Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ELITE MITIGATION SERVICES, LLC,

a/a/o GRETA LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:19-cv-381-TKW/MJF

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This matter is before this court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Overrule Objections 

and to Compel Better Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories,” (Doc. 

18), and “Motion to Overrule Objections to First Set of Requests for Production and 

Compel Privilege Log,” (Doc. 19). Defendant has filed responses to the motions. 

(Docs. 21, 22).

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed this action in state court, and Defendant removed the case to 

federal court. On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff propounded its: (1) “First set of 

Interrogatories”; and (2) “First Request for Production” to Defendant. Defendant 

responded on December 20, 2019. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s responses to 

both the First set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production were deficient. 

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 37 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff’s counsel contends that they have made “several attempts to resolve these 

disputes.” (Doc. 18 at 4; Doc. 19 at 4). Defendant, on the other hand, argues that 

Plaintiff’s efforts consisted of a single letter demanding compliance which Plaintiff’s 

counsel sent five days before the motions to compel were filed.

1

II. Discussion

An ultimatum—even one that gives opposing counsel five days to comply—

does not comport with the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local 

Rules. These rules seek to minimize judicial intervention and the expenditure of 

judicial resources when parties can confer, and compromise whenever possible, to 

resolve their differences regarding a discovery dispute. See In re Stone, 986 F.2d 

896, 904 (5th Cir. 1993). “Discovery imposes burdens on the judicial system; scarce 

judicial resources must be diverted from other cases to resolve discovery disputes.” 

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367-68 (11th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, the parties were informed that “[t]he Court will entertain a motion with 

respect to matters which remain in controversy only if, after consultation and sincere 

attempts to resolve the differences, counsel are unable to reach an accord.” (Doc. 6 

at 11).

1 Defendant’s counsel did not attach the letter, and Plaintiff’s counsel did not identify 

what “attempts” were made to resolve these discovery disputes.

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 37 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

While the Local Rules authorize conferences by emails or letters, the rule also 

indicates that “oral conference[s are] encouraged.” N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B). Here, 

it is apparent that some of these issues could have been resolved before moving this 

court for relief,2 and the undersigned is skeptical that a sincere, good faith effort to 

resolve these issues was made.

To afford counsel the opportunity to confer and discuss the relevant issues, 

the motions to compel will be denied without prejudice. After the parties meet and 

confer either in person or telephonically, if there are any outstanding issues, Plaintiff 

may move this court for relief. In any such motion, Plaintiff should indicate: (1) who 

participated in the conference; (2) how long the conference lasted; (3) whether the 

conference was held in person or telephonically; and (4) the result of the conference 

relevant to any unresolved issues.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Overrule Objections and to Compel Better 

Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories,” (Doc. 18), and 

“Motion to Overrule Objections to First Set of Requests for Production 

and Compel Privilege Log,” (Doc. 19) are DENIED without prejudice.

2 The Defendant acknowledges that some of the Plaintiff’s requests had merit insofar 

as Defendant subsequently provided: (1) verified responses to the interrogatories; 

(2) privilege logs; and (3) documents that had previously been withheld. (Doc. 21 at 

2, Doc. 22 at 2).

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 37 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

2. If any issues remain outstanding, on or before March 12, 2020, Plaintiff

may file motions to compel consistent with the instructions set forth 

above.

SO ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2020.

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00381-TKW-MJF Document 37 Filed 02/27/20 Page 4 of 4