From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Satterfield v. ENO, Inc.

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Aug 30, 2022
5:22-cv-298-JA-PRL (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2022)

Opinion

5:22-cv-298-JA-PRL

08-30-2022

FRED SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff, v. ENO, INC., Defendant.


ORDER

PHILIP R. LAMMENS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case is the Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff's answers to this Court's interrogatories filed on August 23, 2022 (Doc. 17). Two days later, on August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed his amended response to the Court's interrogatories answering the previously omitted interrogatories seven through twelve. (Doc. 18).

However, upon review of the record, both of Plaintiff's answers to this Court's interrogatories are incomplete due to their lack of notarization, as required by this Court's Scheduling Order. (Docs. 12 & 18). Defendant also seeks attorney's fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d)(1)(B) & (d)(3). Thus, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to show cause, by written response, on or before September 13, 2022, why Defendant's motion to compel and for attorney's fees should not be granted.

"Within 14 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall answer the Court's Interrogatories (attached to this Order) under oath or penalty of perjury, serve a copy on Defendant, and file a copy with the Court." (Doc. 9).

It appears that Defendant's motion does not fully comply with the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g). In the future, counsel is expected to comply with both the letter and spirit of Local Rule 3.01(g). See Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F.Supp. 876, 878 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (stating Local Rule 3.01(g) “require[s] the parties to communicate and resolve certain types of disputes without court intervention.”); see also Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98-CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575 at n. 1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000) (communicating means “to speak to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt to resolve disputed issues.”).

As a final matter, the court notes that buried within Defendant's motion is a request to extend the settlement conference deadline. While the Court appreciates Defendant's concerns, it appears premature at this time, but the parties may renew this request at a later date if a continuance of the mediation deadline becomes necessary.

DONE and ORDERED.


Summaries of

Satterfield v. ENO, Inc.

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Aug 30, 2022
5:22-cv-298-JA-PRL (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2022)
Case details for

Satterfield v. ENO, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FRED SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff, v. ENO, INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Date published: Aug 30, 2022

Citations

5:22-cv-298-JA-PRL (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2022)