Severe v. GeoVera Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

SYNDIE SEVERE, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:22-cv-1178-PGB-LHP GEOVERA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY (Doc. No. 29) FILED: January 18, 2023 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve answers to its Interrogatories and responses to its Requests for Production, stating that Plaintiff has wholly failed to respond to these discovery requests, despite Defendant’s agreement to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to respond. Doc. No. 29. 1 According to the motion, Plaintiff does not oppose the request. Id. at 3. And Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and her deadline for doing so has passed.

See Doc. No. 12 ¶ 5 (providing that opposition briefing to a discovery motion must be filed no later than five days after the motion). Accordingly, the Court deems Defendant’s motion to be unopposed. 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 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).

1 Defendant has attached a copy of its Requests for Admissions, but has not moved to compel responses to same. See Doc. Nos. 29; 29-1, at 15–19. The Court therefore does not address the Requests for Admissions further.

Upon review of the unopposed motion, and the related discovery attached, the Court finds Defendant’s motion well taken. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED as follows: 1. On or before February 22, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendant complete, sworn answers to Defendant’s interrogatories. See Doc. No. 29-1, at 1–8.

2. On or before February 22, 2023, Plaintiff shall produce all documents in her current possession, custody, or control responsive to the requests for production. See Doc. No. 29-1, at 9–14.

3. All objections to the discovery at issue, other than attorney-client privilege, have been waived by the failure to timely respond to the discovery requests and/or 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).

5. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).2

2 Defendant does not request an award of fees and costs or any other relief in its motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5); accordingly, the Court declines to award any further relief at this time.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 8, 2023.

ayn □□□□ LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties _4-