PITT
v.
HILTON GRAND VACATIONS INC.
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 because the plaintiffs failed to respond to the motion or the underlying discovery requests.
Defendant Hilton Grand Vacations, Inc. moved to compel Plaintiffs Orniela Pitt and Aisha Dyer-Pitt to respond to discovery requests after Plaintiffs f…
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 cases and more on FLexlaw
and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFENDANT HILTON GRAND VACATIONS, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AGAINST PLAINTIFFS ORNIELA PITT AND
AISHA DYER-PITT (Doc. No. 27) FILED: October 6, 2022
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Hilton Grand Vacations, Inc. (“Hilton”) moves to compel both named Plaintiffs to respond to Requests for Production and Interrogatories served on July 1, 2022. Doc. No. 27. According to the motion, Plaintiffs oppose the request. Id. at 3. The motion complies with the Standing Order on Discovery Motions. See Doc. No. 23.
In the motion, Hilton states that it agreed to several requested extensions of time for Plaintiffs to respond to the discovery at issue, the latest agreed deadline was September 6, 2022, but Plaintiffs failed to comply. Doc. No. 27, at 1–2. Hilton followed up with Plaintiffs’ counsel, but although counsel stated that discovery responses would be served by October 4, 2022, Plaintiffs have provided responses to Requests for Admission only, and no responses to the Requests for Production or Interrogatories have been served. Id. at 2.
Plaintiffs have not timely responded to Hilton’s motion. See Doc. No. 23 ¶ 5 (providing that opposition briefing to a discovery motion must be filed no later than five days after the motion). Accordingly, the Court deems Hilton’s motion to be unopposed. See id. (stating that failure to file a timely response will result in the discovery motion being deemed unopposed). Upon review, the Court finds the unopposed motion well taken. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides that when, as here, a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). While the rule permits the Court to decline to award sanctions under certain circumstances, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii), neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have presented any information or argument suggesting that those circumstances apply here. Based on the foregoing, Hilton’s Motion to Compel Discovery Against Plaintiffs Orniela Pitt and Aisha Dyer-Pitt (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED, and it is
ORDERED as follows: 1. On or before October 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Orniela Pitt and Aisha Dyer- Pitt shall produce to Hilton all documents in their current possession,
custody, or control responsive to Hilton’s First Request for Production. See Doc. Nos. 27-1, 27-2. 2. On or before October 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Orniela Pitt and Aisha Dyer- Pitt shall serve on Hilton complete, sworn answers to Hilton’s First Set of
Interrogatories. See Doc. Nos. 27-3, 27-4. 3. All objections to the discovery at issue have been waived by the failure to timely respond to the motion to compel. See, e.g., Jackson v. Geometrica,
Inc., 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). 4. On or before October 27, 2022, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Hilton shall meet and confer in good faith to determine an amount of reasonable fees and expenses that should be awarded to Hilton for the filing of the present motion. The parties shall file a joint notice of the amount agreed upon by 5:00 p.m. on October 28, 2022. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement by that time, counsel for Hilton shall file a motion, supported by appropriate documentation, for reasonable fees and expenses incurred in filing the present motion. That motion shall be filed by November 4, 2022. 5. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 13, 2022.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
_4-