The defendants have now filed a motion to strike the complaint and for attorneys' fees due to Delio's “failure to comply with this Court's January 25, 2021 order.” [Doc. No. 51]. They contend that Delio has provided insufficient responses to their Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, and 22, as well as insufficient responses to their request for production. They further contend that “Plaintiff's own words show that he has no intention of acting in good faith with respect to the outstanding discovery.” [Id. at 12]. Delio has not filed a response to this motion.

The defendants appear to conflate two different issues in their motion. One issue is Delio's failure to respond to the defendants' discovery requests.[1] Such a failure would be a violation of this court's January 25, 2021, order advising Delio that he had a responsibility to respond to the defendants' discovery requests. [Doc. No. 46 at 4]. Delio apparently responded to the discovery requests on April 19 and April 20, 2021 [Doc. No. 51-2 at 1] and appears to believe that he responded to them even earlier. In an email dated April 14, 2021, he expresses confusion, stating “Wait a minute im [sic] confused i [sic] had already sent my responses to the question along [sic] time ago.” [Id. at 6]. For almost four full months of discovery, Delio was represented by counsel. His discovery responses were initially due on October 17, 2020. [Doc. No. 43 at 1]. However, it appears that Delio's counsel may have ceased pursuing discovery before withdrawing from the case, in violation of their obligations to their client. Further compounding matters, defense counsel waited until thirteen days before the end of the extended discovery period to send the good faith letter notifying Delio that they had not received his discovery responses even though the responses were by then forty-five days late. Delio provided the responses within a week of receiving the letter.

*2 In another email dated April 14, 2021, Delio appears confused about his ability to represent himself in this case. He states that his former counsel told him he was not allowed to represent himself. [Doc. No. 51-2 at 6]. In order to dispel his confusion, the court assures him that he is allowed to represent himself. Doing so is called proceeding “pro se.” Pro se” is Latin for “in one's own behalf.” Because his counsel has withdrawn, Delio is currently proceeding in this action pro se.

The court declines to strike the complaint as a sanction for Delio's failure to timely respond to the defendants' discovery requests. There have been unusual circumstances concerning Delio's former counsel and their apparent abrogation of their duties to their client. The court notes that Delio rectified the discovery lapse within a week of receiving the defendants' good faith letter. Furthermore, the responses, although late, were provided before the discovery period closed. “[T]he severe sanction of a dismissal or default judgment is appropriate only as a last resort.” Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Navarro v. Cohan, 856 F.2d 141, 142 (11th Cir. 1988)).

The second issue, and the one that is the crux of the defendants' motion, is that the defendants contend the discovery responses are insufficient. Having reviewed the responses, the court agrees. However, the court finds disingenuous the statement that “[t]he undersigned counsel for the Defendants has done everything in her power to obtain full, fair, and non-evasive responses to the Defendants' discovery requests without burdening the Court with the instant motion.” [Doc. No. 51 at 13]. Defense counsel references a good faith letter that does not concern the insufficiency of the responses at all and said good faith letter was not sent to the pro se plaintiff until forty-five days after the responses were due. Additionally, there is no indication in the emails or other documentation provided by defense counsel that she has attempted to confer with Delio about the insufficiency of his responses.

The court is somewhat perplexed that the defendants do not seek to compel Delio to supplement his discovery responses but rather ask this court to impose the severe sanction of dismissing his case and awarding them attorneys' fees. As indicated above, the court will not impose such a severe sanction. The court will, however, compel Delio to supplement his discovery responses. Delio is DIRECTED to review the defendants' motion to strike and for attorneys' fees [Doc. No. 51], paying special attention to the defendants' explanations of how his discovery responses are deficient. Delio is FURTHER DIRECTED to provide his supplemental discovery responses to the defendants by no later than June 10, 2021. The court will reopen discovery. Discovery now ends on July 26, 2021.

To recap, the court DENIES the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint and for attorneys' fees. [Doc. No. 51]. Delio is hereby COMPELLED to supplement his discovery responses. The clerk is DIRECTED to send Delio a copy of the defendants' motion [Doc. No. 51] with this order. Delio is DIRECTED to review the defendants' motion to strike and for attorneys' fees paying special attention to the defendants' explanations of how his discovery responses are deficient. Delio is FURTHER DIRECTED to provide his supplemental discovery responses to the defendants by no later than June 10, 2021. Discovery is reopened and will expire on July 26, 2021. Dispositive motions are due by no later than August 25, 2021.

*3 SO ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2021.