Hadcock v. Jest Operating, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 106 Non-Party Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration's motion to quash. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 1/8/2021. (AR)
Case 5:20-cv-00095-JSM-PRL Document 107 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1477
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No: 5:20-cv-95-Oc-30PRL
JEST OPERATING, INC., PATRICIA R.
LEININGER, MERIDETH C. NAGEL,
MICHAEL J. ROGERS, CHRISTIAN
W. WAUGH, MERIDETH NAGEL, P.A.,
WAUGH LAW, P.A., GAYLORD &
ROGERS, LLC, ELIZABETH HEIMAN
and KIMBERLY SCHULTE,
On January 7, 2021, Non-Party Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration (“AHCA”)
filed its objection and moved to quash a subpoena issued by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Doc. 106). AHCA
argues that it was not given enough time to respond to the subpoena, that the requests are overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive, and that the subpoena seeks confidential information.
However, AHCA has not filed the subpoena, nor has it provided any details regarding the specific
requests, including whose medical information Plaintiff is attempting to obtain. Thus, the Court is
unable to evaluate whether the subpoena is proper. Accordingly, AHCA’s motion (Doc. 106) is
DENIED. Within seven (7) days, AHCA shall either comply with the subpoena or file a motion
providing the Court with sufficient information so that it can make a determination.
Case 5:20-cv-00095-JSM-PRL Document 107 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1478
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on January 8, 2021.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Andrew T. Sheeran, Esq.
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?