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

Filing 92

ORDER denying Defendants' 91 Motion to Compel Non-Party Witness Appearance at Deposition. Please see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle on 8/4/2015. (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 WITNESS APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Non-Party
Witness Appearance at Deposition. (ECF No. 91). 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 July 21, 2015, Defendants served two subpoenas duces tecum for deposition on two
non-parties, Mr. Allan Clark and Mrs. Claudette Clark (the “Clarks”).

The subpoenas

commanded the Clarks to appear for deposition on July 24, 2015—only three days later. The
subpoenas further commanded the Clarks to compile and produce documents responsive to the
subpoenas within the same three-day window.

When the Clarks failed to appear for the

depositions, Defendants filed the instant Motion to compel their depositions and to recover
Defendants’ fees and costs associated with the motion and the missed depositions.
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). A party
does not fulfill this duty, however, when it serves a subpoena that commands a non-party to
appear for a deposition, to produce documents, and to prepare a privilege log, as necessary—all
within three days of service of the subpoena. Cf. 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. Defendants may re-serve subpoenas on the Clarks with sufficient notice to permit the
depositions to occur on or before the discovery deadline of August 15, 2015.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on August 4, 2015.

________________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2