Kaniadakis v. Salesforce.com, Inc. et al

Filing 159

ORDER denying without prejudice 149 Motion to Compel Discovery; denying as moot 155 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge William F. Jung on 2/5/2019. (CCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
STEVEN J. KANIADAKIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:17-cv-1346-T-02JSS

SALESFORCE.COM, INC.,
Defendant.
/

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt.
149); Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt.
153); Plaintiff’s Supplemental Pages, Referenced Exh[i]bits, to Motion to Compel
Defendant (Dkt. 158); and Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 155). Upon
consideration of the parties’ submissions, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied
without prejudice, and his motion for a hearing is denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied without prejudice because it does not
comply with Local Rule 3.04(a). That rule provides:
A motion to compel discovery pursuant to . . . Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P.,
shall include quotation in full of each interrogatory . . . or request for
production to which the motion is addressed; each of which shall be
followed immediately by quotation in full of the objection and

grounds therefor as stated by the opposing party; or the answer or
response which is asserted to be insufficient, immediately followed
by a statement of the reason the motion should be granted.
Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
available at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules. Plaintiff’s motion does
not comply with these requirements. As a result, the Court cannot determine
which discovery requests are at issue in the motion to compel and what, precisely,
Plaintiff contends is deficient about Defendant’s responses to each of the requests
at issue.
If Plaintiff files a renewed motion, that motion must comply with Local
Rule 3.04(a). Specifically, for each discovery response that is addressed in any
renewed motion to compel, Plaintiff must: (1) quote in full the interrogatory or
request for production; (2) quote in full the answer or response as stated by
Defendant immediately after the quoted interrogatory or request; and (3) explain
why the motion to compel should be granted as to that interrogatory or request
immediately after the quoted answer or response. For requirements (1) and (2), it
is not sufficient for Plaintiff to refer to attached copies of his discovery requests
and Defendant’s responses. Instead, the discovery requests and responses must be
quoted in the motion itself.

-2-

A renewed motion must also be supported by a renewed Local Rule 3.01(g)
conference and certification. The parties are warned that the rule requires that the
parties confer “in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion.”
Exchanges of ultimatums generally do not satisfy the good faith requirement.
Plaintiff is also advised that the 25-page limit of Local Rule 3.01(a) applies
only to the text of the motion and memorandum of law. Thus, if Plaintiff wishes
to re-file Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 (currently in the docket as Dkt. 158-1, 158-2, and
158-3) with a renewed motion, he may do so without requesting permission to file
excess pages.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 149) is
denied without prejudice. Because his motion to compel has been denied, his
Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 155) is denied as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 5, 2019.

s/William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record
Plaintiff, pro se

-3-