Sanchez v. City of St. Cloud ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION RAFAEL SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:22-cv-11-CEM-DCI CITY OF ST. CLOUD and MARISOL LEON, Defendants. ORDER This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motions: MOTION: Defendant City of St. Cloud’s Motion to Compel Better Responses (Doc. 50) FILED: March 24, 2023 MOTION: Defendant City of St. Cloud’s Motion to Compel Verified Answers (Doc. 52) FILED: March 28, 2023 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED in part. Rafael Sanchez (Plaintiff) brings this civil rights action against the City of St. Cloud and Marisol Leon pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 47. Pending before the Court is the City of St. Cloud’s (Defendant) Motion to Compel Better Responses to the First Request to Produce and Better Verified Answers to Interrogatories. Doc. 50 (the Motion to Compel Better Responses).1 While Plaintiff served responses to Defendant’s request for production and interrogatories, Defendant claims that several responses are incomplete, evasive, or nonresponsive. Id. Defendant has also filed a Motion to Compel Verified Answers to the Second Set of Interrogatories. Doc. 52 (Motion to Compel Verified Answers). Defendant states that on February 21, 2023, Defendant served a second set of interrogatories and Plaintiff has not served answers. Id. at 1-2. As such, Defendant requests that Plaintiff be directed to do so pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3). Defendant also seeks an award of all reasonable expenses including attorney fees incurred in making each Motion. Doc. 50 at 3-3; Doc. 52 at 2. Plaintiff has not filed responses to the Motions and the time for doing so has elapsed. The Court routinely grants motions as unopposed where the opposing parties have not filed a response in opposition to the motion. See Local Rule 3.01(c); see also Daisy, Inc. v. Pollo Operations, Inc., 2015 WL 2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2015) (granting motion to compel as unopposed when a party did not file a response.). Thus, Defendant’s requests to compel better responses and verified answers are due to be granted. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that: 1. the Motions (Docs. 50, 52) are GRANTED in part to the extent that on or before April 20, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve: a. better responses and responsive documents to Defendant’s First Request to Produce Nos. 1-3, 5-16, 20-24, 26-35, 38-39; 1 Per Defendant’s notice filed pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), Defendant’s counsel and Plaintiff conferred via telephone and do not agree on the resolution of the Motions. Doc. 53. b. better verified answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16; and c. verified answers to Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories; and 2. the Motions (Docs. 50, 52) are otherwise DENIED including Defendant’s requests for reasonable expenses as the circumstances of this case make an award unjust pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A). ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 6, 2023. Copies furnished to: UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties