Pursuant to prior notice (Doc. 53), the Court held a hearing on December 11, 2019 to address the Plaintiff's motion for protective order (Doc. 47 (Motion for Protective Order)), the Defendant's motion to compel (Doc. 52 (Motion to Compel)), and the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions and/or motion to compel (Doc. 55 (Motion for Sanctions)). (Doc. 59). All necessary individuals were in attendance. (Id.) During the course of the hearing, the Court made several rulings which are memorialized herein.

The Court first addressed the Motion for Protective Order, in which the Plaintiff sought to quash the Defendant's subpoenas to Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase Bank), and the Plaintiff's accountant, all of which request production of the Plaintiff's financial and/or accounting records. (Docs. 47; 48-3). After considering the parties’ written and oral arguments, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court found the subpoenas were due to be limited, but not quashed in their entirety. Accordingly, the Motion for Protective Order will be granted in part and denied in part, and the subpoenas will be limited as set forth below.

Next, the Court addressed the Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. In the Motion to Compel, which was filed two days before the close of discovery (November 29, 2019), the Defendant requested an order compelling: 1) the production of responsive documents to numerous requests for production that had been served and responded to in early 2019; and 2) the taking of all noticed depositions at which the deponents did not appear.[1] (Doc. 52).

In the Motion for Sanctions, which was filed nine days after the close of discovery, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had not completed his deposition,[2] had not let the Plaintiff depose his wife, and “has not produced or designated for production a single document to date.”[3] (Doc. 55 at 1-12). The Plaintiff requested as sanctions for the Defendant's alleged discovery transgressions that the Defendant be prohibited from relying on any responsive documents that he failed to produce, and that adverse inference instructions be given. (Id. at 17-24). Alternatively, the Plaintiff requested the Court strike all of the Defendant's objections to its requests for production, compel the Defendant to produce all documents sought in those requests for production, and order the Defendant and his wife to appear for deposition. (Id. at 24-25).

*2 As stated on the record at the hearing, both the Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions could be denied in their entirety as untimely. Indeed, courts in this Circuit routinely deny discovery motions (whether they seek to compel or protect against certain discovery or seek sanctions for alleged discovery abuses) that could have been filed months in advance or are filed after the close of discovery. See, e.g., Steed v. EverHome Mortg. Co., 308 F. App'x 364, 371 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[W]hile EverHome raised boilerplate objections to certain discovery requests, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose sanctions against EverHome on this ground. Steed could have filed a motion to compel that would have enabled the district court to address the problems of which he complained. Instead, he waited and filed a motion for sanctions, contributing to the problem.” (internal citation omitted)); Malibu Media, LLC v. Weaver, No. 8:14-cv-1580-T-33TBM, 2016 WL 473133, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2016) (overruling objections to an order denying two motions to compel brought one day before the discovery deadline expired because the moving party failed to provide a reason or good cause for the delay in bringing the motions); Coleman v. Starbucks, No. 6:14-cv-527-Orl-22TBS, 2015 WL 2449585, at *8 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2015) (denying motion to compel, in part, because the moving party waited until the eve of the discovery deadline to file a motion to compel production of information that was requested months earlier but never produced). Notwithstanding the untimeliness of the Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions, the Court, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, declined to deny the motions outright as untimely.[4]

Instead, in the interest of moving this case forward and with discovery now closed, the Court, after hearing argument from the parties, ordered the following: 1) to the extent they have not done so already, each party shall produce all documents responsive to those requests for production that they either agreed to produce without objection or agreed to produce subject to and/or without waiving objection; 2) where the responding party raised objections to a request for production and did not agree to produce responsive documents, those objections will be sustained and the responding party will not be ordered to produce; 3) to the extent the Plaintiff has produced documents to date that are either illegible or the electronic files produced have been corrupted, the Plaintiff shall reproduce those documents to the Defendant; 4) the Plaintiff will be permitted to complete the Defendant's deposition and depose his wife, subject to the terms set forth in this Order; and 5) the Defendant will be permitted to depose Maged Salem, Madhat Salem, Majdi Salem, Marwan Salem, and the Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, subject to the terms set forth in this Order.

In addition to the foregoing, the Court also addressed the parties’ respective requests for attorney fees and costs and/or sanctions raised in the motions and responses thereto. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, all requests for attorney fees and costs and/or sanctions are denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).

*3 Finally, the Court made several admonitions to the parties during the course of the hearing which bear repeating in this Order. Upon a review of the record, and in particular the numerous motions, affidavits, declarations, and copies of email correspondence that have been filed, it is abundantly clear to the Court that counsel have failed to engage in litigation in a civil and cooperative manner, as required by the Local Rules and Orders of this Court. See Local Rule 2.04(h); Doc. 25 at 1; Middle District Discovery Handbook (2015) at I.A.1. The parties and their counsel are again reminded of their obligations to conduct themselves in a civil and cooperative manner, as well as their duty to meet and confer on any discovery issues before filing any motions. The Court strongly encourages counsel to confer either via telephone or in-person to discuss any issues that may arise; it is clear that email correspondence is being misconstrued and only operating to fan the flames on all sides.

In addition, the Court notified the parties that with the exception of this limited extension of discovery, the discovery period has now closed. This means the Court will not entertain any further motions to compel or discovery-related motions absent the most compelling and exigent of circumstances. The Court further expects everyone to move forward in this case in a more cooperative manner, to respond to discovery appropriately, and to allow the depositions to go forward without unnecessary objection or gamesmanship. Moreover, if any party is unable to comply with the rulings set forth in this Order, including any deadlines for production (both in response to the requests for production and the subpoenas), that party is to notify the Court as soon as practicable and request appropriate relief. The parties may not simply ignore the rulings and deadlines set forth in this Order – if any party chooses to go down such a path, they do so at the risk of the imposition of sanctions, including all those afforded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, it is ORDERED that:

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 11, 2019.