Opinion
8:23-cv-1856-TPB-AAS
08-12-2024
INTEGRITY PAYMENTS GROUP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. JACLYN WEBB, an individual, CAPRAE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, and JESSI LEE LORENZO, an individual, Defendants.
ORDER
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge
On July 29th, this case was reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. (Doc. 75). Four discovery motions pend before the court - Plaintiff Integrity Payments Group, LLC's (IPG's) motion to compel Defendant Jessi Lee Lorenzo to produce responsive documents filed on June 10, 2024 (Doc. 51), IPG's motion to compel Defendants Jaclyn Webb and Caprae Solutions, LLC (Caprae) to produce responsive documents filed on June 12, 2024 (Doc. 52), Ms. Lorenzo's motion for a protective order filed on July 22, 2024 (Doc. 69), and Ms. Webb's and Caprae's motion to compel IPG to produce responsive documents filed on August 1, 2024 (Doc. 76).
The discovery deadline was June 15, 2024. (Doc. 35). While parties may conduct discovery after the court's deadline, “they cannot expect the court to resolve their post-deadline discovery disputes.” Fin. Info. Techs., LLC v. iControl Sys., USA, LLC, No. 8:17-CV-190-T-23MAP, 2018 WL 8545873, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018). Accordingly, Ms. Lorenzo's motion for a protective order (Doc. 69) and Ms. Webb's and Caprae's motion to compel (Doc. 76), both filed over one month after the discovery deadline passed, are due to be denied. See Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.”) (citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir.2001)); see also Middle District Discovery (2021) (I)(F) (“Counsel, by agreement, may conduct discovery after the formal completion date but should not expect the Court to resolve discovery disputes arising after the discovery completion date.”). Although the undersigned denies the untimely motions (Docs. 69, 76) on procedural grounds, this order should not be construed to be a ruling on the substantive merits of the requests in the motions (Docs. 69, 76).
It is ORDERED:
1. Ms. Lorenzo's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 69) is DENIED as untimely.
2. Ms. Webb's and Caprae's Motion to Compel (Doc. 76) is DENIED as untimely.
3. The court will coordinate with counsel for all parties to schedule a hearing on IPG's Motion to Compel Ms. Lorenzo to produce responsive documents (Doc. 51) and IPG's Motion to Compel Ms. Webb and Caprae to produce responsive documents (Doc. 52).
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on August 12, 2024.