UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

THOMAS HANDY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:21-cv-1108-RBD-LHP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. No. 52) FILED: February 28, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide documents responsive to Request for Production 20, to produce materials responsive to a deposition duces tecum, to provide an amended answer to Interrogatory 10, and to verify all interrogatory answers previously provided. Doc. No. 52. According to the motion, Plaintiff does not oppose, if given two weeks for compliance. Id. at 3–4. Nor has Plaintiff filed a timely response opposing the motion. See Doc. No. 37 ¶ 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 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,

, 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,

, 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,

, 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. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant all documents within his current possession, custody,

or control responsive to Request for Production 20. See Doc. No. 52-1, at 6. 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant all documents in his current possession, custody, or control responsive to the requests made in the Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum. See Doc. No. 52-3. 3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve

on Defendant an amended answer to Interrogatory 10, as well as verify all Interrogatory responses. See Doc. No. 52-5. 4. All objections to the discovery at issue have been waived by the failure

to timely respond to the motion to compel. See, e.g., Jackson v. Geometrica, Inc., No, 3:04-cv-640-J-20HTS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2006) (objections not addressed in response to a motion to compel are deemed abandoned); Bercini,

, at *2 (same); LIMU Co., LLC v. Burling, No. 6:12-cv-347-Orl-TBS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. April 11, 2013) (same). 5. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 7, 2023.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record -3-

Unrepresented Parties