In 777 Partners LLC v. Leadenhall Cap. Partners LLP, No. 24-cv-81143-MIDDLEBROOKS/MATTHEWMAN (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2025), Florida Magistrate Judge William Matthewman, stating: “The Court will not hold another hearing in this case as the parties do not deserve one. They have wasted enough of the Court’s time with their discovery shenanigans”, denied Plaintiffs “meritless” motion to compel.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case where Plaintiffs alleged computer intrusions by Defendants via Plaintiffs’ former employees to illegally access Plaintiffs’ data for use in New York litigation and other purposes, Judge Matthewman stated: “Although Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges eight counts…, this is a relatively simple and straightforward case… Despite the relative simplicity of this action, discovery has been anything but simple.”

Noting that, at a Scheduling Conference with all the parties’ counsel present on December 4, 2024, “the Court carefully advised the parties’ counsel of the Court’s discovery expectations and requirements, including the requirement of good faith cooperation and conferral by the parties and their counsel”, Judge Matthewman stated: “The Court did this so the discovery process could proceed expeditiously and fairly for all the parties. Thereafter, the Court entered its Order Setting Discovery Procedure…which further specified what the Court required of the parties and their counsel during the discovery process. The parties involved in this present dispute and their counsel either did not listen or chose to cavalierly disregard the Court’s directives. The parties’ and counsels’ actions have consequences.”

Judge Matthewman also noted that he “set the discovery cutoff date for March 20, 2025, the dispositive motion cutoff date for April 3, 2025, and the trial date for the two-week period beginning on June 2, 2025. The June 2, 2025 trial period is a firm trial date as the parties were advised at the Scheduling Conference. The parties were also so advised at multiple Court hearings.”

What happened? As Judge Matthewman stated: “Rather than cooperate in good faith to move the discovery process forward fairly and expeditiously, as ethically and legally required, the parties involved in this present dispute and their counsel have seemingly taken every opportunity to delay, frustrate, and impede the orderly discovery process. For example, at the February 27, 2025 hearing, the Court advised the parties that it was not pleased that the parties were more involved in fighting about discovery than cooperating and producing discovery…The Court does not understand why these parties and counsel have taken this tack, but it is wholly unproductive and does nothing to advance their respective positions or standing before this Court.”

Continuing, he said: “The parties have seemingly sat on their hands during discovery, refused to try in good faith to work out their numerous discovery disputes, and then have brought repeated last-minute discovery disputes. Plaintiffs are especially problematic in this regard”, referencing several Plaintiff motions in response to Defendants’ discovery motion. He added: “While this was all being briefed, the parties filed numerous responses, replies, affidavits, declarations, documents, and Court-ordered joint notices in which they continued to bicker about every possible aspect of discovery in this case… All of this last-minute motion practice has required the Court to issue numerous expedited discovery related Orders”, (14 listed in this order) “some of them lengthy written Orders…, in a very short timeframe from February 20, 2025 to the present—not including this Order.”

Judge Matthewman also referenced holding two recent expedited discovery hearings and extending the discovery cutoff date from March 20, 2025 to March 28, 2025, “solely to allow the parties to take and complete depositions and produce documents…No further extensions of the discovery cutoff date are warranted.” He had also already “ordered Plaintiffs and their counsel to pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in seeking to compel the production of documents which Plaintiffs were dilatory in searching for and producing.”

In his analysis, Judge Matthewman stated: “The Court finds it interesting to note at the outset that the parties agreed to the entry of an ESI Protocol Order…Yet both sides claim the other parties violated the Order…On balance, however, the Court finds that Plaintiffs were certainly more dilatory, obstructionist, and evasive than the Leadenhall Defendants during the discovery process. The Court finds it hard to understand why Plaintiffs would file a lawsuit in this district, proceed to ignore this Court’s instructions and orders as to discovery expectations and requirements, and then take steps to delay and frustrate discovery. Unfortunately, that is what occurred in this case. To the extent Plaintiffs claim that they have not received fulsome discovery, they have themselves to blame for this predicament.”

In denying plaintiff’s motion to compel, Judge Matthewman stated: “The Court will not hold another hearing in this case as the parties do not deserve one. They have wasted enough of the Court’s time with their discovery shenanigans. Moreover, a further hearing in this case is unnecessary as the Court can readily rule on the parties’ papers given the Court’s familiarity with the parties’ incessant discovery disputes. And, it is crystal clear that a further hearing would be wholly unproductive as it would simply give the parties a further opportunity to bicker and cast aspersions on one another.”

So, what do you think? Do you think the Court was patient enough with the parties’ “discovery shenanigans”? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.