MERAKI SOLAR, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIKOL ROSENBALM, et al., Defendants Case No. 3:21-cv-405-MCR-HTC United States District Court, N.D. Florida Filed March 01, 2022 Cannon, Hope T., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 On November 24, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt and for sanctions against Defendant Aaron Sandoval, (ECF Doc. 61), arising out of Sandoval's failure to comply with a November 2011 Court Order directing him to respond to discovery (ECF Doc. 48). On January 10, 2022, the Court held a show cause hearing, which was attended by Sandoval (remotely)[1] and Sandoval's former counsel, Sumsion Business Law, LLC (the “Sumsion firm”) and Charles Wiggins of Beggs & Lane. Subsequent to the hearing, the Court entered an order setting specific deadlines for Plaintiffs to notify Sandoval of what they need from him and for Sandoval to provide the requested documents. In that order, the Court further stated it would take the Defendants' request for sanctions under advisement. Having done so, and upon consideration, the Court will not impose fees and costs on Sandoval as he is pro se. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court does not find sanctions to be appropriate against Sandoval's former counsel, the Sumison firm. The Court also declines to dismiss Sandoval's counterclaims since responsive documents have since been produced. On October 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendants to respond to written discovery. ECF Doc. 32. On October 22, 2021, attorney Steven Sumsion filed a motion to withdraw representation of Defendant Sandoval. ECF Doc. 35. As a basis for the motion, counsel stated Sandoval had been uncommunicative, other than indicating he does not want to be represented by the Sumsion firm. Id. On the same date, Steven Sumsion filed an opposition to the motion to compel discovery and, as to Sandoval, made the same representation. ECF Doc. 38. Also, on the same date, attorney Cameron S. Christensen of the Sumsion firm, filed a motion for admission pro hac vice on behalf of Defendants Rosenbalm and Stuart Kirkhamhn. ECF Doc. 36, amended by ECF Doc. 39. The Court held a hearing on October 27, 2021, on several motions, including Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. The Court granted Christensen's motion for admission in open court at the hearing, and by written order, ECF Doc. 40, amended by ECF Doc. 46. On October 29, 2021, the District Judge also granted Steven Sumsion's motion to withdraw. ECF Doc. 41. Thus, as of that date, the only counsel of record for Sandoval was local counsel, Wiggins. Because Defendants produced additional documents on the eve of the hearing, the Court deferred ruling on the motion to compel discovery to allow the parties additional time to meet and confer and Plaintiffs to determine if the additional documents mooted any part of the motion to compel. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a supplement, which essentially argued the additional documents produced were not sufficient and did not fully respond to the outstanding discovery. ECF Doc. 44. Specifically, as to Sandoval, Plaintiffs stated they had received no additional documents from him. Id. Although the Sumsion firm filed a response to the supplement, they did not do so on behalf of Sandoval. ECF Doc. 47. Also, although Wiggins was counsel of record for Sandoval at the time, no response was filed by Wiggins for Sandoval. *2 On November 3, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery responses as to all Defendants including Sandoval. ECF Doc. 48. This is the order on which Plaintiffs' motion for contempt is based. After the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel, Wiggins moved to withdraw as counsel for Sandoval. ECF Doc. 56. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and before the motion became ripe for consideration, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for contempt. ECF Doc. 61. Subsequently, the Court held an ex parte hearing between Sandoval and Wiggins. During that hearing, Sandoval represented his consent to Wiggins' withdrawal and his intent to retain new counsel. The Court granted Wiggins' motion. ECF Doc. 74. In the interim, Wiggins filed a consent motion of extension of time for Sandoval to respond to the motion for contempt. ECF Doc. 70. Despite Sandoval's repeated representations he would retain counsel, he has not done so. Also, despite the extension, Sandoval did not file a written response to the motion for contempt. In support of Plaintiffs' motion for contempt, Plaintiff suggested Sandoval's failure to respond to discovery was the fault of the Sumsion firm as Sandoval represented he had turned over to Sumsion all documents he had related to these matters. At the hearing, however, the Sumsion firm contended they never got any documents from Sandoval and that any documents they got relating to Sandoval, including his emails, came from Defendant Rosenbalm. Sandoval did not directly contradict this position and did not provide clear testimony on whether he provided documents to Rosenbalm or directly to the Sumsion attorneys. Regardless, it appears Sandoval has since produced responsive documents and, thus, has complied with the Court's discovery order. ECF Doc. 92. Thus, even if any documents had been previously provided to the Sumsion firm or Rosenbalm, Sandoval still had the ability to respond to the Court's order and his failure to do so was not based on any conduct or lack thereof by the Sumsion firm. The Court, therefore, finds sanctions against the Sumsion firm to be unwarranted.[2] As for Sandoval, while the Court is in no way approving of his failure to respond to produce documents or respond to the motion for contempt, in recognition of his pro se status, the Court will exercise its broad discretion and deny sanctions. See BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045, 1048 (11th Cir. 1994) (“the district court has broad discretion [to impose sanctions], and this is especially true when the imposition of monetary sanctions is involved”); Woods v. IRS, 3 F.3d 403, 404 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding “there can be no doubt that this is a frivolous appeal and we would not hesitate to order sanctions if appellant had been represented by counsel. However, since this suit was filed pro se, we conclude that sanctions would be inappropriate”). That said, Sandoval is advised that the Court may not be so lenient in the future and that his despite his pro se status, he must comply with orders of the Court and must ensure his conduct comports with this Court's procedures and the federal rules. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[A]though we are to give liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants, we nevertheless have required them to conform to procedural rules.”). *3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for sanctions, as set forth in their Motion for Contempt (ECF Doc. 61) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March 2022. Footnotes [1] Sandoval, who was proceeding pro se, did not appear for the hearing. Thus, the Court had to get him on the phone during the hearing. [2] Plaintiff also seek sanctions against the Sumsion firm because they provided written discovery responses that were purportedly from Sandoval even though it became clear at the hearing that the responses did not come from Sandoval, but, instead, from Rosenbalm. While the Court agrees that such conduct by counsel is suspect and could be sanctionable, that conduct is unrelated to whether Sandoval should be held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order.