Santiago Garcia v. American Strategic Insurance Corp.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00923
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

LUIS ANGEL SANTIAGO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-00923-TPB-AAS

AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP.,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER Defendant American Strategic Insurance Corp (ASI) requests that the court compel Plaintiff Luis Angel Santiago Garcia to produce documents responsive to ASI’s Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents (collectively, ASI’s discovery requests) (Doc. 14-1). (Doc. 14). When Mr. Garcia failed to timely respond to the motion, the court directed a response by September 26, 2025. (Doc. 16). The court warned Mr. Garcia that the failure to respond would result in the motion being treated as unopposed.1 (Id.). To date, no response has been filed.

1 See Local Rule 3.01(c), M.D. Fla. (“If a party fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed.”). A party may obtain discovery about any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery helps parties ascertain facts that bear on issues. ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). A party may move for an order compelling discovery from the opposing

party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party moving to compel discovery has the initial burden of proving the requested discovery is relevant and proportional. Douglas v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-1185-Orl-22TBS, 2016 WL 1637277, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (quotation and citation omitted). The

responding party must then specifically show how the requested discovery is unreasonable or unduly burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559–60 (11th Cir. 1985). ASI’s discovery requests seek information that is relevant to the present breach of contract action. Moore v.

Lender Processing Servs. Inc., No. 3:12-cv-205-J, 2013 WL 2447948 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2013). Mr. Garcia did not respond to the motion. Accordingly, ASI’s motion to compel (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. By October 14, 2025, Mr. Garcia must provide responses to ASI’s discovery

requests. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 1, 2025. Aranda. Arpre (he Sasson, AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge