Page 1 of 4

 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LYSNER VALCIN,

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00096-SPM-GRJ

STEVEN DAVIS FARMS, LLC,

and STEVEN DAVIS,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

The matter is before the Court on (1) Plaintiffs’ First Motion To Compel

Production of Documents (Doc. 36) and (2) Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion For Sanctions

For Failure To Comply With A Court Order. (Doc. 38.) Defendants have responded to

each motion (Docs. 42 & 43) and, accordingly, each motion is ripe for consideration. 

For the reasons discussed below Plaintiffs’ motions are due to be DENIED.

DISCUSSION

In Plaintiffs’ First Motion To Compel Production of Documents (Doc. 36),

Plaintiffs request the Court to enter an order requiring Defendant Steven Davis to

provide initial disclosures and to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for production of

documents. The parties agreed at their Rule 26(f) conference to exchange Rule

26(a)(1) initial disclosures on or before October 20, 2010. (Doc. 21.) Despite several

letters and emails to Defendant Steven Davis, Plaintiffs did not receive initial

disclosures from Mr. Davis. Plaintiffs eventually filed a motion on December 2, 2010

requesting the Court to compel Mr. Davis to provide his initial disclosures. Plaintiffs
Page 2 of 4

also requested the Court to impose sanctions against Mr. Davis for his failure to provide

those disclosures. (Doc. 24.) This Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and ordered Mr

Davis to provide the initial disclosures by January 7, 2011 and to pay Plaintiffs $350.00

as sanctions. (Doc. 26.) 

Although Mr. Davis paid the $350.00 in sanctions on January 11, 2011, Plaintiffs

represent that on February 17, 2011 – the date Plaintiffs filed their motion – Mr. Davis

still has not provided the initial disclosures. Plaintiffs also represent that Mr. Davis also

has failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ December 14, 2010 request for production.

 In their Response Defendants advise that on February 23, 2011 they provided to

Plaintiffs’ counsel the initial disclosures and that on March 2, 2011 they provided to

Plaintiffs’ counsel all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request for production. (Docs.

42 & 43.) Accordingly, because the initial disclosures have been provided and

Defendants have produced responsive documents, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is due to

be denied as moot.

Plaintiffs have also requested an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. Rule

37(a)(5) provides that “if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the

motion was filed – the court must ... require the party ... whose conduct necessitated

the motion ... to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,

including attorney’s fees.” However, where the court finds that the “opposing party’s

nondisclosure ... was substantially justified” or finds that “other circumstances make an

award of expenses unjust” the Court must not order the payment of attorney’s fees.

Although Defendants provided the initial disclosures and produced the

documents in response to Plaintiffs’ request for production after the motion to compel

Case No: 1:10-cv-0096-SPM -GRJ
Page 3 of 4

was filed, the Court declines to award attorney’s fees because an award in this case

would be unjust. A second amended complaint was filed on February 17, 2011, which

made material changes to the claims in this case. Further, because the case involves

approximately 41 plaintiffs, all of whom were migrant farm workers, Defendants have

had difficulty identifying which Plaintiffs worked on the farm for which Defendant would

have documents and which Plaintiffs did not work on Defendant’s farm. While the better

course of action would have been for Defendant to file a motion for extension of time so

that the relevant documents and information could be located and obtained – rather

than forcing Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel – the Court finds there is a sufficient

reason in this instance to deny the request for attorney’s fees. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

request for an award of attorney’s fees in its motion to compel is due to be denied.

In Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion For Sanctions For Failure To Comply With A Court

Order (Doc. 38), Plaintiffs also have requested in their Amended Motion for Sanctions

(Doc. 38) that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant Steven Davis as a

sanction for his failure to produce the requested initial disclosures in accordance with

this Court’s December 29, 2010 Order. 

 The law in the Eleventh Circuit is well defined regarding when it is appropriate to

enter a default judgment for a discovery violation. The entry of a default judgment is a

drastic measure that should be employed only “as a last resort when less drastic

sanctions would not ensure compliance with a court order.” Malautea v. Suzuki Motor

Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11 Cir. 1993). The Defendants have now complied th

with their discovery obligations – albeit belatedly – and accordingly the entry of a default

judgment as a sanction would be wholly inappropriate under these circumstances.

Case No: 1:10-cv-0096-SPM -GRJ
Page 4 of 4

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the entry of a default judgment in their Amended

Motion for Sanctions is due to be denied. 

Upon due consideration, it is therefore ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ First Motion To Compel Production of Documents (Doc. 36) is

DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion For Sanctions For Failure To Comply With A

Court Order (Doc. 38) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11 day of March, 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-0096-SPM -GRJ