Cook v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd

Filing 27

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 12/7/2011. (dkc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
Case No. 11-20723-CIV-GOODMAN
[CONSENT CASE]
BONNIE COOK,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, a Liberian
Corporation,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. [ECF No. 20].
The Court held a hearing on the motion on December 7, 2011. [ECF No. 26]. For the reasons
provided on the record during the hearing, the Court rules as follows on Plaintiff’s motion: 1
I.

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
a. Number 20
As per Defendant’s agreement, the motion to compel is granted as to request for

admission number 20.
b. Number 22
The motion to compel is granted as to request for admission number 22.

1

The following rulings are for discovery purposes only. The Court does not rule that the
responses to the requested discovery are admissible or may be used for any other purpose in this
case (e.g., summary judgment evidence or evidence at trial) and the Defendant has not waived
the right to contest such use.

Case No. 11-20723-CIV-GOODMAN
[CONSENT CASE]
c. Numbers 24-27, 30, and 36
The parties stated on the record that all of these requests for admission relate to the
American with Disabilities Act and therefore the Court considered these requests as a group. For
the reasons stated on the record, the motion to compel is granted as to these requests for
admission.
d. Number 31
As per Defendant’s agreement, the motion to compel is granted as to request for
admission number 31.
e. Number 35
As per Defendant’s agreement, the motion to compel is granted as to request for
admission number 35.
f. Number 37
The motion to compel is granted as to request for admission number 37.
g. Number 38
The motion to compel is granted as to request for admission number 38.
II.

INTERROGATORIES
a. Number 8
The motion to compel is granted as to interrogatory number 8.
b. Numbers 11 and 12
The Court considered these two interrogatories as a group because the parties agreed the

interrogatories were related. The motion to compel is granted as to interrogatory numbers 11 and
12.

2

Case No. 11-20723-CIV-GOODMAN
[CONSENT CASE]
c. Number 14
The motion to compel is denied as to interrogatory number 14 because it is too
ambiguous as phrased.
Defendant must serve the required supplemental responses within twenty (20) days,
although, the Court encourages Defendant to serve supplemental responses sooner if the
responses are, in fact, completed sooner.
The Court finds that both parties’ positions on all disputed discovery requests were
substantially justified and not frivolous and therefore does not award costs pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
DONE and ORDERED, in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 7th day of December,
2011.

Copies furnished to:
All counsel of record

3