MACSOUTH FOREST PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CURRENT BUILDERS, INC., et al., Defendants CASE NO. 0:24-CV-60013-BECERRA/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH United States District Court, S.D. Florida Signed June 14, 2024 Counsel Andrew V. Showen, Hill Rugh Keller & Main, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff. Vincent Francis Vaccarella, Walter William Norton III, Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants, Current Builders, Inc., CB Wall Panels, Inc., CB Structures Services, Inc., Frederick Colandreo, Michael Taylor. Matthew Gordon Davis, Matthew Rothrock, Paskert Divers Thompson, Tampa, FL, for Defendant, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. Augustin-Birch, Panayotta, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL [DE 105] *1 This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff MacSouth Forest Products, LLC's Motion to Compel. DE 105. Defendants Current Builders, Inc., CB Wall Panels, Inc., and CB Structures Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a response, DE 109, and the Court has set Plaintiff's Motion to Compel for a Discovery Hearing on June 25, 2024, at 9:30 A.M. DE 104. However, upon review of the briefing, the Court determines that a Discovery Hearing is not necessary and that the Court can rule on the briefing. As such, the Court CANCELS the Discovery Hearing set for June 25, 2024, at 9:30 A.M. Having carefully considered the briefing and the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [DE 105]. In its Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants responded to Requests for Production # 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of its Second Request to Produce with objections and an averment that Defendants would produce documents they determine to be responsive. DE 105 at 1. To be clear, the Court notes that Defendants did not raise any objections to Request for Production # 5 and that Defendants never stated they would produce any documents in response to Request for Production # 9. See DE 105-1 at 5–7. In any event, this Court's Order on Plaintiff's prior Motion to Compel brought against Defendants, DE 111, already overruled Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Production # 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and ordered Defendants to fully respond to those Requests within 14 days of the Order. Id. at 13. The Court also overruled all of Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff's Request for Production # 3, except for Defendants’ privilege objections. Id. As such, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's current Motion to Compel as to these Requests for Production. Regarding Request for Production # 5, Defendants did not raise an objection. See DE 105-1 at 5 (response to Request for Production # 5 where Defendants state: “Defendants will produce those documents it identifies as responsive to this Request”). But Defendants contend in their response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel that there are no responsive documents for Request for Production # 5. DE 109 at 2. At this juncture, the Court does not have sufficient information to determine whether Defendant has responsive documents to Request for Production # 5. Instead, the Court can only instruct the parties on their responsibilities and the consequences for failing to meet their obligations. By not raising an objection to Request for Production # 5, Defendants waived any objections. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(e)(2)(A) (providing that “[a]ny grounds not stated in an objection ... shall be waived”). Additionally, having not raised any objections, Defendants are required to produce everything sought by Request for Production # 5 that is in their “possession, custody, or control.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). To the extent Defendants have failed to do so, the Court orders Defendants to produce everything sought by Plaintiff's Request for Production # 5 that is in their “possession, custody, or control.” *2 Furthermore, the Court reminds the parties of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A)’s duty for the responding party to supplement discovery responses in a timely manner upon the party learning that a response is incomplete, unless the additional or corrective information has been made known to the other party during the discovery process or in writing. Failure to abide by Rule 26(e) can result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A)–(C). Lastly, Plaintiff requests its attorney's fees incurred for prosecuting its Motion to Compel. DE 105 at 4. When a court grants in part and denies in part a motion to compel, as the Court does here, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C) does not mandate an award of attorney's fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C) (“If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court may ... after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” (emphasis added)); Manhattan Constr. Co. v. Phillips, No. 1:09-CV-1917-WSD-AJB, 2011 WL 13214355, at *24 (N.D. Ga. May 11, 2011) (“Unlike the other provisions of the rule (with respect to motions that are granted or denied in their entirety), [Rule 37(a)(5)(C)] is permissive, not mandatory.”). The Court, in its discretion, denies Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [DE 105]. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED AS MOOT as to Plaintiff's Requests for Production # 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Request for Production # 5. Defendants shall produce responsive documents that are in their possession, custody, or control, if any, within 14 days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is DENIED. The Discovery Hearing set for June 25, 2024, at 9:30 A.M. is CANCELED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 14th day of June, 2024.