Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent.

Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (pc) (Entered: 12/20/24)

PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING the [41] Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Mediator James Matulis. In his Motion to Withdraw [41], Mr. Matulis advised us that the Plaintiff refuses to agree to the terms of mediation, including appearing in person and splitting the cost of mediation with the Defendants. The Plaintiff may not avoid our mediation requirement by refusing to pay for the mediator or to comply with the terms of mediation. The parties selected a mediator, see Joint Notice of Mediator Selection [29], and we ordered mediation on February 6, 2025, see Order Scheduling Mediation [30]. The parties are set for mediation on September 29, 2025. Ibid. The Plaintiff had seven months to raise any issues with the mediator’s terms. But he did not do so until the eve of mediation. We will not allow such gamesmanship. “If parties are permitted to decide not to attend mediation despite Court order otherwise, a court’s mediation order would be rendered meaningless.” Spikes v. Schumacher Auto Grp., Inc., 2022 WL 17601552, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2022) (Maynard, M.J.). The Plaintiff must comply with our Order Scheduling Mediation [30]. The Plaintiff must split the cost of mediation and attend mediation in person on September 29, 2025. If the Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order and our Order Scheduling Mediation [30], we will impose monetary sanctions on him. If he continues to violate our orders after we impose monetary sanctions, we may dismiss his case.

Mr. Matulis attached the parties’ communications to his Motion to Withdraw. See [41-1]–[41-3]. We read through the emails and feel compelled to address the Plaintiff’s statements.

First, the Plaintiff objects to an in-person mediation. Under Local Rule 16.2, “[u]nless the Court orders otherwise,” mediation may be “in person or by video conference[.]” And we did order mediation in person, see Order Scheduling Mediation [30], because the parties asked for in-person mediation in their Joint Notice of Mediator Selection: “mediation shall be held in person with James Matulis on September 29, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. ET at a location to be arranged by Mr. Matulis,” [29] at 3. Despite specifically asking us to order in-person mediation, the Plaintiff now claims “in-person appearance can be conducted via Zoom. Judge Altman’s order does not state at any point that I must physically travel to the location indicated by the mediator you selected[.]” [41-1] at 4. We cannot ignore the Plaintiff’s misrepresentations. For one thing, the parties jointly filed the Notice of Mediator Selection—so the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendants chose the mediator is patently false. For another, the Plaintiff obviously cannot be in-person via Zoom. Our order did require the Plaintiff to “physically travel to the location indicated by the mediator” because that is what the Plaintiff requested in the parties’ Joint Notice of Mediator Selection. If the Plaintiff wanted to appear remotely, he shouldn’t have asked us to order in-person mediation. The Plaintiff must comply with our Order Scheduling Mediation and attend mediation in person.

Second, the Plaintiff continually refuses to pay for mediation. See, e.g., [41-1] at 7. The Plaintiff maintains that “the costs of this judicial mediation, whether it ends in an agreementor not, will be borne exclusively by Warner Bros.” [41-2] at 5. The Plaintiff is wrong. He is not entitled to a free mediation—he must split the cost of mediation with the Defendants and cannot avoid our orders by refusing to pay. Our Local Rules say as much: “Absent agreement of the parties to the contrary, the cost of the mediator’s services shall be borne equally by the parties to the mediation conference. A mediator shall not negotiate or mediate the waiver or shifting of responsibility for payment of mediation fees from one party to the other.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.2(b)(7). The parties have not agreed to the contrary, and the Plaintiff cannot unilaterally demand fee shifting. To the extent that the Plaintiffuses his pro se status as an excuse for his refusal to pay for mediation, the Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis and has not alleged that he is indignant. We therefore find any refusal to split mediation based on his pro se status unpersuasive. The Plaintiff must equally split the cost of mediation with the Defendants unless the Defendants agree otherwise (they haven’t).

Third, in his emails, the Plaintiff threatens that he “will personally contact Judge Altman” if the Defendants do not agree to the Plaintiff’s terms of mediation. [41-1] at 5. Our Order Providing Instructions to Pro Se Litigations prohibits the Plaintiff from contacting “the Judge’s chambers for legal advice about the case.” [14] at 2. We caution the Plaintiff that if he disregards our [14] Pro Se Instructions and the applicable rules, we will impose monetary sanctionson him. If he continues to violate our orders and the applicable rules even after we impose monetary sanctions, we will dismiss his case.

One more thing. Our [42] Amended Scheduling order does not extend the deadlinefor mediation. And we never said that we would extend the deadline. We only agreed to “relieve the parties of their burden to submit expert reports on September 2, 2025.” Paperless Order Denying the Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery [40]. We declined then, and decline now, to extend the parties’ deadline for mediation. The parties must mediate by October 14, 2025.

PAPERLESS ORDER STRIKING the [44] Stipulation to Reschedule Mediation. The parties have been ordered to attend mediation “before James Matulis on September 29, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.” Order Scheduling Mediation [ECF No. 30] at 1. If the parties want to reschedule their mediation, they must file a motion asking for that relief. See S.D. Fla. L. R. 7.1(a)(2) (referring to “relief sought in the motion,” not a stipulation).

PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING the [46] Joint Motion to Reschedule Mediation. We’ll allow the parties to reschedule the mediation because their proposed date is before their October 14, 2025, deadline for mediation. The mediationin this case shall be held in person with James Matulis on October 7, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. at a location in Miami, Florida to be arranged by Mr. Matulis.  

Within three days of the mediation, the parties must file a joint mediation report. The report must indicate whether the case has settled (in full or in part), whether it was adjourned, or whether the mediator declared an impasse. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including dismissal without prejudice and without further notice.

Failure to appear may result in sanctions, including the granting of Defendant's request to compel by default. Signed by Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett on 10/24/2025. (EAL) (Entered: 10/24/25)

PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING in part the [56] Defendants’ Motion to Extend Pre-trial Deadlines. The Defendants ask for a ninety-day extension of the remaining pre-trial deadlines. The Defendants want an extension because “the Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ first set of written discovery requests.” Motion for Discovery Hearing [49]. We’ll grant an extension of forty-five, not ninety, days. We’ll enter a new scheduling order soon.

PAPERLESS ORDER. Three housekeeping matters. First, we DENY as moot the [59] Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify. The Plaintiff’s motion is no model of clarity. See generally Motion to Clarify. The Plaintiff seems to question whether the Defendants were “obligat[ed] to submit their expert rebuttal reports by the deadline of October 28, 2024.” Id. at 2. We clarify that they were. See Paperless Order Granting in Part the Defendants’ Motion for Extension [57]. To avoid any confusion from the Plaintiff, we’ll enter a new scheduling order.

Second, on September 25, 2025, the parties (unsuccessfully) attended mediation. See Final Mediation Report [48]. Now, the Mediator asks us to “compel[] Plaintiff to pay $2,350.00, which represents Plaintiff’s half of the Mediator’s fee[.]” Motion to Compel [65]. This isn’t the first time we’ve addressed the Plaintiff’s refusal to pay for mediation (but we hope it’ll be the last). We already said that “[t]he Plaintiff must equally split the cost of mediation with the Defendants[.]” September 23, 2025, Paperless Order [43]. Back in September, “the Plaintiff continually refuses[d] to pay for mediation.” Ibid; see, e.g., [41-1] at 7. Rather than pay what he owed, “[t]he Plaintiff maintain[ed] that ‘the costs of this judicial mediation, whether it ends in an agreement or not, will be borne exclusively by Warner Bros.’” Ibid. (quoting [41-2] at 5). We corrected the Plaintiff: “The Plaintiff is wrong. He is not entitled to a free mediation—he must split the cost of mediation with the Defendants and cannot avoid our orders by refusing to pay.” Ibid. But, despite our clear instructions, the Plaintiff again refuses to pay his half. See October 18, 2025, Emails Between the Plaintiff and the Mediator [65-6]. In direct violation of our orders, the Plaintiff told the Mediator that “this Judicial Mediation was a complete procedural fraud[.]” Id. at 1. “By virtue of this challenge,” the Plaintiff protested, “I request that you uphold this challenge and resend me your corrected invoice in the referenced terms, and that the amount due to me be reduced to $225, which is the only amount I am willing to accept in accordance with current legislation.” Ibid. Once again, the Plaintiff is wrong. The Plaintiff agreed to equally split the cost of mediation with the Defendants. SeeSeptember 23, 2025, Email Between the Plaintiff and the Mediator [65-3] (“Yes, Mr. Weinberger, I’ll pay half of the mediator’s fees.”). He is not entitled to a free mediation and must pay the mediator his agreed fee of $2,350.00. One last thing on this. As we said before: “To the extent that the Plaintiff uses his pro se status as an excuse for his refusal to pay for mediation, the Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis and has not alleged that he is indignant. We therefore find any refusal to split mediation based on his pro se status unpersuasive.” September 23, 2025, Paperless Order. We therefore GRANT the Defendant’s Motion to Compel and ORDER the Plaintiff to pay the Mediator $2,350.00 by December 12, 2025. And, if the Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order, we will impose sanctions, including by dismissing this case without further notice under Rule 41(b).

Third, we DENY as moot the [70] Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite. The Plaintiff asks us “to resolve immediately and urgently thepending judicial resolutions” and order the Defendants “to provide a bank guarantee for the amount of $1,078,958,629[.]” Motion to Expedite at 6. Obviously, we won’t be doing that. “Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a ‘Motion to Expedite Ruling,’ and [the] Plaintiff cites no authority for requesting the same.”Axos Clearing, LLC v. Reynolds, 2019 WL 13223692, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2019) (Ruiz, J.). Any ruling on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be posted on the Docket. The Plaintiff—like all litigants who file in our District—must wait until we resolve the pending motions. The Plaintiff’s “baseless and voluminous filings are a burden to the Court’s ability to manage its docket, and they distract from the Court’s... efforts to resolve more substantive motions in this and other cases.” United States v. Annamalai, 2016 WL11609577, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2016) (Batten, J.). If the Plaintiff continues to file frivolous motions, we will sanction him, including by dismissing his case. 

PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING in part the [73] Defendants’ Motion to Extend Pre-trial Deadlines. The Defendants ask for a ninety-day extension of the remaining pre-trial deadlines because “[a] further discovery dispute remains pending” and the “Defendants intend to raise further discovery issues.” Motion to Extend Pre-trial Deadlines ¶ 6. We’ll grant an extension of forty-five, not ninety, days and will enter a new scheduling order soon.

PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING the [77] Motion for Reconsideration. The Plaintiff argues that under our Amended Scheduling Order [76], “the [D]efendants can no longer file a written answer to the complaint[.]” Id. at 1. Two problems with this. First, the Plaintiff’s Motion isn’t asking for reconsideration. Second, he’s wrong. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4) plainly states that the filing of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 postpones the time allowed to file an answer until 14 days after the Court denies the Rule 12 motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A) (“[I]f the court denies the motion or postpones its disposition until trial, the responsive pleading must be served within 14 days after notice of the court’s action[.]”). We already warned the Plaintiff about filing frivolous motions. See Paperless Order [72] (“If the Plaintiff continues to file frivolous motions,we will sanction him, including by dismissing his case.”). If the Plaintiff files another frivolous motion, we will sanction him, including by dismissing his case without further notice

The Court reminds Plaintiff that he is responsible for securing his own Spanish interpreter to allow meaningful participation in the Hearing. The Hearing will not be rescheduled or canceled due to Plaintiff's failure to make provisions to participate. Any rulings resulting from the Hearing will be entered and binding. Signed by Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett on 12/18/2025. (ncn) (Entered: 12/18/25)

PAPERLESS ORDER. By December 22, 2025, the Defendants and the mediator—James Matulis—must file a notice on the Docket letting us know whether the Plaintiff has complied with our Order [72] that “the Plaintiff [] pay the Mediator $2,350.00[.]”

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Defendants shall serve on Plaintiff, on or before January 13, 2026 a discovery deficiency letter identifying the responses and documents that remain outstanding. By January 23, 2026, Plaintiff shall serve full, complete, and verified responses to the discovery requests. Plaintiff is reminded, per the Court's [67] Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Compel, objections have been waived, and he cannot object to any request or otherwise refuse to respond. Failure to provide full, complete, and verified responses by January 23, 2026, will result in sanctions including dismissal of this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett on 1/6/2026. (ncn) (Entered: 01/06/26)

PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING the [96] Motion to Extend Deadlines. The Defendants request a ninety-day extension of certain pretrial deadlines. “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11thCir. 1998) (cleaned up).

 Since it looks to us as though the Defendants have been diligent, the Motion is GRANTED. We’ll enter an amended scheduling order.

PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING the Emergency Motion for Preservation of Evidence. The Plaintiff asks us to order the Defendants to “preserve all physical and electronic evidence[.]” Motion at 1. But the Defendants already have “a responsibility to try in good faith to preserve material evidence.” United States v. Roberson, 195 F. App’x 902, 903 (11th Cir. 2006). We’ll also issue a final warning to the Plaintiff for at least the third time: If he files another frivolous motion, we will dismiss his case with prejudice without further notice. See Paperless Order [72] (“If the Plaintiff continues to file frivolous motions, we will sanction him, including by dismissing his case.”); Paperless Order [80] (“If the Plaintiff files another frivolous motion, we will sanction him, including by dismissing his case without further notice.”).  

PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING the [124] Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. A proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal requires (1) an affidavit that (2) shows in detail the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs, (3) claims an entitlement to redress, and (4) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The Plaintiff has met those requirements. 

PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING without prejudice the [129] Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. “Deferring ruling on a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pending an appeal... is a matterwithin the court’s discretion, and courts will defer ruling in the interests of judicial economy.” Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., 2025 WL 3692582, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2025) (Bloom, J.) (cleaned up). And, as the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 54 explain, “­­[i]f an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendments; see also Spatz v. Microtel Inns & Suites Franchising, Inc., 2012 WL 13005550, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2012) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.).

This case is currently pending appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, which may impact the Defendants’ motions for attorney’s fees and costs. See Notice of Appeal [123]. We’ll therefore exercise our “discretion to decide attorney’s fees and costs after the resolution” of the appeal. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bal Harbour Oral & Facial Surgery, LLC, 2025 WL 3111076, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025). The Defendants may renew any motions within 30 days after the Eleventh Circuit issues its mandate resolving the final pending appeal. In other words, the parties should not move for attorney’s fees until every appealed issue has been resolved.