Edwards et al v. Armor Correctional Health Services Inc. et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying Defendants' 100 Motion to Compel Non-Party Witnesses' Appearance at Deposition. Please see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle on 8/17/2015. (ms01)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-CV-61577-BLOOM/VALLE
CLEANIEL EDWARDS, as personal
representative of the estate of
Raleigh Priester, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
NON-PARTY WITNESSES’ APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Non-Party
Witnesses’ Appearance at Deposition (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 100). The Court has reviewed
the Motion, the applicable law, and is otherwise duly advised in the premises. For the reasons
set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
On August 10, 2015, Defendants served two subpoenas duces tecum for deposition on
two non-parties: (1) Tanveer Sobhan, M.D.; and (2) the records custodian of University Hospital
and Medical Center. See (ECF No. 100-1 at 1-2). The subpoenas commanded the non-parties to
appear for deposition on August 13, 2015—only three days later. (ECF No. 100 at 2). When the
non-parties failed to appear for the depositions, Defendants filed the instant Motion to compel
their depositions and to recover Defendants’ attorney’s fees and costs associated with the Motion
and the missed depositions. Id. at 4.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1), a litigant serving a subpoena “must take

reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena.” The Court, in turn, “must enforce this duty[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). As
Defendants well know, a party does not fulfill this duty when it serves a subpoena that
commands a non-party to appear for a deposition on three days’ notice. See (ECF No. 92)
(denying Defendants’ motion to other compel non-parties to respond to subpoenas duces tecum
on three days’ notice); see also Subair Sys., LLC v. Precisionaire Sys., Inc., No. 08–60570–CIV,
2008 WL 1914876, at *2 n.4 (S.D. Fla. Apr.26, 2008) (finding that 10 days’ notice of a
deposition “could be deemed ‘reasonable’” under Rule 45).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on August 17, 2015.

________________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
United States District Judge Beth Bloom
All Counsel of Record

2