United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
AMBER LANCASTER, BRITTANY CRIPLIVER, BROOKE TAYLOR JOHNSON, CIELO JEAN GIBSON, CORA SKINNER, GEMMA LEE FARRELL, HEATHER RAE YOUNG, IRINA VORONINA, JESSE GOLDEN, JESSA HINTON, JOANNA KRUPA, KATARINA VAN DERHAM, MAYSA QUY, PAOLA CANAS, SANDRA VALENCIA, SARA UNDERWOOD, TIFFANY SELBY, TIFFANY TOTH, VIDA GUERRA, and KIM COZZENS, Plaintiffs,
ANDREW HARROW, SUSAN HARROW, EYES WIDE SHUT, LLC, BYOB CLUB, INC., and THE BOTTLE CLUB, LLC, Defendants.
S. SNEED, UNTTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on (1) Defendants' Motion to
Compel Better Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for
Production (“Motion to Compel”) (Dkt. 103), and
Plaintiffs' response in opposition (Dkt. 114), and (2)
Defendants' Amended Motion to Extend Expert Report
Deadline (“Motion for Extension”) (Dkt. 115),
which Plaintiffs oppose (Dkt. 115 at 1).
Motion to Compel, Defendants seek an order compelling
Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant Andrew Harrow's
requests for production and interrogatories. (Dkt. 103.) The
discovery requests at issue are Interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 12,
13, 14, and 16, and Requests for Production 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
34, 35, 36, 38, 44, 45, and 54.
is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(1). An evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or
response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or
respond. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). The court has broad
discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters and in
deciding to compel. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence
Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011);
Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th
Motion to Compel
Interrogatory 3, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs'
referring to the allegations in their Amended Complaint is
insufficient. Generally, answering an interrogatory “by
reference to an extrinsic matter” is disfavored. Middle
District Discovery (2015) at § IV(C)(3). However, upon
review of Plaintiffs' response in opposition (Dkt. 114 at
4), Plaintiffs state that their answers to Interrogatory 3
are their allegations in the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 38), and
the expense of requiring Plaintiffs to copy and paste the
allegations specific to each Plaintiff outweighs any likely
benefit of this exercise. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). The Motion is therefore denied as to Interrogatory
response to Interrogatory 5, Plaintiffs complain of the
burden of compiling their employment information to answer
this interrogatory. However, Plaintiffs have alleged that
Defendants' use of Plaintiffs' images have caused
Plaintiffs to lose sales and have caused confusion to
Plaintiffs' prospective clients. Specifically, they have
alleged suffering irreparable harm to their “reputation
and brand” and “damage to their professional
reputation” from Defendants' alleged use of their
images. (Dkt. 38.) Further, they have alleged that
Defendants' acts have caused confusion to fans and
“prospective clients” and have “hamper[ed]
efforts by Plaitniffs [sic] to continue to protect their
reputation for high quality professional modeling, resulting
in loss of sales thereof and the considerable expenditures to
promote their personal modeling services to legitimate
mainstream media, all to the irreparable harm of Plaitniffs
[sic].” (Id.) This request is relevant to
Plaintiffs' damages claims. The Motion is therefore
granted as to Interrogatory 5.
Interrogatory 6, Plaintiffs answer that they have not
established their own damages amounts and calculations and
therefore refer Defendants to their expert report on damages.
(Dkt. 114 at 5-6, 7.) It therefore appears that Plaintiffs
have answered the interrogatory, and the Motion is therefore
denied as to Interrogatory 6. Plaintiffs are reminded,
however, that if they intend to present or rely on any other
information in support of their claim for damages, they must
supplement their answer to Interrogatory 6. See Fed.
R. Civ. Pr. 37(c)(1) (“If a party fails to provide
information . . . the party is not allowed to use that
information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a
hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially
justified or is harmless.”). With regard to
Interrogatories 14 and 16, in response to the Motion to
Compel, Plaintiffs state “No Plaintiff has learned from
any third parties that they were not retained specifically
because of Defendants' use of their images.” (Dkt.
114 at 7.) This information is not included in their answers
to Interrogatories 14 and 16; Plaintiffs are therefore
directed to supplement their answers accordingly, and the
Motion is granted as to Interrogatories 14 and 16.
while Plaintiffs contend that their answers to Interrogatory
13 are contingent upon the deposition of Defendant Andrew
Harrow, Plaintiffs are directed to answer this Interrogatory
with the information now known to them and to supplement it
as necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). The
Motion is therefore granted as to Interrogatory 13.
Interrogatory 12, which asks Plaintiffs to identify any
documents utilized to prepare their answers, should be
supplemented, as necessary, in light of this Court's
order compelling them to answer Interrogatories 5, 13, 14,
and 16. Request for Production 54 is duplicative of
Interrogatory 12 because it also asks for all documents
utilized in responding to the Interrogatories. (See Dkt. 103
at 14.) The Motion to Compel is therefore granted as to
Interrogatory 12 and denied as to Request for Production 54.
supplemented answers to the Interrogatories are due
by January 16, 2018. Plaintiffs are reminded
that all answers to the Interrogatories must be signed under
oath by Plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3),