From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edwards v. Armor Corr. Health Servs., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Aug 17, 2015
Case No. 14-CV-61577-BLOOM/VALLE (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 14-CV-61577-BLOOM/VALLE

08-17-2015

CLEANIEL EDWARDS, as personal representative of the estate of Raleigh Priester, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY WITNESSES' APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Non-Party Witnesses' Appearance at Deposition (the "Motion"). (ECF No. 100). The Court has reviewed the Motion, the applicable law, and is otherwise duly advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.

On August 10, 2015, Defendants served two subpoenas duces tecum for deposition on two non-parties: (1) Tanveer Sobhan, M.D.; and (2) the records custodian of University Hospital and Medical Center. See (ECF No. 100-1 at 1-2). The subpoenas commanded the non-parties to appear for deposition on August 13, 2015—only three days later. (ECF No. 100 at 2). When the non-parties failed to appear for the depositions, Defendants filed the instant Motion to compel their depositions and to recover Defendants' attorney's fees and costs associated with the Motion and the missed depositions. Id. at 4.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1), a litigant serving a subpoena "must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena." The Court, in turn, "must enforce this duty[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). As Defendants well know, a party does not fulfill this duty when it serves a subpoena that commands a non-party to appear for a deposition on three days' notice. See (ECF No. 92) (denying Defendants' motion to other compel non-parties to respond to subpoenas duces tecum on three days' notice); see also Subair Sys., LLC v. Precisionaire Sys., Inc., No. 08-60570-CIV, 2008 WL 1914876, at *2 n.4 (S.D. Fla. Apr.26, 2008) (finding that 10 days' notice of a deposition "could be deemed 'reasonable'" under Rule 45).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on August 17, 2015.

/s/_________

ALICIA O. VALLE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
United States District Judge Beth Bloom
All Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Edwards v. Armor Corr. Health Servs., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Aug 17, 2015
Case No. 14-CV-61577-BLOOM/VALLE (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2015)
Case details for

Edwards v. Armor Corr. Health Servs., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CLEANIEL EDWARDS, as personal representative of the estate of Raleigh…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Date published: Aug 17, 2015

Citations

Case No. 14-CV-61577-BLOOM/VALLE (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2015)