From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
May 25, 2021
Case No: 6:20-cv-1666-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla. May. 25, 2021)

Opinion

Case No: 6:20-cv-1666-WWB-GJK

05-25-2021

FRED SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CERES MARINE TERMINALS, INC., Defendant.


ORDER

On December 16, 2020 Plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production on Defendant Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. (Doc. 29 at 1). Defendant has not answered, objected, or otherwise responded to this discovery (Id.). When a party fails to respond to discovery, or provides untimely responses, whatever objections it might otherwise have had are deemed waived. Limu Co., LLC v. Burling, 2013 WL 1482760, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2013) (citing Enron Corp. Savings Plan v. Hewitt Associates, L.L.C., 258 F.R.D. 149, 156 (S.D. Tex. 2009); Bailey Indus., Inc. v. CLJP, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 662, 668 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2010) ("when a party fails to timely object to interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, the objections are deemed waived."). See also Bailey v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, 286 F.R.D. 625, 627 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2012) (collecting cases). The Court finds that Defendant has waived any objections it might otherwise have had to the interrogatories and requests for production.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff Fred Smith's Second Motion for Order Compelling Discovery Against Defendant and for Waiver of Discovery Objections (Doc. 29). The motion seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond to the unanswered interrogatories and requests for production (Id.). Defendant has failed to respond to the motion. When "a party fails to timely respond, the motion is subject to treatment as unopposed." M.D. FLA. R. 3.01(c). The Court finds that Plaintiff's motion is unopposed, and it is GRANTED. Defendant shall fully respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production within seven days from the rendition of this Order.

When a motion to compel is granted the Court must ordinarily award the movant his reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred to bring the motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5). The Rule recognizes three exceptions, none of which apply. However, Plaintiff did not request his legal expenses to prosecute the motion. Had he done so, the same would have been awarded.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 25, 2021.

Judge Smith is temporarily handling this case for Judge Kelly. --------

/s/_________

THOMAS B. SMITH

United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Smith v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
May 25, 2021
Case No: 6:20-cv-1666-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla. May. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Smith v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FRED SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CERES MARINE TERMINALS, INC., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Date published: May 25, 2021

Citations

Case No: 6:20-cv-1666-WWB-GJK (M.D. Fla. May. 25, 2021)