PATRICIA TOMLINSON & JT TOMLINSON
v.
P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the defendant's motion to compel discovery responses and awarded attorney's fees.
[1] When a party fails to respond to a motion to compel discovery despite an extended deadline and explicit court warning that failure to respond will result in the motion be…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant moved to compel Plaintiff to respond to requests for production. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion by the extended deadline, even af…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Relevance And Proportionality In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. (P.F. Chang's) moves to compel Plaintiff Patricia Tomlinson to respond to its requests for production. (Doc. 38). When Ms. Tomlinson failed to timely respond to the motion, the court directed a response by December 9, 2025. (Doc. 39). The court warned Ms. Tomlinson that the failure to respond by the extended deadline would result in the motion being treated as unopposed. [fn 1] (Id.). To date, no response has been filed.
A party may obtain discovery about any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery helps parties ascertain facts that are relevant to the issues. ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 859 F. 3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). A party may move for an order compelling discovery from the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party moving to compel discovery has the initial burden of proving the requested discovery is relevant and proportional. Douglas v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-CV- 1185-Orl-22TBS, 2016 WL 1637277, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (quotation and citation omitted). The responding party must then specifically show how the requested discovery is unreasonable or unduly burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Assʼn v. Shuman, 762 F. 2d 1550, 1559–60 (11th Cir. 1985). P.F. Chang's discovery requests seek information that is relevant and proportional to its defense of this action.
Accordingly, P.F. Chang's motion to compel (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. By December 19, 2025, Ms. Tomlinson must provide responses to P.F. Chang's requests for production. P.F. Chang's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in bringing this motion are awarded against Ms. Tomlinson. [fn 2] The parties must confer and attempt to agree on the reasonable amount of attorney's fees and expenses that P.F. Chang's incurred in relation to this motion. If the parties cannot agree, P.F. Chang's may file a motion with supporting documentation.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 10, 2025.
Amanda Arnold Sansone
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge
[fn 1]: See Local Rule 3.01(c), M.D. Fla. (“If a party fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed.").
[fn 2]: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) states that if a motion to compel is granted, the court “must” require the opposing party to pay the movant's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in making the motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Patricia Tomlinson & JT Tomlinson v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…discovery from the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party moving to compel discovery has the initial burden of proving the requested discovery is relevant and proportional. Douglas v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-CV- 1185-Orl-22TBS, 2016 WL 1637277, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (quotation and citation omitted). The responding party must then specifically show how the requested discovery is unreasonable or unduly burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Assʼn v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559–60 (11th Ci…
-
Hoffman v. Smith, 2024 WL 3898011 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…dition' serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case."). The party moving to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving relevance. Douglas v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-1185-Orl-22TBS, 2016 WL 1637277, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016). The responding party must then demonstrate how the discovery is improper, unreasonable, or disproportionate. Aileron Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Am. Lending Ctr., LLC, No. 8:21- CV146-MSS-AAS, 2021 WL 5961144, at *1 (M.D. Fl…
-
Carter v. Cardinal Glass Indus., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2024)…e rationally supports the decision."). Relevancy and proportionality are the guiding principles. The moving party “bears the initial burden of proving that the information sought is relevant.” Douglas v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-1185, 2016 WL 1637277, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (quoting Moore v. Lender Processing Servs. Inc., No. 3:12-cv-205, 2013 WL 2447948, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2013)). Relevancy is based on the "tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without th…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union OF Fla., Inc. v. City OF Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2017)
- Patricia Tomlinson & JT Tomlinson v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)