Losacano v. Anthony 57, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 61 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Compel Anthony Serrago to Obey Subpoena for the Production of Documents. Defendant Anthony Serrago shall have December 29, 2017 to respond to the subpoena (Doc. 61 at 7-12) or, in the alternative, SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why he should not be held in contempt of the Court for his failure to obey the subpoena without adequate excuse. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 12/1/2017. (HJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LAURA LOSACANO, DANETTE
BEDERKA, LEIGH KUNDRICK,
COLLEEN SANCHEZ, VICTORIA
DULL, SUSAN JULIAN and
WYNONA PARR, on behalf of herself
and other employees similarly
Case No: 2:17-cv-84-FtM-38CM
ANTHONY 57, INC., ANTHONY
SERRAGO and SABAL SPRINGS
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed
Motion to Compel Anthony Serrago (“Serrago”) to Obey Subpoena for the Production
of Documents (Doc. 61) filed on November 3, 2017.
On February 8, 2017, Plaintiffs
filed a Collective Action Complaint for Damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
against various Defendants, including Serrago.
On April 13, 2017,
Plaintiffs moved for entry of Clerk’s default against all Defendants for their failure
to respond to the Complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied in part.
Docs. 16, 21.
The Court directed the Clerk to enter default against Anthony 57, Inc.
and Serrago, individually.
Doc. 21 at 4. Plaintiffs’ present motion seeks to enforce
a subpoena served upon Serrago.
Serrago has not responded to the
present motion, creating a presumption that the motion is unopposed.
Assur. Co. v. Sanchuk, LLC, No. 8:10-cv-2568-T-33AEP, 2012 WL 195526, at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Jan. 23, 2012).
Plaintiffs allege Serrago possesses important information to their case, despite
his being in default. Doc. 61 at 2.
Thus, on October 10, 2017, Plaintiffs served a
subpoena upon Serrago to produce certain documents on or before October 23, 2017.
Id. at 2, 7.
Serrago neither produced any responsive documents nor served any
objections to this subpoena by October 23, 2017.
Id. at 2.
October 26, 2017,
Plaintiffs’ counsel communicated with Serrago, who requested an extension of time
to comply with the subpoena.
Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to give Serrago until
November 2, 2017 to produce responsive documents.
Serrago again did not
produce any documents or raised any objections to the subpoena. Id.
Pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a person
responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept
in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to
the categories in the demand.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(1)(A).
A responding person
may resist the subpoena by filing a motion to quash or modify the subpoena, or
serving objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d).
If the responding person, “having been
served [with the subpoena], fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an
order related to it,” the Court may hold that person in contempt.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Here, Serrago has not obeyed the subpoena or served any objections for
See generally the Docket. Accordingly, the Court will order
Serrago on or before December 29, 2017 to respond to the subpoena or, in the
alternative, show cause in writing as to why he should not be held in contempt for his
failure to obey the subpoena without adequate excuse.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Compel Anthony Serrago to Obey
Subpoena for the Production of Documents (Doc. 61) is GRANTED.
Defendant Anthony Serrago shall have December 29, 2017 to respond to
the subpoena (Doc. 61 at 7-12) or, in the alternative, SHOW CAUSE in writing as to
why he should not be held in contempt of Court for his failure to obey the subpoena
without adequate excuse.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 1st day of December,
Counsel of record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?