Central Buick, GMC, Inc. et al v. General Motors LLC

Filing 28

ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 11/28/2016. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CENTRAL BUICK, GMC, INC., a Florida
corporation, and CENTRAL BUICK, GMC,
INC., in the name of the FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY
AND MOTOR VEHICLES and STATE OF
FLORIDA for the use and benefit of
CENTRAL BUICK, GMC, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 8:15-cv-2393-T-27AAS

GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant General Motors LLC’s Motion to Compel Production of
Documents from Plaintiff Central Buick, GMC, Inc. (Doc. 17).
On September 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action, which alleges that Defendant breached
the Florida Dealer Protection Act when it terminated the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement
entered between the parties. (Doc. 2). The complaint sought injunctive relief, damages, and
attorney’s fees and costs. (Doc. 2).
Defendant propounded its first Requests for Production to Plaintiff on February 2, 2016.
(Doc. 17, Ex. A). Plaintiff served its responses on March 17, 2016, followed by two sets of
supplemental responses. (Doc. 17, Exs. B, C, D). On September 21, 2016, Defendant filed the
instant Motion to Compel, seeking to compel production of documents in response to the following
requests:
1

Request 47. Any and all weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual sales records,
balance sheets, ledgers, computer discs or printouts of computer information
reflecting the sales, income, expenses, losses and/or profits of Central from 2012 to
the present.
Request 48. All annual financial statements of Central prepared by outside
accountants or auditors from 2012 through 2015.
Request 52. Copies of all bank account statements and ledgers of Central from 2012
to the present.
(Doc. 17). Notably, Defendant emphasizes in its Motion to Compel that the documents sought by
these three requests are “materially relevant to [Plaintiff’s] claims for damages and [Defendant’s]
defenses to them.” (Id. at p. 5 & 6)
On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to the Motion to Compel on the grounds that Plaintiff intended to file an Amended
Complaint withdrawing its claim for damages and mooting the Motion to Compel. (Doc. 20). On
November 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in which Plaintiff seeks only injunctive
relief, not damages (Doc. 27).1
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to
the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance
of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible
in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Here, as Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which lacks a claim for

On October 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel, opposing the Motion and again stating that it intended to file an Amended Complaint mooting the
issue. (Doc. 24).
2
1

damages, the financial documents requested are no longer relevant.
Accordingly and upon consideration, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Production of Documents (Doc. 17) is DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 28th day of November, 2016.

3