Dealer Specialties Int'l, Inc. v. Car Data 24/7, Inc.
Dealer Specialties Int'l, Inc. v. Car Data 24/7, Inc.
2021 WL 7627633 (M.D. Fla. 2021)
June 30, 2021
Hoffman, Leslie R., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court granted the motion to compel, ordering the Impleaded Defendants to produce all documents in their possession, custody, or control responsive to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production by July 14, 2021. The Court also deemed all objections to the requests for production waived and ordered Impleaded Defendants and their attorney to be jointly and severally liable for the reasonable fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff.
DEALER SPECIALITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CAR DATA 24/7, INC., Defendant
v.
CAR DATA 24/7, INC., Defendant
Case No. 6:20-cv-750-CEM-LRH
United States District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed June 30, 2021
Counsel
Spencer H. Silverglate, Bryan Lee Paschal, Craig Salner, Shannon Patricia McKenna, Clarke Silverglate, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.Aldo G. Bartolone, Jr., Bartolone Law, PLLC, Orlando, FL, Eric A. Morgan, Morgan Law, PA, Melbourne, FL, for Defendant.
Hoffman, Leslie R., United States Magistrate Judge
Order
*1 This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 63)
FILED: June 21, 2021
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Dealer Specialties International, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) has been attempting to enforce in this Court a judgment issued out of the Southern District of Ohio since September 2016. (Doc. 1). The operative pleading in the current proceedings is an amended supplemental complaint, which Plaintiff filed on May 13, 2020. (Doc. 50). As relevant to the present matter, Plaintiff has asserted claims of fraudulent transfer, constructive fraudulent transfer, and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit under Florida law against two impleaded defendants, Jaylee's Auto Sales, Inc., and Dealer360, Inc. (collectively, the “Impleaded Defendants”). (Id., Counts IV-V, VIII-IX, XI, XIV). A case management and scheduling order issued on June 30, 2020, which established, among other things, a discovery deadline of August 8, 2021. (Doc. 60).
On June 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Compel (Doc. 63),[1] in which Plaintiff asserts the following. On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff served requests for production on both Impleaded Defendants. (Doc. 63-1). Despite numerous representations from counsel for Impleaded Defendants (the same counsel represents both entities) that production would be forthcoming, as of the date of the filing of the Motion to Compel, Impleaded Defendants have not provided any responses, objections, or document production in response to the discovery requests. See Doc. 63; Doc. 63-2. And the time to do so has now long expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
By its present motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Impleaded Defendants to respond to the requests for production in their entirety by a date certain, deem all objections waived, and award sanctions in the form of reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 63). Pursuant to the Court's Standing Order on Discovery Motions, Impleaded Defendants had five (5) days to file a response to Plaintiff's motion. See Doc. 47, ¶ 5. As of the writing of this Order, however, Impleaded Defendants have not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, pursuant to the Standing Order, the Court considers the motion to be unopposed. See id. (emphasis added) (“[A] failure to file a timely response will result in the Motion being deemed unopposed.”).
Upon review of Plaintiff's motion, and in the absence of opposition by Impleaded Defendants, the Court finds Plaintiff's requests well taken. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to First Request for Production and for Sanctions (Doc. 63) is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that:
*2 1. On or before July 14, 2021, Impleaded Defendants shall produce for inspection and copying all documents in their possession, custody, or control responsive to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production (Doc. 63-1). Absent truly exigent circumstances, this deadline will not be extended.
2. Any and all objections to these discovery requests are waived by Impleaded Defendants’ failure to timely respond to these requests, see, e.g., Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Ctr. Church, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-1698-Orl-37GJK, 2016 WL 11187163, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2016); see also City Furniture, Inc. v. Chappelle, No. 2:15-cv-748-FtM-99CM, 2016 WL 4262228, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2016).
3. In the absence of any response, the Court finds that Impleaded Defendants’ failure to respond to the discovery requests was not substantially justified, and no other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Accordingly, Impleaded Defendants and their attorney, Aldo G. Bartolone, Jr., shall be jointly and severally liable for the reasonable fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff in filing this motion. Id. On or before July 14, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff and Impleaded Defendants shall meet and confer in good faith to determine an amount of reasonable fees and expenses that should be awarded to Plaintiff. The parties shall file a joint notice of the amount agreed upon on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2021. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement by that time, counsel for Plaintiff shall file a motion, supported by appropriate documentation, for its reasonable fees and expenses incurred in filing the present motion. That motion, if necessary, shall be filed by July 21, 2021.
4. Impleaded Defendants are cautioned that failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, up to and including entry of default against them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 30, 2021.
Footnotes
The Court notes that the motion to compel does not comply with the typography requirements of Local Rule 1.08, or the supplemental conferral requirements set forth in Local Rule 3.01(g)(3). In this one instance, and in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court has elected to consider the motion despite these procedural deficiencies. However, counsel is cautioned that any future filings that do not comply with all applicable rules may be summarily stricken or denied.