*1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Anthony Hernandez's motion for an order requiring a non-party, Trooper M.D. Collins, to show cause for failing to comply with a subpoena. (Doc. 57). Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion is deficient for several reasons and, therefore, it is due to be denied.

This action arises from personal injuries Plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 16, 2021. Plaintiff claims that Trooper M.D. Collins was the official who arrived at the scene of the subject motor vehicle accident and prepared a traffic crash report of the accident. In efforts to obtain information and documentation pertaining to the accident, Plaintiff served Trooper M.D. Collins with a third-party subpoena duces tecum on August 13, 2024, that required him to appear for a videotaped deposition scheduled for September 17, 2024, and produce various documents at the scheduled deposition. Trooper M.D. Collins failed to appear at the deposition. As a result, Plaintiff filed this instant motion, requesting that the Court enter an Order to show cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 against Trooper M.D. Collins for his failure to appear at the scheduled deposition. (See Doc. 57, p. 2).

It is unclear from the motion what specific relief the Plaintiff requests under Rule 45. Rule 45 provides that a party may subpoena a non-party to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the non-party's possession, custody, or control for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii), (a)(1)(D). A non-party may be compelled to produce documents or permit an inspection by a subpoena duces tecum as provided in Rule 45. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c). The Court “may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g); see In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Comm. Of Jud. Council of Eleventh Cir., 783 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1986) (“If a witness disregards the subpoena and fails to comply without filing a timely motion to quash, the witness may be found in contempt of court, with no need for any further court order.”). “However, it would be rare for a court to use contempt sanctions without first ordering compliance with a subpoena.” Golden Krust Franchising, Inc. v. Clayborne, No. 8:20-MC-104-T-33SPF, 2020 WL 7260774, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2020) (internal citations omitted).

Here, other than a single passing citation to Rule 45 generally in the motion, Plaintiff makes no argument on whether and how Rule 45 should apply. Perhaps Plaintiff is asking the Court to hold Trooper M.D. Collins in contempt and sanction him for not complying with the subpoena, or perhaps he is requesting that the Court compel Trooper M.D. Collins to comply with the subpoena and, if he does not, revisit imposing contempt sanctions later.

It is also unclear whether Trooper M.D. Collins has produced any of the requested documents to Plaintiff or provided any response to the subpoena to date, as Plaintiff does not indicate such information in the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B), (e). Instead, Plaintiff's motion merely states that he “has been forced to file the instant motion and seek Court intervention” based solely on “Trooper M.D. Collins’ failure to appear at the videotaped deposition set for September 17, 2024.” (Doc. 57, p. 2.). The Court need not address Plaintiff's arguments because they are conclusory, vague, and unsupported. See Stanley v. City of Sanford, Fla., No. 6:20-cv-629-WWB-GJK, 2021 WL 6333059, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2021), aff'd, 83 F.4th 1333 (11th Cir. 2023) (“Conclusory, vague, and unsupported arguments are deemed waived and will not be considered by this Court.”); Center v. Sec'y, Dep't Homeland Sec., 895 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e have repeatedly explained that arguments briefed in the most cursory fashion are waived.”) (internal quotations omitted). Based on the foregoing, the Court lacks sufficient information to grant the requested relief.

*2 Accordingly, upon due consideration, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 57) is DENIED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on November 5, 2024.