ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff, Daisy, Inc.'s Motion to Compel (Doc. 55), filed on March 27, 2015. Plaintiff requests that the Court compel pro se Defendant Edward Priore ("Defendant") to respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production. Defendant did not file a response to the motion, and the time for doing so now has expired. Plaintiff has not sought to withdraw the motion, and the docket does not otherwise indicate that Defendant has provided the information requested by Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production; thus, the Court presumes that Plaintiff has not yet received the requested information and the motion remains ripe. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.

Motions to compel and other discovery matters brought pursuant to Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Bourbon Street Station, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-468-J-25MCR, 2010 WL 376619, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2010). As Plaintiff acknowledges, the "purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts." Broadcast Music, Inc., 2010 WL 376619, at *1 (citing United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958)); see Doc. 55 at 1. Here, because Defendant did not respond to the motion, the Court is unaware of any reason why he cannot, or believes he should not be required to, comply with Plaintiff's requests.

Accordingly, the Court may consider the motion unopposed and order Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's requests. Broadcast Music, Inc., 2010 WL 376619, at *1. In the spirit of the Federal Rules and in the interests of achieving a resolution based on a full and accurate understanding of the facts, the Court will do so here. The Court also will take this opportunity to remind Defendant that even though he currently is proceeding pro se, it is mandatory that he proceed in accordance with Federal and Local Rules.1 Loren v Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that despite certain leniency afforded pro se parties, they must follow procedures). Defendant is strongly encouraged to attempt to retain counsel admitted to practice before this Court to assist him in this matter. See Schebel v. Charlotte Cnty., 833 F.Supp. 889, 890 (M.D. Fla. 1993) ("strenuously" encouraging pro se plaintiff in civil action to retain legal counsel); see also Montgomery v. Brickell Place Condo. Ass'n, No. 11-24316-CIV, 2012 WL 1203837, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2012) (encouraging pro se plaintiff to "retain legal counsel and, failing that, to diligently research how to prosecute" a case in federal court because pro se parties are responsible for discovery, complying with scheduling orders and following federal and local rules).

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 55) is GRANTED. Defendant Edward Priore shall have up to and including June 2, 2015 to respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production.2

DONE and ORDERED.