In the case of Derek Snead v. City of Lake City, Florida, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida addressed significant procedural issues surrounding the discovery process. Plaintiff Derek Snead initiated the lawsuit on June 16, 2023, alleging various civil rights violations by the defendants, including Sheriff Mark Hunter and other officials. Following a series of complaints and amendments, the case reached a critical juncture when the defendants filed a motion to compel Snead to respond to discovery requests, specifically a third set of interrogatories and a request for production of Facebook data. The court had to determine whether the objections raised by the plaintiff were valid or if they constituted a waiver due to late responses.

The court ruled in favor of the defendants, granting their motion to compel. The analysis focused on the nature of the interrogatories and the rationale behind the plaintiff's objections. The court found that the defendant sheriff's interrogatories fell within the permissible limit outlined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (Rule 33(a)) and the plaintiff's objection regarding the third set of interrogatories—claiming they exceeded the limit—was overruled. Snead requested a continuance to answer the discovery requests but did not object until over 8 hours after the new due date for the responses. Furthermore, the court concluded that Snead's objections to the request for production, which sought extensive Facebook data, were not timely made, and the reasons provided for the delay did not constitute good cause. The plaintiff’s failure to respond adequately to discovery requests raised concerns about compliance with court orders and the integrity of the discovery process.

Ultimately, the court ordered Snead to comply with the defendants' requests, mandating that he provide the necessary responses and documentation by specific deadlines. Additionally, the court instructed Snead to show cause as to why he and his counsel should not be held responsible for the defendants' reasonable expenses incurred due to the motion to compel. This case highlights the importance of adhering to discovery deadlines and the potential consequences of failing to do so, reinforcing the necessity for timely and thorough communication in legal proceedings.

If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Shari Coltoff at CODISCOVR for more information. Shari has over 20 years of experience in the ever-evolving eDiscovery life cycle, from document collection to managing large long-term reviews through productions.