United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ARNOLD SANS ONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bell seeks an order directing Richard Mallin, Dallia Mallin,
and Air and More Services, Inc., to respond to Ms. Bell's
requests for production, requests for admissions, and
interrogatories. (Doc. 16). In response, the defendants seek
additional time. (Doc. 20).
Bell brings this action for claims arising under 42 U.S.C.
§ 12181, et seq., based upon the
defendants' alleged failure to remove physical barriers
to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Doc. 1). On March 5,
2018, Ms. Bell served the defendants with her First Set of
Interrogatories, First Requests for Production, and First
Requests for Admissions. (Doc. 16-1). Almost four months
later, the defendants have not responded. (Docs. 16, 20).
Bell requests the following relief: (1) an order for the
defendants to respond to the discovery requests within five
days; (2) a finding that the defendants have waived all
objections to Ms. Bell's interrogatories and requests for
production; (3) a finding that Ms. Bell's requests for
admissions are deemed admitted; (4) reimbursement of Ms.
Bell's attorney's fees and costs; and (5) an
extension of the September 13, 2018 discovery deadline, if
necessary. (Doc. 16, pp. 2-3). In response, the defendants
request an additional fourteen days to respond to the
discovery requests, but do not provide any argument as to Ms.
Bell's remaining requests. (Doc. 20).
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
Interrogatories and Requests for Production
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to
serve on another party written interrogatories that relate to
“any matter that may be inquired into under Rule
26(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). Rule 26(b) permits
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories
... to be answered by the party served....”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). The answers and objections, if any, must
be served “within 30 days after the service of the
interrogatories.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2). “Any
ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the
court, for good cause, excuses the failure.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4). Indeed, as set forth in Paragraph
IV.B.1. of the Middle District Discovery Manual,
“[a]bsent compelling circumstances, failure to assert
objections to an interrogatory within the time period for
answers constitutes a waiver and will preclude a party from
asserting the objection in a response to a motion to
“[a]ny party may serve on any other party a request ...
to produce and permit the requesting party ... to inspect,
copy, test, or sample” designated items that are within
the scope of Rule 26(b) and which are “in the
responding parties' possession, custody, or
control.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). The opposing party must
then serve a written response within thirty days.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A). As set forth in Paragraph III.A.6.
of the Middle District Discovery Manual, “Absent
compelling circumstances, failure to assert objections to a
request for production within the time period for a response
constitutes a waiver of grounds for objection, and will
preclude a party from asserting the objection in a response
to a motion to compel.”
a party fails to timely object to interrogatories, production
requests, or other discovery efforts, the objections are
deemed waived.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Core Carriers,
Inc., No. 3:06-cv-585-J-20MCR, 2008 WL 2414041, at *2
(M.D. Fla. June 11, 2008). The defendants have not presented
compelling circumstances that would make the waiver of
objections unjustified. See Bernath v. Seavey, No.
2:15-CV- 358-FTM-99CM, 2016 WL 7013873, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec.
1, 2016); see also Guerra v. Se. Freight Lines,
Inc., No. 13-22070-CIV, 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.”). Indeed, the defendants
provided no argument, other than to note the number of the
discovery requests, as to why they have not provided
responses for nearly four months or moved for an extension.
(See Doc. 20). Because the defendants failed to
timely respond or object to ...