*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Lara Diez's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 35). This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by the Honorable K. Michael Moore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters (ECF No. 5). Defendant American Landmark, LLC filed a Response in Opposition (ECF No. 39) to which Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF No. 40). Having reviewed the Motion, Response, Reply, and the record, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

This case arises from Defendant's alleged mass transmission of unsolicited text messages to thousands of consumers. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Defendant on behalf of a putative class pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq.[1] Plaintiff argues that in an effort to promote Defendant's rental properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to individuals, including those who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's conduct which she claims has caused the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily lives of thousands of people. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims that Defendant's unsolicited messages violated Plaintiff's rights under the TCPA to be free from harassment.

Plaintiff has served written discovery on Defendant, including a Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”), Interrogatories, and a Request for Admissions (“RFA”) (collectively, the “Requests”). In response to Plaintiff's Requests, Defendant asserts that there are currently Motions to Dismiss, Compel Arbitration, and to Temporarily Stay Discovery that are pending before the Court (ECF Nos. 18, 31, 32). Defendant claims that the discovery responses and objections specifically reference the pending Motions. Defendant maintains that participation in discovery might be considered litigation conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate the dispute. As such, Defendant avers that until the pending motions are adjudicated, the discovery requested is not relevant to a claim or defense, and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Defendant cannot avail itself of a stay that has not been granted and its insistence on standing on that, and only that, as a basis to object is not well placed. See Proflex Prod., Inc. v. Protecto Wrap Co., No. 12-21280-CIV, 2013 WL 12061839, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2013) (explaining that motions to stay discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss “ ‘[a]re not favored because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create case management problems which impede the Court's responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and problems.’ ”) (quoting Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997)) (internal citation omitted).

*2 On the other hand, Plaintiff's RPD is patently and facially overbroad. Plaintiff literally seeks all documents, data, and information, kept in the course of Defendant's business operation. The requests are too broad to reform and the Motion, to the extent it seeks to compel documents responsive to these requests, is generally denied, with one exception as below.

With respect to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, the Motion is granted in part. The Court compels Defendant's answers to Interrogatories 8 and 13, which request the type of consent or permission Defendant obtained from Plaintiff, and whether Defendant had an Express Invitation or Permission with Plaintiff and to describe and explain the basis for that assertion. The Court finds that these two interrogatories seek specific information concerning Plaintiff. To the extent Defendant's answers to these Interrogatories are informed by documents in Defendant's possession, Defendant shall produce those documents.

Defendant's amended answers shall be served within 14 days of the date of this Order. With respect to the remaining Interrogatories, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Compel for the same reason it denied Plaintiff's RPD.

Plaintiff's RFA seek relevant, proportional admissions specific to Plaintiff in an effort to identify the size of the putative class. Defendant has not articulated any specific objection to answering these RFA nor made any particular showing of burden. Rather, Defendant's Response simply reiterates that there are motions currently pending. Plaintiff's Motion is granted to the extent she moves to compel answers to her RFA. Defendant shall serve amended answers to Plaintiff's RFA within 14 days of the date of this Order.

The Court therefore grants the Motion to Compel in respect to the Request for Admission and compels answers to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 13 only. The Motion is denied in all other respects consistent with the Court's findings above.

An award of attorney's fees is mandatory under Rule 37(a)(5) if a motion to compel is granted unless the court finds the objections to the discovery substantially justified or the motion was filed prior to making good faith efforts to resolve the dispute, or other circumstances that would render such an award unjust. Because Plaintiff has prevailed on only some of the requests contained in the Motion, the Court will not award any attorney's fees at this time.

DONE and ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida on this 27th day of May, 2022.