B&D Nutritional Ingredients v. Unique Bio Ingredients, LLC et al

Filing 175

ORDER denying 174 Plaintiff's Motion to Overrule Objections to Interrogatories. Please see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer on 5/16/2017. (pb00)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 16-62364-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
B&D NUTRITIONAL INGREDIENTS, INC.,
a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIQUE BIO INGREDIENTS, LLC, d/b/a
UNIQUE BIOTECH USA, a Florida limited liability
company, JAIRO ESCOBAR, an individual,
LUIS ECHEVERRIA, an individual,
RATNA SUDHA MADEMPUDI, an individual,
and UNIQUE BIOTECH LIMITED, an
Indian corporation,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE has come before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s Motion to Overrule
Objections to Interrogatories [DE 174] filed on May 15, 2017. The interrogatories in
question were served on Defendants on January 31, 2017 [DE 159].

Defendants

requested [DE 123] [DE 135] and received [DE 124] [DE 125] several extensions of time
to respond to the interrogatories, and served their answers on April 6, 2017 [DE 159-1] [DE
159-2] [DE 159-3]. In this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule objections to several
of the interrogatory answers.
Plaintiff previously filed a motion directed to the same interrogatories that are the
subject of the present motion. The first motion was limited to Defendants’ objections to the
number of interrogatories served and was made within 30 days of receiving the objections,
as required by Local Rule 26.1(g)(1). [DE 159]. The present motion, however, is outside

the 30-day time period provided in the Local Rules for filing discovery motions. Local Rule
26.1(g)(1) provides:
(1) Time for Filing. All disputes related to discovery shall be
presented to the Court by motion (or, if the Court has
established a different practice for presenting discovery
disputes, by other Court-approved method) within (30) days
from the: (a) original due date (or later date if extended by the
Court or the parties) of the response or objection to the
discovery request that is the subject of the dispute; (b) date of
the deposition in which the dispute arose; or (c) date on which
a party first learned of or should have learned of a purported
deficiency concerning the production of discovery materials.
Failure to present the dispute to the Court within that time
frame, absent a showing of good cause for the delay, may
constitute a waiver of the relief sought at the Court’s discretion.
The thirty (30) day period set forth in this rule may be extended
once for up to seven (7) additional days by an unfiled, written
stipulation between the parties, provided that the stipulation
does not conflict with a Court order.
The rule “sets forth a specific period within which discovery motions must be filed. Defining
that period as ‘thirty days' rather than...the less precise ‘a reasonable time’ reflects the
judgment of the District that the filing period should not extend beyond thirty days. Thus,
the Rule has the benefit of making clear precisely when discovery motions must be filed.”
Manno v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, 2012 WL 1409532, at *3 (S.D. Fla.
Apr. 23, 2012) (Rosenbaum, M.J.). “Regardless of the specific triggering event, the key
point is that once a party seeking discovery learns that the opposing party objects to
providing the requested discovery the first party must seek relief from the court within thirty
days or else be deemed to have waived such relief.” Id.

at *2.

Despite filing its motion beyond the 30-day period from the date it received
Defendants’ objections, Plaintiff offers no explanation or reasonable cause for its tardiness.
Plaintiff has not referenced a written stipulation by the parties extending the 30-day time
2

limit and, in any event, the motion was filed more than 37 days beyond the date the
answers to interrogatories were served. Plaintiff has already filed a (timely) motion [DE
159] – and obtained relief [DE 172] – from other objections made to the same
interrogatories. Under these circumstances – the tardy filing of the instant motion following
the timely filing of a separate motion directed to the same interrogatories – the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has waived the relief sought in the present motion. Accordingly,
it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Overrule Objections to
Interrogatories [DE 174] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 16th day of May
2017.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

3