• Copy the reference
  • Tutorial video

    Order of the United States District Court Middle District of Florida

    [1].
    On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel non-party MTA Booking, Inc. (hereafter, MTA Booking)—an entity related to, but legally distinct from, Defendant Multitalent Agency, Inc.—to respond to a subpoena duces tecum served October 7, 2020 (hereafter, the subpoena). Doc. 41 (the Motion). According to the Motion, MTA Booking failed entirely to respond to the subpoena. However, the Motion failed to state the date for compliance, as apparently extended by Plaintiff. MTA Booking responded to the Motion, asserting that a response to the subpoena had been made, but stating vaguely that various "agents" had been unable to respond fully due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Doc. 42. Due to the deficiencies of both the Motion and the response, the Court set a hearing.
    [2].
    At the hearing, MTA Booking asserted that it had complied fully with the subpoena on the day prior to the hearing, i.e. May 5, 2020. MTA booking also stated that the agreed extension for that response was January 14, 2020; MTA booking claimed it had responded on that date and asserted no objections to the subpoena. According to MTA Booking, the May 5, 2020 response had been an additional, late production. However, Plaintiff disputed that MTA Booking made any response to the subpoena until after Plaintiff filed the Motion; i.e. that the May 5, 2020 response was the first response by MTA Booking. This issue remains in dispute. As such, the Court directed that, on or before May 8, 2020, MTA Booking shall file a notice either attaching any earlier response that MTA Booking made directly to the subpoena or, instead, a notice stating that no such response was made prior to May 5, 2020.1
    [3].
    Regardless, it appears that the Motion is now moot due to the recent response. If, after a review of the materials produced by MTA Booking and a good faith conferral by telephone pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), Plaintiff determines that it requires Court intervention in compelling a response to any particular request within the subpoena, Plaintiff may file a motion compliant with Local Rules 3.01 and 3.04.
    [4].
    The Motion (Doc. 41) is DENIED without prejudice as moot.

    ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 6, 2020.

    Subsequent citations of this document as a whole:
    Subsequent citations of this excerpt:
    Click on the text to select an element Click elsewhere to unselect an element
    Select a key word :
    1 /

    Instantly access the most relevant case law, treaties and doctrine.

    Start your Free Trial

    Already registered ?