Badger Auctioneers, Inc. v. Ali et al

Filing 95

ORDER granting 90 Motion to Compel responses to requests for production. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 9/15/2017. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
BADGER AUCTIONEERS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-572-Orl-31TBS

ZAID ALI and MY FRESH MARKET
CORP.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court, without oral argument, on Defendants’ Motion
to Compel Production of Documents and Overrule Objections (Doc. 90). Plaintiff has not
filed a response to the motion and the time within to do so has expired. When a party fails
to respond, that is an indication that the motion is unopposed. Foster v. The Coca-Cola
Co., No. 6:14-cv-2102-Orl-40TBS, 2015 WL 3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015);
Jones v. Bank of Am., N.A., 564 Fed. Appx. 432, 434 (11th Cir. 2014) 1 (citing Kramer v.
Gwinnett Cty., Ga., 306 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2004)); Daisy, Inc. v. Polio
Operations, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-564-FtM-38CM, 2015 WL 2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14,
2015) (when defendant did not respond court could consider motion to compel
unopposed); Brown v. Platinum Wrench Auto Repair, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-2168-T-33TGW,
2012 WL 333808, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2012) (after party failed to respond, court
treated motion for summary judgment as unopposed). The Court construes Defendants’
motion as unopposed.
1 “Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive
authority.” CTA11 Rule 36-2.

Plaintiff conducted an auction at which it says, Defendant Zaid Ali was a registered
bidder (Doc. 66, ¶¶ 10-11). According to Plaintiff, Ali was the high bidder for certain
merchandise that was auctioned off (Id., ¶ 23). Plaintiff complains that Ali failed to pay for
the merchandise he purchased (Id.). Defendant My Fresh Market Corp. gave Plaintiff a
check for a portion of the purchase price but, according to Plaintiff, the check was
dishonored (Id., ¶¶ 45-54). My Fresh Market alleges that it had a valid auction contract
with Plaintiff which Plaintiff breached (Doc. 75, ¶¶ 29-34). My Fresh Market also alleges
that it was defrauded by Plaintiff’s chief executive officer, Theodore W. Fleisner (Doc. 76).
These appear to be the only business transactions between the parties (Doc. 90 at 6).
Defendants propounded the following requests for production and received
the following responses from Plaintiff:
18. Copies of emails between Fleisner and Ali concerning the
March 2015 auction.
RESPONSE: Objection; seeks information not relevant to
defendants’ claims or defenses.
19. Copies of emails between Fleisner and My Fresh Market
concerning the March 2015 auction.
RESPONSE: Objection; seeks information not relevant to
defendants’ claims or defenses.
20. Copies of emails between any of your employees since
this lawsuit began, concerning or relating to My Fresh Market.
RESPONSE: Objection; it would be overly broad and unduly
burdensome and not likely to lead to evidence relevant to
defendants’ claims or defenses to search through all
employees’ emails for emails referring to My Fresh Market.
21. Copies of emails between any of your employees since
this lawsuit began, concerning or relating to Ali.
RESPONSE: Objection; it would be overly broad and unduly
burdensome and not likely to lead to evidence relevant to

-2-

defendants’ claims or defenses to search through all
employees’ emails for emails referring to Mr. Ali.
(Doc. 90 at 3-4).
Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to properly comply with its discovery
obligations in that Plaintiff asserted inappropriate objections to these requests (Id., at 5).
Defendants ask the Court to overrule the objections and compel production of the
requested information (Id.). Since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended
effective December 1, 2015, Rule 34 has required a party objecting to requests for
production to: (1) “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including
the reasons;” (2) “state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis
of that objection;” and (3) “[a]n objection to part of a request must specify the part and
permit inspection of the rest.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(B-(C). Plaintiff’s objections do not
satisfy the requirements of the rule and are therefore, overruled.
Plaintiff objects to some of Defendants’ discovery on the basis of relevancy. In
discovery, “requiring relevance to a claim or defense ‘signals to the court that it has the
authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings, and
signals to the parties that they have no entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or
defenses that are not already identified in the pleadings.’” Builders Flooring Connection,
LLC v. Brown Chambless Architects, No. 2:11CV373-MHT, 2014 WL 1765102, at *1
(M.D. Ala. May 1, 2014) (quoting GAP Report of Advisory Committee to 2000
amendments to Rule 26). According to its notes, “[the Advisory] Committee intends that
the parties and the court focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action.’”
Liese v. Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334, 355 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting the

-3-

GAP Report). Defendant’s objections based on relevancy are not explained with
specificity and are therefore, overruled.
“Objections which state that a discovery request is ‘vague, overly broad, or unduly
burdensome’ are, by themselves, meaningless, and are deemed without merit ….” Siddiq
v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., No. 6:11–cv–69–Orl–19GJK, 2011 WL 6936485, at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Dec. 7, 2011) (quoting Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695 (S.D.
Fla. 2007)). Courts routinely reject boilerplate objections. See Gonzalez v. ETourand
Travel, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-827-Orl-36TBS, 2014 WL 1250034, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26,
2014); Chambers v. Sygma Network, Inc., No. 6:12–cv–1802–Orl–37TBS, 2013 WL
1775046, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr.25, 2013); Mendez v. Land Inv’r, Corp., No, 2:12–cv–158–
FtM–29S PC, 2012 WL 6012906, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec.3, 2012); Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus
Med., LLC, No. 2:11–cv–694–FtM–29SPC, 2012 WL 5382050, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov.1,
2012). Because they are meaningless boilerplate, Plaintiff’s remaining objections are
overruled.
When a motion to compel is granted:
[T]he 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. But the court must not 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.

-4-

FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5). None of the exceptions apply. Accordingly, Defendants shall
recover their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred to prosecute this motion to
compel.
Now, the motion to compel (Doc. 90) is GRANTED. All of Plaintiff’s objections to
requests for production numbered 18-21 are OVERRULED. Within seven days from the
rendition of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendants, all information in Plaintiff’s
possession or under its control that is responsive to Defendants’ requests for production
numbered 18-21. In addition, Defendants are AWARDED their reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs for the motion to compel. The parties shall agree on the amount or, if they are
unable to agree, Defendants shall have 14 days from the rendition of this Order to file
their motion for fees and costs and Plaintiff will be allowed 14 days to respond.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 15, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-5-