United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUTTE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
the Court are the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion to
Compel Vision Financial Market LLC's Compliance with
Subpoena (Doc. 1) and Vision Financial Markets LLC's
(Vision) response in opposition (Doc. 18). The Court held a
hearing on the matter on January 8, 2020. For the reasons
discussed below, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted.
matter stems from an action brought in November 2018 by
Plaintiff the Hurry Family Revocable Trust and others
(collectively, Hurry) against Defendant Christopher Frankel.
Hurry Family Revocable Trust v. Frankel, No.
8:19-cv-2869-T-33CPT (M.D. Fla.). In that underlying action,
Hurry alleges that Frankel, a former employee, unlawfully
misappropriated and used Hurry's confidential information
and trade secrets. Id. at (Doc. 1).
January 2019, the Court entered a Case Management Scheduling
Order (CSMO) establishing various deadlines, including a
discovery deadline of July 26, 2019. Id. at (Doc.
29). In May 2019, the Court granted Hurry's request to
extend that deadline to August 9, 2020. Id. at
(Docs. 62, 65). In orders entered on June 24, 2019, and
August 20, 2019, however, the Court emphasized that it was
disinclined to extend this deadline any further. Id.
at (Docs. 84, 111).
meantime, on June 7, 2019, Hurry served a third-party
subpoena on Vision seeking certain documents. (Doc. 4, Exh.
2). Roughly two weeks later, Frankel moved in the underlying
action to quash that subpoena, arguing, inter alia,
that the subpoena was overbroad. Hurry Family Revocable
Trust, No. 8:19-cv-2869-T-33CPT at (Doc. 76). In a
letter sent to Hurry in late June 2019, Vision similarly
objected to the breadth of the subpoena. (Doc. 4, Exh.
2019, the Court conducted a hearing in the underlying action
on Frankel's motion to quash. Following that hearing,
consistent with the Court's guidance, Hurry and Frankel
agreed to limit the scope of the Vision subpoena. That
agreement was formalized in a notice filed with the Court on
July 25, 2019, and mooted Frankel's motion to quash.
Hurry Family Revocable Trust, No.
8:19-cv-2869-T-33CPT at (Docs. 101, 102).
to the Court's instructions, id. at (Doc. 101 at
2), Hurry thereafter emailed Vision on July 29, 2019,
notifying Vision of the amended scope of the subpoena (Doc.
4, Exh. 4). In response, Vision's counsel emailed
Hurry's counsel on August 8, 2019, stating:
Upon receiving the modified request from you last week I
asked the client to redo the search, which they did last
week. Though I am on vacation now I have reviewed the
results and am working with others to prepare the emails for
production. This will occur next week.
Id. at Exh. 5 (emphasis added).
this representation, Vision did not send the subpoenaed
documents to Hurry the following week. As a result, Hurry
emailed Vision on August 20 and August 22, 2019, seeking a
status on the matter. Id. at Exh. 6. Vision replied
on August 22, advising that it would provide a
“response” to Hurry the ensuing week.
Id. at Exh. 7. Five days later, Vision notified
Hurry that it did “not plan on producing the
[requested] documents.” Id. at Exh. 8. When
Hurry sought to confer with Vision several weeks later
regarding the subpoena, Vision stated that it “d[id]
not intend to discuss th[e] matter” with Hurry.
Id. at Exh. 9.
thereafter, Hurry filed a motion to compel Vision's
compliance with the subpoena in the District of Connecticut,
which-as represented at the hearing-is where Vision is
headquartered and where it was served with the subpoena. In
October 2019, however, Hurry dismissed that action and
re-filed it in the Southern District of New York, after
realizing that compliance with the subpoena was required in
that venue. (Doc. 3 at 3; Doc. 18 at 5). Upon the
parties' stipulation, the matter was subsequently
transferred to this district in November 2019. (Doc. 11).
Vision thereafter filed its response to Hurry's motion in
mid-December 2019. (Doc. 18).
Rule 4.15 provides that “[n]o stipulation or agreement
between any parties or their attorneys, the existence of
which is not conceded, in relation to any aspect of any
pending case, will be considered by the Court unless the same
is made before the Court and noted in the record or is
reduced to writing and subscribed by ...