, 12, 14, and 17 and Requests for Production 3, 4, 8, 11, 18, 22, 23, 34, 45, 46, 49, 55,
73, and 75 within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. And, Defendant may

have until November 24, 2015 to re-depose Plaintiff concerning his alleged damages and
the identities of police informants.
Plaintiff is advised that his tax returns and W-2s are relevant to the issue of
damages and are not privileged. Plaintiff can include information in his answers that he
alleged in the complaint, but his supplemental answers to the interrogatories should be
“in writing under oath,” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(3), and not merely references to information
in other documents. Plaintiff is further advised that any claim to attorney-client privilege
or work-product privilege must be supported by more than conclusory statements that the
privileges apply. See Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 698 (S.D. Fla.
2007).
To the extent Plaintiff is seeking damages for emotional distress, some of his
medical records may be relevant to that inquiry. But, considering the allegations in the
complaint, (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 33, 49), and Plaintiff’s representation that he “has not sought
medical/mental treatment as a result of Defendant[’s] action, (Doc. 23, p. 7), the Court
agrees with Plaintiff that Interrogatory No. 15 and Document Request No. 51 are
overbroad or seek irrelevant information. These requests seek all medical information
and documents concerning Plaintiff’s medical treatment from any physician, psychiatrist,
psychologist, counselor, therapist, licensed social worker, and nurse over the past 10
years and authorizations for Defendant to obtain medical records from each provider.
Defendant’s request to compel further response to Interrogatory No. 15 and Document
Request No. 51 is therefore DENIED. However, Defendant may depose Plaintiff
regarding his damage calculations, including his damages for emotional distress, and any
medical treatment that he has received as a result of Defendant’s actions. Plaintiff is
advised that he is required to supplement or correct his discovery responses “in a timely

-2-

manner if [he] learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise
been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 26(e).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 26, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-