UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ANDREW K. O’HAZO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:21-cv-1010-PGB-LHP

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY INTERROGATORIES TIME SENSITIVE (Doc. No. 59) FILED: March 13, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide “correct[] and appropriate” answers to his interrogatories and to produce additional documents in response to his requests for production. Doc. No. 59; see also Doc. Nos. 59-1, 59-2. Plaintiff served the discovery at issue on Defendant on October 16, 2022, and Defendant provided responses on November 16, 2022. Doc. Nos. 59-1, 59-2. Notably, the discovery deadline initially elapsed in this matter on November 1, 2022. See Doc.

No. 30, at 1. Defendant opposes the motion to compel. Doc. No. 60. While noting that Plaintiff’s motion is devoid of legal authority, Defendant’s response suffers the same deficiency, and is peppered with unsupported claims of unethical behavior

on the part of Plaintiff. Id. But, fortunately for Defendant, at least two of its arguments require denial of the motion to compel. First, given that Plaintiff served the discovery requests on October 16, 2022,

and discovery initially closed on November 1, 2022, the discovery itself was untimely at the time it was served. See Doc. No. 30, at 5 (“Each party shall timely serve discovery requests so that the Rules allow for a response prior to the discovery deadline.”). A subsequent amendment to the Case Management and Scheduling

Order in February 2023 does not change this result – particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff never requested an extension of the discovery deadline. See Doc. No. 55.

Second, Defendant states that “there are no additional records or information to produce” in response to the discovery requests at issue. Doc. No. 60, at 2. Based on this statement, the motion is due to be denied. See O'Reilly v. Home Servs. by McCue of N. Fla. Inc., No. 3:17-cv-592-J-34JBT,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2017) (“[T]he Court ‘cannot compel a party to... produce documents that it does not have in its possession, custody, or control,’ or ‘documents that do not exist.” (quoting Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., No. 4-60268-CIV,

, at *4-5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2014))). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Interrogatories Time Sensitive (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 21, 2023.

LESLIE 3 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-3-