Annette Knispel v. The United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ANNETTE KNISPEL, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:25-cv-1079-ACC-LHP THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant

ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Compel and Memorandum in Support, filed by Defendant the United States of America on January 27, 2026. Doc. No. 26.

Upon consideration of same, the motion will be denied as moot in part, and granted in its remainder.

The United States moves to compel Plaintiff to serve answers to interrogatories and provide responses to requests for production served on November 21, 2025. Doc. No. 26; Doc. Nos. 26-4, 26-5. The United States also seeks to compel Plaintiff to serve her initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Doc. No. 26, at 2. According to the motion, Plaintiff agreed to provide each of these to the United States, but has failed to do so. Id. at 2, 3.

However, on January 28, 2026, the United States partially withdrew its motion to compel, stating that after it was filed, Plaintiff served her initial disclosures and provide responses to the requests for production. Doc. No. 28. However, the United States says that Plaintiff has still failed to serve answers to its interrogatories.

Id. at 1.

Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and her time for doing so expired on February 2, 2026. See Doc. No. 24 ¶ 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. 24 ¶ 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, 2024 WL 4275221, 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, 2019 WL 5294804, 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, 2016 WL 11448993, 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, 2015 WL 2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2015) (when defendant did not respond court could consider motion to compel unopposed).

Upon consideration, and given the United States’ notice of partial withdrawal, Doc. No. 28, the motion will be denied as moot with respect to the initial disclosures and requests for production.1 As it relates to the interrogatories, however, given the lack of response, the Court finds the motion well taken.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The United States’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED as moot with respect to the initial disclosures and requests for production. See Doc.

No. 28.

2. The United States’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED in its remainder.

3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve on the United States complete, sworn answers to the United States’ First Set of Interrogatories. See Doc. No. 26-4.

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,

1 The Court also notes that with respect to the initial disclosures, the motion was premature, as it was filed on January 27, 2026, but according to the Case Management and Scheduling Order, initial disclosures were due by January 30, 2026. See Doc. Nos. 22, 26.

Inc., No. 3:04-cv-640-J-20HTS, 2006 WL 213860, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2006) (objections not addressed in response to a motion to compel are deemed abandoned); Bercini, 2016 WL 11448993, at *2 (same).

5. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).2 DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 4, 2026.

LESLIE 3 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record The United States 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.