Hunting v. Capital One Bank, N.A.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied without prejudice Plaintiff Alexander Hunting’s unopposed motion to compel document production from a non-party. The Court identified deficiencies concerning word limits, conferral, service on the non-party, and the appropriate court for enforcing the subpoena.

Holdings

1. The motion to compel was procedurally deficient and could not be granted because it failed to comply with the Standing Order on Discovery Motions and applicable procedural requirements.
2. A motion to compel compliance with a nonparty subpoena must be filed in the court where compliance is required; because the subpoena identified Hollywood, Florida, as the place of compliance, the court was not satisfied that filing in the Middle District of Florida was proper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the motion to compel production from a nonparty complied with the Standing Order on Discovery Motions and applicable Local Rules.
2. Whether the motion demonstrated the required conferral with the nonparty.
3. Whether the motion demonstrated service on the nonparty as required for a motion concerning a subpoena.
4. Whether the motion was filed in the court where compliance with the subpoena was required.

Disposition

other