UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ASSUREDPARTNERS GREAT PLAINS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:22-cv-2373-PGB-DCI

SHANE LARSON,

Defendant.

ORDER This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motions: MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Expedited Response to First Requests for Discovery (Doc. 22) FILED: January 18, 2023 MOTION: Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Expedited Response to First Requests for Discovery, Motion to Stay Discovery or, in the Alternative Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 26) FILED: January 25, 2023 MOTION: Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery or, in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 27) FILED: January 27, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 22) is GRANTED; Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 26) is DENIED without prejudice; and Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 27) is DENIED. Plaintiff initiated this case against Defendant alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement, misappropriation and misuse of trade secret information in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Wisconsin law, and unjust enrichment. Doc. 1. By Order dated December 22, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction because Plaintiff did not justify its failure to give notice to Defendant; Plaintiff waited

seven weeks to bring the action, which delay “speaks to the absence of irreparable injury;” and the Court was not persuaded that monetary damages would not make Plaintiff whole or that a preservation order was proper or necessary. Doc. 7. The case proceeded, and Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Expedited Response to its First Requests for Discovery. Doc. 22 (the Motion to Compel). Plaintiff states that it served its First Requests for Production of Documents and the First Interrogatory on January 17, 2023, and requests that the Court shorten Defendant’s deadline to respond to January 31, 2023 and to produce the requested documents to February 16, 2023. Doc. 22. Plaintiff asserts that it needs the responses on an expedited basis to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant is soliciting

its clients and to determine what trade secrets and confidential information Defendant possesses and has used to unfairly compete. Id. at 2. Defendant then filed a “Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Expedited Response to First Requests for Discovery, Motion to Stay Discovery or, in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order.” Doc. 26. While Defendant titles the filing as a “Response,” Defendant does not actually respond to the Motion to Compel. See id. Instead, Defendant uses the filing to seek Defendant’s own relief—a request to stay discovery—which is improper and due be denied pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(a).1 Since Defendant did not respond to the substance of the Motion to Compel, it is deemed unopposed. The Court routinely grants motions as unopposed where the opposing parties have not filed a response in opposition to the motion. See Local Rule 3.01(c); see also Foster v. The Coca-

Cola Co.,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015) (finding that a motion to compel was unopposed a because the opposing party failed to timely respond to the motion). As such, Plaintiff’s request for an expedited response is due to be granted. Finally, Plaintiff filed a “Response to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery or, in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order.” Doc. 27. The Court understands that Plaintiff found it necessary to file the “Response” because Plaintiff included a motion within its response, but the Court construes the filing as an unauthorized reply and it is due to be stricken under Local Rule 3.01(d). In any event, Plaintiff’s “Response” to Defendant’s request for stay is moot for the reasons stated supra.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Expedited Response (Doc. 22) is GRANTED as unopposed. Defendant shall respond to the First Requests for Production of Documents and the First Interrogatory on or before January 31, 2023 and shall produce responsive documents on or before February 16, 2023, as requested; 2. Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 26) is DENIED without prejudice as improper under Local Rule 3.01(a); and

1 Defendant states that he intends to file a Motion to Dismiss/Transfer Venue. That motion has been filed and is pending before the Court. 3. Plaintiff's “Response” (Doc. 27) is hereby STRICKEN as an improper reply under Local Rule 3.01(d). ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 30, 2023.

DANIEL C. IRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE