Filed: May 19, 2017
Latest Update: May 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER PHILIP R. LAMMENS , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is a motion to compel the production of documents filed by Defendant DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC, against Plaintiffs James L. Shelton, Virginia L. Shelton, Brad Heckenberg, and Lana C. Heckenberg. (Doc. 70). According to DCS, it served Plaintiffs with its First Request for Production on April 3, 2017 by hand-delivery. But, to date, DCS has not received any response from Plaintiffs. DCS further states that its counsel attemp
Summary: ORDER PHILIP R. LAMMENS , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is a motion to compel the production of documents filed by Defendant DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC, against Plaintiffs James L. Shelton, Virginia L. Shelton, Brad Heckenberg, and Lana C. Heckenberg. (Doc. 70). According to DCS, it served Plaintiffs with its First Request for Production on April 3, 2017 by hand-delivery. But, to date, DCS has not received any response from Plaintiffs. DCS further states that its counsel attempt..
More
ORDER
PHILIP R. LAMMENS, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is a motion to compel the production of documents filed by Defendant DCS Real Estate Investments, LLC, against Plaintiffs James L. Shelton, Virginia L. Shelton, Brad Heckenberg, and Lana C. Heckenberg. (Doc. 70). According to DCS, it served Plaintiffs with its First Request for Production on April 3, 2017 by hand-delivery. But, to date, DCS has not received any response from Plaintiffs.
DCS further states that its counsel attempted to confer with Plaintiffs' counsel on several occasions via phone and email and that it was not until May 11, 2017, the day this motion was filed, that Plaintiffs' counsel finally responded. According to DCS, that response was inadequate: "Counsel for the plaintiffs reacted as though the thirty-day deadline [in which to respond to the production requests] was merely a suggestion or soft guidance." (Doc. 70 at 2).
But on the same day that DCS filed its motion, Plaintiffs James L. Shelton, Virginia L. Shelton, Brad Heckenberg, and Lana C. Heckenberg filed their own motion requesting an additional thirty days to respond to DCS's production request. (Doc. 71). Plaintiffs further represent that they have been diligently acquiring responsive documents, that it is impossible to respond to the production requests within thirty days, and that DCS refused their request for an extension.1 (Doc. 71 ¶¶3, 4, 5).
Upon due consideration, the motion to compel (Doc. 70) is TERMINATED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs have stated that they will produce responsive documents and the Court is disinclined to guess what documents may still be at issue at that time. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time (Doc. 71) is GRANTED and they may respond to DCS's production requests on or before June 5, 2017.
All counsel are reminded of their duty to confer under Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(g). Counsel may also benefit from reviewing the Middle District of Florida's Discovery Handbook (see http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/forms/Civil/2015-Civil_Procedure_Handbook.pdf).
DONE and ORDERED.
