CHARLERY
v.
UNITED STATES

M.D. Fla. | 2024-10-24
No. 6:18-cv-920-Orl
2024 FFL 26915 District Court, M.D. Florida (2024)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In a Federal Tort Claims Act motor vehicle accident suit, the district court granted the defendant's unopposed motion to compel discovery from a third-party medical provider (the plaintiff's primary care physician) that had failed to respond to a Rule 45 subpoena.


Holding

The motion to compel was granted. The court ordered Orlando Family Medical Center to produce all documents responsive to the subpoena by November 7, 2024, deemed all non-privilege objections waived, and warned that failure to comply could result in contempt proceedings and sanctions.


Headnotes

[1] A motion to compel discovery from a third party may be granted when the third party fails to respond to a subpoena and the opposing party does not object.

[2] Objections to a subpoena, other than those based on privilege, are deemed waived by a third party's failure to respond.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Any objections to the Subpoena, other than those based on privilege, are deemed waived.”

Establishes that the court waived all non-privilege objections due to the third party's failure to timely respond to the subpoena.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries from a motor vehicle accident involving a U.S. Postal Se…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

This cause comes before the Court on the Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Compel Discovery from a Third Party (the “Motion”) (Doc. 24), filed September 24, 2024. Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion. The third-party has not responded to the Motion, and the time for doing so has passed. Local Rule 3.01(c). Upon review, the Motion is due to be granted. This is a suit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act regarding a motor vehicle accident that occurred between Plaintiff and Defendant's mail delivery vehicle. (Doc. 1.) Defendant now moves for an order compelling Plaintiff's primary care physician, Orlando Family Medical Center (“OFMC”), to produce information contained in the Rule 45 Notice and Subpoena (the “Subpoena”) (Docs. 24-5; 33-1), served June 28, 2024. (Docs. 24.) [fn 1] Defendant has properly served OFMC with the Subpoena by

registered mail and email. (Docs. 24-2, 24-3, 24-4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). OFMC has not responded to the Subpoena. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Compel Discovery from a Third Party (Doc. 24) is GRANTED as follows: 1. Orlando Family Medical Center shall produce documents responsive to the Subpoena to Defendant on or before November 7, 2024. 2. Any objections to the Subpoena, other than those based on privilege, are deemed waived. Gulati v. Ormond Beach Hosp., LLC, No. 6:18-cv-920-Orl- 37TBS, 2018 WL 7372080, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2018). 3. Further failure by Orlando Family Medical Center to timely respond to the Subpoena could result in contempt proceedings and sanctions against the entity or person failing to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). 4. The United States is DIRECTED to serve this Order on Orlando Family Medical Center by registered mail and email. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 24, 2024. EMBRY J. KIDD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[*2]

[fn 1]: OFMC is located in Orlando, Florida and the place of compliance is also Orlando, Florida. Therefore, this Motion is properly before the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw