Opinion
2:19-cv-711-SPC-NPM
09-14-2022
DERICK EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. GUILLERMO MONMANY, JAMES HEUGLIN, BRIAN RHOTON, ARTURO GONZALEZ, JR. and CARMINE MARCENO, Defendants.
Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink's functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 210). Plaintiff failed to include a compliant Local Rule 3.01(g) Certification on his conferral with the opposing party before filing the Motion. The Court cannot overstate the importance of Local Rule 3.01(g) in helping avoid needless litigation, fostering communication between the parties, and helping to resolve disputes without court intervention. So the Court denies the Motion without prejudice for failing to comply with Rule 3.01(g).
That said, the Motion could also be denied because it was filed after the deadline for discovery and motions to compel discovery which was July 1. (Doc. 163 at 1). All parties must comply with the Court's Handbook on Civil Discovery. (Doc. 163 at 2). As the Handbook clarifies, parties “should not expect the Court to resolve discovery disputes arising after the discovery completion date.” M.D. Fla. Handbook on Civil Discovery § I.F. As Plaintiff moves to compel discovery after the deadline, it is untimely and can be denied on that basis.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 210) is DENIED without prejudice for failing to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g).
DONE and ORDERED