The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DANIEL SANSONI,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:24-cv-327-JSS-LHP
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD,
Defendant
ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following
motion filed herein:
MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS (Doc. No. 40)
FILED: June 13, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Daniel Sansoni, appearing pro se, seeks to compel document
production from Defendant Orange County School Board. Doc. No. 40.
According to the motion, on March 30, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendant a
“Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.” Id. at 2, 8–18 (“Demand for
Production”).1 On April 12, 2024, Defendant requested that its deadline to respond
to the Demand for Production be extended through June 2, 2024, and Plaintiff
agreed. Id. at 2, 6. But Defendant did not respond by June 2, 2024. Instead, on
June 3, 2024, Defendant served its Response on Plaintiff. Id. at 2, 24–38. And on
June 6, 2024, Defendant served a Supplemental Response, to include some
responsive documents. Id. at 2, 20–23. Plaintiff says that Defendant’s Responses
were untimely pursuant to the parties’ agreement, and that the document
production to date is deficient. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff filed the motion through the Court’s e-portal on June 13, 2024, and a
Notice of Electronic Filing was sent to Defendant’s counsel on June 17, 2024. Doc.
No. 40; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)((2)(E). However, Defendant has not responded
to the motion, and its time for doing so has expired. See Doc. No. 33 ¶ 5 (providing
that opposition briefing to a discovery motion must be filed no later than five days
after the motion); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, the Court deems
the motion to be unopposed in all respects. See Doc. No. 33 ¶ 5 (stating that failure
to file a timely response will result in the discovery motion being deemed
1 As more fully set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion also references Requests for
Admission, but no Requests for Admission are attached to the motion, and the relief
requested pertains to document production alone. Accordingly, this Order addresses
only the Demand for Production.
unopposed); see also Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Paramount Disaster Recovery,
LLC, No. 6:18-cv-1738-Orl-37DCI, 2019 WL 5294804, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2019)
(“The Court routinely grants motions as unopposed where the opposing parties
have not filed a response in opposition to the motion.”); Bercini v. City of Orlando,
No. 6:15-cv-1921-Orl-41TBS, 2016 WL 11448993, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016)
(granting in full unopposed motion to compel); Daisy, Inc. v. Pollo 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).
Upon review of the unopposed motion, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request
with regard to the production of documents requested in the Demand for
Production well taken. See Doc. No. 40, at 8–18. However, the Court notes that
although Plaintiff’s motion mentions Requests for Admission, no such Requests for
Admission are attached to the motion and the only relief sought pertains to the
Demand for Production. See id. at 2, 4; see also Doc. No. 33 ¶ 3 (requiring
attachment of the discovery at issue). Accordingly, the Court’s rulings set forth
herein are limited to the Demand for Production, and do not speak to any relief as
to Requests for Admission.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Doc. No. 40) is
GRANTED.
2. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendant shall serve on
Plaintiff, with the exception of materials covered by the attorney-client
privilege, all documents in its current possession, custody, or control
responsive to the Demand for Production. See Doc. No. 40, at 8–18.
3. All objections to the discovery at issue, other than attorney client
privilege, have been waived by the failure to timely respond to the motion to
compel. See, e.g., Jackson v. Geometrica, Inc., No. 3:04-cv-640-J-20HTS, 2006
WL 213860, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2006) (objections not addressed in
response to a motion to compel are deemed abandoned); Bercini, 2016 WL
11448993, at *2 (same).
4. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Defendant shall serve on
Plaintiff a privilege log clearly identifying any and all remaining documents
withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The privilege log must be
in the form required by the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Privilege Logs,
In Re: Procedure for Assertion of Privilege, Case No. 6:19-mc-32-Orl-LRH (Doc.
No. 1, June 17, 2019).
5. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(b).2
2 Plaintiff does not request an award of fees or costs or any other relief in his motion,
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 25, 2024.
ay □□□
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5); accordingly, the Court declines to award any further relief at
this time. The Court also notes that Plaintiff proceeds pro se, rendering an award of
attorney’s fees inappropriate.
_5-