*1 This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:

On June 3, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff. Doc. 36 (the Motion). In the Motion, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to produce her mandatory initial disclosures and responses to Defendant's Requests for Production, Interrogatories, and Requests for Admissions (collectively, the Discovery Requests). Id. Prior to filing the Motion, Defendant attempted in good faith to obtain the requested discovery without court action, and Plaintiff agreed to produce responses but failed to do so. Id. at 2-4. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has simply failed to provide any responses to the requested discovery. And Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion. Thus, the Motion is unopposed.

Given that the Motion is unopposed, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be compelled to respond to Defendant's Discovery Requests. Further, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to its reasonable expenses incurred in making the Motion, as the request for such expenses is also unopposed. Defendant attempted in good faith to obtain the requested discovery without court action, and Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this case.[1] And despite being provided an opportunity to be heard, Plaintiff provided no argument to suggest that her position was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A); Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 254 F.R.D. 470, 472 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (noting that the defendant had an opportunity to be heard with regard to attorney fees when the defendant responded to the plaintiff's motion to compel); Sebring Homes Corp. v. T.R. Arnold & Assocs., Inc., 927 F. Supp. 1098, 1103-04 (N.D. Ind. 1995) (stating that the plaintiffs had an opportunity to be heard with regard to attorney fees despite the plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the motion to compel). Upon due consideration, and given Plaintiff's lack of argument to the contrary, the Court finds that Plaintiff's position was not substantially justified and that no other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. 36) is GRANTED. With the exception of Plaintiff's objections on the basis of the attorney-client and work product privileges, any objections Plaintiff may have had to the Discovery Requests are waived. On or before June 26, 2019, Plaintiff shall fully respond to the Discovery Requests and provide her mandatory initial disclosures. However, Plaintiff may object – and thereby withhold or redact documents – on the basis of the attorney-client and work product privileges, but those objections must be asserted through a privilege log that complies with the undersigned's Standing Order[2] and that specifies the discovery request to which each logged document is responsive.

*2 Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions as set forth in Rule 37(b)(2)(A), including a dismissal of this action.

With regard to Defendant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the Motion, if the parties cannot agree on an amount of attorney fees, then, on or before July 3, 2019, Defendant may file a motion to determine the amount of attorney fees, so long as the motion fully complies with Local Rule 3.01(g).

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 18, 2019.