Filed: May 08, 2012
Latest Update: May 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Florida Department of Revenue's Motion to Compel Production From Plaintiff Karlene Maxwell-Williams ("Motion to Compel") [D.E. 70], pursuant to an Order of Referral entered by the Honorable William J. Zloch. [D.E. 5]. The Court has reviewed the Motion to Compel and the case file, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The previously filed Motion to Compel indicates that on February 24, 2012,
Summary: ORDER ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Florida Department of Revenue's Motion to Compel Production From Plaintiff Karlene Maxwell-Williams ("Motion to Compel") [D.E. 70], pursuant to an Order of Referral entered by the Honorable William J. Zloch. [D.E. 5]. The Court has reviewed the Motion to Compel and the case file, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The previously filed Motion to Compel indicates that on February 24, 2012, D..
More
ORDER
ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Florida Department of Revenue's Motion to Compel Production From Plaintiff Karlene Maxwell-Williams ("Motion to Compel") [D.E. 70], pursuant to an Order of Referral entered by the Honorable William J. Zloch. [D.E. 5]. The Court has reviewed the Motion to Compel and the case file, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
The previously filed Motion to Compel indicates that on February 24, 2012, Defendant served its Third Request for Production on Plaintiff. See D.E. 70-1. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's response to the discovery requests was due on or before March 28, 2012. In its Motion to Compel, Defendant stated that as of the date of the filing of the Motion (i.e., April 20, 2012), and despite Defendant's attempts to communicate with Plaintiff regarding her responses, Plaintiff had not responded in any way to the Third Request for Production. Accordingly, Defendant sought for the Court to issue an order granting its Motion to Compel.
Instead of responding to the Motion to Compel, on May 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Responses to Defendant's Third Request for Production. See D.E. 78. Plaintiff, however, did not explain why she had failed to respond to the requests in a timely fashion or why Defendant's Motion to Compel was otherwise unnecessary.
In light of Plaintiff's recent filing of her responses to the Third Request for Production, the Court now DENIES the Motion to Compel [D.E. 70] as MOOT. In denying the Motion to Compel as moot, the Court does not opine on the completeness of Plaintiff's recent responses to the Third Request for Production. Additionally, the Court reserves ruling on the issue of whether Defendant is entitled to an award of the attorney's fees that it incurred with respect to the filing of the Motion to Compel. Accordingly, the Court also issues a separate Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing why Defendant's attorney's fees should not be awarded.
DONE AND ORDERED.
