UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA    CASE NO. 18-CIV-80176-Bloom/Reinhart    IRA KLEIMAN, as personal representative of the estate of David Kleiman, and W&K INFO DEFENSE RESEARCH, LLC,    Plaintiffs,            v.  CRAIG WRIGHT,    Defendant.  ___________________________________/  ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSES TO  THEIR SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (DE 362)    Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion that Defendant be ordered to respond to their second  request for admissions on an expedited basis. DE 362. Plaintiffs served their second request for  admissions on December 20, 2019. Defendant objects to providing any response, let alone an  expedited one, arguing that the request was untimely. The Court heard oral argument on January  2, 2020, wherein Defendant noted that Local Rule 26.1(d) relieves him of any obligation to respond  or object to untimely discovery demands.  Local Rule 26.1(d) states that  written discovery requests and subpoenas seeking the production of documents must be served in sufficient time that the response is due on or before the discovery cutoff date. Failure by the party seeking discovery to comply with this paragraph obviates the need to respond or object to the discovery, appear at the deposition, or move for a protective order.   S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(d).  Case 9:18-cv-80176-BB Document 365 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2020 Page 1 of 2