ORDER

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.

Upon review, plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 6) on grounds of untimeliness, to which defendant responded in opposition (Doc. 7) is denied. Defendant did not possess sufficient information to determine whether the amount in controversy met the federal court threshold until November 24, 2014 when it received Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Request for Admission.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Earlier than that, defendant could not have "plausibly alleged" that the amount in controversy requirement was met based on the information it had received. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014) (holding that in its notice of removal, a defendant must include a "plausible allegation" that the amount in controversy is satisfied, which is then subject to proof if questioned by the court or contested by the plaintiff). Moreover, defendant did not waive its right to remove by seeking discovery in state court, much of which was aimed at determining whether more than $75,000 was at issue in the case. See, e.g., Bechtelheimer v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 755 F.Supp.2d 1211, 1214 (M.D. Fla. 2010) ("In this Circuit, pre-removal discovery is permitted to ascertain, among other things, amount in controversy information."). Thus, consistent with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), this case was properly removed within 30 days of defendant's receipt of papers from which it could ascertain that the case was removable. A Case Management and Scheduling Order will issue separately.

DONE AND ORDERED.