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

On May 28, 2020, Defendant Katzkin Leather, Inc. (“Katzkin”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs to produce documents in response to approximately 86 requests to produce (the “Motion”). Doc. No. 278. In the Motion, Katzkin argues that it attempted a meet and confer via letter dated March 31, 2020, but “Plaintiffs have not only refused to meet and confer on their deficient responses, they have refused to even respond to Defendants’ meet and confer attempts—preferring to simply pretend as if the ordinary rules of discovery do not apply to them.” Id. at 2, 3, 24; Doc No. 278-11. Defendants claim that because Plaintiffs never responded, no meet and confer took place prior to filing the Motion. Doc. No. 278.

On June 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Motion (the “Response”). Doc. No. 288. In their Response, Plaintiffs argue that the Motion should be denied because Katzkin made “no effort before this motion was filed, or after it was filed, but before this opposition was due, ... to narrow or resolve any of the disputed request[s].” Id. at 1; Doc. No. 288-1 at 1-2. Plaintiffs also argue they suggested that the parties engage the services of the facilitator they were already working with but Katzkin refused. Id.

On July 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an update regarding the parties’ meet and confer efforts (the “Supplemental Filing”), explaining that, based on a recent order from this Court on other pending motions to compel and as a result of the sessions with the facilitator, Plaintiffs had conducted additional searches in response to the requests to produce and provided 66,783 additional documents to Katzkin in response to requests to produce 1-3, 7-9, 20-21, 35-39, 44-48, 51, 53, and 55-68. Doc. No. 313 at 3. On July 11, 2020, Katzkin filed an objection to the Supplemental Filing (the “Objection”) arguing that it was an improper filing not authorized by the local rules and that the additional responses did not address all the requests to produce included in the Motion. Doc. No. 323.

The Court believes both parties’ claims that there has been no meaningful meet and confer regarding the current outstanding discovery requests that are the subject of this Motion. That much is evident from the Motion, Response, Supplemental Filing, and Objection. The Court also believes both parties are to blame for this failure. Further, there have been new developments that impact the need for the Court to review all 86 contested requests to produce originally identified in the Motion. As such, the Motion will be denied and the parties will be directed to engage in a meaningful attempt to narrow and resolve the remaining issues as required by the Local Rules via telephone or video conference. See Local Rule 3.01(g). The Court is confident the parties are capable of doing so and expects both parties to work diligently toward resolving as many outstanding discovery issues as possible.

*2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. No. 278) is DENIED. The parties shall engage in a substantive meet and confer via telephone or video conference prior to filing any additional motions related to the requests to produce that are the subject of the Motion.

DONE in Orlando, Florida on July 24, 2020.