24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 571a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2407MALDInsurance — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Medical provider is ordered to pay sanctions for serving discovery responses after court-ordered deadline and to provide better responses to discovery
INJURY CENTERS OF NORTH TAMPA, INC., a/a/o LOURDES MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a USAA, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 16-003260, Division U. September 1, 2016. Frances M. Perrone, Judge. Counsel: Stephen Cofer, for Plaintiff. Stephen B. Farkas, Dutton Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon the following Motions filed by the Defendant: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement, (2) Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff, (3) Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply With Court Order, and (4) Motion to Compel Better Responses to Discovery Propounded on Plaintiff, and the Court being otherwise fully advised of the premises in a hearing attended by Counsels of record on August 30, 2016, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, as follows:
I. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement
1. Based upon representation by Counsel for the Defendant, this Motion is MOOT.
II. Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff
1. Based upon representation by Counsel for the Defendant, this Motion is MOOT as the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative is set for deposition on September 1, 2016.
III. Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply With Court Order
1. On May 16, 2016, this Court entered an Ex-Parte Order Compelling Discovery, specifically the Interrogatories and Request to Produce served by the Defendant on March 1, 2016.
2. Per the Court’s Ex Parte Order, responses were due within ten (10) days from the date of the Order.
3. On June 17, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion for Sanctions based on Plaintiff s failure to comply with this Court’s Order. Plaintiff finally served its discovery responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories and Request to Produce on July 13, 2016, which was well beyond the 10-day time frame.
4. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. The Court enters sanctions against the Plaintiff in the amount of $350.00 to be paid within ninety (90) days to the Defendant.
IV. Motion to Compel Better Responses to Discovery Propounded on Plaintiff
1. Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Better Responses to Discovery seeking better responses to its Interrogatories, specifically two (2) through eight (8) and eleven (11), and to its Request to Produce, specifically 2, 5, and 17. The Court notes that Plaintiff did a Notice of Filing of Medical Records on July 26, 2016.
2. The Motion is GRANTED 1N-PART and DENIED IN-PART as follows:
3. As to Interrogatories — Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide better answers to #2, #5, and #11. As to #11, Plaintiff only needs to answer “yes” or “no”. The Plaintiff AGREED to provide better answers to #3, #4, and #7 and withdraw its objections to the extent applicable. Furthermore, with respect to #4, Plaintiff agrees to directly reference the specific log, ledger, or otherwise which contains the information being sought in the interrogatory. The Motion is DENIED with respect to #6 and #8.
4. As to Request to Produce — Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a better response to #2 to the extent there are any other records, including medical and billing, for the assignor in the Plaintiff’s possession. Plaintiff AGREED to provide better responses to #5 and #17.
5. Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories and Request to Produce are due within thirty (30) days of the Court’s Order.
