UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

CARL FAUSTIN and RODNEY WILSON,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1036-CEM-LHP

SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Defendant

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION (Doc. No. 39) FILED: December 1, 2025

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs have filed a civil rights action under

challenging an ordinance enacted by Defendant that prohibits panhandling in Seminole County, Florida under certain circumstances. Doc. No. 1. Discovery closes on May 1, 2026. Doc. No. 26. By the present motion, Plaintiffs seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents in its possession, custody, and control responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1-4, 6, and 17-20. Doc. No. 39, at 1-2; Doc. No. 39-2. According to the motion, Defendant objected to the production of any documents

in the possession of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, but did not dispute the relevance of any such documents. Doc. No. 39, at 1-2. According to the motion, Defendant opposes.

. However, Defendant has not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so expired on

or about December 8, 2025. See Doc. No. 27, ¶ 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. 27, ¶ 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).

Upon review of the unopposed motion and the related discovery attached, the Court finds the motion well taken. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production (Doc. No. 39) is GRANTED. 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall

serve on Plaintiffs all documents in its current possession, custody, or control, including those within the possession of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, that are responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 1-4, 6, 17-20. See Doc.

No. 39-2. 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).1

1 Plaintiffs do not request an award of fees or any other sanction, therefore the DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 9, 2025.

ayn LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

undersigned declines to award sanctions at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (iii). -4-