Rose v. Coca-Cola Beverages Florida, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ESTHER ROSE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:23-cv-2864-TPB-AAS

COCA-COLA BEVERAGES FLORIDA, LLC,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER On March 28, 2025, Defendant Coca-Cola Beverages Florida, LLC (Coca-Cola), filed a motion requesting this court compel Plaintiff Esther Rose to produce her FitBit for inspection. (Doc. 40). The discovery deadline was March 10, 2025. (Doc. 26). 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). Accordingly, Coca-Cola’s motion to compel (Doc. 40), filed over two weeks after the discovery deadline passed, is due to be DENIED. See Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (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 1234, 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 undersigned denies the untimely motion on procedural grounds, this order should not be construed to be a ruling on the substantive merits of the request in the motion. (Doc. 40). ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on April 2, 2025. Aranda. Arne ih Sane. AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge