Lang v. Orlando Health, Inc.

Filing 50

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER re 45 Defendant, Orlando Health, Inc.'s, Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Insufficient Discovery Responses. It is ORDERED that on or before January 14, 2025, Defendant shall file a supplemental brief in support of the motion, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, as set forth herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price on 1/7/2025. (MKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

ROBERT LANG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:23-cv-912-CEM-LHP

ORLANDO HEALTH, INC.,
Defendant

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant, Orlando Health, Inc.’s, Motion to Compel
Plaintiff’s Insufficient Discovery Responses, filed on December 27, 2024. Doc. No.
45.

Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so has

expired. Doc. No. 20 ¶ 5; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), (a)(1)(C). Accordingly, the
Court deems the motion to be unopposed.

Doc. No. 20 ¶ 5.

Despite the

unopposed nature of the motion, the Court finds supplemental briefing from
Defendant appropriate. See id. ¶ 6.
Specifically, the motion is premised on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply
with a Court Order granting in part Defendant’s prior motion to compel, with such
Order issuing on July 29, 2024. Doc. No. 41; see also Doc. No. 39. According to

Defendant, in compliance with that Order, Plaintiff served responses to Requests
for Production on August 14, 2024, and served verified answers to Interrogatories
on August 22, 2024.

Doc. No. 45, at 1–2; Doc. Nos. 45-1, 45-2.

Although

Defendant now argues that Plaintiff served improper objections or responses, the
Court questions whether Defendant’s motion is timely, given that Defendant (1)
waited over four (4) months after service of the discovery responses to file the
motion to compel, (2) filed the motion only seven (7) days before discovery closed
in this case (January 3, 2025, see Doc. No. 19), and (3) waited until December 13, 2024
to attempt to confer with Plaintiff regarding this issue, see Doc. No. 45, at 4. See,
e.g., Tripro Consulting, LLC v. CACI, Inc. - Fed., No. 6:23-cv-568-JSS-DCI, 2024 WL
3877434, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2024) (citation omitted) (stating that “motions to
compel filed at the close of discovery are disfavored and may, as here, evince a lack
of diligence in pursuing discovery that results in the waiver of the request for
relief,” and that “[w]hile there is no local or federal rule setting a precise deadline
for the filing of a motion to compel, it is clear that any such motion must be filed
within a ‘reasonable time’ period.”); Coleman v. Starbucks, No. 6:14-cv-527-Orl22TBS, 2015 WL 2449585, at *8 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2015) (denying motion to compel,
in part, because the moving party waited until the eve of the discovery deadline to
file a motion to compel production of information that was requested months earlier
but never produced); Malibu Media, LLC v. Weaver, No. 8:14-cv-1580-T-33TBM, 2016

-2-

WL 473133, at *1–2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2016) (overruling objections to an order
denying two motions to compel brought one day before the discovery deadline
expired because the moving party failed to provide a reason or good cause for the
delay in bringing the motions).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that on or before January 14, 2025, Defendant
shall file a supplemental brief in support of the motion, not to exceed five (5) pages
in length, establishing with citation to evidence and legal authority that the motion
to compel is timely. Alternatively, on or before this same deadline, Defendant may
file a notice withdrawing the motion.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 7, 2025.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-