Daddono v. Knight

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: May 2, 2022
• Docket: 8:21-cv-00315
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DREW DADDONO, as personal representative on behalf of the Estate of STEPHANIE MARIE MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:21-cv-315-WFJ-JSS

KURT A. HOFFMAN as SHERIFF OF SARASOTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (“Motion”) (Dkt. 131) and Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.’s Response (Dkt. 133). On May 2, 2022, the court conducted a hearing on the Motion. For the reasons stated at the hearing, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 131) is DENIED without prejudice for failing to demonstrate good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (“[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense”). Specifically, Plaintiff fails to show either undue burden or unreasonableness as it relates to the deposition notices. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429–30 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (holding that the party seeking a protective order has the burden of demonstrating good cause). Notwithstanding, as the parties have agreed, Plaintiff may serve separate notices of depositions pertaining to the deponents at issue. Those depositions shall be governed by the time limits provided by Rule 30(d)(1). 2. The parties are reminded of their obligations under Local Rule 3.01(g) to confer in a good-faith effort to resolve any further issues that might arise. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 2, 2022.

/ . eo JUEIE $. SNEED UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

-2-