In the Motion, FTC seeks an order compelling Krotzer to provide complete responses to eight document requests and twelve interrogatories within five days. (Doc. 108.) Apparently conceding that he had not already provided FTC with complete responses to its discovery requests, Krotzer argues in the Response that Plaintiffs are not prejudiced by his failure to do so.[1] (Doc. 110 at 1-2.) Krotzer states that the Response “provides explanations and summaries of electronic information provided Plaintiffs today.” (Id. at 3.) Krotzer then states that, “[u]pon the Courts [sic] request, Krotzer will provide the electronic information to the Court, but cannot possible [sic] redact the personal information in over 20,000 medical files, emails and Diaries.” (Id.) Krotzer states that “[m]uch of the provided information duplicates what Plaintiffs previously obtained in response to various investigative demands, at different times by Plaintiff State of Florida, and Plaintiff FTC. It would be unduly burdensome to have to separate information otherwise.” (Id.)

For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is due to be GRANTED to the extent that the Court will order Krotzer to provide complete responses to the subject discovery requests on or before April 5, 2011. The Court will enter a separate order amending the deadlines set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order and Referral to Mediation (Doc. 62).

In the Response, Krotzer does not raise any objections to the subject document requests. He merely describes the documents he provided to Plaintiffs on March 10, 2011, and what he had already provided before that. Therefore, the Court will grant the Motion as to all of the subject document requests.

Rule 34(b)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered,

*2 FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(E). Krotzer must provide FTC with all documents responsive to the subject document requests in accordance with this Rule.

The Court recognizes the privacy concerns raised by production of the personal information of Alcoholism Cure Foundation's customers. However, the Court also notes that the parties, in their Case Management Report, have agreed “to keep confidential all personal information ... about any consumers or customers of Defendants to the extent authorized by applicable law or as ordered by the Court.” (Doc. 51.) This confidentiality agreement appears to provide sufficient protection for sensitive personal information, and the Court will enforce it. See M.D. Fla. R. 4.15.

Krotzer does not raise any objections to Interrogatories Nos. 3, 7 through 13, 16, or 17. He merely describes the responses he provided to Plaintiffs on March 10, 2011, and what he had already provided before that. Therefore, the Court will grant the Motion as to these interrogatories.

Regarding Interrogatory No. 4, Krotzer objects that “Plaintiffs use a whole lot of technical sounding words Krotzer has no idea what they mean, and he is reasonably sure neither do Plaintiffs. Typical of boilerplate abuse Krotzer has suffered with all along.” (Doc. 110 at 10.) However, the Court notes that Krotzer raised no such objection when he responded to the interrogatory originally. Moreover, the Court finds that Interrogatory No. 4 is sufficiently understandable. Thus, the Court will grant the Motion as to Interrogatory No. 4.

The Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice in this Court provides the following: “Interrogatories should be interpreted reasonably, in good faith, and according to the meaning the plain language of the interrogatory would naturally import. When in doubt about the meaning of an interrogatory, the responding party should give it a reasonable interpretation (which may be specified in the response) and offer an answer designed to provide, rather than deny, information.” Middle District Discovery (2001) at 15.[2] Krotzer should abide by these instructions.

As to Interrogatory No. 6, Krotzer raises several objections. He argues that it is “so complex, it seems Plaintiffs are asking for anyone he ever talked to. That number would be legion, and impossible to answer meaningfully. He has assumed a more restrictive interpretation, and done his best.” (Id.) Krotzer states that he believes the responsive information is privileged, except as previously disclosed. (Id.) He also appears to argue that the information requested is irrelevant and that to answer Interrogatory No. 6 would be unduly burdensome. (Id. (“Again, no reliance, no relevance, unduly burdensome for no possible result useful to anyone.”).) The Court notes that Krotzer did not raise any of these objections in his original responses to the interrogatory. The Court finds Interrogatory No. 6 sufficiently understandable. The Court finds the information relevant for purposes of discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). And finally, the Court finds that the interrogatory is not unduly burdensome. Thus, the Court will grant the Motion as to Interrogatory No. 6.

*3 Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.03(b) of the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida, and Section IV.A.3 of the Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice provide the requirements for answering interrogatories. Krotzer must provide FTC with complete responses to the subject interrogatories in accordance with these Rules.

The Court has considered the award of expenses as required by Rule 37(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but in light of Krotzer's pro se status and the apparently large volume of information requested in Plaintiffs' discovery requests, the Court finds an award of expenses unjust. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A).[3]

While the Court is not awarding expenses regarding the Motion, Krotzer should take heed that Federal Rule 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes the Court to impose severe sanctions for failure to follow a discovery order. The available sanctions include, but are not limited to, the following: striking the violating party's pleadings, rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party, and finding the violating party in contempt of court. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A).

Upon due consideration, it is

ORDERED:

1. The Motion (Doc. 108) is GRANTED to the extent that, on or before April 5, 2011, Krotzer shall provide FTC with the following, in accordance with this Order:

2. The Court will enter a separate order amending the deadlines set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling Order and Referral to Mediation (Doc. 62).

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, on March 16, 2011.

Krotzer also appears to argue that the Motion is moot. (Doc. 110 at 1 (“[Krotzer] responds that Plaintiff's Motion ... was rendered unnecessary by the Meet and Confer since he offered to provide nearly all requested information upon the Court's decision of his Petition for Reconsideration, which was expected within a day to two.”).) However, FTC has not withdrawn the Motion. Moreover, as of March 14, 2011, FTC asserted that Krotzer's responses to its discovery requests remained incomplete. (Doc. 112 at 2.) Therefore, the Court will assume that the Motion is not moot.

This resource is available for review on the public website for the Middle District Court of Florida at www.flmd.uscourts.gov/Forms/Civil/Discovery_Practice_Manual.pdf.

The Court also notes that FTC did not request an award of expenses in the Motion.