Campbell v Universal City Development Partners, Ltd.
Filing
99
ORDER denying without prejudice 96 Plaintiff's Short-Form Motion to Compel. See PDF Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price on 2/5/2024. (MKH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DYLAN CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:20-cv-846-PGB-LHP
UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERS, LTD.,
Defendant
ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following
motion filed herein:
MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S SHORT-FORM MOTION TO COMPEL
(Doc. No. 96)
FILED:
January 31, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without
prejudice.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Short-Form Motion to Compel, in which
Plaintiff seeks “to compel discovery from Defendant and redesignate all documents
pursuant to the confidentiality agreement,” in that “most documents” Defendant
has produced have been labeled “Highly Confidential” pursuant to the parties’
confidentiality agreement, and Plaintiff claims that “[n]othing in these documents
should be deemed confidential.” Doc. No. 96. Plaintiff also references a Request
for Production, a Common Interest Agreement, privilege objections, and a privilege
log. Id.
Defendant opposes, arguing, among other things, that Plaintiff failed to
confer regarding re-designation of any materials.
Doc. No. 97.
And after
Defendant’s response, Plaintiff filed – without leave of Court – a Notice containing
additional attachments, to include “proof of subsequent communication
demonstrating conferral.” Doc. No. 98.
Upon review, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 96) will be denied without
prejudice. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 1.08. Second, it is
entirely unclear to the Court what specific relief Plaintiff is seeking, whether it be
re-designation of all materials produced by Defendant to date, production and/or
re-designation of materials listed on Defendant’s privilege log (and whether that be
only some or all of the listed documents (see Doc. No. 96-4)), and/or document
production based on Plaintiff’s Request for Production (see Doc. No. 96-3). Third,
even considering Plaintiff’s belated and unauthorized attachments (Doc. No. 98-1),
those attachments do not demonstrate that the parties have conducted a substantive
conferral regarding Plaintiff’s motion and the relief sought, and given Defendant’s
-2-
allegation to the contrary, the Court will require the parties to engage in a
substantive conferral prior to Plaintiff filing a renewed motion. Local Rule 3.01(g);
Doc. No. 86, at 6 (“The term “confer” in Rule 3.01(g) requires a substantive
conversation in person or by telephone in a good faith effort to resolve the motion
without court action and does not envision an exchange of ultimatums by fax, letter
or email.”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.
Plaintiff’s Short-Form Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 96) is DENIED
without prejudice.
2.
Prior to filing any renewed motion, Plaintiff and Defendant must
engage in a good faith substantive conferral in person or by videoconference
(telephone, email, or other communication methods will not suffice)
regarding the issues to be raised in any renewed motion. A renewed motion
must address, in a Local Rule 3.01(g) certification, the date, time, and length
of the conferral, the method by which the conferral was conducted, as well as
the issues discussed, to include a detailed recitation of those issues remaining
for resolution by the Court.
3.
In any renewed motion, Plaintiff must also set forth the precise relief
he seeks from the Court.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks only re-
designation of documents pursuant to the parties’ confidentiality agreement
-3-
(Doc. No. 96-1), the Court’s Standing Order on Discovery Motions (Doc. No.
88) does not apply. If Plaintiff seeks relief outside of or in addition to redesignation of documents, the Standing Order on Discovery Motions (Doc.
No. 88) applies.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 5, 2024.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-4-
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?