MINER
v.
CHASE AUTO FINANCE
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.
Pro se plaintiff Susan Ann Miner sought early discovery through a verified bill of discovery and verified bill for account before the required Rule 26(f) conference. The District Court denied both motions because the case was in its early stages, plaintiff failed to establish good cause for early discovery, and the motions failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules.
The Court denied both motions because discovery was not authorized under Rule 26(d)(1) absent good cause, plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for early discovery, and the motions failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules regarding memoranda of law, conferences with opposing counsel, and typography requirements.
[1] Discovery is generally prohibited prior to an initial Rule 26(f) conference unless authorized by court order.
[2] Courts have broad discretion in scheduling discovery and typically require a showing of good cause for expedited discovery.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting early discovery requests
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan Ann Miner, proceeding pro se, filed two motions in a case against Chase Auto Finance. The case was at an early stage with not all defendants ser…
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 Motion For Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court without oral argument on two motions filed by Plaintiff, Susan Ann Miner, who is proceeding pro se. The first is a motion for a verified bill of discovery. Dkt. 29. The second is a motion for a verified bill for account. Dkt. 30. The motions appear to request the Court to issue orders requiring the production of documents or information. Dkts. 29 at 2-3 (demanding production of documents from parties and nonparties), 30 at 1-2 (demanding an accounting and appointment of special master).
The motions do not comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules. Litigants who wish to obtain information or documents from opposing parties must follow the procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Among other things, those rules prohibit parties from seeking discovery prior to an initial Rule 26(f) conference except in certain circumstances, including "by court order.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).
The Court has "broad discretion" in the scheduling of discovery. Johnson v. Bd. of Regents, 263 F. 3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). Generally, courts reviewing motions for early discovery look at whether the movant has established "good cause” for the discovery. See Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. O'Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618, 623–24 (N.D. Ill. 2000)). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 304 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (citing Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275–76 (N.D. Cal. 2002)).
This case is at the beginning. Plaintiff has not served all Defendants. Only one defendant has appeared. The parties have not filed a case management report. Discovery is thus not authorized by Rule 26(d)(1).
Neither motion demonstrates good cause for early discovery. Plaintiff broadly requests discovery, but she does not provide any citation to legal authority for such requests. Nor does Plaintiff propose using the mechanisms provided by the Federal Rules. The motions also do not describe the requested discovery or the target of the discovery with particularity. The motions are therefore due to be denied.
Additionally, all motions must comply with the requirements of the Local Rules. Local Rule 3.01(a) requires every motion to "include in a single document no longer than twenty-five pages inclusive of all parts a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a legal memorandum supporting the request." Subsection (g) requires litigants to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion— except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, or to certify a class and include a certification that states the movant has conferred with the opposing party, whether the parties agree on all or part of the relieve requested, and if opposed, the means by which the conference occurred. All flings must also conform to certain typography requirements. See Local Rule 1.08.
The motions do not contain the required memorandum of law or a certificate of conferral. Nor do they conform to the typography requirements of Local Rule 1.08. The motions are due to be denied on these grounds too.
The Court recommends that Plaintiff consider consulting the resources available for litigants without lawyers. Plaintiff may visit the Court's website (www.flmd.uscourts.gov) for resources for unrepresented litigants, including a Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer. Plaintiff may also get a copy of the Guide at the clerk's office. In addition, the Orlando Chapter of the Federal Bar Association operates a Legal Information Program that affords litigants proceeding in federal court without lawyers an opportunity to meet with lawyers to ask general questions about procedures governing cases in federal court. More information about the program, including instructions about how to schedule an appointment, is available on the Court's website at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/legal-information-program.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Verified Bill of Discovery in Chancery
(Dkt. 29) is DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff's Verified Bill for Account in Chancery
(Dkt. 30) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on May 13, 2025.
ROBERT M. NORWAY
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to: Susan Ann Miner 3700 Branton Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miner v. Chase Auto Fin., 194 F.R.D. 618 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…urts reviewing motions for early discovery look at whether the movant has established "good cause” for the discovery. See Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. O'Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618, 623–24 (N.D. Ill. 2000)). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 304 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S…1 / 3
-
…urts reviewing motions for early discovery look at whether the movant has established “good cause" for the discovery. See Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. O'Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618, 623–24 (N.D. Ill. 2000)) (adopting the good cause test because “in deciding on a matter merely of regulating the timing of discovery, 'it makes sense to examine the discovery request . . . on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonablenes…1 / 4
-
…urts reviewing motions for early discovery look at whether the movant has established "good cause” for the discovery. See Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. O'Connor, 194 F.R.D. 618, 623–24 (N.D. Ill. 2000)) (adopting the good cause test because “in deciding on a matter merely of regulating the timing of discovery, it makes sense to examine the discovery request on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of th…1 / 4
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Bd. OF Regents OF THE Univ. OF Ga., 263 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Miner v. Chase Auto Fin., 194 F.R.D. 618 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 304 F.R.D. 672 (S.D. Fla. 2015)