DADDONO
v.
KNIGHT

M.D. Fla. | 2022-05-02
District Court, M.D. Florida (2022) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court

THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (“Motion”) (Dkt. 131) and Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.’s Response (Dkt. 133). On May 2, 2022, the court conducted a hearing on the Motion. For the reasons stated at the hearing, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 131) is DENIED without prejudice for failing to demonstrate good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (“[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense”). Specifically, Plaintiff fails to show either undue burden or unreasonableness as it relates to the deposition notices. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429–30 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (holding that the party seeking a protective order has the burden of demonstrating good cause). Notwithstanding, as the parties have agreed, Plaintiff may serve separate notices of depositions pertaining to the deponents at issue. Those depositions shall be governed by the time limits provided by Rule 30(d)(1). 2. The parties are reminded of their obligations under Local Rule 3.01(g) to confer in a good-faith effort to resolve any further issues that might arise. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 2, 2022.

/ . eo JUEIE $. SNEED

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • JWD Auto., Inc. v. DJM Advisory Grp. LLC (M.D. Fla. 2016)
  • Brant v. Palmer (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …rder to protect a party... from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The decision to enter a protective order is within the Court's discretion. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. 4 ---PAGE 5--- Case 3:13-cv-00412-MMH-SJH Document 190 Filed 06/25/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID 3447 Fla. 2005) (citing Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1548 (11th Cir. 1985)). But "[t]he burden is on the movant to show the n…
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Complete Care Ctrs., LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …:24-cv-00379-JSS-EJK Document 87 Filed 11/18/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID 2043 As a party, Defendant has standing to move for a protective order if the Subpoena to a non-party seeks irrelevant information. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005). Further, “[t]he decision to enter a protective order is within the court's discretion." (Id.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court, upon a showing of good cause, to “make any order which justice requires to pro…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw