Wegman v. U.S. Specialty Sports Ass'n, Inc.
Wegman v. U.S. Specialty Sports Ass'n, Inc.
Case No. 6:23-cv-1637 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
January 17, 2024

Norway, Robert M.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Failure to Produce
Cooperation of counsel
Mobile Device
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court has ordered the defendant to turn over three electronic devices to the plaintiff, but the defendant is now refusing to assist the plaintiff in accessing them. The Court has denied the plaintiff's motion to compel, but has also excused them from certain discovery limitations and shortened the deadlines for the defendant to respond to discovery requests. The plaintiff has been directed to propound interrogatories or document requests for the necessary information, and the defendant has been ordered to respond within three business days. The plaintiff may renew their motion for sanctions if the defendant does not comply.
Additional Decisions
BRIAN WEGMAN; and THOMAS HORROM, Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES SPECIALTY SPORTS ASSOCIATION, INC.; DONALD DEDONATIS, III; RICHARD FORTUNA; WENDY ANDERSON; COURTNEY CEO; and JACOB HORNBACHER, Defendants
Case No. 6:23-cv-1637-RBD-RMN
United States District Court, M.D. Florid
Filed January 17, 2024
Norway, Robert M., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on Defendant’s, The United States Specialty Sports Association, Inc. (“USSSA”), Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (Dkt. 118), filed on January 16, 2024. Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be denied without prejudice.

On December 12, 2023, this Court ordered Defendant DeDonatis to turn over three electronic devices in his possession that belonged to USSSA. Dkt. 107. The Court cited USSSA’s discovery obligation to locate, retain, and preserve potentially relevant evidence, as well as all parties’ acknowledgment of such obligation. Id. at 2. Thereafter, on December 14, Defendant DeDonatis filed a notice informing the Court that he had complied with the “applicable provisions” of the Court’s order and delivered the devices to USSSA’s counsel. Dkt. 112.

Defendant DeDonatis has technically complied with the strictest reading of this Court’s Order directing him to “return all electronic devices” provided to him by USSSA. See Dkt. 107 at 4. Yet DeDonatis now appears to take the position that he is not obligated to assist USSSA in accessing those devices. It would have been more efficient, and more consistent with counsel’s duty of candor, if DeDonatis’ counsel informed the Court at the prior hearing on this matter that DeDonatis would not voluntarily produce the information needed to access the devices. Nevertheless, it does not appear that USSSA has propounded any actual discovery requests regarding the passwords and other information it seeks to obtain from DeDonatis. For this reason, the motion is denied.

To facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this dispute, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Court finds good cause to excuse USSSA from certain discovery limitations and shorten the deadlines to respond to USSSA’s discovery requests seeking the information needed to access the devices returned by DeDonatis.

Counsel for DeDonatis is also admonished for failing to promptly respond to opposing counsel. Counsel are reminded, for the second time (See Dkt. 107 at 1), that they are required to “promptly respond to requests for a Good Faith Conference” from opposing parties. Dkt. 86 at 8. Counsel are warned that a response “that occurs more than two business days after a requests is not ‘prompt.’” Id. The Court will impose sanctions on counsel and, if warranted, parties who do not respond promptly to requests for Good Faith Conferences. Id.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice;

2. USSSA is DIRECTED to propound interrogatories, document requests, or both for each user ID, password, or other information it needs to access the devices returned by Defendant DeDonatis and any encrypted file or program on those devices. Such interrogatory requests will not count against USSSA’s limit found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a);

3. In view of the lengthy delay already incurred in this matter, Defendant DeDonatis is ORDERED to respond to such discovery requests within three business days of USSSA propounding such requests. The Court will not entertain an extension of these shortened response deadlines absent extraordinary circumstances; and

4. USSSA may renew its motion to compel and for sanctions if Defendant DeDonatis does not completely, accurately, and timely furnish answers and responses to the authorized discovery requests within the deadlines set by this Order.


DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 17, 2024