ROSE
v.
COCA-COLA BEVERAGES FLORIDA, LLC
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 district court denied defendant Coca-Cola's motion to compel discovery of plaintiff's FitBit device because the motion was filed over two weeks after the court-ordered discovery deadline had passed. The court applied established procedural rules that parties cannot expect courts to resolve discovery disputes filed after the discovery completion date.
The court denied the motion to compel on procedural grounds because it was filed after the discovery deadline. The court declined to resolve post-deadline discovery disputes, though it did not rule on the substantive merits of the request.
“they cannot expect the court to resolve their post-deadline discovery disputes”
Establishes the core principle that courts will not entertain discovery disputes filed after the discovery deadline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe discovery deadline in this case was March 10, 2025. Coca-Cola filed a motion to compel production of plaintiff Esther Rose's FitBit on March 28, 2…
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 Discovery Deadlines cases and more on FLexlaw
(Coca-Cola), filed a motion requesting this court compel Plaintiff Esther Rose to produce her FitBit for inspection. (Doc. 40). The discovery deadline was March 10, 2025. (Doc. 26). While parties may conduct discovery after the court's deadline, “they cannot expect the court to resolve their post-deadline discovery disputes.” Fin. Info. Techs., LLC v. iControl Sys., USA, LLC, No. 8:17-CV-190-T-23MAP, 2018 WL 8545873, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018). Accordingly, Coca-Cola's motion to compel (Doc. 40), filed over two weeks after the discovery deadline passed, is due to be DENIED. See Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F. 3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.") (citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of
Georgia, 263 F. 3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir.2001)); see also Middle District Discovery (2021) (I)(F) (“Counsel, by agreement, may conduct discovery after the formal completion date but should not expect the Court to resolve discovery disputes arising after the discovery completion date."). Although the undersigned denies the untimely motion on procedural grounds, this order should not be construed to be a ruling on the substantive merits of the request in the motion. (Doc. 40).
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on April 2, 2025.
Amanda Arnold Samone AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge