Bystrom v. Dupont Plaza Center, Inc.

Florida Circuit Courts

Bystrom v. Dupont Plaza Center, Inc.

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 59

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 1986

DocketCase No. 85-36153 CA 01

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 59 (Bystrom v. Dupont Plaza Center, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bystrom v. Dupont Plaza Center, Inc., 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 59 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

HERBERT M. KLEIN, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on February 15, 1986 pursuant to notice on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. Having reviewed the file, having heard argument of counsel and being adequately advised in the premises, the Court finds that the Defendant-taxpayer’s objections to interrogatories are untimely. “The passing of the forty-five day period without any objection being made to the [60]*60questions set forth in the interrogatories clearly must be considered as a waiver by the defendants of any objections they might have had. . . . The PlaintifF[‘]s patience in agreeing to wait for answers beyond the forty-five day period cannot be considered as a stay or an extension of time for filing objections.” [Citations omitted] Davis v. Romney, 53 F.R.D. 247, 248 (E.D. Pa. 1971). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

1. Plaintiffs motion to compel answers to interrogatories is granted; and

2. Within thirty (30) days of the signing of this Order, the Defendant-taxpayer shall provide answers complying with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340 to interrogatories 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14a, 14c, 14d, 15, 15a, 15b, 18 and 20.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this 28th day of February, 1986.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

HERBERT M. KLEIN, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on February 15, 1986 pursuant to notice on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. Having reviewed the file, having heard argument of counsel and being adequately advised in the premises, the Court finds that the Defendant-taxpayer’s objections to interrogatories are untimely. “The passing of the forty-five day period without any objection being made to the [60]*60questions set forth in the interrogatories clearly must be considered as a waiver by the defendants of any objections they might have had. . . . The PlaintifF[‘]s patience in agreeing to wait for answers beyond the forty-five day period cannot be considered as a stay or an extension of time for filing objections.” [Citations omitted] Davis v. Romney, 53 F.R.D. 247, 248 (E.D. Pa. 1971). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

1. Plaintiffs motion to compel answers to interrogatories is granted; and

2. Within thirty (30) days of the signing of this Order, the Defendant-taxpayer shall provide answers complying with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340 to interrogatories 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14a, 14c, 14d, 15, 15a, 15b, 18 and 20.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this 28th day of February, 1986.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Fla. Supp. 2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bystrom-v-dupont-plaza-center-inc-flacirct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack