*1 This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

I. Background.

On November 12, 2021, Defendant EcoView America, LLC (“Defendant”) filed the present amended motion to compel Plaintiff Ava's Delights, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to provide amended responses and production to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Doc. 47; see Doc. 47-1). Defendant identified three issues with Plaintiff's discovery responses and production: 1) Plaintiff has failed to identify which documents it considers responsive to specific requests, 2) Plaintiff has maintained its confidentiality objections despite the fact the parties have a confidentiality agreement in place, and 3) Plaintiff has failed to provide its sales records in native form. (Doc. 47, at 2-3).[1] In the motion, Defendant also seeks attorneys’ fees as sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). (Id., at 4).

On November 17, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice Regarding Partial Resolution advising the Court that Plaintiff produced the native form of its sales records and associated contracts, thereby resolving one of the discovery disputes in Defendant's motion to compel. (Doc. 48). Defendant represented that the issues of submitting amended responses and maintaining confidentiality objections remained outstanding. (Id.). Later that same day, Plaintiff timely filed a response to the motion to compel. (Doc. 49; see Doc. 7). In the response, Plaintiff represented that it has since served amended responses to Defendant's discovery requests which satisfy the two outstanding issues in Defendant's motion to compel. (Doc. 49). Plaintiff therefore asked the Court to deem the motion to compel (Doc. 47) moot. (Id., at 2).

In its response to the motion to compel, Plaintiff attached amended discovery responses but represented that counsel for Defendant had not yet had the opportunity to review them. (Id.; see Doc. 49-1). Thus, the Court ordered Defendant to file a notice on before November 23, 2021 advising the Court as to whether: 1) all outstanding issues in the motion to compel have been resolved and 2) Defendant is still seeking attorneys’ fees in connection with the motion to compel. (Doc. 50).

II. Outstanding Issues in the Motion to Compel.

On the November 23, 2021 deadline, Defendant filed a Notice Regarding Full Resolution of its pending motion to compel. (Doc. 51). Defendant represents that all outstanding issues in the motion to compel are fully resolved but that it is still seeking an award of attorney fees’, “in light of Defendant's continuous requests for amended responses and responsive records, and Plaintiff's failure to provide either until Defendant filed its Motion to Compel.” (Id., at 2-3). Thus, based on these representations, the Court finds that Defendant's request for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide amended responses and production to its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, see Docs. 47, 47-1, is due to be DENIED as moot. However, Defendant's request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) (Doc. 47, at 4) remains outstanding. See Doc. 51. Accordingly, the Court will proceed to address this request below.

III. Defendant's Request for Attorneys’ Fees.

*2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), if a motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery is granted—or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed—“the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). However, the court must not order this payment if: “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id.

Because Plaintiff provided the requested discovery after Defendant filed its motion to compel, see Docs. 48, 51, Rule 37(a)(5) is applicable. And Plaintiff was clearly put on notice of Defendant's request for fees as set forth in the motion, and Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to be heard via the filing of its response to the motion to compel. See Hyperponic, LLC v. Carroll, No. 8:18-cv-1992-T-30AAS, 2019 WL 763804, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019) (noting that defendant had an opportunity to be heard on the issue of Rule 37(a)(5)(A) fees when he was provided time to respond to the motion to compel as a whole). However, in its response, Plaintiff failed altogether to address Defendant's request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Rule, and instead admitted that it had now produced the discovery at issue – after the motion to compel was filed. See Doc. 49. More specifically, Plaintiff has not argued that the motion to compel was filed prior to any good faith efforts to obtain the discovery, or that Plaintiff's failure to provide the discovery until after the motion to compel was filed was substantially justified. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). The Court also has not been presented with any circumstances which would make the award of expenses unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). Accordingly, the Court finds an award of attorneys’ fees in connection with Defendant's motion to compel is mandated by Rule 37(a)(5)(A), and Defendant's request for fees will be GRANTED.

IV. Conclusion.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 24, 2021.

Pinpoint citations to Defendant's motion to compel refer to the pagination assigned by CM/ECF.