Leal v. Van Dell Jewelers of Royal Palm Beach, Inc., No. 9:2019cv80580 - Document 38 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER granting 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production. Defendant is ordered to provide complete responses and produce all responsive documents to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production on or before Friday, August 30, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 8/26/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)

Download PDF

Leal v. Van Dell Jewelers of Royal Palm Beach, Inc. Doc. 38 UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT COU RT SOU TH ERN D ISTR ICT O F FLO RID A CA SE N O .I9-8OS8O-CV -SM ITH N A TTH EW M AN A LBERTO LEA L,individually and on behalfofa11others sim ilarly situated, Plaintiff, FILED BY D.C . Atls 2! 2219 ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DIST.CQ V AN DELL JEW ELERS OF RO YA L PALM BEA CH ,IN C., s.o.oFFk.-w.eB. Defendant. / O RD ER G M N TIN G PLAIN TIFF'S M O TIO N TO C O M PEL R ESPO N SES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROG ATORIES AND REO UEST FOR PRODUCTION kDE 291 THIS CAUSE isbeforethe Courtupon PlaintiftlAlberto Leal's(sçplaintiff'')M otion to CompelResponsestoPlaintiff'slnterrogatoriesandRequestforProductionCsMotion'')(DE 291. This m atter was referred to the undersigned upon an O rderreferring a1ldiscovery m atters to the undersigned for appropriate disposition.See DE 24.O n A ugust 19,2019,the Courtentered an Orderto Show Cause to Defendantand Defendant's Counsel(DE 311.On August22,2019, DefendanttiledaResponsetoOrdertoShow Cause(DE 332.PlaintiffthentiledaReplytoOrder toShow Cause(DE 341,and,tinally,withpermissionoftheCourt,DefendantfiledaSur-Replyto Plaintiff'sReplytoDefendant'sResponsetoOrdertoShow Cause(DE 371. 1. BA CK G RO UN D This discovery dispute concerns D efendant's dilatory discovery behavior in this case.A s any party isauthorized to do underthe applicablerules,Plaintiffserved hisw ritten discovery upon Dockets.Justia.com DefendantonJune 19,2019.(DE 29,p.11.Now,approximatelynineweekslater,Defendanthas yetto produce fulland com plete discovery responses to Plaintiffsdiscovery requests. TheCourthascarefullyreviewedPlaintiff'sM otion(DE 29qandeachoftherelatedtilings. Defendanthas been dilatory in responding to discovery in this case.O n July 26,2019,the Court granted D efendantan extension untilA ugust 8,2019,to fully respond to Plaintiff sRequests for Production and lnterrogatories.gDE 271.Thatdate came and went,and Defendantfailed to produce the discovery asordered. On A ugust 19,2019,Plaintiff wastherefore forced to file a M otion to Com pelR esponses to Plaintiff's lnterrogatoriesand RequestforProduction gDE 291.Upon review ofPlaintiffs M otion,theCourtenteredan Orderto Show Causedirected to DefendantandDefendant'scounsel gDE 291. On A ugust22,2019,D efendantfiled a response to the O rderto Show Cause which failed toestablishgood causeforitsdilatory conduct.(DE 331.ln effect,Defendant'srationalefornot tim ely producing the discovery soughtby Plaintiffsounded more like a seriesofexcusesakin to dtthe dog ate m y hom ework.''M oreover,in paragraph 11 ofthe response,D efendantstated thatit tihas Since Served Plaintiff w ith its responses to Plaintiff s interrogatories and requests for production.''rDE 33,p.3J.Upon reading Defendant'sresponse,and especially paragraph 11of D efendant's response,the Courtw as 1ed to believe by D efendantand D efendant's counselthata11 outstanding discovery had been served on Plaintiff's counsel. However,onAugust23,2019,Plaintifftiledareply(DE 342,inwhichPlaintiffadvisedthe CourtthatDefendanthad stillnotproduced any docum ents orelectronically stored inform ation. rDE 34,p.1J.M oreover,whenPlaintiff'scounselattemptedtoconferwithDefendant'scotmselon the issues,Defendant'scounselignored him .1d.atpp.1-2. On August23,2019,afterreceiving leaveoftheCourt,Defendanttileda sur-reply (DE 371.DefendantexplainedthatM elissaM .Sims,Esq.,istheleadattorney and isésresponsiblefor the events thathave transpired.''ld atp.1.A ccording to D efendant,upon receipt ofPlaintiff's reply,M s.Sim scalled Plaintiff s counselto apologize forthe unreturned calls and to discussthe production ofdocum ents.1d.The partieshave agreed to a docum entproduction date ofA ugust30, 2019,because the em ployee w ith accessto the recordsis on vacation through August27,2019.Id. atpp.1-2. Thus,even after num erous m otions,responses,replies,and O rders,Defendanthas yetto produce the discovery soughtby Plaintiff. Il. A NA LY SIS The Courthashad enough ofDefendant'sdilatory conduct.The Courtis also extrem ely concerned aboutthe m isleading representation m ade by D efendant's counsel,M elissa M .Sim s, Esq.,and the law 51411ofBerk,M erchant& Sim s,PLC,thata1ldiscovery had been produced when ithad notbeen produced.See D E 33,p.3;D E 34,p.1.In fact,in D efendant'ssur-reply,itadm itted thatithad notyetproduced a1lrelevantdocuments.(DE 37,pp.1-2J.The Courtisfurther frustrated by Defendant's counsel's failure to confer as required by our Local Rules and this Court's Order Setting Discovery Procedure (DE 25).Not untilPlaintiff filed his reply did Defendant'scounselretunzPlaintiff'scounsel'sphonecallsaboutdiscovery.(DE 37,p.1j. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's M otion gDE 29J is GRANTED.Defendant is O RDERED to produce a11 discovery sought by Plaintiff in its lnterrogatories and Requests for Production on or before Friday. A ugust 30, 2019. The Court tinds that due to Defendant's dilatory conduct,a1lobjectionsto the lnterrogatoriesand Requests forProduction aredeemed WaivedPursuantto FederalRuleOfCivilProcedure33(b)(4)and LocalRule26.1(e)asPlaintiff hasnotestablishedgoodcauseforfailingtotimely objecttothediscoveryrequests.SeeTurnerv. TransUnion,LLC,No.18-CV-80938,2019W L 2709000,at*1(S.D.Fla.June21,2019)(citing Kennedy v.Batmasian,No.CaseNo.,15-81353-ClV,2016 WL 824571,at*2(S.D.Fla.Feb.26, 2016))(tiFailuretotimelyobjecttodiscoveryrequestswaivesaparty'sobjectionstotherequests unlessgoodcausehasbeenshown.'').ShouldDefendantfailtocomplywith thisOrder,theCourt w illschedule a hearing on further sanctionsand possible contem pt. Finally,Rule 37(a)(5)(A)providesthat,ifa motion to compeldiscovery isgranted,the Courtm ustrequire the party whoseconductnecessitated the motion ortheattorney advising that conduct,orboth,topaythemovant'sreasonablefkesinmakingthemotionunless(1)themovant filedthemotion beforeattemptingin goodfaithtoobtainthediscoverywithcourtaction,(2)the opposingparty'sresponseorobjectionwassubstantiallyjustitled,or(3)othercircumstancesmake anawardOfexpensesunjust.Fed.R.Civ.P.37(a)(5)(A).TheCourtfindsthat,underthefactsof thiscaseand becausenoneoftheexceptionsapply,both Defendantand Defendant'scounselshall berequiredtopayPlaintift'sattorney'sfeesandcostsincurredindrat-tingtheM otiongDE 291,in drafting Plaintiff's Reply to Orderto Show Cause gDE 341,and in reviewing Defendant's responses and the Court's Ordersrelated to this dispute. 111. CO NC LU SIO N Based on the forgoing,itishereby O R DER ED A N D A D JU DG ED asfollow s: Plaintiff sM otion to Com pelR esponsesto Plaintiff s lnterrogatories and Requestfor Production (DE 29)isGRANTED.Defendantis ORDERED to provide complete 4 responses and produce a11 responsive documents to Plaintiffs lnterrogatories and Request for Production on or before A ugust 30, 2019. D efendant hms w aived its objectionstothediscoveryrequests. Failure to com ply w ith thisO rderm ay resultin additionalsanctions,including butnot limitedtothestrikingofDefendant'spleadings,entryofjudgmentagainstDefendant,a furtheraw ard ofattonw y'sfeesand costs,contem pt,or otherappropriate sanctions. Plaintiff is entitled to an aw ard of attom ey's fees and costs as stated above against Defendant,Van DellJewelersofRoyalPalm Beach,andDefendant'scounsel,M elissa M .Sim s,Esq.and the law tirm ofBerk,M erchant& Sim s,PLC .ln orderto assistthe Courtin determ ining a reasonable award of attorney's fees and costs pursuantto this Order, Plaintiff shall file an appropriate affidavit with the Court on or before Septem ber 6,2019,docum enting a1lattom ey's fees and costs incurred as a resultof drahing its M otion (DE 29) and Reply gDE 34J and in reviewing Defendant's responses,replies,and thisCourt'sOrders.Theaftidavitshould includetheam ountof attorney's fees sought,hours expended, services rendered, and hotlrly rate sought. Defendantand D efendant'scounselshallhave untilon orbefore Septem ber 13,2019 tofilearesponseorobjectionstothehourlyrateclaimedbyPlaintiffscounselandthe numberofhoursincurredby Plaintiff'scounsel.Thereafter,Plaintiffshallhaveuntilon or before Septem ber 18, 2019 to tile any reply to D efendant and D efendant's counsel'sresponse.The Courtwillthen determ inetheamountofreasonable attorney's feesand costs,which shallbepaidby Defendantand Defendant'scounselto Plaintiff, and entera furtherwritlen O rder. DO NE and O RDERED in ChambersatW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach County,Florida, 7 this%I.-JfofAugust,2019. W ILLIA M M A T HEW M AN UN ITED STA TES M A GISTM TE JU D GE 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.