Riverwalk Church of God v. American States Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 3, 2023
• Docket: 6:22-cv-01364
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

RIVERWALK CHURCH OF GOD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:22-cv-1364-CEM-LHP

AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFENDANT AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGE COMPUTATIONS UNDER RULE 26 AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW (Doc. No. 33) FILED: December 21, 2022

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve answers to interrogatories, to provide responses to requests for production, and to provide amended Rule 26 disclosures to include damages computations. Doc. No. 33. According to the motion, Plaintiff served the deficient Rule 26 disclosures two weeks late, and has wholly failed to respond to the remaining discovery, despite

responses being due by November 28, 2022. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to compel, and its time for doing so has expired. See Doc. No. 19 ¶ 5 (providing that a response in opposition to a discovery motion must be filed no later than five (5) days after the motion is filed).

Accordingly, the Court deems the motion to be unopposed. See id. (emphasis added) (“[A] failure to file a timely response will result in the Motion being deemed unopposed.”). See also Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Paramount Disaster

Recovery, LLC, No. 6:18-cv-1738-Orl-37DCI, 2019 WL 5294804, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2019) (“The Court routinely grants motions as unopposed where the opposing parties have not filed a response in opposition to the motion.”); Bercini v. City of Orlando, No. 6:15-cv-1921-Orl-41TBS, 2016 WL 11448993, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28,

2016) (granting in full unopposed motion to compel); Daisy, Inc. v. Pollo Operations, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-564-FtM-38CM, 2015 WL 2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2015) (when defendant did not respond court could consider motion to compel

unopposed). Upon review of the unopposed motion, and the related discovery attached, the Court finds Defendant’s motion well taken. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED as follows:

1. On or before January 18, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendant complete, sworn answers to Defendant’s interrogatories. See Doc. No. 33, at 7–11. 2. On or before January 18, 2023, Plaintiff shall produce all documents in its current possession, custody, or control responsive to the requests for

production. See Doc. No. 33, at 12–18. 3. On or before January 18, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve amended Rule 26 disclosures, see Doc. No. 33, at 19–24, to include “a computation of each

category of damages claimed.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). See also MS Health, Inc. v. Cath. Charities, Diocese of St. Petersburg, Inc., No. 8:20-cv- 2118-VMC-AAS, 2021 WL 1338836, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2021) (“[A]lthough estimates are often necessary in lieu of the precise damage

calculation, they do not preclude a party from complying with the rule. [T]o comply with the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26, parties must perform ‘some analysis,’ and cannot rely on general statements.” (citations

omitted)). 4. All objections to the discovery at issue, other than attorney-client privilege, have been waived by the failure to timely respond to the motion to compel. See, e.g., Jackson v. Geometrica, Inc., No. 3:04-cv-640-J-20HTS, 2006 WL 213860, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2006) (objections not addressed in response to a motion to compel are deemed abandoned). 5. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).!

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 3, 2023.

Lb reggae tries LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

1 Defendant does not request an award of fees and costs or any other relief in its motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5); accordingly, the Court declines to award any further relief at this time. _4-