DIVEWORX, INC., Plaintiff, v. M/Y EMPIRE, her engines, freights, apparel Appurtenances, tackle, etc., in rem; KYLE JAWAN MOODY; LAND & SEA ENTERPRISES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.; and IEESH ELKOBI, in Personam Defendants Case No. 22-60491-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT United States District Court, S.D. Florida Signed January 05, 2023 Counsel Lindsey C. Brock III, McLeod Brock Law, PLLC, Jacksonville, FL, Michael William McLeod, McLeod Brock, PLLC, Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiff. Benjamin Wayne Dowers, Gunther Legal, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants. Hunt, Patrick M., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter is before this Court on Defendant Land and Sea Enterprises of South Florida Inc.’s Motion to Compel (“Motion”), ECF No. 70. The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas referred this case to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for disposition of all pretrial discovery motions. ECF No. 26; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636; S.D. Fla. L.R., Mag. R. 1. Upon thorough and careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Motion, Response and Reply thereto, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 70, is GRANTED in part for the reasons set forth below: BACKGROUND Diveworx Inc. (“Diveworx”) brought this in rem action against M/Y Empire, a motor yacht, and its owners, Kyle Moody (“Moody”) and Land & Sea Enterprises of South Florida Inc. (“Land & Sea”), for damage caused due to an allision by M/Y Empire against Diveworx's boatlift. ECF No. 1. At the time of filing, there was uncertainty as to ownership of the M/Y Empire. ECF Nos. 1, 39-1. Land & Sea subsequently admitted ownership over the M/Y Empire at the time of the subject allision. ECF No. 65. Thereafter, Diveworx moved for Partial Summary Judgment as to the ownership of the M/Y Empire. ECF No. 65. The District Court granted Diveworx's motion. ECF No. 67. Moody moved for Judgment on Partial Findings on the grounds that all the claims against Moody were based upon the allegations that he was the owner of the M/Y Empire, which was no longer an issue before the Court. See ECF No. 72. The District Court denied the motion finding that “this case appears to be no different than a typical case where a court grants partial summary judgment, and the parties must proceed to final judgment prior to appealing the court's decision.” ECF No. 74. Prior to Moody moving for judgment, Land & Sea filed the instant motion seeking responses to discovery requests from Moody. ECF No. 70. Moody filed a response in opposition and Land & Sea filed a reply. ECF Nos. 73, 74. The Motion is now ripe for adjudication. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS Land & Sea asserts that one of its affirmative defenses is that the allision was the result of an unforeseen and unpredictable mechanical failure. During deposition of Elkobi, a Codefendant in this action and Land & Sea's corporate representative, testimony was provided that Land & Sea purchased the vessel from Moody and at that time there was a mechanical issue with the gear shifter. Land & Sea argues that as a result of this testimony, it served discovery requests to Moody related to the vessel's maintenance history and other topics. Land & Sea requests that this Court: find that Moody has waived his objections to the interrogatories; order Moody to provide written responses to the interrogatories and provide responsive documents to Land & Sea's requests for production; and award Land & Sea attorneys’ fees. Moody responds that he is not a proper party to this action and his dismissal is imminent. Moody contends that Land & Sea refuses to agree to Diveworx's request to voluntarily dismiss him from this action so that Land & Sea can engage in discovery with Moody as a party rather than as a third party. In other words, Moody claims that Land & Sea is improperly holding him hostage in this litigation through discovery. Moody seeks a stay of discovery as it relates to all claims against him on the grounds that final judgment should be entered in his favor and he should be dismissed from the case. Finally, Moody argues that the Motion is untimely as it was filed past the thirty-day requirement pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(g)(1). *2 Land & Sea replies that it made multiple attempts to confer with Moody without court intervention and that the motion was filed one day after the 30-day requirement, which does not prejudice Moody. Land & Sea argues that neither withholding its agreement to a joint stipulation nor claiming that Moody is not a proper party to the litigation are proper objections to discovery requests. DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). Local Rule 26.1(g)(1) requires that parties present to the Court disputes related to discovery “within thirty days from original due date (or later date if extended by the Court or the parties) of the response or objection to the discovery request that is the subject of the dispute; date of the deposition in which the dispute arose; or date on which a party first learned of or should have learned of a purported deficiency concerning the production of discovery materials.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(g)(1). As an initial matter, regarding Moody's timeliness argument, the undersigned finds Land & Sea's attempts to confer with Moody provide sufficient grounds for the Court to consider the Motion on its merits. See Ctr. for Individual Rts. v. Chevaldina, No. 16-20905-CIV-KING/TORRES, 2017 WL 5905191, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2017) (“[E]ven if Plaintiff's motion was untimely, its ongoing effort to resolve the dispute without motion practice constitutes good cause for the Court to consider Plaintiff's motion on the merits.”). Turning to the merits, Land & Sea has asserted as an affirmative defense that the allision was caused by an unforeseen and unpredictable mechanical failure in the M/Y Empire, which it purchased from Moody. Land & Sea may obtain nonprivileged discovery related to its affirmative defense. The District Court denied Moody's request for partial judgment, and he remains a party to this action at this time. Therefore, Moody must respond to the discovery requests. Further, the undersigned does not find that Moody has waived any objections; however, if Moody does not respond to Land & Sea's request within one (1) week of this Order, the undersigned will consider whether Moody has waived objections to the requests. Land & Sea's request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Land & Sea's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 70, is GRANTED to the extent that Moody shall respond to Land & Sea's discovery requests within one (1) week from the date of this Order. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 5th day of January 2023.