From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maurello v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
Feb 15, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-531-FtM-36SPC (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-cv-531-FtM-36SPC.

February 15, 2011


ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Admissions (Doc. #24) filed on February 2, 2011. Defendant filed its Response in Opposition (Doc. #29) on February 9, 2011. The Motion is now ripe for review.

This is an ERISA case in which Plaintiff moves the Court to compel answers to interrogatories and requests for admission that it served on Defendant on January 12, 2011, three working days after Plaintiff claims she first received the Administrative Record from the Defendant. Plaintiff is unsatisfied with Defendant's responses and objections, which mostly were on the basis that the Court has not allowed discovery in this case.

Defendant objections are well taken. This Court has previously indicated that it would not allow discovery to proceed in this case absent a motion for discovery filed with the Court prior to any discovery taking place. (Doc. #16). The deadline to petition the Court by way of motion for discovery was set for January 20, 2011. (Doc. #16).

District courts have broad discretion in managing their cases.Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chenaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). The broad discretion given to the court includes the management of pretrial activities such as discovery and scheduling. Id. (citing Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001)). Given that the Court was not petitioned by Plaintiff to conduct discovery, her Motion to Compel that Defendant answer her discovery requests is due to be denied. Plaintiff alleges in her Motion that she received the Administrative Record from Defendant on January 7, 2011. If this is the case, Plaintiff would have had ample time to review the Administrative Record to determine whether she wished to take discovery in this matter and petition this Court by the January 20, 2011 deadline to do so. Plaintiff failed to move for discovery by this date and summary judgment motions have already been filed for the Court's consideration. (Docs. #27 28)

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Admissions (Doc. #24) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 14th day of February, 2011.


Summaries of

Maurello v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
Feb 15, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-531-FtM-36SPC (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Maurello v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

Case Details

Full title:FRANCINE MAURELLO, Plaintiff, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

Date published: Feb 15, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2:10-cv-531-FtM-36SPC (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2011)