Rubio v. Algo Capital, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-24476-Civ-BECERRA/TORRES

ARMANDO RUBIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALGO CAPITAL, LLC, a Florida corporation, and K SUNSET CONSULTING INC., a Florida corporation, KAITO GROUP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability corporation, ROBERT D COLLAZO, JR, JUAN HERMAN, JULIO CESAR CRUZ, JILIAN CRUZ, all in their individual capacity,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s, Armando Rubio’s, Motion to Compel Discovery. [D.E. 79]. Defendants timely responded to the motion [D.E. 88], and the time for Plaintiff to reply has passed. The motion, therefore, is ripe for disposition.1 After careful review of the briefing and relevant authorities, and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants’ production of certain documents and information. There is no record, however, of Plaintiff (or his now-withdrawn attorney) ever serving corresponding discovery requests on Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff

1 On May 28, 2024, the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra referred all discovery matters to the Undersigned Magistrate Judge for disposition. [D.E. 51]. has not attached the discovery requests to his pending motion, nor has he otherwise provided that the discovery requests were ever served. As a result, we cannot compel Defendants to respond more properly to

discovery requests that they never received (or at least, where service of the requests has not been demonstrated by Plaintiff). See First Sav. Bank v. Deane, No. 3:23-CV- 432-TJC-LLL, 2023 WL 8434476, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2023) (“Additionally, counsel for plaintiff states defendant never served discovery on plaintiff before filing the motion before the Court. A motion to compel is not the proper means to obtain discovery never served. Plaintiff cannot be compelled or sanctioned for failing to

disclose something it was never requested to provide.”); Pandora Jewelers 1995, Inc. v. Pandora Jewelry, LLC, No. 09-61490-civ-Cooke/Bandstra, 2010 WL 11440948, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2010) (denying a motion to compel discovery, in part, because certain discovery was never served on defendant); Fuggi v. Steadfast Ins. Co., No. 6:04-cv-1714-Orl-22KRS, 2006 WL 1760478, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2006) (“The Court simply cannot compel a party to engage in discovery when he has not been served with the appropriate requests.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [D.E. 79] is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida this 2nd day of October, 2024. /s/ Edwin G. Torres EDWIN G. TORRES United States Magistrate Judge