Gibson et al v. Resort At Paradise Lakes, LLC et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying 69 Motion to Quash Notice of Taking Deposition of Dreamgirl Int'l. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 2/27/2017. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CIELO JEAN GIBSON, DESSIE
MITCHESON, IRINA VORONINA, JOHN
COULTER, and MAYSA QUY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 8:16-cv-791-T-36AAS

RESORT AT PARADISE LAKES, LLC d/b/a
PARADISE LAKES RESORT d/b/a
PARADISE LAKES and JERRY L.
BUCHANAN,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Untimely Notice of
Taking Deposition of Dreamgirl Int’l (“Motion to Quash”) (Doc. 69) and Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Quash (Doc. 73).
On February 20, 2017, Defendants, Resort at Paradise Lakes, LLC and Jerry Buchanan
moved to quash Plaintiffs, Cielo Jean Gibson, Dessie Mitcheson, Irina Voronina, John Coulter,
and Maya Quy’s Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action for the deposition of the
Corporate Representative of Dreamgirl International (hereinafter, the “Subpoena”) pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. (Doc. 69-C). On February 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Quash. (Doc. 73).
Rule 45(d)(3) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court for the district where compliance
is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: ... subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(d)(3) (emphasis added). Here, the district court where compliance is required is in Los
1

Angeles, California. (Doc. 69-C). Because the Middle District of Florida is not the district where
compliance is required, the Motion to Quash is improperly filed in this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(3); Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-1455-J-39JBT, 2015
WL 12862918, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2015).
Additionally, “[a] motion to quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum may only be made
by the party to whom the subpoena is directed except where the party seeking to challenge the
subpoena has a personal right or privilege with respect to the subject matter requested in the
subpoena.” Bender v. Tropic Star Seafood, Inc., No. 4:07CV438-SPM/WCS, 2008 WL 2824450,
at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 21, 2008) (quoting Hertenstein v. Kimberly Home Health Care, Inc., 189
F.R.D. 620, 635 (D. Kan. 1999)); see also Stevenson v. Stanley Bostitch, Inc., 201 F.R.D. 551, 555
(N.D. Ga. 2001) (collecting cases) (“[I]t appears to be the general rule of the federal courts that a
party has standing to challenge a subpoena when she alleges a ‘personal right or privilege with
respect to the materials subpoenaed.’”). Here, Defendants have not alleged a personal right or
privilege with respect to the subject matter in the Subpoena. Thus, Defendants do not have
standing to challenge the Subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Quash

Untimely Notice of Taking Deposition of Dreamgirl Int’l (Doc. 69) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 27th day of February, 2017.

2