UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

VINCENZO QUARATO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-690-WWB-LHP

OWENS REALTY NETWORK, LLC,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (Doc. No. 21) FILED: September 25, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. In this employment discrimination action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, to respond to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Doc. No. 21.1 According to the motion, Defendant served Plaintiff with these discovery requests on July 8, 2024, provided Plaintiff with an extension of time to respond until September 4, 2024, but to date, Plaintiff has not served any

answers to the Interrogatories or responses to the Requests for Production. Id., at 1-2. Defendant represents in the motion that counsel conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel on two occasions prior to filing the motion and the parties were unable to

reach resolution. Doc. No. 21, at 2-3. Defendant’s counsel also attempted to reach Plaintiff’s counsel a third time on September 9, 2024, but Plaintiff has not responded. Id., at 3.2 In addition, Plaintiff has not responded to the present

motion, and the time for doing so expired on September 30, 2024. See Doc. No. 17 ¶ 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

1 Defendant’s first motion to compel was denied without prejudice for failing to comply with the conferral requirements of the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order and the Court’s Standing Order on Discovery Motions. Doc. Nos. 19-20; see also Doc. Nos. 15, 17. 2 The undersigned notes that when a party fails to respond to a request to confer, the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g)(3) apply. Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g)(3), however in this one instance, given the multiple prior conferral attempts, and the lack of any response from Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court does not find this failure to be dispositive. However, counsel is reminded to carefully review and comply with all applicable Local Rules going forward. Court deems Plaintiff’s motion to be unopposed in all respects. See Doc. No. 17 ¶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 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 of the unopposed motion, and the related discovery attached, the Court finds the motion (Doc. No. 21) well taken. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant’s First Requests for Production and produce all responsive documents thereto. Doc. No. 21, at 37-46.

2. By this same fourteen (14) day deadline, Plaintiff shall also serve sworn, verified answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories. Doc. No. 21, at 5-35. 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., 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 sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).° DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 4, 2024.

LESLIE 5 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

* Defendant does not request an award of fees and 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. _4-