12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 778a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Insurer’s pleadings are stricken as sanction for willful deliberate disregard of court’s authority where insurer’s response to first set of interrogatories are over 571 days overdue and more than 39 days past extended discovery deadline
HIALEAH OPEN MRI, a/a/o Duvil Baptiste, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 02-28885 SP 23 (02). April 14, 2005. Caryn Canner Schwartz, Judge. Counsel: Craig H. Blinderman and Mary-Margaret Warren, Mrejen Blinderman, P.L., Ft. Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Dagmar Llaudy, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S PLEADINGS
THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on the 15th day of March 2005 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Pleadings and the Court, having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s pleadings are hereby stricken. The Court makes the following findings of fact:
1. On or about August 8, 2003, Plaintiff propounded its first set of interrogatories upon Defendant.
2. On or about August 17, 2004, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Motion to Compel Discovery and set the matter for hearing on October 1, 2004.
3. On September 29, 2004, the parties entered into an agreed order requiring the Defendant to provide sworn answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production on or before October 21, 2004. This agreed order was executed by the Court on November 9, 2004.
4. Despite this agreed order, the Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.
5. On or about November 17, 2004, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Second Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions.
6. On or about November 5, 2004, the Court set a Pre-Trial conference in this matter to be conducted on January 21, 2005.
7. On or about January 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed its Third Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and Motion for Entitlement to Sanctions.
8. Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel was heard by the court at the Pre-Trial Conference on January 21, 2005. The Court extended the discovery cut-off to allow the Defendant ten (10) additional days, until January 31, 2005, to respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.
9. At the Pre-Trial Conference on January 21, 2005, the Court set this matter for trial to commence the week of March 28, 2005.
10. Defendant’s counsel was present for the Pre-Trial Conference, received a copy of the order issued by the Court compelling interrogatory responses.
11. As of March 2, 2005, when Plaintiff filed its Motion to Strike Defendant’s Pleadings, Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories were 571 days overdue and 39 days past the Court’s extended discovery deadline.
12. As of March 15, 2005, the Defendant had not filed any response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.
13. The Defendant’s non-compliance with discovery orders issued by this Court compelling Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories demonstrate a willful deliberate disregard for the Court’s authority.
* * *
