Sansoni v. Orange County School Board

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

DANIEL SANSONI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-327-JSS-LHP

ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Doc. No. 40) FILED: June 13, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Daniel Sansoni, appearing pro se, seeks to compel document production from Defendant Orange County School Board. Doc. No. 40. According to the motion, on March 30, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendant a “Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.” Id. at 2, 8–18 (“Demand for Production”).1 On April 12, 2024, Defendant requested that its deadline to respond to the Demand for Production be extended through June 2, 2024, and Plaintiff agreed. Id. at 2, 6. But Defendant did not respond by June 2, 2024. Instead, on

June 3, 2024, Defendant served its Response on Plaintiff. Id. at 2, 24–38. And on June 6, 2024, Defendant served a Supplemental Response, to include some responsive documents. Id. at 2, 20–23. Plaintiff says that Defendant’s Responses were untimely pursuant to the parties’ agreement, and that the document

production to date is deficient. Id. at 3. Plaintiff filed the motion through the Court’s e-portal on June 13, 2024, and a Notice of Electronic Filing was sent to Defendant’s counsel on June 17, 2024. Doc.

No. 40; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)((2)(E). However, Defendant has not responded to the motion, and its time for doing so has expired. See Doc. No. 33 ¶ 5 (providing that opposition briefing to a discovery motion must be filed no later than five days after the motion); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court deems

the motion to be unopposed in all respects. See Doc. No. 33 ¶ 5 (stating that failure to file a timely response will result in the discovery motion being deemed

1 As more fully set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion also references Requests for Admission, but no Requests for Admission are attached to the motion, and the relief requested pertains to document production alone. Accordingly, this Order addresses only the Demand for Production. 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, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request with regard to the production of documents requested in the Demand for

Production well taken. See Doc. No. 40, at 8–18. However, the Court notes that although Plaintiff’s motion mentions Requests for Admission, no such Requests for Admission are attached to the motion and the only relief sought pertains to the Demand for Production. See id. at 2, 4; see also Doc. No. 33 ¶ 3 (requiring

attachment of the discovery at issue). Accordingly, the Court’s rulings set forth herein are limited to the Demand for Production, and do not speak to any relief as to Requests for Admission.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Doc. No. 40) is GRANTED. 2. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendant shall serve on Plaintiff, with the exception of materials covered by the attorney-client privilege, all documents in its current possession, custody, or control

responsive to the Demand for Production. See Doc. No. 40, at 8–18. 3. 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); Bercini, 2016 WL 11448993, at *2 (same).

4. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendant shall serve on Plaintiff a privilege log clearly identifying any and all remaining documents withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The privilege log must be in the form required by the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Privilege Logs,

In Re: Procedure for Assertion of Privilege, Case No. 6:19-mc-32-Orl-LRH (Doc. No. 1, June 17, 2019). 5. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(b).2

2 Plaintiff does not request an award of fees or costs or any other relief in his motion, DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 25, 2024.

ay □□□ LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5); accordingly, the Court declines to award any further relief at this time. The Court also notes that Plaintiff proceeds pro se, rendering an award of attorney’s fees inappropriate. _5-