BODY DETAILS, LLC, and BODY DETAILS PEMBROKE PINES, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. DOMINION AESTHETIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. DOMINION AESTHETIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. BODY DETAILS, LLC, Counterclaim Defendant Case No: 23-cv-80926-MIDDLEBROOKS United States District Court, S.D. Florida Entered on FLSD Docket March 19, 2024 Counsel James Richard DunnJames R. Dunn, P.A., Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs. Zachary Paul Hyman, Millennial Law, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Matthew S. Boyden, Ryan D. McConnell, R. McConnell Group PLLC, Houston, TX, for Defendant. Middlebrooks, Donald M., United States District Judge ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY *1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Dominion Aesthetic Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery, filed on March 15, 2024. (DE 110). Discovery ended on March 7, 2024. (DE 42). On March 8, 2024, I entered an Order, declining to extend discovery. (DE 103). I told the Parties that if they wished to “voluntarily participate in the discovery process beyond the set deadline, they may do so without court approval and/or intervention, so long as they are in complete agreement as to the terms and scope, and so long as no other litigation deadlines are impacted.” (Id.). Defendant now represents that it served its Fourth Request for Production, consisting of nine requests, and a Second Set of Interrogatories, consisting of five inquiries upon Plaintiffs on February 6, 2024. (DE 110). Defendant states now that Plaintiffs never responded even though responses were due March 7, 2024, the deadline for discovery to be complete. Defendant requests that this Court enter an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond to the outstanding discovery requests. (Id.). Only in rare circumstances will I compel discovery once the discovery deadline has passed. One such circumstance occurred last week, when Plaintiffs represented to this Court that Defendant's counsel withdrew his given consent to voluntarily continue discovery and reschedule a deposition for after the deadline had passed. (DE 105). Once the deadline for discovery had passed, Defendant's counsel withdrew that representation and refused to schedule the deposition. In defending against that Motion, Defendant's counsel stated that “additional discovery would only result in both parties collecting unnecessary information beyond the plain language of the dispositive contract” and that the Court had exercised “wisdom, knowledge, expertise and experience” to allow the deadline for discovery to expire. (DE 108). Yet now, Defendant asks the Court to reopen discovery and compel responses that were due over a week ago. Defendant does not provide any explanation for why this Motion to Compel was filed over a week after the discovery responses were due and does not make any attempt to reconcile its present motion with the statements it previously made before this Court. Based on the forgoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Dominion Aesthetic Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery (DE 110) is DENIED. SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18th day of March, 2024.