ARIEL MARANTES, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, and DETECTIVE RUSSELL GIORDANO, Defendants CASE NO. 15-21910-Civ-COOKE/TORRES United States District Court, S.D. Florida Entered on FLSD Docket January 19, 2017 Counsel John De Leon, Chavez & De Leon, P.A., Miami, FL, Marlene C. Montaner, Miami, FL, Donald Nathaniel Watson, Gary Williams Finney Lewis Watson & Sperando PL, Stuart, FL, for Plaintiff. Bernard Pastor, Ana Angelica Viciana, Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants. Torres, Edwin G., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL *1 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [D.E. 33] that is ripe for disposition. After careful consideration of the motion, response, and relevant authority, and for the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 1. There are apparently only two remaining issues in dispute following Plaintiff's notice of filing supplemental responses to various discovery requests. [D.E. 35]. The Court notes, however, that the response [D.E. 34] to the motion incorporates a partial motion for reconsideration based upon entry of an Order on the motion dated December 15, 2016, purportedly entered without Defendant's input. The record shows, however, that no such Order was entered in the case and that the pending motion remains ripe for adjudication. The only conclusion we reach is that Plaintiff was mistaking an Order entered in a different case for one that was entered in this action. Nevertheless, given that most of the issues raised in this motion have apparently been addressed through the supplemental responses, we turn only to the issues in dispute. 2. Plaintiff has produced written responses and responsive documents required by Defendants’ production requests except for requests seeking “social media” profiles and page printouts owned or controlled by Plaintiff. The original response to these requests (e.g. Request No. 47, First Request, Nov. 22, 2016) objected to production on the basis of “privacy.” The response to the related Interrogatory (No. 15, First Request) objected on the basis of “Irrelevant, Overbroad and Privileged.” 3. In the Response to the pending motion, however, Plaintiff asserts that production of social media information is also barred based on Plaintiff's fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. Defendants seek to overrule that claim of privilege because it was not timely raised and is otherwise waived based on Plaintiff's pursuit of this action. We need not reach that privilege issue, however, because Plaintiff's response to the motion falls back on the claim that no responsive documents exist because the social media pages requested no longer exist and were “eliminated” prior to the request for production. 4. Difficult privilege questions, especially those implicating constitutional rights, should be adjudicated only when necessary. If it turns out that Plaintiff no longer has possession of any responsive materials, that moots the privilege dispute entirely. Thus, for now, based on counsel's representation that no responsive documents exist we will Deny the motion to compel. But, Defendant may pursue this matter at Plaintiff's deposition to uncover the specific details of such destruction, the extent of the destruction, when it occurred, etc., to develop the record better for purposes of a spoliation claim or, alternatively, a renewed motion to compel. If such a record is developed, the Court can revisit the privilege issue if it is properly raised and briefed. *2 5 The second remaining issue is Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 19 that seeks Plaintiff's employment history. Plaintiff's response did not address this topic, nor did his supplemental answers resolve them. Plaintiff apparently raised a relevance and overbreadth objection, but plainly Defendant is entitled to that information for impeachment purposes as well as possible defenses to damages alleged in this case. Plaintiff has placed these matters at issue based on the nature of this claim and his demand for emotional distress damages. Plaintiff must, therefore, also supplement his answer to this Interrogatory. Plaintiff shall comply with this Order within seven days of this date. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel [D.E. 33] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part with leave to renew. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of January, 2017.