United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ARNOLD SANS ONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Healthcare and Roy Edgerton move to quash a subpoena duces
tecum GEICO served on The Bank of Tampa. (Doc. 110).
GEICO objects. (117). GEICO subpoenaed documents
relevant to its claims against the defendants. Therefore,
Analgesic and Mr. Edgerton's motion to quash is
submitted a second amended complaint against Analgesic
Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton in which GEICO asserts causes of
action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections
2201 and 2202, and the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962.
(Doc. 107). GEICO also alleges common law fraud, unjust
enrichment, and violations of Florida, New Jersey, Minnesota,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania law. (Doc. 107). GEICO
essentially claims the defendants fraudulently submitted
hundreds of charges to GEICO on behalf of patients, insured
by GEICO, who received treatment for injuries sustained from
auto accidents. (Doc. 107). Analgesic Healthcare and Mr.
Edgerton deny GEICO's claims. (Doc. 114).
served a subpoena duces tecum on The Bank of Tampa. (Doc.
GEICO requested The Bank of Tampa produce all documents
related to accounts maintained by Analgesic Healthcare,
copies of all deposit and/or withdrawal slips, canceled
checks, transaction statements, electronic fund transfers,
wire transfers, account ledgers, account formation and
governance documents, corporate resolutions, signature cards,
powers of attorney and all correspondence related to the
(Id.). GEICO requests documents from January 1, 2010
to present. (Id.).
Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton moved to quash GEICO's
subpoena duces tecum served on The Bank of Tampa. (Doc. 110).
Analgesic Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton claim GEICO's
subpoena requests privileged information not subject to
exception nor waiver. (Id. at 1). Analgesic
Healthcare and Mr. Edgerton also claim GEICO's subpoena
requests confidential business records and proprietary
information-information in which they assert a privacy right
and a real interest. (Id. at 2-5). Additionally, the
defendants argue the requested bank records are irrelevant to
GEICO's claims. (Id. at 4). Analgesic Healthcare
and Mr. Edgerton also object to the temporal scope of
GEICO's subpoena (all documents from January 1, 2010, to
present). (Doc 110, p. 4).
claims its subpoena requests documents for the period in
which events that led to its claims took place. (Doc. 117, p.
1). GEICO argues the defendants have no standing to object to
the subpoena. (Id. at 5-6). GEICO also argues the
requested documents are relevant to its claims and not
privileged or confidential. (Id. at 6-17). According
to GEICO, its subpoena is not overbroad and a confidentiality
order would alleviate the defendants' concerns about
confidential business or proprietary information.
(Id. at 18-19).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), a party may obtain
discovery about any nonprivileged matter relevant to any
party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is meant to assist
parties in ascertaining facts that bear on issues in the
case. ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 859
F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).
Rule of Civil Procedure 45 permits discovery from non-parties
by subpoena and requires the court ...