Jordyn Thulin v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff Jordyn Thulin’s motion to compel entry onto Defendant’s property under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. The Court permits a limited inspection, measurement, survey, and photographing of an exemplar Cessna 172 aircraft and the exterior of classroom buildings on Defendant’s Daytona Beach campus, subject to specified deadlines and conditions.

Holdings

1. A motion to compel a Rule 34 inspection is not untimely merely because it is filed two weeks before the discovery deadline, absent authority or a demonstrated basis showing untimeliness.
2. Inspection and photography of an aircraft used on Defendant's campus and the exterior of campus buildings where the alleged conduct and related stalking occurred were relevant and within the permissible scope of discovery.
3. A conclusory assertion that a Rule 34 inspection is harassing or unduly burdensome, unsupported by specific examples or evidence, does not justify denying an otherwise relevant inspection.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's request for entry onto Defendant's property was untimely because it was served and brought shortly before the discovery deadline.
2. Whether inspection and photography of an exemplar Cessna 172 aircraft and the exterior of specified campus buildings were relevant and within the scope of Rule 34.
3. Whether the requested inspection was unduly burdensome or harassing such that the relevance of the requested information was outweighed by the burden of the intrusion.

Disposition

other