Nazer v. Saint Petersburg Police Department et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying without prejudice 78 Motion to Compel a Discovery Response Against Five Bucks Drinkery; denying without prejudice 79 Motion to Compel a Discovery Response Against City of Saint Petersburg. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 10/12/2017. (SMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
IZZAT NAZER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-2259-T-36JSS

FIVE BUCKS DRINKERY LLC and CITY
OF SAINT PETERSBURG,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Discovery Response
Against Five Bucks Drinkery (Dkt. 78) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Discovery Response
Against City of Saint Petersburg (Dkt. 79) (collectively, “Motions”). Upon review of the Motions,
it appears that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Middle
District of Florida Local Rules. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 37, which states
that a motion to compel “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred
or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort
to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Plaintiff also failed to comply with
Local Rules 3.01(a), 3.01(g), and 3.04(a).1 All litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules

1

The Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/LocalRules.htm, or in the Clerk’s Office. The Court’s website also
includes additional information about proceeding without a lawyer, available at
http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm. Moreover, the Tampa Bay Chapter of the
Federal Bar Association operates a Legal Information Program on Tuesdays from 11:00 a.m. to
12:30 p.m. on the second floor (next to the Clerk’s Office) of the Sam M. Gibbons United States
Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave, Tampa, FL 33602. Through that program, pro se litigants
may consult with a lawyer on a limited basis for free. More information about the program is
available on the Court’s website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/docs/pro-seLegal_Assist.htm.

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). Further,
the Eleventh Circuit requires pro se litigants to “conform to procedural rules.” Loren v. Sasser,
309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the Motions are DENIED without prejudice.
It is further ORDERED that the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding discovery
disputes in accordance with Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(g) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37 within fourteen days of the date of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 12, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-2-