UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

GRANBY’S GREENHOUSE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:22-cv-2004-RBD-LHP

CONTAINER CENTRALEN, INC.,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFENDANT, CONTAINER CENTRALEN, INC.’S, SHORT FORM MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM PLAINTIFF (Doc. No. 38) FILED: November 14, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Container Centralen, Inc. seeks to compel Plaintiff Granby’s Greenhouse Corporation to respond in full to Requests for Production 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 from Defendant’s First Requests for Production (Doc. No. 38, at 20–35), in particular to produce all of Plaintiff’s financial documents, including bank statements, “paper balance sheets,” and excel sheets since January 2018. Doc. No. 38. Defendant further requests that Plaintiff be compelled to

provide its consent/cooperation to Plaintiff’s bank/lender to respond in full to a third-party subpoena. Id. Last, Defendant requests an award of fees and costs. Id. Plaintiff, who at all times has been represented by counsel, has not responded

to the motion, and its time for doing so has expired. See Doc. No. 29 ¶ 5 (providing that opposition briefing to a discovery motion must be filed no later than five days after the motion). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court deems

the motion to be unopposed in all respects. See Doc. No. 29 ¶ 5 (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, Case 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, Case 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., Case 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 of the unopposed motion, and the related discovery attached,

the Court finds Defendant’s motion well taken. The Court further finds sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 warranted. Rule 37 provides that when, as here, a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party

or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). While the rule permits the Court to decline to

award sanctions under certain circumstances, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii), Plaintiff has been provided an opportunity to be heard, and has not presented any information or argument suggesting that those circumstances apply here. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant Container Centralen, Inc.’s Short-Form Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff (Doc. No. 38) is GRANTED. 2. On or before December 8, 2023, Plaintiff shall produce all documents

in its current possession, custody, or control responsive to Requests 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 from Defendant’s First Request for Production. See Doc. No. 38, at 20–35. 3. 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., Case 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, Case No. 6:12-cv-347-Orl- TBS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. April 11, 2013) (same). 4. Plaintiff is directed to immediately provide its cooperation/consent to

its bank/lender Compeer Financial such that Compeer Financial can comply in full with the third-party subpoena served by Defendant. See Doc. No. 38, at 36–45. However, the Court notes that Defendant has not filed a motion to compel against

Compeer Financial, thus any objections raised by Compeer Financial itself to the subpoena are not addressed in this Order, and this Order is limited solely to compelling Plaintiff to consent/cooperate. 5. On or before December 8, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant shall meet and

confer in good faith to determine an amount of reasonable fees and expenses that should be awarded to Defendant for the filing of the present motion. The parties shall file a joint notice of the agreed upon amount by December 15, 2023. If the

parties are unable to reach an agreement by that time, Defendant shall file a motion, supported by appropriate documentation and citation to legal authority, for reasonable fees and expenses incurred in filing the present motion. That motion shall be filed by December 15, 2023. 6. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are advised that failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 21, 2023.

Lybut hegrar Hica LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-5-