Kaleta, et al. v. Beach to Bay Construction, LLC et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to Compel Discovery. The deadline for expert disclosures is extended to May 19, 2017. Rebuttal expert disclosures are due May 31, 2017. The discovery cut-off is extended to June 9, 2017. See order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 5/2/2017. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

SHAWN THOMAS KALETA, an individual,
and BEACH TO BAY CONSTRUCTION,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 8:16-cv-347-T-27AAS

CITY OF ANNA MARIA,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Compel Discovery
(Doc. 42), and Defendant’s response thereto (Doc. 44).
Plaintiffs request an order compelling Defendant to produce all documents responsive to
Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, granting additional time to submit their expert
report, and awarding Plaintiffs their fees and costs for bringing the motion. (Doc. 42). In response,
Defendant asserts that it has served Plaintiffs with a supplemental response, consisting of over
4,000 pages of documents. (Doc. 44). In addition, Defendant states that it will continue to work
to assemble additional responsive documents, if any exist, and produce those documents “in the
near future.” (Id. at p. 3).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 42) is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part.

1

(2)

Defendant shall provide documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production

of Documents, if any exist, no later than May 9, 2017. If no responsive documents exist,
Defendant must supplement its response accordingly.
(3)

The deadline for expert disclosures is extended to May 19, 2017. Rebuttal expert

disclosures are due May 31, 2017. The discovery cut-off is extended to June 9, 2017. All other
case deadlines and dates (see Doc. No. 37) shall remain in effect.
(4)

Upon review of the motion and response, the Court concludes that each party shall

be responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). However, the Court reminds the parties that “[d]iscovery in this district
should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation and civility.” Middle District Discovery (2015) at
p. 3. Further, “[t]he Court expects attorneys to reach agreements regarding the production of
documents based upon considerations of reasonableness, convenience and common sense.” Id. at
p. 14. A party responding to a discovery request is under an obligation to make a diligent effort to
respond to that request within the time set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 2nd day of May, 2017.

2