Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:16-cv-366-PGB-LHP

PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC., STEVEN ABBOUD, PHAZZER IP, LLC and PHAZZER GLOBAL CORPORATION,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: OPPOSED THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL STEPHENSON’S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Doc. No. 691) FILED: June 15, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff moves for an order compelling third-party entity Adam Stephenson, LLC’s production of documents responsive to a subpoena, specifically documents labeled Bates numbers STEPHENSON 000321–337, and STEPHENSON 000524–525, 559, 573, 582-93, 604, 620-21, 626, 632, 644, 647, 650, 653–55, 676, 680, 682, 684–685, 687, 744-45, 748-49, 752-53, 756-57, 760-61, 771, 775, 777, 803–04, 843, 849–50, 853–54,

863–64, 913–14, 930, 932, 936, 939, 1010, 1013, 1033, 1035, 1037, 1167–68, 1172–73, 1177, 1179, 1181–82, 1188–89, 1697, and 1371. Doc. No. 691. Adam Stephenson, LLC has not responded to the motion, and its time for doing so has expired. See Doc. No. 508 ¶ 5 (providing that opposition briefing to a discovery motion must be

filed no later than five days after the motion).1 Accordingly, the Court deems the motion to be unopposed in all respects. See id. (stating that failure to file a timely response will result in the discovery 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

1 Adam Stephenson, LLC is represented by counsel admitted to practice in the Middle District of Florida, who by virtue of that admission and appearance in this case, are deemed responsible for reviewing the entire docket and complying with all applicable Local Rules and Court Orders. The Order on Discovery Motions has been part of this case since March 9, 2022, and applies to all litigants involved in a discovery dispute. There is no exception for third-party subpoenas. Doc. No. 508. 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, the Court finds the unopposed motion well taken. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Opposed Third Motion to Compel Stephenson’s Production of Documents (Doc. No. 691) is GRANTED.

2. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Adam Stephenson, LLC shall produce to Plaintiff documents labeled Bates numbers STEPHENSON 000321–337, and STEPHENSON 000524–525, 559, 573, 582-93, 604, 620-21,

626, 632, 644, 647, 650, 653–55, 676, 680, 682, 684–685, 687, 744-45, 748-49, 752- 53, 756-57, 760-61, 771, 775, 777, 803–04, 843, 849–50, 853–54, 863–64, 913–14, 930, 932, 936, 939, 1010, 1013, 1033, 1035, 1037, 1167–68, 1172–73, 1177, 1179, 1181–82, 1188–89, 1697, and 1371. By this same deadline, Adam

Stephenson, LLC shall file a notice of compliance with the Court. 3. All objections to production have been waived by Adam Stephenson, LLC’s failure to timely respond to the motion to compel. See generally 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). See also Doc. Nos. 606, 662, 671, 681. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 23, 2023.

ayn □□□□ LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

_4-