Peace United Ltd. v. 1906 Collins LLC ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case Number: 17-21881-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA PEACE UNITED, LTD., Plaintiff, Vs. 1906 COLLINS, LLC and MATHIEU MASSA, Defendants, / ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff and Nonparties’ Motion to Quash Trial Subpoenas and Motion for Protective Order (“Motion to Quash”). (ECF No. 401). Plaintiff and nonparties Peter Smith and Tamara Crespo (““Nonparties”) move to quash the Nonparties trial subpoenas or for the Court to enter a protective order. (/d. at 1). Plaintiffand the Nonparties argue that the Nonparties, who are accountants, “have not been deposed or asked to provide any other pretrial discovery, [] lack any knowledge of any issue that is framed by the pleadings in this case, and whose trial testimony is precluded by this Court’s prior Orders, including its Order in Limine.” (id.). Plaintiff and the Nonparties anticipate that Defendants will examine the Nonparties in an “attempt to establish the existence of a purported conspiracy between Plaintiff's principal and Mr. Ridard[.]” (Ud. at 1-2). “The decision whether to quash a subpoena is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3).” ML Healthcare Servs., LLC y. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 881 F.3d 1293, 1306 (11th Cir. 2018). “That rule provides that a district court must quash a subpoena that: ‘(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.’” Jd. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)). Neither Plaintiff nor the Nonparties argue that any of the reasons to quash a subpoena exist here. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion to Quash. Plaintiff is free to object to the Nonparties testimony at trial, as appropriate. After careful consideration, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Quash, (ECF No. 401), is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this day of July, 2022. UNITRD STATES DISTRICIJUDGE Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Becerra All Counsel of Record