Palm Beach Vacation Owners Association, Inc. v. Escapes!, Inc. et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying as moot 1 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 7/31/2013. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-MC-105-FDW-DCK
PALM BEACH VACATION OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
ESCAPES!, INC., et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Escapes Respondents’ Objections To
Non-Party Subpoenas And Motion To Quash” (Document No. 1) filed July 3, 2013, and
“Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Withdrawal Of Subpoena” (Document Nos. 3, 4) filed July 19, 2013. This
matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and
immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the pending motion, the record,
and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion as moot.
The pending motion filed by Escapes!, Inc. et al. (“Respondents”) seeks to quash nonparty subpoenas issued to Festiva Development Group, LLC and Festiva Hospitality Group, Inc.
by the Palm Beach Vacation Owner’s Association (“Petitioner”). (Document No. 1). It appears
that the Petitioner and Respondent are involved in an action before the American Arbitration
Association, and/or the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
(Document Nos. 2, 2-1). The subpoenas in question, issued by this Court, demanded the
production of certain documents at a P.O. Box in Mobile, Alabama on July 5, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.
(Document No. 2-1).

Respondents’ “…Motion To Quash” and “Brief In Support…” assert, inter alia, that the
subpoenas did not provide proper notice, that the documents sought are privileged and/or
irrelevant, and that the descriptions of the documents sought are vague, ambiguous and overly
broad. (Document Nos. 1, 2). Moreover, the undersigned notes that it is unclear that the
subpoenas were issued by the proper court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(2) (“[a] subpoena must issue
as follows . . . for production or inspection, . . . from the court for the district where the
production or inspection is to be made”).
On July 19, 2013, Petitioner filed its “…Notice Of Withdrawal Of Subpoena” (Document
Nos. 3, 4).

As such, Petitioner has voluntarily withdrawn the subpoenas in question, and

apparently concedes that the subpoenas were issued without adequate notice under Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(b)(1). Id. To date, Respondents have declined to file a response to Petitioner’s “…Notice Of
Withdrawal Of Subpoena.”
Under these circumstances, the undersigned is persuaded that the pending motion to
quash is moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Escapes Respondents’ Objections To NonParty Subpoenas And Motion To Quash” (Document No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Signed: July 31, 2013

2