Lawrence E. Schwanke, D.C. v. JB Medical Management Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER re Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum against JB Medical Management Solutions, Inc. See the order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 6/23/2017. (CAB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION LAWRENCE E. SCHWANKE, DC, a Florida resident, individually and as the representative of a class of similarlysituated persons Plaintiff, v. Case Nos: 5:16-cv-597-Oc-30PRL; 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL JB MEDICAL MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., MCKESSON CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-12 Defendants. ORDER There are apparently two matters pending before the Court here, both of which have the same parties: one is a case (Schwanke v. JB Medical Management Solutions, Inc., et al, 5:16-cv597-Oc-30PRL) and the other appears to be a discovery issue stemming from the underlying case (Schwanke v. JB Medical Management Solutions, Inc., et al, 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL). But, as explained below, it appears that there should be only one. On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff served a subpoena decus tecum on Defendant JB Medical Management Solutions, Inc. (See Doc. 1 in 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL). This subpoena, however, was served not here but in California, as JB Medical is located in California’s Central District. (See Schwanke v. JB Medical Management Solutions, Inc., et al, No. 2:17-mc-43; Docs 1-1, 1-2 in 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL). JB Medical did not answer the subpoena and Plaintiff then filed a motion to compel compliance. (Doc. 1 in 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL). In the California filing the Plaintiff there (who is also the Plaintiff here) also asked that Court to transfer the issue “to Judge James S. Moody, Jr., who is presiding over the underlying action,” which is the “Original action pending in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 15 CV 597 OC 30PRL.” (See Doc. 1 at 1–2 in 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL). This request was apparently granted by California’s Central District. (Docs. 14–16 in 5:17-mc00006-WTH-PRL). Yet, instead of the motion to compel and its associated entries (namely a response and a reply (Docs. 12, 13 in 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL)) being entered unto the docket in the underlying case pending before Judge Moody at 5:16-cv-597-Oc-30PRL, a new matter was created at 5:17mc-00006-WTH-PRL and is currently pending before a different district judge. And now, this issue was recently brought to the Court’s attention. Upon due consideration, I submit that Plaintiff’s motion to compel and the associated filings (Docs. 1, 12, and 13) that are currently pending in 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL should be moved into 5:16-cv-597-Oc-30PRL, which is pending before Judge Moody and is the underlying action. After that, 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL should be administratively closed. Accordingly, the parties SHALL notify the Court on or before June 30, 2017 whether they oppose this relief. DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on June 23, 2017. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties District Judge Hodges District Judge Moody -2-

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?