Viable Resources, Inc. v. Belyea
Filing
57
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Defendant's Motion to Compel the Plaintiff to (1) Provide Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, (2) Produce Documents, (3) Provide Answer to Interrogatories, and (4) for the Award for Reasonable Attorney's Fees; granting 50 Defendant's Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Request for Admissions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 10/30/2017. (SMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
VIABLE RESOURCES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 8:16-cv-2669-T-30JSS
KAREN BELYEA,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Plaintiff to (1)
Provide Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, (2) Produce Documents, (3) Provide Answer to
Interrogatories, and (4) for the Award for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees (“Motion to Compel”) (Dkt.
49) and Defendant’s Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections
to Request for Admissions (“Motion to Determine Sufficiency”) (Dkt. 50). Upon consideration
and for the reasons explained below, the Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part,
and the Motion to Determine Sufficiency is granted.
BACKGROUND
On September 9, 2016, Viable Resources, Inc. (“VR”) filed a Verified Complaint for
Injunctive Relief and Damages against Defendant Karen Belyea, alleging breach of contract,
violation of the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, tortious interference with business relations,
and unjust enrichment in connection with Ms. Belyea’s resignation from VR and subsequent
employment with VR’s customer. (Dkt. 2.) On September 29, 2017, Defendant filed her Motion
to Compel and Motion to Determine Sufficiency. (Dkts. 49, 50.) Plaintiff’s responses to the
motions were due October 13, 2017. When Plaintiff did not file responses by that date, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to file responses on or before October 23, 2017, and advised Plaintiff that failure
to respond would result in the Court considering the motions unopposed. (Dkt. 52.) To date,
Plaintiff has failed to file responses to the motions.
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 discovery. 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
A.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel
In her Motion to Compel, Defendant first seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide its
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. In the parties’ Case Management
Report, the parties agreed to exchange their initial disclosures by May 15, 2017. (Dkt. 46.)
Plaintiff did not serve its initial disclosures on the deadline, and, despite Defendant’s counsel’s
request for the initial disclosures, Plaintiff has not complied.
(Dkt. 49 at 4.)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted as to Plaintiff’s initial disclosures.
-2-
Therefore,
Defendant next addresses her May 1, 2017 Request for Production to Plaintiff. (Dkt. 49 at
4.) Plaintiff served its response on May 31, 2017, including objections to request numbers 1, 4,
9–12, 14–16, 18, 19, 22, 38, 40–47, and 51. (Dkt. 49 at 4.) Plaintiff did not object to request
numbers 2, 3, 5–8, 13, 17, 20, 21, 23–37, 39, 48–50, 52, and 53. (Dkt. 49 at 4.) Further, Plaintiff
has not produced any documents in response to the Requests for Production. (Dkt. 49 at 4.)
Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to produce all responsive documents. As
Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Compel, the Court presumes Plaintiff has no
objection to Defendant’s Motion to Compel. See M.D. Fla. Local R. 3.01(b). Thus, Defendant’s
Motion to Compel is granted as to the requests Plaintiff did not object to, which are request
numbers 2, 3, 5–8, 13, 17, 20, 21, 23–37, 39, 48–50, 52, and 53.
With regard to the remaining requests, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted as to
request numbers 15, 19, 22, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47. However, Defendant’s Motion to Compel
is denied as to request numbers 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 41, 42, and 51 because the requests are overly
broad and are not proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted in part as to request numbers 4, 12, 18, and 40.
Defendant’s request number 4 seeks “[a]ny and all employee handbooks, employee manuals, and
employment policies and procedures put into effect after the Defendant’s employment by the
Plaintiff ended.” (Dkt. 49 at 5.) Defendant states that she is willing to limit the request to “any
and all provisions regarding confidentiality and restrictive covenants of any sort contained in any
and all employee handbooks, employee manuals, employment policies and procedures put into
effect after the Defendant’s employment by the Plaintiff ended.” (Dkt. 49 at 5.) Therefore,
Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted in part as to request number 4, as modified and limited
above.
-3-
Defendant’s request number 12 seeks “[a]ny and all agreements, contracts, offer letters or
other documents purporting to create contractual obligations of any sort between the Plaintiff and
its employees, independent contractors and consultants.” (Dkt. 49 at 7.) As framed, the request is
overly broad and unduly burdensome under Rule 26(b)(1). However, the requested documents
between Plaintiff and Defendant are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The Court
therefore grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel as to request number 12 in part and limits the
request to “any and all agreements, contracts, offer letters, or other documents purporting to create
contractual obligations of any sort” between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
Defendant’s request number 18 seeks “[a]ny and all documents, communications and
correspondence related to any alleged information or trade secret information or other proprietary
information to which the Plaintiff claims the Defendant had access during her employment
including the information referenced in paragraph 27 of the Complaint.” (Dkt. 49 at 10.)
Defendant states in her Motion to Compel that she is willing to limit request 18 to “documents
sufficient to show any and all alleged confidential information or trade secret information or other
proprietary information which the Plaintiff claims the Defendant has misappropriated as part of
this action.” (Dkt. 49 at 10.) The Court finds this discovery relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted in part as to request number 18, as modified
and limited above.
Defendant’s request number 40 states “[l]ist and provide copies of any and all trade secret
information, confidential information or other proprietary information of the Plaintiff allegedly
taken by or used by the Defendant following the end of her employment by the Plaintiff.” (Dkt.
49 at 12.) While communicating with Plaintiff in an attempt to resolve Plaintiff’s objection to
providing a “list,” Defendant stated that it would withdraw the request for a list. (Dkt. 49 at 12.)
-4-
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted in part as to request number 40 with the
limitation that Plaintiff is only required to provide copies, not a list, of the requested documents.
Defendant also seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. (Dkt. 49 at 14.) Defendant served Plaintiff with fourteen
interrogatories on May 1, 2017. (Dkt. 49 at 14.) Plaintiff served objections to interrogatory
numbers 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. (Dkt. 49 at 14.) However, Plaintiff has neither objected to
interrogatory numbers 1, 2, and 4–8, nor provided substantive responses. (Dkt. 49 at 14.)
Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted as to interrogatory numbers 1, 2, and 4–8 as Plaintiff
failed to respond to the interrogatories and failed to respond to the Motion to Compel. (Dkt. 49 at
14.)
Upon review of Defendant’s interrogatory numbers 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, the Court
grants Defendant’s Motion to Compel responses to interrogatories 3, 9, 13, and 14 as the
interrogatories seek information that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted in part as to interrogatory number 12.
Specifically, the Motion to Compel is granted as to subsections (a), (d), and (i) and denied as to
subsections (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of interrogatory number 12. Defendant’s Motion to
Compel is denied as to interrogatories 10 and 11 as the requests seek information that is not
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
B.
Defendant’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency
In the Motion to Determine Sufficiency, Defendant moves the Court to compel responses
to Defendant’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiff. (Dkt. 50.) On May 3, 2017,
Defendant served her requests for admission to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff served her responses on June
2, 2017. (Dkt. 50 at 1.) Defendant now contends that Plaintiff’s responses to requests number 5,
-5-
7–11, 13, 14, 24, 29–31, and 34 are insufficient. (Dkt. 50 at 4.) Specifically, Defendant argues
Plaintiff’s responses are insufficient because Plaintiff either responded that it was “unable to admit
or deny” the requests or that it “did not have sufficient information to admit or deny” the requests.
(Dkt. 50 at 5.) Defendant now seeks an order deeming the requests in Defendant’s First Set of
Requests for Admission admitted or, in the alternative, requiring Plaintiff to admit or deny each of
the requests at issue. (Dkt. 50 at 4.) Because Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion to
Determine Sufficiency, the Court presumes Plaintiff has no objection to Defendant’s Motion. See
M.D. Fla. Local R. 3.01(b).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, requests for admission may be served on a party
to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of
discovery relating to: (1) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (2) the
genuineness of any described documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). A party may not, however,
request an admission of a legal conclusion. In re Tobkin, 578 F. App’x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2014).
Rather, a request for admission may only request an admission of “‘facts, the application of law to
fact, or opinions about either.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)). Rule 36 further addresses
the requirements in answering requests for admission:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail
why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly
respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party
qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part
admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of
knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party
states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can
readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Rule 36(a)(6) also provides that the “requesting party may move to
determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). On finding that an
-6-
answer does not comply with Rule 36, “the court may order either that the matter is admitted or
that an amended answer be served.” Id.
Upon review of the subject requests and Plaintiff’s responses, the Court finds Plaintiff’s
responses to request numbers 5, 7–11, 13, 14, 29–31, and 34 insufficient. In its responses to
request numbers 5, 7–11, 13, 14, 31, and 34, Plaintiff objects and states that it is “unable to admit
or deny” the requests. (Dkt. 50 at 1–4.) Plaintiff’s objections do not comply with the Rule 36
requirement to “state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny” the
request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Plaintiff’s stated reason for being unable to admit or deny most
of the requests is that “Defendant has testified that she has no specific recollection of executing”
the employment agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Dkt. 50 at 2–4.) However, this
reasoning does not prevent the Plaintiff from answering the requests. For example, request number
10 asks Plaintiff to admit or deny that Defendant received the same compensation before and after
she executed the employment agreement. (Dkt. 50 at 2.) It is unclear how Defendant’s testimony
regarding her recollection of executing the employment agreement would affect Plaintiff’s
knowledge of its compensation to Defendant.
Further, Plaintiff’s responses to request numbers 24, 29, and 30 are also insufficient.
Plaintiff denied the requests stating that it “does not have sufficient information to admit or deny
this request.” (Dkt. 50 at 3–4.) However, this does not comply with the requirement that a party
“may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the
party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily
obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” Rather, Plaintiff appears to be both denying
the requests and stating that it lacks knowledge to respond to the requests.
-7-
Accordingly,
Defendant’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency is granted, and Plaintiff shall amend its responses
to comply with Rule 36 and admit or deny each of the requests at issue.
ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Plaintiff to (1) Provide Rule 26 Initial Disclosures,
(2) Produce Documents, (3) Provide Answer to Interrogatories, and (4) for the Award
for Reasonable Attorney’s Fees (Dkt. 49) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel is denied with respect to the request for fees and costs
incurred in connection with the Motion.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Responses and
Objections to Request for Admissions (Dkt. 50) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff shall serve its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures within fourteen (14) days of this
Order.
4. Plaintiff shall serve its 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 October 30, 2017.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
-8-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?