Chiropractic v. Dental Equities, LLC
Chiropractic v. Dental Equities, LLC
2023 WL 8437705 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
July 23, 2023
Mizell, Nicholas P., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court granted a motion to compel compliance with a Rule 45 subpoena to non-party Cox Communications, Inc. as Cox failed to make a timely objection to the subpoena and therefore waived any objections it may have had. The court ordered Cox to comply with the subpoena within fourteen days or face potential sanctions.
Scoma CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., William P. Gress, and Florence Mussat M.D., S.C., Plaintiffs,
v.
DENTAL EQUITIES, LLC, John Does 1-10, and Mastercard International Incorporated, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiff
Peer Equities, llc, Third Party Defendant
v.
DENTAL EQUITIES, LLC, John Does 1-10, and Mastercard International Incorporated, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiff
Peer Equities, llc, Third Party Defendant
2:16-cv-41-JLB-NPM
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
Signed July 23, 2023
Counsel
Glenn L. Hara, Brian J. Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly, Wallace C. Solberg, Anderson & Wanca, Rolling Meadows, IL, Curtis Charles Warner, Corning, NY, Daniel A. Edelman, Heather A. Kolbus, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Chicago, IL, Roy W. Foxall, Law Office of Roy W. Foxall, PA, Ft Myers, FL, for Plaintiffs.Christopher G. Karagheuzoff, Jonathan Montcalm, Dorsey and Whitney, New York, NY, Gabriel Matthew Hartsell, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Reginald John Clyne, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, PA, Miami, FL, for Third Party Plaintiff.
Patricia A. Gorham, Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant. First Arkansas Bank & Trust.
Christopher G. Karagheuzoff, Jonathan Montcalm, Dorsey and Whitney, New York, NY, Caitlin L.D. Hull, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Gabriel Matthew Hartsell, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Michelle Diaz Cofino, Reginald John Clyne, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant. Mastercard International Incorporated.
Mizell, Nicholas P., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with a Rule 45 subpoena to non-party Cox Communications, Inc. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants the motion.
A non-party has the earlier of the time specified for compliance or fourteen days after the subpoena is served to make an objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). Generally, when a party or non-party fails to timely object to “interrogatories, production requests, or other discovery efforts, the objections are deemed waived ... even [if] a party had an objection to make.” Bailey Indus., Inc. v. CLJP, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 662, 668 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (internal citations omitted) (finding non-party waived an objection to invoice request when it failed to property object in a timely manner); see also Rollins v. Banker Lopez & Gassler, No. 8:19-cv-2336-T-33SPF, 2020 WL 1939396, *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2020) (“[F]ailure to make timely objections to the discovery waives those objections.”); Middle District Discovery § III(A)(6) (February 1, 2021) (“Absent compelling circumstances, failure to assert an objection to a request for production within the time allowed for responding constitutes a waiver and will preclude a party from asserting the objection in response to a motion to compel.”).
Plaintiffs served Cox with the subpoena on May 17, 2022. Plaintiffs attempted to contact Cox regarding the subpoena for months, and in September, Cox acknowledged the subpoena and stated that it would respond within twenty business days. (Doc. 229-6). Cox later represented that it would respond by October 18, 2022. (Doc. 229 at 4). But as of the date Plaintiffs filed their motion, Cox has yet to respond. Cox never objected to the subpoena under Rule 45(d)(2)(B). And Plaintiffs informed Cox of this motion to compel (Doc. 229-10), but no opposition was filed.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Doc. 229) is granted. If Cox has not already complied with the subpoena, Plaintiffs must immediately deliver this order to Cox, and within fourteen days thereafter, Cox must provide the information requested in the subpoena. Failure to comply with this order may subject Cox to sanctions.
ORDERED on July 23, 2023.