FRANK
v.
BUILDING INDUSTRY CONSULTING SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

M.D. Fla. | 2024-12-26
No. 8:23-cv-2596
2018 WL 8545873 2024 FFL 31537 District Court, M.D. Florida (2024) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

The District Court denied BICSI's motion to compel discovery responses filed after the discovery deadline had passed, holding that while parties may conduct discovery after the court's deadline, they cannot expect the court to resolve post-deadline discovery disputes.

Holding

The court denied BICSI's motion to compel on procedural grounds, holding that parties cannot expect the court to resolve post-deadline discovery disputes even though they may conduct discovery after the court's deadline.

Headnotes

[1] A motion to compel discovery filed after the discovery deadline has passed, without a prior motion for an extension or justification, is subject to denial on procedural g…

[2] Parties may conduct discovery after the court's deadline, but they cannot expect the court to resolve post-deadline discovery disputes.

Previewing 2 of 4 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
Key Quotes

“they cannot expect the court to resolve their post-deadline discovery disputes”

Establishes the court's policy of not resolving 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 intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Staycy Frank failed to respond to BICSI's discovery requests. BICSI filed a motion to compel after the discovery deadline had already passed…

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.

Topics
Preclusion Of Evidence Motion To Compel Discovery

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preclusion Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Defendant The Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc. (BICSI) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Staycy Frank to respond to BICSI's outstanding discovery requests. (Doc. 59). At the time of BICSI's filing, the discovery deadline had passed. (Doc. 57). BICSI failed to file a motion for an extension of the discovery deadline or any justification for this belated motion.

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). Thus, BICSI's motion to compel is due to be denied. See Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F. 3d

1

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 court denies the untimely motion on procedural grounds, this order should not be construed as a ruling on the substantive merits of the requests in the motion.

Accordingly, BICSI's motion to compel (Doc. 59) is DENIED. If Plaintiff Frank includes withheld statements or affidavits on her list of trial exhibits, this order does not preclude BICSI from moving the court for an order precluding their introduction as evidence.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on December 26, 2024.

Amanda Arnold Samone

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE

United States Magistrate Judge

2

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Frank v. Bldg. Indus. Consulting Serv. Int'l, Inc., 2018 WL 8545873 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …n for this belated motion. 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). Thus, BICSI's motion to compel is due to be denied. See Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1 ---PAGE 2--- Case 8:23-cv-2596-WFJ-AAS Document 60 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 356 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002)…
  • Sheehan v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …sical files. (See Doc. 32). 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-23МАР, 2018 WL 8545873, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018). Thus, Progressive's motion to compel could have been denied on this basis alone. See Middle District Discovery (2021) (I)(F) (“Counsel, by agreement, may conduct discovery after the formal completion date but should no…
  • Integrity Payments Grp., LLC v. Webb (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …nt 90 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1247 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, Ms. Lorenzo's motion for a protective order (Doc. 69) and Ms. Webb's and Caprae's motion to compel (Doc. 76), both filed over one month after the discovery deadline passed, are due to be denied. See Chrysl…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw