UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ORLANDO HEART & VASCULAR CENTER, 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 court granted defendants' counsel's motion to withdraw and granted relator's motions to compel discovery, ordering defendants to respond by a specific date.
Defendants' counsel filed an unopposed motion to withdraw, citing unspecified reasons. Relator filed four motions to compel discovery, to which the de…
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 Local Rule 3.01(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
72. 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 Foster v. The Coca-Cola Co., 2015 WL 3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015) (finding that a motion to compel was unopposed a because the opposing party failed to timely respond to the motion).
Thus, the Motions to Compel are due to be granted. The Court notes that Relator did not request attorney fees in the Motions to Compel and the Court otherwise finds that the circumstances of this case make an award of fees unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and for the reasons stated at the hearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1) Relator’s Second Motion to Compel Response to First Request to Produce to OHVC (Doc. 98) is GRANTED, such that:
Relator’s First Request for Production to Orlando Heart & Vascular Center, LLC (Doc. 98-1); 2) Relator’s Second Motion to Compel Response to First Interrogatories to Orlando Heart and Vascular Center (Doc. 99) is GRANTED, such that:
Relator’s First Set of Interrogatories to Orlando Heart & Vascular Center, LLC (Doc. 99-1); 3) Relator’s Motion to Compel Response to Third Interrogatories to OHVC (Doc. 100) is GRANTED, such that:
Relator’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Orlando Heart & Vascular Center, LLC (Doc. 100-1); 4) Relator’s Motion to Compel Response to First Interrogatories to Vineel Sompalli (Doc. 101) is GRANTED, such that: a. Individual Defendant’s objections are deemed waived; and b. On or before February 8, 2023, Individual Defendant shall fully respond to Relator’s First Set of Interrogatories to Vineel Sompalli, M.D. (Doc. 101-1);
5) The Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 102) is GRANTED in part such that: a. Attorneys Todd Foster and Kevin Darken are hereby terminated and withdrawn as counsel for both Corporate Defendant and Individual Defendant in this case; b. Attorneys Todd Foster and Kevin Darken shall immediately serve a copy of this Order upon both Corporate Defendant and Individual Defendant, and on or before January 25, 2023, shall file a notice with the Court confirming that the Order was served upon both Corporate Defendant and Individual Defendant and stating exactly how the Order was served and upon whom it
was served; c. Both Corporate Defendant and Individual Defendant remain obligated to comply with all pending deadlines and orders in this case, and are cautioned that any motion not responded to within the time provided by the rules of this Court may be deemed unopposed and ruled upon without further warning (see Local Rule 3.01(c)); d. Corporate Defendant is cautioned that business entities cannot proceed in this Court without counsel, and the Court will not send any papers, pleadings or correspondence to Corporate Defendant at the addresses provided in the Motion (see Local Rule 2.02(b)); e. Until and unless he retains counsel, Individual Defendant will proceed as a pro se litigant. As a pro se litigant, Individual Defendant is subject to the same laws and rules of court as litigants who are represented by counsel,
including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Local Rules”).1 See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989); f. In particular, if Individual Defendant needs additional time to comply with any deadline set by the Case Management and Scheduling Order, he must file a motion with the Court seeking an extension of time supported by good cause and, as with all motions, must confer in person or by telephone with opposing counsel prior to filing the motion and certify in the motion that
conferral occurred (Local Rule 3.01(g)); g. Individual Defendant is cautioned that a failure to comply with the deadlines in this case set by the rules and orders of this Court may result in sanctions including but not limited to the entry of a default judgment for failure to litigate;
Copies furnished to: DANIEL C. IRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties