Ayala v. Santa Fe News and Espresso Design District Corp et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-CV-24576-ELFENBEIN
MARIA FERNANDA AYALA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SANTA FE NEWS AND ESPRESSO
DESIGN DISTRICT CORP, et al.,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S ORAL MOTIONS TO COMPEL
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Maria Fernanda Ayala’s (“Plaintiff”)
Notice of Hearing, ECF Nos. [74] and [75], in which Plaintiff alerted the Court to the following
issues to be discussed at the March 12, 2026 Discovery Hearing (the “Hearing”): The “totality of
the 	discovery, 	including 	the 	responses 	provided 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	Request 	for 	Production,
Interrogatories, and Requests for Admissions” by both the individual and corporate defendant. See
ECF No. [75] at 1. During the Hearing, Plaintiff made an Oral Motion to Compel Better Responses
to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, ECF No. [79], an Oral Motion to Compel Better Answers to
Interrogatories, ECF No. [80], an Oral Motion to Compel Better Responses to Request for
Admissions, ECF No. [81], and an Oral Motion for Attorney’s Fees as Sanctions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), ECF No. [82]. The Court ruled on all four issues at the Hearing.
To memorialize the Court’s rulings during the Hearing, the Court writes the instant Order.
Case 1:24-cv-24576-MFE Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2026 Page 1 of 4

CASE NO. 24-CV-24576-ELFENBEIN
2
1. 	Plaintiff’s 	Oral 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	Better 	Responses 	to 	Request 	for
Production, ECF No. [79]
Plaintiff’s Oral Motion to Compel Better Responses to Request for Production, ECF No.
[79], is GRANTED. Both Defendants SHALL provide better responses to Request for Production
Numbers 13 through 41 as none were previously provided. Any objections to these requests are
deemed waived because the deadline to object has long passed. Defendants SHALL also provide
a better response to Request for Production Number 8, which requires them to search for and
produce any communications between Defendant and Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s wages or tips.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Oral Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories, ECF
No. [80]:
Plaintiff’s Oral Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories, ECF No. [80], is
GRANTED. Defendants SHALL supplement their Answers to each of Plaintiff’s Interrogatories,
respond to each component of each interrogatory, and comply with Local Rule 26.1.(e)(1)
requiring “[e]ach interrogatory objection and/or response [to] immediately follow the quoted
interrogatory.”
3. 	Plaintiff’s 	Oral 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	Better 	Responses 	to 	Request 	for
Admissions, ECF No. [81]
Plaintiff’s Oral Motion to Compel Better Responses to Request for Admissions, ECF No.
[81], is GRANTED. 	Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions are
OVERRULED to the extent they qualify denials with respect to vagueness and ambiguity. To
the extent Defendants denied any requests, Defendants SHALL provide revised responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions without any qualifiers on the basis of vagueness and ambiguity.
4. 	Plaintiff’s Oral Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a)(5), ECF No. [82]:
Plaintiff requested attorney’s fees associated with the discovery dispute under Federal Rule
Case 1:24-cv-24576-MFE Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2026 Page 2 of 4

CASE NO. 24-CV-24576-ELFENBEIN
3
of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). Rule 37 provides that if a party moves to compel discovery and the
motion is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or
deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or
both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s
fees.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 	The language of Rule 37(a)(5)(A) is mandatory, not
permissive, so the Court is required to grant the movant its reasonable expenses unless one of three
exceptions applies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii). More specifically, “the court must not
order this payment if” the “movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the
disclosure or discovery without court action;” the “opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or
objection was substantially justified;” or “other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii).
Here, the Court finds that an award of fees as a sanction under Rule 37 is not warranted
because it was unclear from the record evidence whether Plaintiff requested court intervention
“before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action.” See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii). Plaintiff argued that Defendant stonewalled her attempts to engage
counsel in conferral discussions regarding discovery, presenting a two sentence email referencing
a phone call to support her argument. 	Defendant disputed these facts, arguing that he was not
made aware of the specific discovery issues until the discovery hearing. 	The Court found the
evidence Plaintiff presented to be insufficient to support her request for attorney’s fees in light of
Defendants’ denial of such conferral efforts. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Oral Motion for Sanctions
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), ECF No. [82], is DENIED. 	Even though the
Court denied this request for attorney’s fees, the Court warns Defendants that it will not hesitate
to enter an award of attorney’s fees against both Defendants and defense counsel should they again
Case 1:24-cv-24576-MFE Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2026 Page 3 of 4

CASE NO. 24-CV-24576-ELFENBEIN
4
cherry-pick which discovery requests and components of requests to respond to, haul Plaintiff into
court to resolve such issues, and waste judicial resources.
Defendants 	SHALL 	provide 	all 	supplemental 	discovery 	responses, 	including 	any
supplemental document production, no later than March 22, 2026.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on March 16, 2026.
_____________________________________
MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: All Counsel of Record
Case 1:24-cv-24576-MFE Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2026 Page 4 of 4