Smith v. University Community Hospital, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER denying without prejudice 21 motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 8/17/2018. (DMP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BEN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:18-cv-270-T-AAS

UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a FLORIDA
HOSPITAL CARROLLWOOD,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
Ben Smith moves to compel more complete answers to discovery from
University Community Hospital. (Doc. 21). However, Mr. Smith’s motion fails to
comply with the Local Rules in two ways.
First, Local Rule 3.01(g) requires a party submitting a non-dispositive motion
to include a statement in the motion that (1) certifies that moving counsel conferred
with opposing counsel about the motion and (2) states whether counsel agree on the
resolution of the motion. Confer means a substantive discussion. Middle District
Discovery (2015) at I(A)(2).

Sending one letter outlining alleged deficiencies in

discovery responses is insufficient to meet the conferral requirement under Local
Rule 3.01(g). Greenwood v. Point Meadows Place Condo. Ass’n, Inc., No. 3:10-CV1183-J-34TEM, 2011 WL 5358682, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2011).
Mr. Smith failed to properly satisfy Local Rule 3.01(g). Mr. Smith stated he
mailed one letter to opposing counsel that outlined alleged deficiencies in University
Community Hospital’s discovery responses. (Doc. 21, p. 2). Because sending one
1

letter is insufficient to meet the referral requirement under the Local Rules , Mr.
Smith has not complied with Local Rule 3.01(g).
Second, Local Rule 3.04(a) states the following:
A motion to compel discovery pursuant to . . . Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P, shall
include quotation in full of each interrogatory, question on deposition,
request for admission, 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
. . . immediately followed by a statement of the reason the motion should
be granted.
Although he quoted Local Rule 3.04(a), Mr. Smith failed to comply with the
rule. (Doc. 21). Instead, Mr. Smith attached copies of the discovery requests he sent
to University Community Hospital. (Id.). Local Rule 3.04(a) requires the party
moving to compel discovery to include each discovery request he wishes to compel in
the motion with the corresponding objection quoted in full, followed by an explanation
on why the court should compel a proper response to each individual request.
Compliance with Local Rule 3.04(a) allows the court to readily examine each objection
in the context of each discovery request and determine whether each objection is
meritorious. Local Rules 3.04(a) eliminates the need for the court to sift through the
motion for requests, responses, or legal argument. Therefore, Mr. Smith’s attaching
discovery requests to his motion to compel fails to comply with Local Rule 3.04(a).
University Community Hospital is not blameless despite Mr. Smith’s failure to
comply with the Local Rules. The Middle District Discovery handbook states the
following:

2

Responding to Discovery Requests. A party responding to a discovery
request should make diligent effort to provide a response that (i) fairly
meets and complies with the discovery request and (ii) imposes no
unnecessary burden or expense on the requesting party.
Middle District Discovery (2015) at I(C)(4).

The party responding to discovery

requests has a duty to supplement or correct discover responses. Id. “Fairness and
professionalism

suggest

a

broader

range

of

circumstances

requiring

supplementation.” Id. Moreover, counsel must respond promptly to communication
from opposing counsel. Id. at I(A)(2).
Here, Mr. Smith’s counsel sent a letter to University Community Hospital’s
counsel on July 11, 2018, detailing his request for better discovery answers. (D oc. 215). According to Mr. Smith, as of the date he submitted his motion to compel (August
15, 2018), University Community Hospital failed to respond to his July 11th
communication. (Doc. 21, p. 2). University Community Hospital should timely
respond to discovery requests and communications from opposing counsel.
Because the motion to compel (Doc. 21) does not comply with the Local Rules,
it is DENIED without prejudice.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 17, 2018.

3