THE LANE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST, INC. and SKANSKA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendants Case No: 6:21-cv-164-RBD-DCI United States District Court, M.D. Florida Filed June 17, 2022 Counsel Robert Sowell, Denis L. Durkin, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Orlando, FL, Brendan J. Hennessey, Pro Hac Vice, Gerald Zingone, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey R. Gans, Pro Hac Vice, Michael S. McNamara, Pro Hac Vice, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC, Shani Rivaux, Jennifer G. Altman, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff. Bruce D. Meller, Pro Hac Vice, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., River Edge, NJ, Charles Emmanuel Fombrun, Jerry P. Brodsky, Gary M. Stein, Kesang Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson, PC, Miami, FL, Michael Holland Shanlever, Atlanta, GA, Nick R. Hoogstraten, Pro Hac Vice, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Washington, DC, Warren Friedman, Friedman Sklar PLLC, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. Warren Friedman, Friedman Sklar PLLC, Boca Raton, FL, Michael Holland Shanlever, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant Skanska Infrastructure Development, Inc. Irick, Daniel C., United States Magistrate Judge Order *1 This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motion: MOTION: Motion to Compel (Doc. 210) FILED: June 1, 2022 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. (Skanska) seeks to compel Counter-Defendant WeBuild S.P.A., Inc. (WeBuild) to produce documents responsive to Skanska's First Request for Production of Documents (the RFP). Doc. 210 (the Motion). The RFP is attached to the Motion. Doc. 210-7. The parties do not appear to dispute whether, or what, documents will be produced—rather, the parties dispute when documents will be produced. Docs. 210 at 3–4; 215 at 3. WeBuild represents that it is reviewing and producing documents on a rolling basis and that its production will be complete no later than July 8, 2022. Doc. 215 at 3. On the other hand, Skanska has marked the Motion as “Time-Sensitive” and asserts that WeBuild's proposed timeline (i.e., July 8, 2022) “would further prejudice [Skanska] by further compressing the time for [Skanska] to review and analyze [WeBuild's] documents and comply with current discovery deadlines[.]” Doc. 210 at 3. However, Skanska provides no specific date or timeframe that would alleviate “further prejudice.[1]” Id. At the June 2, 2022 hearing, the Court admonished the parties for their handling of the discovery process in this case. Those comments are equally applicable here. Skanska's RFP was served on October 18, 2021. Doc. 210 at 2. Yet Skanska did not file the Motion until June 1, 2022—over seven months after the RFP was served, and roughly three months before discovery closes. Id. at 1. Further, though Skanska marked the Motion as “time-sensitive,” the Motion does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(e). Local Rule 3.01(e) provides, in pertinent part: (e) EMERGENCY OR TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION. If a party moves for emergency or time-sensitive relief, the title of the motion must include “emergency” or “time-sensitive,” and the motion must include an introductory paragraph that explains the nature of the exigency and states the day by which a ruling is requested. The Motion does not contain an introductory paragraph explaining the nature of the exigency nor does it state the day by which a ruling is requested. Indeed, it appears that the nature of the exigency is that Skanska waited until near the end of the discovery period to seek Court intervention on this issue. Lack of diligence is not an emergency. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the Motion is due to be granted in part, to the extent that WeBuild shall produce to Skanska non-privileged documents responsive to Skanska's RFP on or before July 8, 2022. Again, Skanska has not provided a specific date that it requires this production by, and the Court otherwise finds that July 8, 2022 is a reasonable date for production. This production would be complete roughly two months before discovery closes and roughly a month before Skanska's expert reports are due to be disclosed. Doc. 117. *2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. 210) is GRANTED in part,[2] such that on or before July 8, 2022, WeBuild shall produce to Skanska all non-privileged documents responsive to Skanska's RFP (Doc. 210-7). The Motion (Doc. 210) is DENIED in all other respects. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 17, 2022. Footnotes [1] Skanska requests that the Court enter an order requiring WeBuild to produce documents “without further delay,” but it is unclear what that phrase entails. Doc. 210 at 4. [2] The Motion does not appear to request attorney's fees, and the Court otherwise finds that fees are not justified here. WeBuild's response was substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).