National Sourcing, Inc. et al v. Bracciale et al

Filing 136

ORDER denying 101 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 5/10/2018. (LBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NATIONAL SOURCING, INC. and
PEDRO L. VALDEZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-1950-T-36JSS

STEPHEN R. BRACCIALE, ANGELUS
TAM, TEK SOURCE USA, INC., SAINT
ANTON CAPITAL, LLC, GREENBERG
TRAURIG, P.A., and WILLIAM L.
DUNKER, ESQ.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel (“Motion”) (Dkt.
101), and the responses by Defendants Stephen Bracciale and Saint Anton Capital (Dkts. 106, 108)
and Angelus Tam and Tek Source USA, Inc. (Dkt. 111). Because the request for production at
issue is overly broad, as set forth below, the Motion is denied.
In the Motion, Plaintiffs contend that no defendant has served responses or produced
documents responsive to a single request for production served on January 5, 2018, seeking all
emails sent or received by any email account ending in “nationalsourcing.com” from June 1, 2010
to the present (“Request for Production”). (Dkt. 101.) In response, Defendants do not explain
their failure to serve responses but instead point the Court to their argument that discovery should
be stayed until the Court rules on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Dkts. 108, 106, 111 at 2, n.1.)
Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Request for Production was February 5, 2018. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A), 6(a)(1)(C). “[I]f a party fails to respond in writing within thirty days of
being served with a request for production of documents, it is appropriate for the court to find that

the party’s objections are waived, unless the court finds good cause and excuses that failure.”
Bailey v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, 286 F.R.D. 625, 627 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (quotations
omitted); M.D. Fla. Discovery (2015) § III(A)(6) (“Absent compelling circumstances, failure to
assert an objection to a request for production within the time allowed for responding constitutes
a waiver and will preclude a party from asserting the objection in response to a motion to
compel.”).

Rather than showing good cause or compelling circumstances to explain not

responding to the Request for Production, Defendants contend that they should not be required to
engage in discovery until the Court rules on their motions to dismiss, despite having not moved to
stay discovery until March 29, 2018, almost two months after their responses to the Request for
Production were due. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have waived any objections
to the Request for Production. Carvalho v. Hospman, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-362-FTM-99CM, 2018
WL 905746, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2018); Bailey, 286 F.R.D. at 628; Morock v. Chautauqua
Airlines, Inc., No. 807CV210T17MAP, 2007 WL 4247767, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2007).
Nonetheless, the Court must still consider whether the Request for Production is within the
scope of discovery set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1): “relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Siddiq v. Saudi Arabian Airlines
Corp., No. 6:11-CV-69-ORL-19GJK, 2011 WL 6936485, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2011) (“Even
if a party has waived its objections . . . the court may still deny a motion to compel when the
discovery request exceeds the bounds of fair discovery.”). Requesting “all emails” sent from or
received by an email ending in “nationalsourcing.com” is “patently overbroad,” Steel v. NCC
Recovery, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-559-T-33EAJ, 2013 WL 12170585, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013),
as Plaintiffs made no attempt to tailor this request to the claims and defenses in this case. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1); M.D. Fla. Discovery (2015) § III(A)(1) (stating that request for documents should

-2-

be “reasonably particularized” and that requests for “each and every document supporting your
claim” or “the documents you believe support Count I” are “objectionably broad in most cases”);
cf. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1370 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Filtering out overly
burdensome discovery requests . . . saves significant costs to the parties, the court, and other
litigants . . . [and] will result in more equitable and more efficient discovery management and will
discourage further abuse.”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ First Motion to Compel
(Dkt. 101) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 10, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-3-