*1 This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. No. 91); Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint (Dkt. No. 92) and Plaintiffs’ response in opposition thereto (Dkt. No. 104); Defendant's Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas and for Sanctions Including Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 100) and Plaintiffs’ response in opposition thereto (Dkt. No. 108); Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take More Than 10 Depositions (Dkt. No. 105) and Defendant's response in opposition thereto (Dkt. No. 112); and Defendant's Motion to Compel Cin-Q, Inc., to Produce Documents in Response to Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents (Dkt. No. 115). A hearing was held on these motions on April 7, 2014.

With regard to Defendant's Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas (Dkt. No. 100), although the Court finds that some of the requests contained in third-party subpoenas issued by Plaintiffs are overbroad and seek irrelevant information, an objection by Defendant based on overbreadth or relevancy is insufficient grounds for this Court to quash the subpoenas. See Nathai v. Fla. Detroit Diesel-Allison, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-1-J-20HTS, 2009 WL 2424570, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2009) (“A party ordinarily does not have standing to quash a subpoena served on a third party unless a personal right or privilege as to the documents being sought is asserted.”). Furthermore, as to whether Defendant was provided timely notice of the issuance of the third-party subpoenas, the Court finds that notice was appropriately given.

During the hearing, Defendant additionally requested that the Court revisit its prior decision with respect to Defendant's motion to bifurcate.[1] Namely, Defendant again requested that the Court bifurcate discovery and only permit discovery on the issue of vicarious liability to go forward. Notwithstanding that this request was not raised in any of the pleadings, the Court finds it appropriate to bifurcate discovery and stay discovery on all issues except that of vicarious liability.[2] Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party may “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Nevertheless, Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) also provides a mechanism by which the Court can limit the frequency and extent of discovery if “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), a court may separate consideration of any claim or issue. In determining whether an issue warrants bifurcation, a court should consider the convenience of bifurcation, judicial economy, and the risk of prejudice.” McQueen v. Morgan, No. 3:10cv85/MCR/MD, 2010 WL 4595718, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2010). A district court has broad discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate under the given circumstances. Dzafic v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 8:08-cv-0026-T-24EAJ, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2008); see also Harrington v. Cleburne Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 251 F.3d 935, 938 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating that Rule 42(b) “confers broad discretion on the district court in this area, permitting bifurcation merely ‘in furtherance of convenience’ ”). Here, bifurcation is warranted because the parties are conducting considerable discovery as to the class certification issue, resulting in substantial expense to the parties, yet the class certification issue overlaps minimally with the vicarious liability issue. The Court has already agreed to bifurcate consideration of the liability and class certification issues, and in the event the case is resolved on the vicarious liability issue, the parties would have expended a significant amount of resources pursuing discovery that has become irrelevant. Moreover, bifurcation of discovery will result in the conservation of judicial resources in this case where the parties have struggled to resolve discovery disputes amongst themselves. Consequently, the Court finds that bifurcation of discovery and a stay of all discovery except that related to the issue of vicarious liability is justified in the name of efficiency and convenience.

*2 Last, as to Defendant's Motion to Compel Cin-Q, Inc., to Produce Documents in Response to Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents (Dkt. No. 115), the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to the documents requested in requests for production one through three; however, as to requests one and two, the requests should be limited to the time period between July 2009 and September 2009. In light of the stay of discovery, Defendant's remaining requests for production are now moot.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and the reasons stated at the hearing, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. No. 91) is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its amended affirmative defenses with the Court within five (5) days of the date of the hearing.

2. Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint (Dkt. No. 92) is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its third-party complaint within five (5) days of the date of the hearing.

3. Defendant's Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas and for Sanctions Including Attorney's Fees (Dkt. No. 100) is DENIED.

4. Defendant's oral Motion to Bifurcate Discovery is GRANTED. All discovery in this matter is stayed with the exception of the letters rogatory previously issued by this Court and any discovery relating to the issue of vicarious liability. The parties are directed to meet and confer within five (5) days of the date of the hearing to schedule the remaining discovery as to vicarious liability and to agree to a briefing schedule on the issue of vicarious liability, which the parties shall file with the Court on or before April 14, 2014.

5. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take More Than 10 Depositions (Dkt. No. 105) is DENIED AS MOOT in light of this Court's decision to stay discovery.

6. Defendant's Motion to Compel Cin-Q, Inc., to Produce Documents in Response to Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents (Dkt. No. 115) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as detailed above.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 8th day of April, 2014.