Dobruck v. Borders et al

Filing 85

ORDER granting 80 Defendant's Motion to Compel. Plaintiff shall serve her amended discovery responses and produce all documents responsive to Defendant's discovery requests within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 1/31/2017. (SMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FAITH BAZEMORE DOBRUCK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-1869-T-33JSS

GARY S. BORDERS, GRADY JUDD,
CITY OF AUBURNDALE, TOWN OF
LADY LAKE, EDWARD FAZEKAS,
DONALD C. HEATH, JR. , MICHAEL
MUSIC, RITA RANIZE and
CHRISTOPHER DEAN WALL,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT HEATH’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Donald C. Heath, Jr.’s Motion to Compel
Discovery (“Motion to Compel”). (Dkt. 80.)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Faith Bazemore Dobruck filed a Complaint against Defendants on June 27, 2016,
under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et seq. (Dkt. 1.) On December 6,
2016, Defendant Donald C. Heath, Jr. filed his Motion to Compel seeking better responses to
Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production. (Dkt. 80.) Plaintiff’s
response to the Motion to Compel was due December 20, 2016. When Plaintiff did not file a
response by that date, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response on or before January 13, 2017
and advised Plaintiff that failure to respond would result in the Court considering the Motion to
Compel unopposed. (Dkt. 83.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a response to the Motion to
Compel.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS
A party is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense. 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
Upon review of Plaintiff’s discovery responses in question, the Court finds Plaintiff’s
responses plainly insufficient.

Specifically, Plaintiff’s answers to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories, Interrogatories Number 2, 7, 8, 10, and 12, as well as Plaintiff’s responses to
Defendant’s First Request for Production, Requests Number 1 through 15, are incomplete.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery responses must be treated as a failure to respond to Defendant’s
requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Further, despite the Court’s Order directing Plaintiff to respond
to the Motion to Compel by January 13, 2017, Plaintiff has failed to file a response. Consequently,
the Court presumes Plaintiff has no objection to Defendant’s Motion to Compel. See M.D. Fla.
Local R. 3.01(b). Accordingly, it is

-2-

ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 80) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff shall serve her amended discovery responses and produce all documents
responsive to Defendant’s discovery requests in accordance with this Order within
fourteen (14) days of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 31, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-3-