DeVAULT v. ISDALE, 6:15-cv-135-Orl-37TBS. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20151203c05
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Defendant Holly Isdale's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 36), filed September 25, 2015; 2. U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Order Denying Defendant Holly Isdale's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 40), filed October 26, 2015; 3. Defendant's Rule 72(a) Objection to Magistrate Judge's October 26, 2015 Order Denying Motion to Compel (Doc. 43), filed November 9, 2015; and 4. Plaintiff's Re
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Defendant Holly Isdale's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 36), filed September 25, 2015; 2. U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Order Denying Defendant Holly Isdale's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 40), filed October 26, 2015; 3. Defendant's Rule 72(a) Objection to Magistrate Judge's October 26, 2015 Order Denying Motion to Compel (Doc. 43), filed November 9, 2015; and 4. Plaintiff's Res..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1. Defendant Holly Isdale's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 36), filed September 25, 2015;
2. U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Order Denying Defendant Holly Isdale's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 40), filed October 26, 2015;
3. Defendant's Rule 72(a) Objection to Magistrate Judge's October 26, 2015 Order Denying Motion to Compel (Doc. 43), filed November 9, 2015; and
4. Plaintiff's Response and Opposition to Defendant's Objection to the Court's Order Denying Motion to Compel (Doc. 45), filed November 23, 2015.
In this breach of contract and fiduciary duty action, Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff to produce "a copy of the entire original file related to Plaintiff from any attorney or law firm that represented Plaintiff in Plaintiff's divorce proceedings" and "a copy of the entire original file related to Plaintiff from any attorney or law firm that represented or was engaged by Plaintiff during the relevant period." (Doc. 36 ("Motion").) U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith denied the Motion, concluding that Plaintiff had not waived the attorney-client or work product privilege. (Doc. 40 ("Denial Order").) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), Defendant objects to the Denial Order on the ground that it does not give "proper consideration to [Defendant's] request for production of unredacted billing invoices." (Doc. 43, p. 1.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff should produce unredacted versions of the bills and/or invoices of her divorce attorney, which Plaintiff previously produced in redacted form ("Redacted Invoices"). (Id. at 7.)
Upon consideration, the Court finds that the Objection raises a new issue that was not previously raised to Magistrate Judge Smith.1 (Compare Doc. 73, with Doc. 36.) As such, the Objection is due to be overruled without prejudice with leave to move the Court regarding the Redacted Invoices in a separate filing.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant's Rule 72(a) Objection to Magistrate Judge's October 26, 2015 Order Denying Motion to Compel (Doc. 43) is OVERRULED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. On or before Monday, December 7, 2015, Defendant may file a motion to compel that addresses the issue of the Redacted Invoices.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Indeed, Defendant filed her Motion on the same day that Plaintiff produced the Redacted Invoices. (See Doc. 43, p. 3 n.1.)
Source: Leagle
