UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

In Re: In Re: Michael B. Myers and In Re: Jacqueline M. Myers

GENE T. CHAMBERS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:22-cv-46-PGB-EJK

MICHAEL B. MYERS, JACQUELINE M. MYERS, SEAN MYERS, and MARA ROBERTS,

Defendants.

ORDER This cause comes before the Court on the Motion for Rule 34 Inspection, Entry Upon Land (the “Motion”), filed July 20, 2022, by Plaintiff Gene T. Chambers. (Doc. 34.) Although Plaintiff indicated that Defendants opposed the Motion, Defendants have failed to timely respond to the Motion or request an extension of time to do so. As such, the Motion is construed as unopposed. See Local Rule 3.01(c). Requests for entry on land are governed by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states: [a] party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) . . . to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). Additionally, the request: “(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected; (B) must specify a reasonable time, place,

and manner for the inspection and for performing the related acts; and (C) may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1). “As contemplated by Rule 34, the scope of permissible inspections is governed by Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Powers v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Mw., No. 8:10-cv-1279-T-AEP,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla.

Nov. 2, 2010). The instant action is based on a transfer of real property, 297 Dublin Drive, Lake Mary, Florida 32746, which Plaintiff alleges was fraudulently transferred. (See Doc. 15.) Plaintiff states the property transfer had a lien placed upon it to “make it

appear the Property lacked equity.” (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges the transfer “was made at a time when significant obligations had been incurred by the Debtor,” and thus “was made with the intent to hinder, delay[,] or defraud” creditors. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 32.) As the property is the subject of this action, and its value is highly relevant to the suit, the undersigned finds Plaintiff’s appraiser-expert should be permitted to access the

property for inspection and appraisal. The request describes with reasonable particularity what is to be inspected, the property at 297 Dublin Drive, and specifies that access to the property should occur within three business days of any order granting the request for purposes of an appraiser expert report. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 34 Inspection, Entry Upon Land (Doc. 34) is GRANTED. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 5, 2022.

KIDD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE