United States District Court, S.D. Florida
B&D NUTRITIONAL INGREDIENTS, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,
UNIQUE BIO INGREDIENTS, LLC, d/b/a UNIQUE BIOTECH USA, a Florida limited liability company, JAIRO ESCOBAR, an individual, LUIS ECHEVERRIA, an individual, RATNA SUDHA MADEMPUDI, an individual, and UNIQUE BIOTECH LIMITED, an Indian corporation, Defendants.
S. SELTZER United States District Judge
CAUSE has come before the Court upon [DE 178] Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration of Its Motion to Overrule
Objections to Interrogatories [DE 174]. On May 16, 2017, the
Court entered an Order [DE 175] denying Plaintiff's
Motion to Overrule Objections to Interrogatories [DE 174].
Plaintiff's motion was overruled because it was filed
outside the 30-day time period of Local Rule 26.1(g) for
filing discovery motions and because it was the
second motion directed to the same interrogatories.
current motion, Plaintiff advises the Court that counsel had
stipulated to a 7-day extension for filing the motion as
allowed by the Local Rules, and it requests that the Court
consider its (second) Motion to Overrule Objections to
Interrogatories [DE 174]. Plaintiff has also attached a
series of e-mail correspondence between counsel, wherein
counsel address (but do not resolve) the issue of whether
Plaintiff should file one discovery motion to address all
outstanding issues or submit multiple motions [DE 178-1].
Counsel note that there are 624 discovery requests on which
they need to confer and wonder whether the Magistrate Judge
“has the time to address all 624 discovery requests at
one time” [DE 178-1].
Court's primary concern is that the parties complete
discovery within the period set by the District Court. The
discovery deadline is August 14, 2017. Plaintiff's
discovery requests were served upon Defendants on January 31,
2017, and most of the objections have not yet been presented
to the Court. Indeed, in a motion filed on May 17, 2017,
Plaintiff notes that “to date, Defendants have failed
to produce a single document in response to B&D's
Request for Production.” [DE 176, p. 4]. And it appears
from the emails between counsel that they have not conferred
on all of the outstanding discovery objections [DE 178-1].
Almost 90 days have now elapsed since Plaintiff's
discovery requests were served, and the issues are still not
assist the parties in conducting their discovery in a timely
manner, the Court will impose a schedule for considering any
of Defendants' unresolved objections to Plaintiff's
discovery requests. The Court hastens to note its concern
about the litigiousness of the parties in setting, serving,
and responding to discovery requests. The Court strongly
encourages counsel to meet and engage in good faith
discussions to substantially narrow the issues for the Court.
The Court reminds counsel that it has issued a
Confidentiality Order [DE 170]; all objections to the
discovery requests must be evaluated in light of that
it is hereby
AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Its
Motion to Overrule Objections to Interrogatories [DE 174]
Because the Filing Was Timely Pursuant to a Stipulated
Extension [DE 178] is GRANTED. The objections at issue will
be presented and resolved as set forth below.
Counsel shall meet and confer on all of Defendants'
objections to the discovery requests served by Plaintiff on
January 31, 2017 no later than June 5, 2017. Counsel shall
work together in good faith to significantly narrow the
issues and substantially reduce the number of objections to
be presented to the Court.
parties shall file a Joint Status Report by June 15,
2017 identifying those issues/discovery requests, if any,
that remain unresolved after the meet and confer. The Joint
Status Report must set forth the following information for
each unresolved discovery request: (1) the verbatim request;
(2) the verbatim response; (3) a brief summary of each
party's position; and (4) the result of the parties'
meet and confer. The parties may group the discovery issues
by issue, as appropriate. Any arguments pertaining to
Defendants' discovery responses not raised in the Joint
Status Report will be deemed waived.
Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff all responsive
documents to which there are no pending objections no later
than May 26, 2017. If the parties have already agreed to an
earlier date for production of documents, that earlier date
will govern this time for production.
Court again expresses its concern about the length of time
that the Plaintiff's discovery requests have been pending
and the parties' apparent inability to resolve discovery
issues without Court intervention. The parties are reminded
that the Court is bound by Rule 37(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P., to
impose sanctions on any party whose position regarding
discovery is found to have not been substantially justified.
Order does not pertain to Defendants' Motion to Compel
Production of B&D's Rule 26(a) Disclosures [DE 166],
which is substantially briefed and which will be ruled upon
separately. Defendants shall file a reply ...