THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TRIVIDIA HEALTH INC
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.
The court granted the Relator's motion for leave to serve subpoenas duces tecum, finding good cause for expedited discovery.
The Relator sought leave to serve subpoenas duces tecum before the parties had conferred as required by Rule 26(f). The case has been pending for over…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause Standard For Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
ex rel., PATRICIA CROCANO,
Plaintiff-Relator,
v. TRIVIDIA HEALTH INC.,
Defendant. _______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING RELATOR’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO SERVE SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Relator’s Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoenas Duces Tecum (“Motion”) [ECF No. 88], filed on February2, 2022.1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), a “party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . when authorized . . . by court order.” “Federal courts allow parties to conduct expedited discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference where the party establishes ‘good cause’ for such discovery.” Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 304 F.R.D. 672, 673 (S.D. Fla. 2015); see also FTC v. On Point Glob. LLC, No. 19-25046, 2020 WL 32996, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan.2, 2020) (“The Eleventh Circuit has not adopted a standard for allowing expedited discovery.
However, many district courts within the Eleventh Circuit have expressly used a general good cause standard when confronted with expedited discovery requests.” (collecting cases)). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id.
113 F. Supp. 3d 156, 162 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Courts are not limited to these factors, but the factors provide ‘guidelines for the exercise of the Court’s discretion.’”).
The Court finds these factors persuasive. And despite the absence of a request for preliminary injunctive relief, on balance, these five factors weigh in favor of Relator.2 As to the second factor, the breadth of the proposed discovery is narrow. Relator articulates a clearly defined set of claims data concerning specific products manufactured by Defendant over a discrete period. As to the third factor, Relator has good reason for seeking the data. This case has been pending for more than five years. The United States Government and Plaintiff States took their time before declining to intervene, one amended complaint has already been filed, and the case
has been transferred to this district from South Carolina and essentially rebooted. The Court has
Finally, as to the fifth factor, the unique timeline of this case renders Relator’s request reasonable.
Rule 26(d) authorizes discovery once the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the Rule 26(f) conference must occur at least twentyone days before a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b), which, in turn, is due “the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared.” Defendant was served on November 30, 2021, see [ECF No. 46], and counsel appeared for Defendant on December 21, 2021, see [ECF Nos. 49-51].
Thus, in the absence of contrary court orders, discovery in this case would have begun no later than January 31, 2022—before Relator refiled the instant Motion. Indeed, the requested discovery would be expedited only to the extent that the Rule 26(f) conference has been delayed. Because Relator has established good cause for expedited discovery, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Relator’s Motion [ECF No. 88] is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 1st day of March, 2022.