UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ROBERT HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-230-GAP-LHP

SAAB, INC.,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. No. 24) FILED: October 8, 2025

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, his employer, engaged in race- based discrimination in violation of Title VII,

, and the Florida Civil Rights Act. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, back pay and benefits and emotional distress damages.

. By the present motion, Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to comply with its Requests for Production and Interrogatories served in July 2025, specifically to produce responsive documents to Request 25 and a better response to Interrogatory 13,1 both of which relate to Plaintiff’s medical records and medical providers, as

well as responsive documents to Request 34, which relates to Plaintiff’s financial information, including tax returns. Doc. No. 24; see also Doc. No. 24-1; Doc. No. 24- 2. Defendant also seeks to compel Plaintiff to execute releases for disclosure and

production of medical records, or alternatively to facilitate efforts to obtain those records through third party subpoenas, as it relates to Request 25.

Plaintiff objected to the requests and interrogatory on several bases, and provided limited

response/production regarding same. Doc. No. 24-3; Doc. No. 24-4. Defendant asserts that the information sought by each of these requests is discoverable and relevant to the claimed damages in this case. Doc. No. 24. According to the motion, the parties conferred regarding these issues but were

unable to resolve them.

. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s motion, and his time for doing so expired on October 14, 2025. See Doc. No. 16 ¶ 5 (providing that opposition briefing to a discovery motion must be

1 The motion elsewhere cites Interrogatory 1, but Defendant’s conclusion and request for relief cites only Interrogatory 13. Compare Doc. No. 24, at 1, with

. Accordingly, Interrogatory 1 is not further addressed herein. filed no later than five days after the motion); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court deems Defendant’s motion to be unopposed in all respects. See Doc. No. 16 ¶ 5 (stating that failure to file a timely response will result in the

discovery motion being deemed unopposed); 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); 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). On review, given the lack of response from Plaintiff, the Court finds the unopposed motion well taken. See Maddow v. Procter and Gamble Co.,

,

853 (11th Circ. 1997) (affirming decision compelling production of tax records in employment/age discrimination case, as they were arguably relevant); Dickerson v. Barancik, No. 8:18-cv-895-T-36JSS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019) (“[C]ourts in the Middle District of Florida have ruled that a plaintiff’s medical records are discoverable where they are relevant to the plaintiff’s claims for physical or mental injuries.” (collecting authority)); Cupp v. United States, No. CV512-005,

, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2015) (“While the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has not addressed this issue, district courts in this Circuit have recognized a party’s ability to request the production of a signed HIPAA authorization and the court’s ability to order compliance therewith.”); Vidovic v.

City of Tampa, No. 8:16-cv-714-T-17AAS,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2017) (compelling production of executed copies of medical releases). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Amended Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED. 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendant all documents in his current possession, custody, or control responsive to Requests 25 and 34, and Plaintiff shall also serve executed

releases for the disclosure and production of medical records. 3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendant a verified and supplemental answer to Interrogatory 13

identifying the medical professionals from whom Plaintiff sought treatment within the past five years. 4. 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); Weaver,

, 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 16, 2025.

LESLIE 3 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

2 Defendant does not request an award of fees and costs or any other relief in its motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5); accordingly, the Court declines to award any further relief at this time. -5-