Saadi v. Maroun
Saadi v. Maroun
2021 WL 8650783 (M.D. Fla. 2021)
January 25, 2021

Sneed, Julie S.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Sanctions
Bad Faith
Failure to Produce
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court has extended the expert disclosure deadlines for both parties and issued a Third Amended Scheduling Order. Additionally, the Court has directed Defendants to provide additional discovery in response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, including ESI, which may provide evidence relevant to the claims.
Additional Decisions
EDWARD T. SAADI, Plaintiff,
v.
PIERRE A MAROUN and MAROUN'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants
Case No. 8:07-cv-1976-T-24JSS
United States District Court, M.D. Florida
Signed January 25, 2021

Counsel

Edward T. Saadi, Law Office of Edward T. Saadi, Boardman, OH, Martin Patrick Desmond, Youngstown, OH, for Plaintiff.
Mandi B. Clay, Juliana Velasquez Cortes, Three Thirteen Law, PLLC, Plant City, FL, for Defendant Pierre A Maroun 500 N. Osceola Ave. Apt. 102 Clearwater, FL 33755.
Sam Youssef Badawi, Badawi Law, Tampa, FL, for Defendant Maroun's International, LLC.
Sneed, Julie S., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

*1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (“Motion”) (Dkt. 558), Defendant Maroun International, LLC's (“MILLC”) Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 562), Plaintiff's Reply in Further Support of its Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 578), and Defendant Maroun's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Motions to Compel (Dkt. 588). The Court held a hearing on the Motion on January 20, 2021. (Dkt. 594.) For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied without prejudice.
 
BACKGROUND
In 2009, Plaintiff received a judgment against Defendant Pierre A. Maroun (“Maroun”) for a total of $90,000. (Dkt. 438-1.) Since then, Plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to collect on that judgment. In early 2019, Plaintiff initiated proceedings supplementary against Defendant Maroun and impleaded MILLC, asserting claims for fraudulent transfer (Fla. Stat. § 56.39), actual fraud (Fla. Stat. § 726.101), and constructive fraud (Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(b), 726.106(1), 726.106(2)). (Dkts. 397, 438.)
 
In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants for alleged violations of the Court's discovery orders, dilatory discovery tactics, and failure to promptly comply with their discovery obligations. (Dkt. 558.) Plaintiff specifically contends that Defendants failed to comply with the Court's orders dated November 6, 2020 and November 10, 2020 following discovery motion practice (“Discovery Orders”). (Dkts. 547, 551.)
 
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) grants the Court broad authority in sanctioning a party for failure to comply with a court order to provide discovery, including striking pleadings and dismissing an action in whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); Gratton v. Great Am. Commc'n, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). The Court may also treat “as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii). District courts have broad discretion to fashion appropriate sanctions for violations of discovery orders. Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993). However, because dismissal of an action is a drastic sanction, a district court may implement it only as a last resort, when a party's failure to comply with a court order is a result of willfulness or bad faith and lesser sanctions would not suffice. United States v. One 32’ Scorpion Go-Fast Vessel, 339 F. App'x. 903, 905 (11th Cir. 2009); Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1542.
 
Further, under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” “the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); see Phipps v. Blakeney, 8 F.3d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Rule 37(b)(2)(C) and explaining that the “district court has broad discretion to control discovery,” including “the ability to impose sanctions on uncooperative litigants”). However, sanctions are not generally warranted where a party has shown that it made all reasonable efforts to comply with the Court's order. BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045, 1050 (11th Cir. 1994).
 

ANALYSIS
*2 During the hearing before the Court, Defendants argued that they made good faith attempts to comply with the Discovery Orders. As of the date of the January 20, 2021 hearing, Defendant MILLC explained that it was not withholding any documents based upon its objections regarding the scope of discovery. Further, Defendant Maroun made an additional document production shortly before the hearing and withheld documents subject only to a limited number of continuing objections. The Court resolved the remaining issues and directed Defendants to make supplemental productions. (Dkt. 597.) There is no evidence before the Court that Defendants acted willfully or in bad faith to disobey the Discovery Orders. Rather, Defendants demonstrated that they made reasonable efforts to comply with the Court's directives. Accordingly, sanctions are not warranted at this time. However, the Court is concerned about Defendants’ delayed productions, particularly Defendant Maroun's most recent production, which was made shortly before the hearing on the Motion.
 
In the Discovery Orders, the Court granted Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery in part and extended Plaintiff's expert disclosure deadline from November 3, 2020 to December 4, 2020. This extension was designed to enable Plaintiff to receive the discovery ordered for production and to prepare his expert disclosure, if warranted. (Dkt. 547.) However, in light of the allegations raised in the Motion and Defendants’ representations to the Court during the hearing, it is apparent that Plaintiff did not receive all of the discovery in the applicable timeframe as directed. Accordingly, the Court finds that an extension of the expert deadline is warranted to ameliorate any harm to Plaintiff caused by Defendants’ delay.
 
Further, following the January 20, 2021 hearing, the Court directed Defendants to provide additional discovery in response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents. (Dkt. 597.) In light of the protracted nature of the parties’ discovery disputes, the Court extended the discovery deadline to April 4, 2021. The Court finds that the parties’ expert disclosure deadlines should be included within this extended timeline.
 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's expert disclosure deadline is extended to February 26, 2021. Defendants’ expert disclosure deadline is extended to March 26, 2021.
3. The Court will issue a Third Amended Scheduling Order.
 
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 25, 2021.