Frank v. Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc.
This text of Frank v. Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc. (Frank v. Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
STAYCY N. FRANK,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:23-cv-2596-WFJ-AAS
THE BUILDING INDUSTRY CONSULTING SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants. ____________________________________/
ORDER Defendant The Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc. (BICSI) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Staycy Frank to respond to BICSI’s outstanding discovery requests. (Doc. 59). At the time of BICSI’s filing, the discovery deadline had passed. (Doc. 57). BICSI failed to file a motion for an extension of the discovery deadline or any justification for this belated motion. While parties may conduct discovery after the court’s deadline, “they cannot expect the court to resolve their post-deadline discovery disputes.” Fin. Info. Techs., LLC v. iControl Sys., USA, LLC, No. 8:17-CV-190-T-23MAP, 2018 WL 8545873, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018). Thus, BICSI’s motion to compel is due to be denied. See Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1860 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.”) (citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1284, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001)); see also Middle District Discovery (2021) (I)(F) “Counsel, by agreement, may conduct discovery after the formal completion date but should not expect the Court to resolve discovery disputes arising after the discovery completion date.”). Although the court denies the untimely motion
on procedural grounds, this order should not be construed as a ruling on the substantive merits of the requests in the motion. Accordingly, BICSI’s motion to compel (Doc. 59) is DENIED. If Plaintiff Frank includes withheld statements or affidavits on her list of trial exhibits, this order does not preclude BICSI from moving the court for an order precluding their introduction as evidence. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on December 26, 2024. Aranda. Ayre hh Samone. AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Frank v. Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-building-industry-consulting-service-international-inc-flmd-2024.