1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-14306-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS/MAYNARD

EDUARDO CISNEROS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAEFTY HOLDINGS, INC.,

d/b/a Samba Safety,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS

THIS CAUSE IS before me upon presiding U.S. District Judge Donald M. 

Middlebrooks’ referral of all discovery matters to me for appropriate disposition. DE 38.

Falling within the scope of this referral is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery and For 

Sanctions (“Motion to Compel”). DE 33. No response to the Motion to Compel has been 

timely filed. For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit, asserting a single claim against 

Defendant under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”) for “willfully and negligently 

failing to employ and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of 

Plaintiff’s credit report, information and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).” Compl. ¶ 

33. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FCRA by providing a motor vehicle report to 

Lyft on May 10, 2022 that inaccurately reported Plaintiff’s license as suspended even though 

“Plaintiff’s license was not invalid. Plaintiff’s driver’s license was valid, intact, and he was 

Case 2:22-cv-14306-DMM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2023 Page 1 of 6
2

legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle.” Id. ¶¶ 19-23. As a result of this inaccurate 

information, Plaintiff claims to have been deactivated from the Lyft diver platform. Id. ¶ 28. 

Plaintiff originally appeared in this case through counsel. On motion, his first attorney 

of record withdrew from representation. DE 26. Thereafter, a second attorney appeared to 

represent Plaintiff. DE 30. However, on subsequent motion, that second attorney also 

withdrew from representation. DE 45. Plaintiff is now representing himself in this matter.

Trial is presently set for July 17, 2023. Discovery is now closed. Apart from the 

Motion to Compel, Defendant has also filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, 

DE 36, and a Motion for Summary Judgment, DE 59. The latter two motions remain pending 

for consideration by the presiding U.S. District Judge. 

According to the Motion to Compel, which was filed on April 4, 2023, Plaintiff failed 

to timely provide complete discovery responses as required or confirm his availability for a 

deposition scheduled for April 10, 2023. DE 33 at 4. The at-issue discovery requests are 

attached to the Motion. DE 33-2, DE 33-3. Based upon Plaintiff’s failures to cooperate in 

discovery, Defendant sought an order (1) compelling Plaintiff to respond, (2) deeming any 

objections to the requested discovery waived, (3) deeming unanswered requests for admissions 

as admitted, (4) requiring Plaintiff to appear for his deposition,1 and (5) awarding Defendant 

its expenses incurred for the Motion. 

After reviewing the Motion to Compel, I issued an Order requiring an expedited 

response. DE 39. Plaintiff himself responded with an email but his attorney at the time did 

1 In a later joint status report, it was confirmed that Plaintiff and his counsel at the time did appear for Plaintiff’s 

scheduled deposition on April 10, 2023. DE 41 at 4. However, Defendant asserted that it “was prevented from 

thoroughly completing the deposition due to Plaintiff’s admitted failure to produce documents responsive” to 

Defendant’s discovery requests. Id.

Case 2:22-cv-14306-DMM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2023 Page 2 of 6
3

not. By later Order, I acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s email but indicated that represented 

parties may not act on their own behalf and, based on an updated status report indicating that 

Plaintiff’s written discovery responses remained woefully deficient, I required Plaintiff’s 

counsel to file a show cause response addressing why Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to 

my prior Order and why the Motion should not be granted by default. DE 42. Although 

Plaintiff has since filed other submissions with the Court now that he is representing himself 

(e.g., a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for referral to the Court’s 

volunteer attorney program, DE 46, DE 47), he has not properly filed any response to the 

Motion.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37 permits a party to “move for an order 

compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). A party may so move, for 

example, if the party from whom discovery is requested fails to answer an interrogatory or to 

respond to a request for production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv).

The party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing the discovery requests to be 

improper, unreasonable, or burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 

1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Wagner v. Viacost.com, 2007 WL 1879914, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 

29, 2007). Any objections to an interrogatory or request for production may be deemed waived 

if not raised in a timely manner, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Core 

Carriers, Inc., 2008 WL 2414041, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 11, 2008), and statements addressed 

by a request for admission are deemed admitted if the party to whom such a request is directed 

fails to provide a timely answer or objection to the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (“[a] 

matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is 

Case 2:22-cv-14306-DMM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2023 Page 3 of 6
4

directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter 

and signed by the party or its attorney”); see also U.S. v. 2204 Barbara Lane, 960 F.2d 126, 

129-30 (11th Cir. 1992) (explaining the purpose and importance of a Rule 36 admission).

Courts afford pro se litigants wide leeway in their pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (concluding that allegations of the pro se complaint are held to less 

stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers). But even pro se litigants must 

satisfy essential burdens, see, e.g., Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990), 

and Plaintiff’s current pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply with court orders. 

The record reflects that the presiding District Judge provided Plaintiff with specific 

instructions on how to proceed in this case. DE 49. However, Plaintiff has failed to comply 

with these instructions, including by failing to properly file a response to the Motion to 

Compel.2

I find that Plaintiff’s failure to appropriately respond leaves the Motion unopposed and 

subject to being granted by default. See S. D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) (failure to file a 

response “may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by default.”). Moreover, 

any objections Plaintiff may have had to the interrogatories or requests for production have 

been waived by Plaintiff’s failure to timely provide appropriate responses. Plaintiff will thus 

be ordered to serve full and complete written answers to each of Defendant’s interrogatories 

and written responses and documents responsive to each of Defendant’s requests for 

production. 

2

 More recently, Plaintiff did not appear for a scheduled settlement conference before me on May 16, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-14306-DMM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2023 Page 4 of 6
5

In addition, all matters set forth in Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions have 

been deemed admitted by Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). See DE 33-3 (copy of 

Request for Admissions); see also Perez v. Miami-Dade Cty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 

2002) (“If a party fails to respond within thirty days [to a Rule 36(a) request] the matter is 

admitted.”).

I turn last to Defendant’s request for an award of expenses incurred. When a motion 

to compel is granted, a Court must award the movant its reasonable expenses, including 

attorney’s fees, incurred in making the motion, after giving an opportunity to be heard. But 

the Court is not to award expenses if “the movant filed the motion before attempting in good 

faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action;” “the opposing party’s 

nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified;” or “other circumstances 

make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). Here, considering that 

Plaintiff was represented by counsel for some of the time at issue and is now representing 

himself, I find that the circumstances present here would make an award of expenses unjust. 

That said, this Order shall serve as an opportunity to notify Plaintiff that his continued failure 

to provide discovery or otherwise comply with Court orders may lead to the imposition of 

appropriate sanctions against him personally.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel, 

DE 33, is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

1. By or before June 9, 2023, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant full and 

complete responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Defendant’s 

First Set of Requests for Production with no objections. 

Case 2:22-cv-14306-DMM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2023 Page 5 of 6
6

2. All matters set forth in Defendant’s First Requests for Admissions, DE 33-3, are 

deemed admitted by Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).

3. Plaintiff shall take notice that continued failure to provide discovery or to 

otherwise comply with Court orders may lead to sanctions against him, 

including, for example, the assessment of fees and costs pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 23rd day of May,

2023.

 

______________________________

 SHANIEK MILLS MAYNARD

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-14306-DMM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/24/2023 Page 6 of 6