Jameson Land Company, LLC v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 9/21/2016. (BEE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JAMESON LAND COMPANY, LLC,
Case No.: 8:15-cv-409-T-27AAS
MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Overrule Defendant’s Objections and Motion to
Compel Responses to Discovery (Doc. 43) (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel”) and Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 46).1
On September 21, 2016, the parties appeared before the undersigned for oral argument of the
For the reasons stated at the hearing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
(Doc. 43) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
With respect to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Number 13 (Doc. 43-4, p. 32), Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent that Defendant must provide an index identifying
produced documents containing information responsive to Plaintiff’s interrogatory, which is
reformulated by the Court as follows: “Identify all persons who have made any representations to
a government agency regarding the ownership of the Property since January 1, 2010, and identify
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel did not properly confer with Defendant’s counsel pursuant
to Local Rule 3.01(g) prior to the filing of this Motion. In the future, any motion that fails to comply with
the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g) may be summarily denied. The Court strongly encourages the
parties to speak in person or over the telephone about all issues presented before a motion is filed. See
Middle District Discovery (2015) at I.(A)(2). (“The term ‘confer’ in Rule 3.01(g) means a substantive
all documents related thereto.”
Defendant shall provide said index no later than Friday,
September 30, 2016.2
In all other respects, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 43) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 21st day of September, 2016.
Plaintiff’s counsel generally represented at the hearing that there may be deposition testimony
from this case that is responsive to this request; however, Defendant is not required to locate and index the
deposition testimony as the testimony is equally available to Plaintiff and Defendant.
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?