From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Droske v. Garcia-Cano

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
Oct 31, 2011
Case No. 5:10-cv-618-Oc-10TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 5:10-cv-618-Oc-10TBS.

October 31, 2011


ORDER


Pending before the Court is defendant Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America), Inc.'s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 50). More than 14 days have elapsed since the motion was filed and defendant, Victor Garcia-Cano has not responded to it. Consequently, and based upon the Local Rule 3.01(g) certificate contained in the motion, it appears the motion is unopposed.

Defendant, Ritchie Bros. Propounded interrogatories and requests for production to defendant, Victor Garcia-Cano on April 25, 2011. To date, Mr. Garcia-Cano has not responded (Doc. 50-1 and 50-2) to the discovery. Ritchie Bros.' motion includes a certificate of good faith conference pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g) which states: ". . . the following issues have been resolved: that responses to the discovery are in fact due and owed. The following issues remain unresolved: when Defendant will be required to provide the responses."

Accepting this representation as true, the Court turns to the issue of how much additional time Mr. Garcia-Cano should be given. He has already had 188 days (not including today), within to respond but he has not answered, sought a protective order, or provided an explanation for his wrongful conduct. During this entire period he has known he needs to answer the discovery and, based upon the Rule 3.01(g) certificate, he is anticipating an order from this Court granting the motion to compel. Under these circumstances, there is no good reason to give Mr. Garcia-Cano any meaningful amount of additional time. Therefore, it is adjudged that:

The motion is due to be GRANTED. Defendant, Victor Garcia-Cano shall fully answer and otherwise comply with defendant, Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) Inc.'s interrogatories and requests for production propounded to him on April 25, 2011 on or before the close of business on November 7, 2011.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) provides that the Court "must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent 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." The Rule provides for three exceptions none of which are applicable. Therefore, Ritchie Bros. has ten (10) days from the rendition of this Order within to submit its application for costs and fees and Mr. Garcia-Cano shall have ten (10) days to respond, then the Court will either determine the issue or if necessary, set it for an evidentiary hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida.


Summaries of

Droske v. Garcia-Cano

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
Oct 31, 2011
Case No. 5:10-cv-618-Oc-10TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2011)
Case details for

Droske v. Garcia-Cano

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL DROSKE, as The Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF TRACIE…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division

Date published: Oct 31, 2011

Citations

Case No. 5:10-cv-618-Oc-10TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2011)