A. et al v. Wllden et al

Filing 2

ORDER denying without prejudice (Doc. 1) Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 10/10/2013. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
HENRY A., by his next friend,
M.J, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 5:13-mc-16-Oc-10PRL

MICHAEL WILLDEN, Director of the
Nevada Department of

Defendants.

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner National Deaf Academy, LLC’s Motion to Quash
Subpoena and/or for Protective Order (Doc. 1). In the motion, Petitioner requests that the Court
quash both a subpoena to produce documents and a subpoena to compel testimony at a
deposition (Doc. 1, Ex. A).
As an initial matter, Petitioner’s motion lacks a certification pursuant to Local Rule
3.01(g). Local Rule 3.01(g) requires a party, before filing any motion in a civil case (with
certain exceptions inapplicable here), to confer with counsel for the opposing party in a good
faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion. This failure alone is sufficient basis to
deny the motion.
The Court also notes that it appears this matter was filed in this Court on October 8,
2013, the same date on which the documents sought by the Subpoena to Produce Documents
were to be produced, and only two (2) days before the deposition of the corporate representative

that is scheduled for October 10, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. Petitioner did not style the motion as an
“Emergency Motion,” as contemplated by Local Rule 3.01(e), nor did Petitioner comply with the
Court’s Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases which
provide that, “[a] document considered to be an emergency must be brought to the attention of
the clerk’s office when filed. The filer must personally contact the appropriate divisional clerk’s
office.” Id. at 4. In short, Petitioner failed to identify the motion as a matter needing the Court’s
prompt attention.
Further, it is not clear whether this Court has jurisdiction over the subpoena requiring the
production of documents under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The subpoena
requires the production of documents at a location in San Francisco, California (Doc. 1, Ex. A).
It appears that this action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
(Doc. 1, Ex. A.) Moreover, the deadline for producing the documents, October 8, 2013, has
already passed.
With regard to the deposition scheduled for today in Tavares, Florida, this deposition
would have already taken place by the time this matter came to the Court’s attention.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is due to be denied as moot.
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and/or for
Protective Order (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to raise the
issues again, if appropriate, in a subsequent motion. When filing another motion, however,
Petitioner should correct the defects in the initial motion.

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Flo
D
O
orida on October 10, 2013.
t

Copies fu
urnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepres
sented Partie
es

-3-