UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 20-14244-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS

RONALD EDWARD WOLF, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS, et al., 

Defendants. 

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard’s 

Report and Recommendation (“Report”), issued on December 31, 2020. (DE 50). Plaintiffs filed 

“Limited Objections” to the Report (DE 56), to which Defendants filed a Response (DE 68). For 

the following reasons, the Report is adopted, and Plaintiffs’ Limited Objections are overruled.

This negligence action arose from a car accident that occurred in January 2020, in which

Defendant Diggins, among others, was injured. (See DE 4; DE 33 at ¶ 1). Plaintiffs moved to 

compel Defendant Diggins to provide deposition dates (DE 20), and Defendants then filed a CrossMotion for Protective Order due to medical reasons (DE 33). Based upon the Parties’ written 

submissions and the evidence and argument presented at two hearings, the Report recommends 

that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel be denied and Defendants’ Cross-Motion be granted. (DE 50).

This Court reviews de novo the portions of the Report objected to by Plaintiffs. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010). After a careful 

review of the Report, hearing transcripts, and record, I agree with the Report’s recommendations. 

Here, Plaintiffs dispute only limited portions of the Report. I will address each objection in turn.

Case 2:20-cv-14244-DMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 1 of 3
2

First, Plaintiffs dispute the findings of Defendant Diggins’ treating psychologist, which 

Judge Maynard relied upon in forming the above recommendations. (DE 56 at 2; see DE 50 at 6–

7). Specifically, the psychologist opined that Defendant Diggins has post-traumatic stress disorder 

(“PTSD”) and still experiences PTSD symptoms related to the accident at issue in this case, and 

that him revisiting the details of the accident near its one-year anniversary may be harmful to his

psychological recovery. (DE 56 at 1–2; DE 50 at 6–7). Plaintiffs do not expressly object to Judge 

Maynard’s findings. Rather, they assert that they “were not afforded the opportunity to effectively 

attack and contradict [the psychologist’s] proffer” because, although their counsel cross-examined

Defendant Diggins’ psychologist at a hearing on this matter, “Plaintiffs were unable to obtain 

medical records in possession of [the psychologist], severely prejudicing Plaintiffs’ ability to 

cross-examine [the psychologist] effectively and sufficiently as to the conclusions set forth in his 

letter, which was relied on by the Magistrate Judge in issuing her R&R.” (DE 56 at 2).

Plaintiffs therefore request that, if I adopt the Report, these findings regarding Defendant 

Diggins’ PTSD symptoms that are based on the psychologist’s letter “be limited to purposes of the 

Motion to Compel and Protective Order and not be admissible for purposes of trial.” (Id.). In their 

Response, Defendants assert that because they “do not intend to offer Magistrate Judge Maynard’s 

findings as evidence at trial of Mr. Diggins’ condition,” this objection is moot. (DE 68 at 1).

I agree. Because the Parties agree that the Report’s findings relating to Defendant Diggins’ 

PTSD symptoms will not be introduced as evidence at trial, Plaintiffs’ first objection is overruled.

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs object to the Report based upon their inability to 

obtain medical records prior to cross-examining Defendant Diggins’ psychologist, I am not 

persuaded that this provides a basis upon which to object to the Report. Plaintiffs apparently did 

not serve a subpoena on the psychologist to request the records, object prior to the psychologist’s 

examination at the hearing, or seek any other appropriate relief from the Court. (See id. at 2).

Case 2:20-cv-14244-DMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 2 of 3
3

Plaintiffs’ second “objection” instead appears to be a new request for relief that is not 

properly raised in objections to the Report. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek “the addition of language 

ordering that Mr. Diggins be deposed between March 16, 2021 and March 30, 2021.” (DE 56 at 

3). If Plaintiffs intend to seek a court order requiring that Defendant Diggins be deposed between 

certain dates, they must file a separate motion that “state[s] with particularity the grounds for 

seeking the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B). At this stage, however, this “objection” is overruled.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

(1) The Report (DE 50) is RATIFIED, AFFIRMED, and ADOPTED.

(2) Plaintiffs’ Limited Objections (DE 56) are OVERRULED.

(3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (DE 20) is DENIED.

(4) Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Protective Order (DE 33) is GRANTED.

(5) Any deposition of Defendant Diggins is DELAYED until after March 15, 2021.

(6) The discovery deadline will therefore be extended to a date beyond March 16, 2021.

The remaining pretrial deadlines will be adjusted accordingly, and the trial will be 

continued. An amended pretrial scheduling and trial order will be entered in due course 

and will be based upon this Order and my ruling on the pending Renewed Motion to 

Modify Trial Term and Pre-Trial Deadlines (DE 61) recently filed by Defendants.

SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 2021.

Donald M. Middlebrooks

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 2:20-cv-14244-DMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2021 Page 3 of 3