Opinion
CASE NO. 09-22301-CIV-UNGARO/SIMONTON.
February 5, 2010
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 26(a)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures From Boyd and For Sanctions (DE # 22). The Motion is referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge (DE # 24). The undersigned held a hearing on the Motion on February 4, 2010 wherein the Defendant's Motion was granted, in part. This Order memorializes the rulings made from the bench at that hearing.
Defendant filed the instant motion seeking to compel the Plaintiff to produce initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). The Defendant asserted that despite repeatedly assuring the Defendant that the Plaintiff would provide its initial disclosures, the Plaintiff had not yet done so, even though the disclosures are nearly two months overdue.
At the hearing, counsel for the Plaintiff's counsel stated that the delay in producing its initial disclosures was due to the death of the principal of the corporation, and confusion over who had the authority to authorize disclosures. Plaintiff's counsel asserted that she now has approval from the manager of the corporation to provide some of the information required in the initial disclosures, but that she needed to consult with another person in the corporation to provide additional information. In addition, Plaintiff's counsel stated that she had been unable to obtain her client's permission to seek an extension of time to comply with this obligation. Accordingly, at the hearing, the Plaintiff was ordered to produce the disclosures by the close of business on Friday, February 5, 2010 for which Plaintiff's counsel had authorization from Plaintiff, and was directed to provide complete disclosures within ten (10) days from the date of the hearing. The Court also advised Plaintiff's counsel that if her client was unable to timely provide discovery to opposing counsel due to intra-corporate disputes, Plaintiff runs the risk of dismissal of this lawsuit.
Under the circumstances of this case, however, the undersigned finds that it would be unjust to impose sanctions. However, if Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, or fails to timely provide other discovery, Defendant may renew the motion for sanctions with respect to this Motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures From Boyd is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion For Sanctions is DENIED, without prejudice (DE # 22).
DONE AND SUBMITTED in chambers in Miami, Florida.