UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-2118-RBD-LHP

SIEMENS GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND and SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFENDANTS SIEMENS GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, AND SIEMENS ENERGY, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. No. 82) FILED: May 22, 2025

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Discovery in this case closes on July 2, 2025. Doc. No. 79; see also Doc. No. 72. By the present motion, Defendants seek to compel RQ Construction LLC (“RQ”) to produce all documents responsive to Defendants’ Request for Production

of Documents, served on RQ on September 25, 2024. Doc. No. 82; see also id., at 8- 20. According to the motion, the parties stipulated and agreed to a Production Protocol “to define production requirements such as scope and format, including but not limited to timing and the minimum metadata to accompany electronically

stored documents.” Id., at 2. Between February and May 2025, RQ’s counsel continuously represented that production would be forthcoming, but as of the date of the present motion, has only produced 1,318 documents, which Defendants state

cannot possibly represent all of the responsive documentation to be produced, and which omits the necessary metadata. Id., at 2-3. As such, Defendants request an order compelling RQ to “produce the subset of genuinely responsive documents in the next seven days, in compliance with the agreed-upon ESI Protocol.” Id., at 4.

RQ did not timely respond to Defendants’ motion. See Doc. No. 73, ¶ 5. However, given the complex nature of this case and the voluminous discovery at issue, the Court took the unusual step of affording RQ an additional period of time

to respond until 5:00 pm on Friday, May 30, 2025. Doc. No. 83. The Court explicitly stated that “[f]ailure to respond by this deadline will result in the motion being deemed unopposed in all respects.” Id. But RQ also missed that deadline, filing its response at 5:45 pm, without explanation or request for additional time. Doc. No. 84. The response also exceeds the 500-word limit. See Doc. No. 73, ¶ 2. As such, the motion is deemed unopposed in all respects. See id., ¶ 5. See also

Weaver v. Green Sols. of Fla. LLC, No. 6:23-cv-2059-CEM-LHP,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2024) (granting motion to compel as unopposed when opposing party failed to file a timely response in accordance with Standing Discovery Order).

But even if the Court were to consider RQ’s deficient response, the result would be the same. For RQ does not raise any objections to Defendants’ discovery; rather, RQ merely states that it is in the process of making its production, that it

chose to “standdown” on further litigation including discovery production during mediation proceedings, and that RQ estimates that its production will be provided to Defendants no later than June 6, 2025. Doc. No. 84. These explanations are unpersuasive. Specifically, RQ provides no legal authority for its position that a

mediator “recommending” that the parties “standdown” on further litigation is a sufficient basis for not litigating or participating in discovery. To the contrary, this is a litigation strategy that does not provide good cause for extending deadlines.

See, e.g., Sterbenz v. Anderson, No. 8:11-cv-1159-T-33TBM,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2012) (“While the Court is not unmindful of the parties’ decision to pursue settlements that, if successful, will obviate the need to designate experts . . . the pursuit of settlement—alone—is generally not good cause to justify the extension of deadlines in a Rule 16(b) scheduling order because it does not show that such deadlines cannot be met despite the diligence of the parties.” (quoting Oliver v. M/V Barbary Coast, No. 11-223-KD-C,

, *1 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 28, 2012))). And given RQ’s failure to respond to Defendants’ motion in the first place, followed by its deficient response, the Court places little faith in RQ’s representations that the motion to compel is now moot based on future performance. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 82) is GRANTED. On or before June 6, 2025, RQ shall produce all documents responsive to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents. Doc. No. 82, at 8-20.' 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 June 2, 2025.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

' Defendants do not seek an award of fees or costs or any other sanction at this time, and therefore the Court declines to award same. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). _4-

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties