“[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ANDREW BRYAN SHEETS,
Plaintiff,
v. 2:24-cv-943-SPC-NPM
BILL PRUMMELL and
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT WILLIAMS,
Defendants.
ORDER
This is a civil-rights action that stems from an incident between pro se plaintiff
Andrew Bryant Sheets and defendants Sheriff Bill Prummell and Deputy
Christopher Scott Williams in Charlotte County, Florida on October 20, 2020.1
Although there are only two defendants in this case, Sheets has proceeded to serve
subpoenas duces tecum on non-parties Lee County Sheriff’s Office, the City of
Punta Gorda, Charlotte County Clerk of Circuit Court, the School Board of Charlotte
County, the City of North Port, YouTube, Meta, and Twitter. Sheets has also served
numerous discovery requests on defendants including hundreds of requests for
production and admission, as well as interrogatories. Not surprisingly, a flurry of
1 Sheets is no stranger to the court as he has filed nine lawsuits in this district, six of which are
currently pending. See Sheets v. Davoult, et al., No. 2:25-cv-130-JLB-KCD; Sheets v. Woelk et al.,
No. 2:25-cv-061-JLB-KCD; Sheets v. Charlotte County et al., No. 2:24-cv-958-JES-KCD; Sheets
v. Prummell et al., No. 2:24-cv-943-SPC-NPM; Sheets v. Jimenez et al., No. 2:24-cv-704-SPC-
KCD; Sheets v. Presseller et al., No. 2:24-cv-495-JLB-KCD; Sheets v. City of Punta Gorda,
Florida, No. 2:22-cv-246-SPC-NPM (closed); Sheets v. Bell, No. 2:23-cv-035-JLB-KCD (closed);
motions to quash and for protective order have been filed, arguing that Sheets’s
requests are overly broad, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and harassing. (Docs. 35,
42, 46, 47, 55, 66, 69, 72, 77, 78, 84). In addition, Sheets has filed several motions
to compel discovery. (Docs. 49, 51, 52, 61, 65).
Given the onslaught of discovery-related motions that seem to multiply like
Tribbles2, it has overwhelmed the court’s overly burdened docket. And a preliminary
review of the subpoenas reveals that his discovery requests are at the very least
overbroad.3 So we are staying discovery until the pleadings are closed. See Clinton
v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (The Court “has broad discretion to stay
proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”); see also Johnson
v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e
accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities,
including discovery and scheduling.”).
Accordingly, discovery is stayed until further order of the court. After the
pleadings are closed, the court will conduct a Rule 16 conference with the parties to
discuss the confines in which discovery will take place. All motions to quash, for
protective order, and to compel discovery (Docs. 35, 42, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 55, 61,
2 See https://tenor.com/view/tribbles-star-trek-universe-gif-15358836
3 In Sheets v. Presseller et al., No. 2:24-cv-495-JLB-KCD, Sheets served subpoenas duces tacum
seeking “any and all documents, emails, audio, and video records containing the name Andrew
Sheets from 2012 to present” and “any and all emails, memos, text messages, video, and audio
referencing plaintiff’s name from 2019 to the present.” (Docs. 94, 110). When denying Sheets’s
motions to compel, the court found his requests overly broad and not tailored to the issues in the
case, which stemmed from incidents in 2020 and 2022. Here, Sheets makes similar, if not identical,
requests.
66, 69, 72, 77, 78, 84) are denied without prejudice. Sheets’s motion for leave to
file to file a reply in support of his motion to compel (Doc. 65) is denied as moot.
ORDERED on April 21, 2025
NICHOLAS P. LE
United States Magistrate Judge