Thompson v. Healthy Home Environmental, LLC et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Compel Responses to Collection Interrogatories and Collection Request for Production. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 12/18/2017. (SMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KEITH A. THOMPSON, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:15-cv-2905-T-27JSS

HEALTHY HOME ENVIRONMENTAL,
LLC and MICHAEL W. HUDSON,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to
Collection Interrogatories and Collection Request for Production (“Motion”). (Dkt. 33.) Upon
consideration and for the reasons explained below, the Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
On August 23, 2016, judgment was entered against Defendants in the amount of $5,891.50.
(Dkt. 22.) On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff served Collection Interrogatories and Collection Requests
for Production on Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. (Dkt. 33-1.) On
November 17, 2017, after Defendants failed to respond to the discovery requests, Plaintiff filed
his Motion. (Dkt. 33.) Defendants’ response to the Motion was due December 1, 2017. When
Defendants did not file a response by that date, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response on
or before December 14, 2017 and advised Defendants that failure to respond would result in the
Court considering the Motion unopposed. (Dkt. 34.) To date, Defendants have failed to file a
response to the Motion.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS
A party is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The term “relevant” in Rule 26 should encompass “any matter that bears
on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in
the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). A party may move for
an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. An evasive or incomplete
disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The court has broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters and in
deciding to compel. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th
Cir. 2011); Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002).
ANALYSIS
Despite the Court’s Order directing Defendants to respond to the Motion by December 14,
2017, Defendants have failed to file a response. Consequently, the Court presumes Defendants
have no objection to Plaintiff’s Motion. See M.D. Fla. Local R. 3.01(b). Further, all litigants are
“subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,”
regardless of whether the litigant is represented by an attorney. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). The Eleventh Circuit requires pro se litigants to “conform to procedural
rules.” Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Collection Interrogatories and Collection
Request for Production (Dkt. 33) is GRANTED.

-2-

2. Defendants shall serve their discovery responses and produce all documents responsive
to Plaintiff’s discovery requests in accordance with this Order within fourteen (14) days
of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 18, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-3-