Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Noel-Wagstaffe v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

December 7, 2017

ROSELINE NOEL-WAGSTAFFE, Plaintiff,
v.
METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation, Defendant.

          OMNIBUS ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO SHOW CAUSE AND/OR COMPEL

          EDWIN G. TORRES United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company's (“Defendant”) motions to show cause and/or compel against Sunrise Neurology Group, Interventional Rehabilitation of South Florida, Dr. Gerald S. Goldberg, and Sunrise Medical MRI East (collectively, the “Non-parties”). [D.E. 21-24]. The Non-Parties did not respond to Defendant's motions.[1] Therefore, Defendant's motions are now ripe for disposition. After careful consideration of the motions and relevant authority, and for the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motions are GRANTED.

         I. ANALYSIS

         On various dates in July and August 2017[2], Defendant served each of the Non-Parties with a subpoena requesting a production of documents. Defendant argues that none of the Non-Parties produced any documents or served any objections. On September 28, 2017, Defendant sent each of the Non-Parties a letter requesting compliance with the subpoena within 15 days to avoid judicial intervention. Because the Non-Parties remain noncompliant with the subpoena, Defendant requests that the Non-Parties either (1) show cause on why they should not be held in contempt or (2) be compelled to produce documents.

         “[A] Rule 45 subpoena is a discovery vehicle to be used against non-parties to, among other things, obtain documents relevant to a pending lawsuit.” Hatcher v. Precoat Metals, 271 F.R.D. 674, 675 (N.D. Ala. 2010). More specifically, Rule 45 allows a subpoena to command the “production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(A); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(C) (“A command to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises . . . may be set out in a separate subpoena.”). If a non-party timely serves written objections, the non-party's objection to comply with the subpoena is suspended pending a court's order. See Am. Fed'n of Musicians of the United States & Canada v. Skodam Films, LLC, 313 F.R.D. 39, 44 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (“Timely serving written objections therefore suspends the non-party's obligation to comply with a subpoena commanding production of documents, pending a court order.”) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii); Hodnett v. Smurfit-Stone Container Enters., Inc., Civ. A, 2010 WL 3522497, at *1 n.3 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2010)). “The failure to serve written objections to a subpoena within the time specified by Rule [45(d)(2)(B)] typically constitutes a waiver of such objections, as does failing to file a timely motion to quash.” Am. Fed'n, 313 F.R.D. at 43 (internal quotation marks omitted).

         While Rule 45 does not include a specific time to comply with a subpoena to a non-party in the rule itself, it does provide that “[o]n timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: fails to allow a reasonable time to comply . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 (emphasis added). And “[a]lthough ‘reasonable time' is not explicitly defined in this section of Rule 45, other courts have looked to the language . . . to find fourteen days from the date of service is presumptively reasonable.” In re Rule 45 Subpoena to Fid. Nat. Info. Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 4899399, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2009) (citing McClendon v. TelOhio Credit Union, Inc., 2006 WL 2380601 (S.D. Oh. Aug.14, 2006)); see also Mendenhall v. Blackmun, 2010 WL 3272946, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 18, 2010); Parrot, Inc. v. Nicestuff Distrib. Int'l, Inc., 2009 WL 197979, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2009) (rejecting non-party's argument that subpoena did not provide sufficient time for response and reiterating that “reasonableness” is considered on a case by case basis).

         Here, the Non-Parties have had ample time to review the subpoena and formulate their responses. Yet, the Non-Parties have clearly failed to do so with either a production of documents or objections. As such, Defendant's motions to compel the production of documents from each of the Non-Parties are GRANTED.

         II. CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

         A. Defendant's motion to compel Sunrise Neurology Group to produce documents is GRANTED.

         B. Defendant's motion to compel Interventional Rehabilitation of South Florida to produce documents is GRANTED.

         C. Defendant's motion to compel Dr. Gerald S. Goldberg to produce documents is GRANTED.

         D. Defendant's motion to compel Sunrise Medical MRI East to produce documents is GRANTED.

         E. Each of the Non-Parties must produce the requested items in Defendant's subpoena within fourteen (14) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.