SANCHEZ
v.
CITY OF ST. CLOUD
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 in part the defendants' motions to compel discovery, ordering the plaintiff to provide better responses and verified answers.
The plaintiff brought a civil rights action against the City of St. Cloud and Marisol Leon. The City of St. Cloud filed motions to compel better respo…
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 Responses cases and more on FLexlaw
v. Case No: 6:22-cv-11-CEM-DCI
CITY OF ST. CLOUD and MARISOL LEON,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motions: MOTION: Defendant City of St. Cloud’s Motion to Compel Better Responses (Doc. 50) FILED: March 24, 2023 MOTION: Defendant City of St. Cloud’s Motion to Compel Verified Answers (Doc. 52) FILED: March 28, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED in part. Rafael Sanchez (Plaintiff) brings this civil rights action against the City of St. Cloud and Marisol Leon pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 47. Pending before the Court is the City of St. Cloud’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Better Responses to the First Request to Produce and Better Verified Answers to Interrogatories. Doc. 50 (the Motion to Compel Better Responses).1 While Plaintiff served responses to Defendant’s request for production and interrogatories, Defendant claims that several responses are incomplete, evasive, or nonresponsive. Id. Defendant has also filed a Motion to Compel Verified Answers to the Second Set of Interrogatories. Doc. 52 (Motion to Compel Verified Answers). Defendant states that on February
21, 2023, Defendant served a second set of interrogatories and Plaintiff has not served answers. Id. at 1-2. As such, Defendant requests that Plaintiff be directed to do so pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3). Defendant also seeks an award of all reasonable expenses including attorney fees incurred in making each Motion. Doc. 50 at 3-3; Doc. 52 at 2. Plaintiff has not filed responses to the Motions and the time for doing so has elapsed. The Court routinely grants motions as unopposed where the opposing parties have not filed a response in opposition to the motion. See Local Rule 3.01(c); see also Daisy, Inc. v. Pollo Operations, Inc., 2015 WL 2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2015) (granting motion to compel as unopposed when a party did not file a response.). Thus, Defendant’s requests to compel better responses and verified answers are due to be granted. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that: 1. the Motions (Docs. 50, 52) are GRANTED in part to the extent that on or before April 20, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve: a. better responses and responsive documents to Defendant’s First Request to Produce Nos. 1-3, 5-16, 20-24, 26-35, 38-39;