Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Badger Auctioneers, Inc. v. Ali

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

September 15, 2017

BADGER AUCTIONEERS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
ZAID ALI and MY FRESH MARKET CORP., Defendants.

          ORDER

          THOMAS B. SMITH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This case comes before the Court, without oral argument, on Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Overrule Objections (Doc. 90). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion and the time within to do so has expired. When a party fails to respond, that is an indication that the motion is unopposed. Foster v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 6:14-cv-2102-Orl-40TBS, 2015 WL 3486008, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2015); Jones v. Bank of Am., N.A., 564 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (11th Cir. 2014)[1] (citing Kramer v. Gwinnett Cty., Ga., 306 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1221 (N.D.Ga. 2004)); Daisy, Inc. v. Polio Operations, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-564-FtM-38CM, 2015 WL 2342951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2015) (when defendant did not respond court could consider motion to compel unopposed); Brown v. Platinum Wrench Auto Repair, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-2168-T-33TGW, 2012 WL 333808, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2012) (after party failed to respond, court treated motion for summary judgment as unopposed). The Court construes Defendants' motion as unopposed.

         Plaintiff conducted an auction at which it says, Defendant Zaid Ali was a registered bidder (Doc. 66, ¶¶ 10-11). According to Plaintiff, Ali was the high bidder for certain merchandise that was auctioned off (Id., ¶ 23). Plaintiff complains that Ali failed to pay for the merchandise he purchased (Id.). Defendant My Fresh Market Corp. gave Plaintiff a check for a portion of the purchase price but, according to Plaintiff, the check was dishonored (Id., ¶¶ 45-54). My Fresh Market alleges that it had a valid auction contract with Plaintiff which Plaintiff breached (Doc. 75, ¶¶ 29-34). My Fresh Market also alleges that it was defrauded by Plaintiff's chief executive officer, Theodore W. Fleisner (Doc. 76). These appear to be the only business transactions between the parties (Doc. 90 at 6).

         Defendants propounded the following requests for production and received the following responses from Plaintiff:

18. Copies of emails between Fleisner and Ali concerning the March 2015 auction.
RESPONSE: Objection; seeks information not relevant to defendants' claims or defenses.
19. Copies of emails between Fleisner and My Fresh Market concerning the March 2015 auction.
RESPONSE: Objection; seeks information not relevant to defendants' claims or defenses.
20. Copies of emails between any of your employees since this lawsuit began, concerning or relating to My Fresh Market.
RESPONSE: Objection; it would be overly broad and unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to evidence relevant to defendants' claims or defenses to search through all employees' emails for emails referring to My Fresh Market.
21. Copies of emails between any of your employees since this lawsuit began, concerning or relating to Ali.
RESPONSE: Objection; it would be overly broad and unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to evidence relevant to defendants' claims or defenses to search through all employees' emails for emails referring to Mr. Ali.

(Doc. 90 at 3-4).

         Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to properly comply with its discovery obligations in that Plaintiff asserted inappropriate objections to these requests (Id., at 5). Defendants ask the Court to overrule the objections and compel production of the requested information (Id.). Since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended effective December 1, 2015, Rule 34 has required a party objecting to requests for production to: (1) “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons;” (2) “state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection;” and (3) “[a]n objection to part of a request ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.