Danesh Noshirvan v. Jennifer Couture, Ralph Garramone M.D., Ralph Garramone M.D. P.A. d/b/a Garramone Plastic Surgery, Central Park of Southwest Florida, LLC, OMG Realty, LLC, The Law Office of Patrick Trainor Esq, LLC d/b/a The Law Office of Patrick Trainor, Patrick Trainor, an individual, and Anti-Doxing League Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

DANESH NOSHIRVAN, an individual

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:23-cv-01218-JES-DNF

JENNIFER COUTURE, an individual; RALPH GARRAMONE M.D., an individual; RALPH GARRAMONE M.D. P.A. d/b/a GARRAMONE PLASTIC SURGERY; CENTRAL PARK OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, LLC; OMG REALTY, LLC; THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK TRAINOR ESQ, LLC d/b/a THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK TRAINOR; PATRICK TRAINOR, an individual; and ANTI-DOXING LEAGUE INC.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on review of Counter- Defendant Danesh Noshirvan’s (“Noshirvan”) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Quash Subpoena to Naples Security Solutions, LLC and Michael J. Woulas, LMFT (Doc. 1 #654) filed on April 29, 2026. Counter-Plaintiffs, Ralph

1 Noshirvan’s properly-titled motion is an objection to the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. #653) and is therefore reviewed by Garramone, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Garramone Plastic Surgery, Jennifer Couture, and Ralph Garramone, filed their Response in Opposition (Doc. #660) on May 13, 2026. For the reasons set forth below,

Noshirvan’s objections are overruled. Non-dispositive orders from a magistrate judge are reviewed for clear error. The district court must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515, 1523 (11th Cir. 1997)(citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier’s April 28, 2026 Order (Doc. #653) found that District Court Judge John E. Steele’s March

6, 2026 Order limited Noshirvan’s discovery to requests for production of documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. (Doc. #653, p. 4.) Noshirvan raises many of the same arguments — e.g., the 1970 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45 support Noshirvan’s reading — that Magistrate Judge Frazier flatly

the district court judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). rejected. Upon reviewing Magistrate Judge Frazier’s Order, the Court cannot say it was clearly erroneous. The plain language of the Judge Steele’s Order triggers Rule 34 and only requests for production of documents from parties. (Doc. #630.) Therefore, Noshirvan’s objections are overruled. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED : Counter-Defendant Danesh Noshirvan’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion to Quash Subpoena to Naples Security Solutions, LLC and Michael J. Woulas, LMFT (Doc. #654) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 14th day of May 2026.

/ —z” EP JQGHN E. STEELE SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: Parties of record