The MAD ROOM, LLC, d/b/a Ball and Chain, Altos Mexicano, LLC d/b/a Taquerias El Mexicano, Little Havana Arts Building, LLC, and La Gran Fiesta, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, Defendant CASE NO. 21-23485-CV-ALTMAN/REID United States District Court, S.D. Florida Signed July 05, 2022 Counsel Jason Steven Koslowe, Ezra Saul Greenberg, Jason Peter Hernandez, Matthew Clarence Dates, Maria Macarena Arhancet Fehretdinov, Coral Del Mar Lopez, Ryan Thomas Thornton, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff, Sitterson, P.A., Miami, FL, Chelsea Emma Koff, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs. Araizu Sheila Oretsky, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, FL, Christopher Allan Green, Brandon Luis Fernandez, Eric John Eves, John Anthony Greco, Kevin Renard Jones, Kerri Lauren McNulty, City of Miami Office of the City Attorney, Miami, FL, Daniel R. Lazaro, Miranda Lundeen Soto, Raquel A. Rodriguez, Jesse Stolow, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Miami, FL, Bryan E. Capdevila, City of Miami, Miami, FL, Jennifer Olmedo-Rodriguez, Gretchen L. Jankowski, Pro Hac Vice, MacKenzie A. Baird, Pro Hac Vice, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Pittsburgh, PA, Kelly Haze Kolb, Michael Edward Dutko, Jr., Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant. Reid, Lisette M., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER ON DISCOVERY ISSUES *1 After hearing discovery disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendant in this case, this Court entered orders on January 19 and March 7, 2022. [ECF Nos. 54 and 65]. Defendant has not produced certain documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production (“RFP”) as required in the March 7, 2022, Order. I. Background The background of this dispute has been outlined in depth in the Undersigned's previous Orders. See [ECF Nos. 54, 65]. To summarize, on January 18, 2022, this Court held a discovery hearing regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. See [ECF Nos. 35 and 53]. The Motion to Compel alleged that Plaintiffs served their RFP on the City on October 20, 2021, and the City's responses were due on November 19, 2021. [ECF No. 35]. At the January 18, 2022, hearing, the Court determined the City had not objected or otherwise responded to Plaintiffs’ RFP within 30 days as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A), and, as a result, had waived any objections to the RFP. See [ECF No. 65]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) (“Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served ...”). On January 19, 2022, this Court issued an Order instructing the City to produce responsive documents to Plaintiffs’ Phase I and II discovery requests by February 1, 2022, and to Plaintiffs’ Phase III and IV discovery requests by March 1, 2022. [ECF No. 54]. Next, on February 15, 2022, Plaintiffs requested another hearing when the City failed to produce certain responsive documents by the February 1, 2022 deadline. This Court thus held a hearing regarding Defendant's non-compliance on February 23, 2022. At the hearing, Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to the requested documents regarding the City's actions with respect to Plaintiffs, even if those documents are located on personal devices and personal email accounts of City officials and employees, because City employees and officials have a practice of conducting official City business on their personal devices and personal email accounts. The City did not dispute that its employees and officials use personal devices and personal email accounts to conduct official business but, countered instead that it could not produce the requested communications as it does not have control over those personal devices and accounts or the authority to seize them. On March 7, 2022 (the “March 7 Order”) this Court issued an Order (1) holding that Defendant was, in fact, in control of its employees’ and officials’ personal texts, emails, or like communications concerning official City business; and (2) requiring Defendant to undertake the following procedures: 1. Ask its officials, employees, and former employees identified as relevant custodians to search for and provide to the City with any responsive text messages, emails, and like communications from their personal platforms, accounts, and devices; 2. Request affidavits from each relevant custodian attesting that a reasonable search was made and that all responsive documents, if any, were produced; *2 3. Provide the affidavits to Plaintiffs as evidence of the City's compliance with Plaintiff's Request for Production along with all of the responsive and non-privileged communications; and 4. Finally, if a current or former official or employee declines to conduct a reasonable search or provide the responsive information, the City must identify that individual for the Plaintiffs. See [ECF No 65 at 5-6]. On March 22, 2022, Defendant objected to the Undersigned's March 7 Order requesting the district judge either reverse the order or exclude former employees’ and elected officials’ City communications from compliance with the Order. [ECF No. 67]. The objection is pending, having been set for a hearing before the district judge on July 28, 2022. [ECF No. 101]. Notably, the City has not requested a stay of the March 7 Order while its objection is pending. II. Legal Standard “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 provides that a district judge may modify or set aside any part of a magistrate judge's order on a matter ‘not dispositive of a party's claim or defense’ if objections are timely filed and if the challenged portion is ‘clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.’ ” Companhia Energetica Potiguar v. Caterpillar Inc., No. 14-CV-24277, 2016 WL 7469993, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2016). “Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), which concerns the jurisdiction and powers of a federal magistrate judge, provides that a district judge may ‘reconsider any pretrial matter’ like a discovery order ‘where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’ ” Id. “Finally, Local Magistrate Judge Rule 4(a)(1) for the Southern District of Florida provides that the district judge evaluating a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter ‘shall set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’ ” Id. Nevertheless, “[c]ourts in this Circuit recognize that ‘[e]ven though a party may object to a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter, the order is nonetheless a final order absent reversal by the district court. As a result, an objection to such final order does not stay the order or relieve the party of the obligation to comply with the order.’ ” In re Hornbeam Corp., No. 14-24887-MC, 2018 WL 7577228, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2018) (quoting Pulsepoint, Inc. v. 7657030 Canada Inc., Case No. 13-61448-CIV-Marra/Matthewman, 2013 WL 12158383 at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2013)); see also Express Homebuyers USA, LLC v. WBH Mktg., Inc., No. 18-60166-CIV, 2018 WL 1814198, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2018) (“A discovery order is a final order absent reversal by the court.”) (citing TemPay, Inc. v. Biltres Staffing of Tampa Bay, 929 F.Supp.2d 1255, 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2013)). III. Discussion The March 7 Order and the precedent in this district are clear and must be complied with. While the City may raise objections to the Order before the district judge, its objections did not automatically stay the Order, much less discovery as a whole. Thus, Defendant is required to comply with the Order unless or until the district judge sets it aside. The Defendant's deadline for compliance with the March 7 Order is clear. Plaintiffs served their RFP on Defendant on October 20, 2021, and Defendant's responses or objections to the same were due on November 19, 2021. After a hearing, the Undersigned issued an Order on January 19, 2022, instructing the City to produce responsive documents to the Plaintiffs’ RFP by February 1, 2022, and March 1, 2022. The March 7 Order was issued after a subsequent hearing when Defendant failed to comply with the February 1 and March 1 deadlines. Because the due date for production had long passed, Defendant was to produce the documents immediately. The March 7 Order issued nearly four months ago. *3 A party may move to stay a magistrate judge order, however, “[i]n order to obtain a stay of [a] Discovery Order while the order is on appeal to the district court, a party like [the City] must show: (1) likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal/objection, (2) irreparable injury to [the City] absent a stay, (3) lack of substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs, and (4) the stay would serve the public interest.” Companhia Energetica Potiguar, 2016 WL 7469993, at *4. Having already considered the issue and the arguments raised by the City, the Undersigned concludes that the City cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury absent a stay. Further, the district judge has already granted an extension of time to the parties to complete discovery and any further delay would prejudice Plaintiffs. Finally, for the reasons outlined in the March 7 Order, it is appropriate in this case for the City to require its employees and officials to search their personal emails and personal devices for City business responsive to Plaintiffs’ RFP and, therefore, a stay would not serve public interest. Finally, it is worth noting, that Defendant previously filed a motion to stay discovery pending ruling on its motion to dismiss this case, and the district judge denied the motion. [See ECF No. 33]. The Undersigned sees no reasons to authorize Defendants to file another motion to stay discovery in this case pending the district court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendant is to comply with the March 7 Order immediately. Failure to comply with the order may result in contempt proceedings or the imposition of sanctions. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966) (“There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.”); Casino Royale, LLC v. Fittipaldi Industria Nautica Ltd. a, No. 13-21891-CIV, 2017 WL 10775240, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2017), report and recommendation adopted sub nom Casino Royale, LLC v. Fittipaldi Industria Nautica Ltda., No. 1:13-CV-21891-UU, 2017 WL 10775239 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2017). 2. Defendant is not authorized by the Undersigned to move to stay the March 7 Order. 3. Defendant is not authorized by the Undersigned to move to stay discovery pending resolution of its Motion to Dismiss. DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Florida this 5th day of July, 2022.