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 United States District Court, S.D. Florida Signed December 14, 2021 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 MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF NO. 35] *1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to the City's Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion to Compel. [ECF No. 35]. While the district judge has ruled on the issues regarding the City of Miami's Motion to Stay, the undersigned heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and the issue remains pending. The Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, the record in this case, the applicable law, and the oral arguments of the parties, and is fully advised. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [ECF No. 35] is GRANTED. I. Background Plaintiffs have filed suit against the City of Miami (the “City”). [ECF No. 1]. Prior to filing a response to Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 14], which this Court struck. [ECF No. 18]. Defendant requested a discovery hearing regarding its Motion to Stay. Plaintiffs’ counsel then requested a separate discovery hearing regarding Defendant's failure to timely respond or object to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (“RFPs”). The Court granted Plaintiffs counsel's request, agreed to hear both issues at the December 9, 2021 hearing, and permitted Plaintiffs to file, along with their Response to Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery, a Motion to Compel. At the hearing, in support of its Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs explained that they had served RFPs on Defendant on October 20, 2021. Defendant's responses to those RFPs were due on November 19, 2021. Defendant, however, did not respond to Plaintiffs’ request and instead requested the hearing on their Motion to Stay Discovery. The parties attempted to confer regarding the City's production, but the City maintained that its filing of the Motion to Stay Discovery tolled the time to respond to the RFPs. Plaintiffs argued that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, Defendant's time to respond to the RFPs was not tolled by the filing of the Motion to Stay Discovery. Plaintiffs further argued that because Defendant's failure to timely respond was not justified, Defendant waived its right to object to the requests. Citing Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997), Defendant countered that it should not be required to produce discovery prior to the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, because production would be unduly burdensome and wasteful, as the Motion to Dismiss would likely be dispositive of all issues. Following the hearing, this Court instructed the parties to file their briefings on the court docket. See [ECF Nos. 32, 33, 35]. United States District Judge Roy K. Altman then denied Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery. See [ECF No. 36]. Judge Altman's paperless Order did not address Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, thus that issue is still pending before the Court. II. Discussion This Court agrees that the City's Motion to Stay Discovery did not toll the discovery deadlines. Defendant was required to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in a timely fashion. See Romacorp, Inc. v. Prescient, Inc., No. 10-22872-CIV, 2011 WL 2312563, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2011) (“Nowhere in Chudasama does the Eleventh Circuit state that a party may stop complying with its discovery obligations when it files a motion to stay. Indeed, the FDIC cites no case law that suggests that a party may simply ignore its discovery obligations while a motion to stay is pending, nor have I found any.”). Defendant's only arguments against production are that production was burdensome and wasteful in light of the pending motion to dismiss. Given the district court's denial of Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery, the wastefulness argument is moot. Further, Defendant failed to articulate how production would pose an undue burden. In short, Defendant was obligated to respond to Plaintiffs RFPs by November 19, 2021. *2 By failing to respond in a timely fashion, Defendant has waived its right to object to Plaintiffs’ RFPs. See id. (“ ‘[W]hen a party fails to timely object to interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, the objections are deemed waived.’ ”). III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [ECF No. 35] is GRANTED. (2) Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs’ October 20, 2021 Requests for Production are hereby waived. (3) Defendant shall promptly produce all requested documents, but in any event, no later than December 21, 2021. DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Florida this 14th day of December, 2021.