*1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Internal Revenue Service's (the “Service”) Motion for Parties To Be Excused from Discovery and Trial-Related Requirements of Pretrial Scheduling Order (“Motion”), filed on October 2, 2020. (DE 11). Plaintiff Alfred S.K. Teo has responded in opposition, and the Service has replied. (DE 13; DE 17). For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part.

This is a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) lawsuit. In June 2020, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the Service, seeking the production of several documents related to his 2016 tax return and the Service's audit of that return. (DE 1 at 1–2). Ultimately, the Service failed to produce any responsive documentation or a written determination by the statutory deadline, including two extensions thereof, which prompted Plaintiff to file the present action. (See DE 1 at 5).

In its instant Motion, the Service requests that the Court (1) excuse the Parties from the discovery- and trial-related deadlines set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order and enter a summary judgment briefing schedule and (2) stay any discovery unless and until the Court determines that discovery is necessary. (DE 11 at 1). In support of its position, the Service asserts that lawsuits brought under FOIA are unique in nature in that they are ordinarily resolved by way of summary judgment, obviating the need for trial, and that “[d]iscovery is generally not available.” (DE 14 at 2). Plaintiff opposes these requests, arguing that the Motion is an “attempt to improperly delay resolution of this matter,” given that the Service has already admitted in its Answer that it currently possesses documents responsive to Plaintiff's request and that such documents are not exempt from disclosure. (DE 13 at 2). As such, instead of granting the Service's requested relief, Plaintiff submits that the Court should resolve this action on his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (DE 12; DE 13 at 2). In its Reply, the Service represents that it does not seek to delay resolution of this matter but instead “to allow this case to proceed as a typical FOIA case, rather than as a typical civil action.” (DE 17 at 1).

In a FOIA case, the issues are (1) whether the producing agency conducted a reasonable search for responsive records; and (2) whether the agency withheld non-exempt responsive records. See Karantsalis v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 635 F.3d 497, 500 (11th Cir. 2011). These issues are ordinarily resolved upon summary judgment motion. See Miscavige v. I.R.S., 2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th Cir. 1993) (“FOIA cases should be handled on motions for summary judgment, once the documents in issue are properly identified.”). Generally, when an agency's summary judgment motion is supported by affidavits substantiating that it adequately searched for and produced responsive documents, no discovery is necessary in a FOIA action. However, in the event that discovery is needed, such requests should not be submitted until there is a pending motion for summary judgment. See Miscavige, 2 F.3d at 369 (affirming the denial of a request for discovery in a FOIA case before the government moved for summary judgment).

*2 Based on the foregoing and the Parties’ written submissions, I will grant the Service's Motion in part. I will vacate the litigation deadlines set in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, thereby excusing the Parties from compliance therewith, and the Parties shall submit summary judgment briefing in accordance with the below schedule. I decline to grant the Service's request to stay any discovery unless and until the Court determines that discovery is necessary. Instead, if, after the Service files its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff propounds discovery that the Service maintains is improper, it may file an appropriate motion and I will take up the issue at that time. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff is reminded that discovery requests absent a pending motion for summary judgment shall be denied as premature. See Miscavige, 2 F.3d at 369.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

SIGNED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 23rd day of October, 2020.