In re: Application of Horacio Medina

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Respondent Ivan Freites’ motion for reconsideration of a prior paperless order denying his motion to strike a deposition-related letter and seek a negative inference. The Court held that the medical appointment and service-method arguments did not affect whether the letter should be stricken, and that the deposition date had also passed.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was not warranted because Respondent did not identify an intervening change in controlling law, materially new evidence, or clear error or manifest injustice that would alter the prior ruling.
2. A letter attempting to reschedule a deposition without court intervention is not a subpoena, and its service need not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reconsideration was warranted based on alleged docketing delay, medical evidence, or evidence concerning the method of delivery of a deposition-scheduling letter.
2. Whether a letter attempting to reschedule a deposition, as opposed to a subpoena, had to be served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.
3. Whether the challenged letter could be stricken or support a negative inference based on the alleged failure to send it by certified mail.

Disposition

other