United Surgical Assistants, LLC v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Filing 129

ORDER denying without prejudice 120 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 12/10/2015. (JR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED SURGICAL ASSISTANTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-211-T-30JSS

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
and AETNA HEALTH, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 120) and
Defendant’s Response in Opposition. (Dkt. 127). The Court held a hearing on this matter on
December 10, 2015. In its motion, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant for failing to comply
with the Court’s prior discovery order, which directed Defendant to supplement its discovery
production in response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents. (Dkt. 107.)
For the reasons stated at the hearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is denied.
The court has broad discretion to impose sanctions for failure to comply with an order to
provide or permit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). As such, the court has at its disposal a wide
array of possible sanctions it can issue “to prevent unfair prejudice to the litigants and insure the
integrity of the discovery process.” Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th
Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). However, sanctions are not generally warranted where a
party has shown that it made all reasonable efforts to comply with the court’s order. BankAtlantic
v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045, 1050 (11th Cir. 1994).

Upon consideration of the applicable law, the written pleadings, and the argument of the
parties at the hearing, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted in this case, as there is no
clear indication that the Court’s prior discovery order was disobeyed. Additionally, in light of
Plaintiff’s representation at the hearing that additional time is needed to complete discovery, the
Court will allow Plaintiff until December 30, 2015, to conduct the deposition of the corporate
representative or designated individual of McKesson Health Solutions. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 120) is DENIED without prejudice.
2. Additional discovery is permitted to the extent that Plaintiff may conduct the deposition
of the corporate representative or designated individual of McKesson Health Solutions
by December 30, 2015.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 10, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record