Ultimately, the Court warned FDC that if, by 7/31/2026, Plaintiff's counsel did not file a notice confirming receipt of the discovery responses, and FDC did not file a written show cause response, FDC may be compelled to respond to the discovery requests without objection (DE 155). As of the entry of this Order, FDC has not responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause (DE 155), and there is no indication in the record that FDC has responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, by 8/10/2026, FDC shall serve written responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff's First Request for Production, and produce all non-privileged responsive documents,without objection. All objections to the foregoing discovery requests (other than privilege) are waived. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); L.R. 26.1(e)(2); Birch v. Volvo Penta, No. 0:17-CV-62227-UU, 2018 WL 4193659, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2018).

Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss on 8/3/2026. (emd) (Entered: 08/03/26)

Ordinarily, the Court would strike the motion given that it is an opposed motion that was filed in contravention of [131] Discovery Procedures Order ("DPO"). While the Court will not do so in this instance, the Court reminds the parties that strict compliance with the DPO is required and that conferral via email alone is insufficient. If the parties are unable to resolve disputes through email conferral, they must also confer in good faith via telephone or video conference, or in person. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss on 8/7/2026. (emd) (Entered: 08/07/26)

The Court notes a few things, however, and the Parties are cautioned not to take them with a grain of salt. First, labeling a motion "expedited" or"emergency" when those terms are created by counsel's lack of diligence is ridiculous. Second, this case languished in another division in this District for nearly 26 months, even though it could have proceeded as to several defendants pending disposition of related criminal proceedings. That all parties were permitted to sit on their hands during the intervening years is absurd. Third, this case is due for a resolution. The named Plaintiff has been dead for nearly five years and--although everyone has a right to their day in court--there is no justifiable reason to delay resolution for so long. Whether favorable or adverse, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment.

Ironically, as the Florida Supreme Court federalizes state court proceedings to hasten dispositions, federal courts remain burdened by slow-moving cases and litigants. Perhaps that High Court should think twice before taking the federal approach.

Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 8/19/2026. (rg01) (Entered: 08/19/26)