UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

KYLE CRESSWELL and KRYSTAL YACEK,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-284-RBD-LHP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION TO COMPEL WAGE LOSS RECORDS (Doc. No. 39) FILED: July 23, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. By the above-styled motion, Defendant the United States of America moves to compel Plaintiff Kyle Cresswell to respond to Defendant’s Interrogatory 13 and Defendant’s Request for Production 15, both of which request information and documents related to Plaintiff Kyle Cresswell’s wage loss claim. Doc. No. 39. See also Doc. Nos. 39-2, 39-3. According to the motion, Plaintiff is claiming wage losses of $5,500.00 but has failed to provide any discovery in support of this claim. Doc. No. 39, at 1.

The Court directed Plaintiff Kyle Cresswell to respond to the motion by July 29, 2024, but Plaintiff, who at all times has been represented by counsel, has failed to respond.1 See Doc. No. 40. See also Doc. No. 21 ¶ 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 Doc. No. 40 (the Court informing Plaintiff Kyle Cresswell that failure to respond to Defendant’s motion to compel would result in the motion “being treated as

unopposed in all respects”); Doc. No. 21 ¶ 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, 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

1 In an updated Local Rule 3.01(g)(3) conferral notice, the United States represented that it had conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, who stated that Plaintiff would submit amended discovery responses by July 29, 2024. Doc. No. 41. In response to that notice, the Court directed the United States to update the Court as to whether the motion to compel was now moot. Doc. No. 42. The United States filed its notice, stating that despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations, no amended discovery responses have been served to date. Doc. No. 43. As such, the motion to compel remains ripe and unopposed. 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). The Court has reviewed Defendant’s motion, and the attached requests for production and interrogatories and finds, particularly in light of the lack of

opposition, that the motion to compel is well taken.2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant United States’s Motion to Compel Wage Loss Records (Doc.

No. 39) is GRANTED. 2. On or before August 6, 2024, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendant complete, sworn answers to Defendant’s Interrogatory 13, and produce all documents in his current possession, custody, or control responsive to

Defendant’s Requests for Production 15. See Doc. No. 39-2, at 5–6; Doc. No. 39-3, at 6. If no such documents exist, Plaintiff shall state as much in

2 Defendant does not request an award of fees or costs or any other relief in his motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5); accordingly, the Court declines to award any further relief at this time. amended discovery responses by this same deadline. Given the impending August 16, 2024 discovery deadline, this deadline will not be extended. 3. All objections to the discovery at issue have been waived by the failure

to timely respond to the motions 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). 4, 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 July 31, 2024.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-4-