United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
B. SMITH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
January of 2017, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered default judgment for
Plaintiff Banco Popular North America and against Defendant
Miguel D. Lausell in the amount of $528, 382.06 (Doc. 1-1).
Plaintiff registered the judgment in this Court (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff obtained a writ of garnishment directed to The Taco
Maker, Inc. (Doc. 5). The Taco Maker's Florida 2018
Foreign Profit Corporation Annual Report lists Lausell as
“CHRM” of the company (Doc. 10-5). Plaintiff also
alleges that according to The Taco Maker's website,
Lausell “was one of the original entrepreneurs that
brought the brand to America in 2006.” (Doc. 10, n. 1).
answer to the writ of garnishment, filed and served by its
attorney, Michael Stegawitz, The Taco Maker said it did not
employ Lausell and was not indebted to him for salary or
wages (Doc. 9). Suspicious, Plaintiff served a subpoena,
issued out of this Court, directing The Taco Maker to
All correspondence, financial documents, pay stubs,
agreements, or other documents relating to Miguel
Lausell's employment and/or ownership interest in Taco
Maker, Inc. including but not limited to stock certificates,
operating agreements, and employment agreements.
(Doc. 10-1 at 1). The subpoena was served on The Taco
Maker's registered agent on April 11, 2017 (Doc. 10-2).
Nobody has filed an objection to the subpoena, a motion to
quash it, or for the entry of a protective order precluding
notified Plaintiff's counsel that his firm had been
engaged to assist in the preparation of The Taco Maker's
response to the subpoena (Doc. 21-3 at 2). He asked for
additional time, and for the entry of a protective order
“to allow production of confidential
information.” (Id.). Plaintiff agreed to an
extension until August 9, 2017 to produce the information,
and to the protective order (Doc. 10, ¶ 7). By
agreement, the protective order was entered in a related case
pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Puerto Rico (Doc. 10-4 at 1).
alleges that The Taco Maker has not produced any documents in
response to the subpoena (Doc. 10, ¶ 8). Plaintiff seeks
an order compelling the production, and for the taxation of
its attorney's fees and costs against The Taco Maker and
Stegawski, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A)
receiving Plaintiff's motion to compel, Stegawski sought
leave to withdraw as counsel for The Taco Maker (Doc. 15).
His motion references unspecified professional considerations
which he argued, required the termination of his
representation (Id., ¶ 8). The Court granted
the motion (Doc. 18). However, it directed that Stegawski
remain in the case as an interested party, to defend himself
against Plaintiff's claim for fees and costs
asserts that while representing The Taco Maker he has done
nothing that was unprofessional, and he argues that Plaintiff
is not entitled to recover sanctions from him (Doc. 21 at
4-6). Stegawski also contends that Plaintiff's motion is
flawed because it relies on Rule 37 (Id., at 6-8).
He maintains that this controversy is in fact, governed by
Rule 45 (Id.). Lastly, Stegawsi argues that he is
entitled to recover his fees and costs from Plaintiff
(Id., at 9-10).
Taco Maker has adopted Stegawski's argument that this
dispute is controlled by Rule 45. It also contends that it is
entitled to recover its attorney's fees and costs from
Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B) (Doc. 22). Notably,
The Taco Maker's new attorney states that she,
is in the process of reviewing all documents pertinent to the
subpoenas issued by Petitioner under the instant case and the
matter in the District of Puerto Rico, and intends to respond
to the same on or before Monday, May 7, 2018. As notified to
counsel for Petitioner via electronic mail, TTM is working to
comply with the referenced subpoenas and resolve this matter
as soon as possible.
(Id., n. 1).
undisputed that Plaintiff's subpoena was properly served
on The Taco Maker. The Court also finds that the information
Plaintiff seeks is relevant to the satisfaction of its
judgment. There are no objections to the subpoena, and a
protective order has ...