13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 396b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Where insurer sought to strike medical provider’s discovery requests as being served with small claims complaint on an unrepresented party, insurer then agreed to respond to discovery by date certain, and on due date for discovery insurer sent letter advising that it would not be responding to initial discovery and would instead insist that discovery be reserved, request for admissions is deemed admitted and insurer is ordered to respond to interrogatories and request to produce
ORLANDO PAIN & MEDICAL REHABILITATION CENTER, MW, LLC., As assignee of Lydia Jackson, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit, of Seminole County. Case No. 05-SC-002889. January 25, 2006. John R. Sloop, Judge. Counsel: Roy J. Smith, IV, Weiss Legal Group, P.A., Maitland, for Plaintiff. David Fabrikant, St. Petersburg, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPELAND FOR SANCTIONS
This cause came before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. The Court has considered the motion, being fully advised in its premises, and after hearing oral argument of the parties, the Court finds as follows:
1. Ms. Lydia Jackson is a Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.) insured of Defendant with regards to an automobile accident which occurred on or about May 9, 2005.
2. On August 11, 2005, Orlando Pain & Medical Rehabilitation Center, MW, LLC, as the assignee of Lydia Jackson, filed a lawsuit to recover payments for services and supplies provided to Ms. Jackson.
3. Accompanying Plaintiff’s Complaint were Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce, and Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions.
4. The Complaint package was served on Defendant on August 19, 2005.
5. On September 2, 2005, Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appearance.
6. On September 15, 2005, Defendant filed “Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests Served With Small Claims Complaint on Unrepresented Party.”
7. On September 19, 2005, counsel for Plaintiff spoke with Defendant’s counsel and it was agreed that Defendant would respond to the discovery and that Plaintiff would provide an extension for the due date of the discovery of three weeks from the time of the counsels’ discussion. Therefore, counsel for the parties agreed that responses would be provided to initial discovery on or before October 10, 2005. This is supported by a confirming letter dated September 19, 2005 sent to Defendant’s counsel via facsimile and mail.
8. On October 10, 2005, the date agreed upon by the parties as the new due date for discovery responses, Defendant sent correspondence indicating that it had changed its mind and that it would not be responding to initial discovery and would instead insist that the discovery be reserved.
9. On October 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery and for Sanctions” seeking responses to discovery, the entering of an order of sanctions, and a finding that the requests for admissions sent to Defendant had been deemed admitted by operation of law.
10. At the time of the December 12, 2005 hearing Defendant still had not provided any responses to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories, First Request for Admissions, or First Request to Produce.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery and for Sanctions is hereby GRANTED as follows.
i. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories within 20 days of the date of this order. Defendant’s objections, except as to privilege, are waived.
ii. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce within 20 days of the date of this order. Defendant’s objections, except as to privilege, are waived.
iii. Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions are deemed admitted by operation of law.
iv. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is hereby GRANTED as follows:
jurisdiction is retained.
* * *
