ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL

JULIE S. SNEED, Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel. (Dkt. 30.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to appear for her deposition, provide complete responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and produce documents responsive to Defendant's First Request for Production. Additionally, Defendant moves for sanctions against Plaintiff for her failure to meet her discovery obligations. Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant's Motion to Compel and the time within which to do so has now expired.

Pro se Plaintiff, Lisa Blake, initially filed this action in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida, against Defendant, Medcom, alleging claims for gender discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation. (Dkt. 2.) On February 4, 2016, Defendant removed this action to the Middle District of Florida based on federal-question jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1.) Shortly thereafter, the Court entered its Case Management and Scheduling Order, setting a discovery deadline of October 4, 2016. (Dkt. 18.)

In September 2016, the undersigned held a telephonic discovery status conference at the request of the parties to resolve outstanding discovery disputes, namely Plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests. At the status conference, the undersigned informed Plaintiff of her obligations under the discovery rules, including her obligation to appear at her upcoming deposition and respond to discovery requests. Despite this conference, however, Plaintiff has failed to comply with her discovery obligations. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition on September 28, 2016, which was initially scheduled for July 13, 2016, later rescheduled for September 7, 2016, and then rescheduled again for September 28, 2016. (Dkt. 30, Exs. 2, 4, 5.) Additionally, Plaintiff failed to provide responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production, served on March 30, 2016, despite having been granted multiple extensions that ultimately extended the response deadline from April 29, 2016, until June 8, 2016—giving Plaintiff five additional weeks to provide responses. (Dkt. 30, Exs. 1, 3.) Accordingly, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to respond to its discovery requests and appear for a deposition.

Pro so litigants, like all litigants, are required to abide by the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). In particular, all parties must adhere to the discovery rules, which prescribe specific deadlines for compliance, and the deadlines and procedures set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. See Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (providing that a scheduling order controls the course of the action unless modified); Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1) (allowing depositions of a party without leave of court, subject to certain exceptions); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) (providing that answers and objections to interrogatories are due within thirty days of service of the interrogatories); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) (providing that responses to requests for production are due within thirty days of the request). If a party fails to appear at his or her own deposition or respond to discovery requests, a district court may, on motion, order sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1).

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant's discovery requests and appear for her deposition, and her failure to do so "severely interferes with Defendant's ability to proceed with discovery and prepare its defense in this case," (Dkt. 30), especially given that the discovery deadline has now passed. Moreover, Plaintiff offers no argument or justification for her failure to participate in discovery. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 30) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to appear for her deposition, provide complete responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, and produce documents responsive to Defendant's First Request for Production within thirty (30) days of this Order. Failure to comply with this Order will result in sanctions. See Moon, 863 F.2d at 837 ("If a pro se litigant ignores a discovery order, he is and should be subject to sanctions like any other litigant."). The Motion is otherwise denied.

DONE and ORDERED.