Rose v. Coca-Cola Beverages Florida, LLC

Filing 35

ORDER denying 29 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 1/7/2025. (CES)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ESTHER ROSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:23-cv-2864-TPB-AAS

COCA-COLA BEVERAGES FLORIDA,
LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Esther Rose requests the court compel Defendant Coca-Cola
Beverages Florida, LLC (Coca-Cola) to provide more complete responses to
Ms. Rose’s requests for production. (Doc. 29). Ms. Rose originally filed the
motion to compel without conferring with opposing counsel as required by
Local Rule 3.01(g). (Doc. 23). For this failure, the undersigned denied the
motion without prejudice. (Doc. 28).
Ms. Rose refiled the motion with an updated Local Rule 3.01(g)
certification that reads, “the movant has conferred with counsel for
Defendant, and has been unable to agree on any resolution to these matters.
To date, all requests made by movement to address these matters without
judicial intervention have not been responded to by Defendant.” (Doc. 29, p.
7). Coca-Cola responded in opposition and alleged Ms. Rose’s conferral fails to
1

meet the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g). (Doc. 30). This response sparked
a back-and-forth by the parties regarding whether the amended motion to
compel (Doc. 29) complies with the conferral requirements of Local Rule
3.01(g). (See Docs. 31, 33). The undersigned then directed Ms. Rose to
meaningfully confer 1 with Coca-Cola and file a notice on the docket outlining
which issues could not be resolved by December 27, 2024. Ms. Rose failed to
do so . Accordingly, Ms. Rose’s Amended Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is
DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 7, 2025.

1 The purpose of Local Rule 3.01(g) “is to require the parties to communicate and

resolve certain types of disputes without court intervention.” Desai v. Tire Kingdom,
Inc., 944 F. Supp. 876, 878 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The term “communicate” has been
defined as “to speak to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt
to resolve disputed issues.” Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98-CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL
1658575 at n. 1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000); see also See Fox v. Lake Erie Coll. of
Osteopathic Med., Inc., No. 8:19-CV-2795-T-60AAS, 2021 WL 9594006, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Sept. 9, 2021) (“This pre-filing requirement contemplates a substantive
discussion, not a one-way communication[.]”).
2