*1 Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Appearance at Forthcoming Deposition and for Sanctions and a Show Cause Hearing (Doc. 23). Non-party Nora Jain opposes the motion (Doc. 28). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges Defendants breached a contract between the parties pertaining to the creation and coding of a members-only dating app, which Plaintiff describes as “an online platform where users can view nearby users and connect with them via chat/video call[ ]” (Doc. 1 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff also alleges causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (Id.).

Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order relating to a non-disclosure agreement between the parties (Doc. 12), which the Court denied, finding Plaintiff had not demonstrated irreparable harm (Doc. 13). Then, Plaintiff moved for leave to serve Click Labs, Inc.’s director, non-party Ms. Jain, with a Rule 45 subpoena prior to the parties conducting a case management conference under Rule 26(f) (Doc. 18). Plaintiff contended it needed to subpoena records from Ms. Jain because “the addresses for Defendants Samar Singla and Click-labs.com were determined to be undeliverable.” (Doc. 18-1 at 3). Plaintiff stated it “seeks only the name, email address mailing address, and general business organization for the Defendants, of which Nora Jain should have information on as she is listed as a director of the company.” (Id.).

Plaintiff has served Click Labs, Inc., but its summonses were returned unexecuted as to Defendants Singla and Click-labs.com (Docs. 14-17). Considering this, the Court granted Plaintiff's first motion for early discovery in an Endorsed Order (Doc. 19). The next day, Plaintiff filed a return of service, indicating it had served Ms. Jain with a Rule 45 subpoena to produce documents that required her to comply by August 2, 2022 as well as other case filings (Doc. 20). Attached to Plaintiff's return of service was a Form AO88B/Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Doc. 20-1) that commanded Ms. Jain to produce, by August 2, 2022, “[a]ll information and things relating to the physical location of Mr. Samar Singla; information and things relating to the business operations of Click Labs, Inc.; other matters relating to the Complaint (attached herewith).” (Id.). The place of compliance was an Orlando court reporter's office (Id.).

Meanwhile, Plaintiff filed a second motion for early discovery (Doc. 21), asking the Court for leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Defendants’ financial institution. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for lack of good cause and directed the Clerk to strike it from the docket (Doc. 22). In numerous places, Plaintiff's motion and attachments listed Defendants’ full bank account number, which is impermissible under Rule 5.2(a) (Id.). Then, Defendant Click Labs, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 24). The district judge referred Defendant's motion to the undersigned and, in an Endorsed Order, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for a 30-day extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 32). The Court extended Plaintiff's response deadline by two weeks but stated: “Plaintiff may not seek discovery at this time.” (Id.).

*2 At this juncture, Plaintiff alleges Ms. Jain did not appear for deposition on August 2, 2022, and it moves for the Court to compel her to comply with its Rule 45 subpoena and award it attorney's fees and costs (Doc. 23). According to Plaintiff, it has a “tentative agreement” with Ms. Jain to re-depose her on August 31, 2022 (Doc. 23 at 2). Attached to Plaintiff's motion is a certificate of non-appearance confirming Ms. Jain did not appear for deposition on August 2, 2022; an email between Plaintiff and Ms. Jain's counsel; and Plaintiff's counsel's billing summary and hotel and flight invoices for August 2, 2022 (he flew to Orlando from Washington, D.C. and stayed one night) (Doc. 23-1 – 23-5). Ms. Jain opposes the motion, claiming Plaintiff did not serve her with either a subpoena for deposition or a valid subpoena for documents but pointing out she nonetheless produced responsive documents by the August 2, 2022 deadline (Doc. 28).

Plaintiff's motion is denied. First, the subpoena (or at least the only one the Court can locate on the docket, see Doc. 20-1) does not comply with Rule 45, which requires a subpoena to state, among other things, “the court from which it is issued;” and to “set out the text of Rule 45(d) and (e).” Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(i) & (iv). Plaintiff's subpoena does neither (Doc. 20-1). The top of Plaintiff's Form AO88B reads, “United States District Court for the[,]” but Plaintiff left the issuing court blank (Id.). Although the form states that the text of Rule 45 is attached, it is not (Id.). And the subpoena does not command Ms. Jain to attend and testify; it commands her to produce documents (Id.). Even if Plaintiff intended to subpoena Ms. Jain to appear for a deposition as well as to produce documents (as permitted by Rule 45(a)(1)(C)), the rule requires Plaintiff to “tender[ ] the fees for one day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law[,]” which it did not do. Rule 45(b)(1).

Second, the Court authorized Plaintiff to seek early discovery from Ms. Jain for the limited purpose of identifying and locating Defendants (see Doc. 18-1 at 3), not for an open-ended investigation into Defendants’ business operations at this early litigation stage. Plaintiff's request that Ms. Jain produce “information and things relating to the business operations of Click Labs, Inc.” and “other matters relating to the Complaint” (Doc. 20-1) is clearly outside the scope of the discovery Plaintiff originally requested and the Court authorized (see Doc. 18-1 at 3; Doc. 19).

Finally, the district judge subsequently ruled that “Plaintiff may not seek discovery at this time.” (Doc. 32). Consequently, the undersigned will not permit Plaintiff to seek discovery from Ms. Jain that the Court has disallowed.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Appearance at Forthcoming Deposition and for Sanctions and a Show Cause Hearing (Doc. 23) is DENIED.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, August 31, 2022.