Saunders v. City of Lakeland, Florida

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

CHARMAINE SAUNDERS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:22-cv-2482-MSS-JSS

CITY OF LAKELAND, FLORIDA,

LAKELAND POLICE

DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM MUTZ,

RUBEN GARCIA and CHRISTINA

STEWART,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

Non-party Tania Rivas of Rivas Law Group LLC filed an objection to Plaintiff’s

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena and asks the court to sustain her

objection in this matter and “all pending cases relating to the same facts giving rise to

this action[.]” (Motion, Dkt. 27.) The court construes Non-party Rivas’s Motion as

a motion to quash the subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3).1

Non-party Rivas asserts that the subpoena’s request is “vague, overbroad, seeks the

production of materials protected by [the] attorney client privilege, materials protected

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B), a “person commanded to produce

documents or tangible things . . . may serve on the party [] designated in the subpoena a written

objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the

premises—or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.” Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court for the district where

compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that” among other things, “subjects a person

to undue burden.”

by attorney work product, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable

evidence in this cause.” (Id. at 1.) Non-party Rivas further asserts that “[a]ll

documents concerning [P]laintiff were previously provided to [P]laintiff, at her

request, on or about July 15, 2022.” (Id.) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an

opposition to the Motion and asserts that the documents sought are relevant to her

claims and seeks an order requiring compliance with the subpoena as clarified in

Plaintiff’s opposition. (Dkt. 34.) Upon consideration, Non-party Rivas’s construed

Motion to Quash the Nonparty Subpoena (Dkt. 27) is granted in part.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Courts maintain broad discretion to regulate discovery. Patterson v. U.S. Postal

Serv., 901 F.2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990); Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc.,

662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011). A court must quash or modify a Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45 subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no

exception or waiver applies; or subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(d)(3)(A)(iii)–(iv). Discovery sought through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena is

subject to the same scope of permissible discovery as under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. See

Woods v. On Baldwin Pond, LLC, No. 6:13-cv-726-Orl-19DAB, 2014 WL 12625078, at

*1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2014); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231

F.R.D. 426, 429–30 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) limits the scope of permissible discovery

to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and

proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Washington v. Brown

& Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Discovery should

be tailored to the issues involved in the particular case.”). In determining the

permissible scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1), courts consider, among other

things, “the parties’ relative access to relevant information, . . . the importance of the

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Further, Rule

26(b)(2)(C) requires a court to limit discovery if “the discovery sought is unreasonably

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive . . . or [] the proposed discovery is

outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(2)(C).

ANALYSIS

Upon consideration, the court finds that Plaintiff’s subpoena imposes an undue

burden on Non-party Rivas as it seeks information beyond the permissible scope of

discovery pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1). The subpoena contains a single request seeking:

“[a]ny and all documents digital or otherwise but not limited to all communications,

notes, reports, recordings with [Rivas] and any 3rd parties including law enforcement,

insurance companies, government agencies, medical facilities[.]” (Dkt. 27 at 3.) The

subpoena’s request does not contain any limitation by time, subject matter, document

custodian, or any other limitation tailored to seek information relevant and

proportional to Plaintiff’s case. Thus, the subpoena’s request, as written, is overbroad

and fails to limit the requested discovery to that permitted by the rules. See, e.g., Benz

v. Crowley Logistics, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-728-J-25MCR, 2016 WL 11587289, at *3 (M.D.

Fla. June 17, 2016) (concluding plaintiff had not met her initial burden of showing

how the information sought is relevant to her claims); Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. v.

Castle Law Group, P.C., No. 6:17-cv-1044-Orl-31DCI, 2018 WL 3390254, at *2 (M.D.

Fla. Feb. 21, 2018) (finding that certain requests are “overly broad on their face, and

fail to survive Rule 26(b) scrutiny, in that they are not proportional to the needs of this

case, given the relevance of the requested discovery” and further noting that requests

for “‘all documents’ at the outset of each request lacks proportionality and arguably

captures a host of documents and communications that would have little to no

relevance to this case”). The subpoena therefore imposes an undue burden on Non-

party Rivas and must be quashed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d).

See Hansen v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 6:17-cv-1559-Orl-40GJK, 2018 WL 7361084, at *2

(M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2018) (“court may find that a subpoena presents an undue burden

when the subpoena is facially overbroad”) (quoting Trigeant Ltd. v. Petroleos De Venez.,

S.A., No. 08-80584-CIV, 2009 WL 10668731, at *4 n.9 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2009)).

Accordingly,

1. Non-party Tania L. Rivas’s Objection and construed Motion to Quash

Non-party Subpoena (Dkt. 27) is GRANTED in part.

2. Non-party Rivas’s request that the court sustain her objection in “all

pending cases relating to the same facts giving rise to this action” is

denied.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 1, 2023.

‘ ye

JUEIE $. SNEED

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Party

-5-