DISCOVERY HEARING ORDER

JONATHAN GOODMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This Cause is before the Undersigned on the parties' various discovery disputes raised in Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company's ("Fidelity") Second Amended Notice of Hearing1 filed on May 27, 2015. [ECF No. 56]. The Court held a hearing on June 8, 2015 (the "Hearing") to address the issues. For the reasons set forth at the Hearing,2 it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1) Plaintiff's response to Fidelity's Interrogatory Number 7 is insufficient. First, Plaintiff shall, by June 12, 2015, provide the specific date requested, not just the month. Second, the remainder of the answer provided is also patently inadequate. If referring to documents, Plaintiff must at least provide the Bates numbers and some context to the reference. Therefore, Plaintiff shall, by June 12, 2015, provide a better, more substantive answer to the interrogatory.

2) Plaintiff's answer to Fidelity's Interrogatory Number 16 is insufficient. Plaintiff shall, by June 12, 2015, provide a better supplemental answer to this interrogatory. The amended response shall identify all IndyMac employees who were involved in any way with the two subject loans at issue from the application process through underwriting through post-closing. Plaintiff shall provide these individuals' current address and employment (if available), and at minimum, the last known address. Further, Plaintiff shall provide the last known address of Lynette Meis and "V. Garcia" (including Garcia's first name as well).

3) Plaintiff's answer to Fidelity's Interrogatory Number 17 is insufficient. Plaintiff shall, by June 12, 2015, provide a better supplemental answer that gives Defendant some general understanding of the documents that plaintiff refers to.

4) Fidelity's request to compel Plaintiff to turn over more documents concerning Fidelity's Request for Production Number 2 is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that all non-privileged, responsive documents have already been produced.

5) Fidelity's request to compel Plaintiff to turn over documents in response to Fidelity's Request for Production Number 3 is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that no such non-privileged, responsive documents exist.

6) Fidelity's request to compel Plaintiff to turn over more documents concerning Fidelity's Request for Production Number 4 is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that all non-privileged, responsive documents have already been produced.

7) Fidelity's request to compel Plaintiff to turn over more documents concerning Fidelity's Request for Production Number 6 is denied based on Plaintiff's representation that all non-privileged, responsive documents have already been produced.

8) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) requires the Court to award expenses, including fees, unless an exception (such as the existence of a substantially justified, albeit losing, discovery position) applies to the discovery dispute and ruling. As the Undersigned explained at the Hearing, Plaintiff's responses to Fidelity's Interrogatories 7, 16 and 17 were patently inadequate and without justification. Accordingly, Fidelity is awarded $500.00 in attorney's fees, to be paid jointly by Plaintiff and its counsel.3

Payment shall be made by June 19, 2015, and Plaintiff shall submit an affidavit or declaration in the Undersigned's e-file inbox (goodman@flsd.uscourts.gov), not CM/ECF, confirming the payments, within three days of making the payment.

DONE AND ORDERED.