SOREMI
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
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 because the plaintiffs failed to respond to the motion, rendering it unopposed.
The defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiffs to provide adequate discovery responses. The plaintiffs, represented by counsel, did not respond…
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 Unopposed Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
RESPONSES (Doc. No. 29) FILED: December 5, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Federal Insurance Company seeks to compel Plaintiffs Oludapo Soremi and Modupe Soremi to respond in full to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production. Doc. No. 29; see also Doc. Nos. 29-1 through 29-4. While not entirely clear, it appears that Defendant is also requesting that Plaintiffs revise their privilege log to provide further detail. Doc. No. 29, at 2.
Plaintiffs, who at all times have been represented by counsel, have not responded to the motion, and their time for doing so has expired. See Doc. No. 22 ¶ 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. 22 ¶ 5 (stating that failure to file a timely response will result in the discovery motion being deemed unopposed). See also Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Paramount
Disaster Recovery, LLC, Case 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, Case 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., Case 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 review of the unopposed motion, and the related discovery attached, the Court finds Defendant’s motion well taken.1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Federal Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Adequate Discovery Responses (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED.
2. On or before January 5, 2024, Plaintiffs shall produce all documents in their current possession, custody, or control responsive to Defendant’s First Request for Production. See Doc. No. 29-2.
3. On or before January 5, 2024, Plaintiffs shall serve on Defendant complete, sworn answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories. See Doc. No. 29-1.
4. All objections to the discovery at issue other than attorney client privilege have been waived by the failure to timely respond to the motion to compel. See, e.g., Jackson v. Geometrica, Inc., Case 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);
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties