EDWIN G. TORRES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Samantha Espinosa's ("Plaintiff") motion to compel interrogatory answers, production responses, and documents against 2K Clevelander, LLC ("Defendant"). [D.E. 17]. Defendant responded on December 27, 2017 [D.E. 24] to which Plaintiff replied on January 4, 2018. [D.E. 26]. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is now ripe for disposition. After careful consideration of the motion, response, reply, relevant authority, and for the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is
On October 7, 2017, Plaintiff served several discovery requests on Defendant. Upon agreement of counsel, Plaintiff extended Defendant's response deadline to November 20, 2017. Despite this extension, Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests and that Plaintiff's motion — filed on December 10, 2017 — is timely filed within 30 days of the November 20, 2017 deadline. Because Defendant failed to respond to any of Plaintiff's discovery requests, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant's failure to respond to any of her discovery requests is a violation of the Federal Rules and that Defendant has waived all objections to Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production. See Guerra v. Se. Freight Lines, Inc., 2014 WL 6770175, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2014) ("Guerra did not file a timely objection to SEFL's interrogatories and did not claim that any of the discovery infringed upon privileged information. Guerra has failed to provide any responses. Therefore, any and all objections to SEFL's discovery requests are now waived.") (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) ("Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure."); Dorrough v. MuUikin, 563 F.2d 187, 191 (5th Cir. 1977)).
Defendant argues, in response, that it has been completely transparent in its discussions with Plaintiff regarding Defendant's inability to obtain the requisite documents and information needed to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Specifically, Defendant claims that it has made substantial efforts to extend its response deadline in an effort to avoid unnecessary motion practice. Defendant also suggests that it has every intention of responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests, yet needs more time to do so. Because Defendant has been working in good faith to provide Plaintiff with the information sought, Defendant concludes that Plaintiff's motion should be denied and that Defendant should be given ten (10) additional days to provide its discovery responses.
We agree with Plaintiff that a party's failure to respond to discovery requests as required under the Federal Rules may in some circumstances warrant a finding that the party has waived their objections. See, e.g., Guerra, 2014 WL 6770175, at *2. However, in this case, Defendant explained to Plaintiff that it was attempting to gather the information requested but that Defendant simply could not do so in the time frame required. After the parties mutually agreed to an extension, Defendant still could not locate the information requested and therefore Plaintiff filed a motion to compel.
Given the record presented, we find that there is good cause to excuse Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. However, Plaintiff's motion is
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby