Lahm v. G.C.I. Printing Services, Inc. et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 8/30/2024. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DANIEL OWEN LAHM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:23-cv-02887-AAS

G.C.I. PRINTING SERVICES, INC.,
CHRISTOPHER JOHN LATVALA,
and WOODROW JOHN LATVALA,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER
On February 22, 2024, the undersigned held a case management
conference and entered a case management and scheduling order based on the
parties agreed upon case management deadlines. (See Docs. 36, 28). The
discovery deadline was June 28, 2024. (Doc. 36, p. 1). Both parties were
represented at the conference, and no motions for extension or other
substantive filings occurred after such time.
Now, over two months after the discovery deadline (and almost a month
after the dispositive motion deadline), Plaintiff Daniel Owen Lahm moves for
an order compelling Defendants G.C.I. Printing Services, Inc., Christopher
John Latvala, and Woodrow John Latvala (collectively, the defendants) to
respond to Mr. Lahm’s outstanding discovery requests. (Doc. 40). Mr. Lahm
1

failed to file a motion for an extension of the discovery deadline or any
justification for this belated motion other than his belief that the defendants’
outstanding discovery responses would be forthcoming.
While parties may conduct discovery after the court’s deadline, “they
cannot expect the court to resolve their post-deadline discovery disputes.” Fin.
Info. Techs., LLC v. iControl Sys., USA, LLC, No. 8:17-CV-190-T-23MAP, 2018
WL 8545873, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018). Thus, Mr. Lahm’s motion to compel
is due to be denied. See Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360
(11th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the
management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.”)
(citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th
Cir. 2001)); see also Middle District Discovery (2021) (I)(F) (“Counsel, by
agreement, may conduct discovery after the formal completion date but should
not expect the Court to resolve discovery disputes arising after the discovery
completion date.”). Although the court denies the untimely motion on
procedural grounds, this order should not be construed as a ruling on the
substantive merits of the requests in the motion.
Accordingly, Ms. Lahm’s motion to compel (Doc. 40) is DENIED.

2

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on August 30, 2024.

3