*1 This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motions:

In late June 2017, Plaintiff served subpoenas on SunTrust Bank (SunTrust Subpoena), TD Bank (TD Subpoena), and Wells Fargo Bank (Wells Fargo Subpoena) (collectively, the Subpoenas) seeking information related to specific bank accounts. Docs. 99 at 8-11; 100 at 8-11; 101 at 8-11.

The Court subsequently stayed discovery pending its ruling on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Docs. 42; 79. On October 20, 2017, the Court entered an order granting much of the relief sought in the motions to dismiss, granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, and lifting the stay of discovery. Doc. 98.[1] Thus, Plaintiff informed the third-party banks that the stay had been lifted, and requested the banks produce the information sought in the Subpoenas. Docs. 99 at 12; 100 at 12; 101 at 12.

On November 1, 2017, defendant Tiffany Walden (Defendant), in her individual capacity and as co-trustee of the John Walden Trust and as personal representative of the estate of John Walden, filed motions to quash the Subpoenas (Motions). Docs. 99; 100; 101.[2] Defendant essentially argues that: 1) the information sought in the Subpoenas is not relevant to any currently pending claim or defense because the original complaint had been dismissed, and Plaintiff has not filed the amended complaint; 2) Plaintiff has failed to provide any explanation or evidence demonstrating that it is entitled to discover 13 years of information from each of the accounts at issue; and 3) compliance with the Subpoenas should be delayed until the parties enter into a confidentiality agreement. Docs. 99 at 3-5; 100 at 3-5; 101 at 3-5.

On November 8, 2017, prior to Plaintiff filing a response to the Motions, the Court held a telephonic hearing on the Motions. The Court heard arguments from both parties, including several concessions concerning the scope of the Subpoenas. Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments at the hearing, the Court found it necessary for Plaintiff to file an omnibus response addressing the Motions.[3] Thus, the Court directed Plaintiff to file her response to the Motions on or before November 15, 2017, and permitted Defendant to file a reply on or before November 20, 2017. Doc. 106.

*2 The parties have made significant progress in resolving the disputes surrounding the Subpoenas, as evidenced by Plaintiff's response to the Motions and Defendant's reply. See Docs. 107; 110. The response and reply, for instance, reveal that Defendant has agreed to withdraw her objection to the Wells Fargo Subpoena. Docs. 107 at 2; 110 at 1. Thus, the motion to quash the Wells Fargo Subpoena is due to be denied as moot. The parties, however, continue to dispute the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas. Id.

The motions to quash the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas are due to be denied for two principle reasons. First, the Court finds that Defendant does not have standing to quash those subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, because she has not demonstrated that she, in any of her capacities, has a personal right or privilege in the records sought. See Docs. 99; 100; 107; see also Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (finding that a party has standing to challenge a subpoena to a non-party if the party alleges a personal right or privilege with respect to the subpoena). The Court, however, may, and does, construe the motions to quash the SunTrust and TD subpoenas as motions for protective orders. Cornett v. Lender Processing Servs., Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-233-J-32TEM, 2012 WL 5305990, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2012) (citing Auto-Owners, 231 F.R.D. at 429).

A protective order may be entered to protect a party or individual from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). A party moving for a protective order must show “good cause” exists for the court to issue such an order. Id. In addition to finding good cause, the court must also be satisfied that, on balance, the interests of the party seeking the protective order outweigh the interests of the opposing party. McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk Cty., 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989). Defendant has not made the necessary showing (i.e., good cause and balancing the parties’ interests) demonstrating that she is entitled to a protective order against the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas. Thus, the motions to quash the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas are due to be denied.

Second, the parties have apparently narrowed the dispute with respect to the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas. The parties, however, do not provide a clear picture of the extent of their agreements concerning the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas, and the evidence they provided in support of their filings (i.e., an email chain) does not provide any additional clarity. Thus, it is difficult for the Court to parse out what aspects of the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas are not disputed, what aspects are disputed, and what each side proposes in terms of the scope of the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas.[4] Therefore, to ensure the Court fully understands where each party stands, the Court will deny the motions to quash the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas. The parties are encouraged to continue their discussions in an effort to reach an agreement pertaining to the SunTrust and TD Subpoenas. To this end, Plaintiff should provide Defendant with updated subpoenas detailing what information she is seeking from SunTrust Bank and TD Bank. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement concerning the updated subpoenas, then Defendant may file a protective order detailing her objections to each subpoena.

*3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 22, 2017.