KLEIMAN
v.
WRIGHT
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 denied plaintiffs' motion for expedited responses because their discovery requests were served too late to allow the defendant the full response time before the discovery deadline.
Plaintiffs served a second request for admissions on December 20, 2019, with a discovery cutoff of January 17, 2020. The defendant objected to 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 Discovery Deadlines cases and more on FLexlaw
IRA KLEIMAN, as personal representative of the estate of David Kleiman, and W&K INFO DEFENSE RESEARCH, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CRAIG WRIGHT, Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSES TO THEIR SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (DE 362)
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion that Defendant be ordered to respond to their second request for admissions on an expedited basis. DE 362. Plaintiffs served their second request for admissions on December 20, 2019. Defendant objects to providing any response, let alone an expedited one, arguing that the request was untimely. The Court heard oral argument on January 2, 2020, wherein Defendant noted that Local Rule 26.1(d) relieves him of any obligation to respond or object to untimely discovery demands. Local Rule 26.1(d) states that written discovery requests and subpoenas seeking the production of documents must be served in sufficient time that the response is due on or before the discovery cutoff date. Failure by the party seeking discovery to comply with this paragraph obviates the need to respond or object to the discovery, appear at the deposition, or move for a protective order. S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(d).
Rule 36 provides that a party has 30 days to respond after being served with requests for admission. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Given that the discovery deadline in this case is January 17, 2020 (DE 320), Plaintiffs’ second request for admissions, served on December 20, 2019, did not allow Defendant the full 30 days to respond before the discovery cut-off, and is, therefore, untimely.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel an expedited response is DENIED. Defendant is not required to provide any response to Plaintiffs’ untimely request. See Wing Kei Ho vy. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 16-80538-CV, 2019 WL 1333097, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2019) (J. Matthewman) (relying on Local Rule 26.1(d), court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests for production that were served two days before the discovery cut-off); Rubinstein v. Keshet Inter Vivos Tr., No. 17-61019-CIV, 2019 WL 176179, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2019) (J. Torres) (noting that subpoenas for documents to be produced “after the discovery deadline ...run afoul of the Court’s Local Rules” and do not require a response).
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 2nd day of January 2020, at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida.
BRUCEREINHART ———™