GHAHAN, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PALM STEAK HOUSE, LLC, et al., Defendants Case No. 12-cv-80762-MIDDLEBROOKS United States District Court, S.D. Florida Entered on FLSD Docket November 23, 2016 Middlebrooks, Donald M., United States District Judge ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS *1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena (DE 536), Plaintiff Ghahan, LLC's (“Ghahan”) Motion for Protective Order (DE 538), and Steve Roumaya's Motion for Protective Order (DE 539). On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas (DE 547), to which Defendants replied on November 18, 2016 (DE 548). Defendants responded to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (DE 544) and Roumaya's Motion for Protective Order (DE 543) on November 15, 2016. For the reasons stated below, the Motions are denied. I. Background On September, 30, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit remanded this case “for the limited purpose of making a factual determination as to whether diversity jurisdiction exists in this case and to permit further proceedings to address diversity jurisdiction deficiencies, if deemed necessary by the district court.” (DE 512). Accordingly, on October 20, 2016, the Court ordered additional discovery and briefing on the jurisdictional issue. (DE 525). The Parties have filed several motions disputing the scope of authorized discovery, and moving to quash production requests and subpoenas. II. Scope of Discovery The purpose of discovery, as identified in the Eleventh Circuit's Amended Jurisdictional Question, filed on May 4, 2016, is to identify “the citizenships of Ghahan, LLC, Palm Steak House, LLC, Suzanne Farese, Thomas Farese, and Congress Plaza, LLC as necessary to establish the district court's subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance.” Because the Court may not have had jurisdiction to dismiss the claims against Thomas Farese, Suzanne Farese, and Congress Plaza, they are Parties to this action on limited remand. However, the Parties may also serve subpoenas on non-parties. See U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 79 (1988) (reaffirming “the inherent and legitimate authority of the court to issue process and other binding orders, including orders of discovery directed to nonparty witnesses, as necessary for the court to determine and rule upon its own jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over the subject matter.”). For guidance on where the record is deficient, the Parties should look to the Court's August 30, 2016 Order on Motion to Vacate. (DE 504). III. Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas Defendants move to quash or modify Plaintiff's Notices and Subpoenas for Deposition Duces Tecum for Barry Roderman, David Goldstein, Congress Plaza, Thomas Farese, Suzanne Farese, and Marc Scott. First, Defendants argue that the Court is not authorized to issue subpoenas on non-parties. However, in their Reply, Defendants withdraw this argument in light of U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 79 (1988). Accordingly, this issue is moot. Second, Defendants object that the production requests are unduly burdensome and seek documents that are irrelevant or duplicative. Defendants have not identified which requests are unduly burdensome, and Plaintiff has argued that the information sought, such as voter registration cards, is relevant to citizenship. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ blanket motion to quash all production requests and subpoenas. The Court directs Defendants to comply with Plaintiff's production requests where feasible, and otherwise, to identify the subpart of the production request to which they object and to state the grounds for the objection with specificity, pursuant to S. D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1(e). If the Parties cannot resolve their dispute, they may file specific objections with the Court, which should also identify the subpart of the request and the grounds for the objection with specificity, pursuant to S. D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1(g). *2 Similarly, Defendants object that the subpoenas of Barry Roderman and David Goldstein seek privileged information, but they do not identify the nature of the information or of the privilege with specificity. In their Reply, Defendants indicate that they intend to resolve the privilege dispute with Plaintiff, for which the Court commends the Parties. Accordingly, this issue is moot. In the future, the Parties should resolve issues regarding privilege in compliance with the procedures laid out in S. D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1(e)(3). Third, Defendants object to the service of subpoenas on Thomas and Suzanne Farese because witness fees were not tendered as required by Rule 45(b)(1). The Parties dispute whether Plaintiff has tendered fees to Thomas Farese and Suzanne Farese, via their attorney. However, because Thomas and Suzanne Farese are Parties on limited remand, as discussed above, Rule 45(b)(1) does not apply, and therefore Defendants’ Motion is denied on this basis. In conclusion, Defendants’ Motion to Quash is denied. IV. Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Plaintiff objects to the location and date of PSH's Notice of Deposition for Plaintiff's corporate representative. Specifically, PSH scheduled the deposition in Fort Lauderdale, FL on November 29, 2016, and Plaintiff objects on the grounds that its principal place of business is Ohio and that Plaintiff has already scheduled two discovery depositions for November 29, 2016. Based on PSH's Response, it appears that both Parties agree to a telephonic or video-conference deposition. Therefore, this issue is moot. As to who should pay for the deposition, the Court encourages the Parties to compromise on this matter as well. Finally, it is unclear from PSH's Response whether the date of the deposition is still disputed. If the Parties cannot agree on a date, they may file another motion, and the Court will pick an arbitrary date. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is denied as moot. V. Non-Party Steve Roumaya's Motion for Protective Order PSH has withdrawn its Notice of Deposition, and accordingly Roumaya's Motion for a Protective Order is denied as moot. *** The Court suggests that the Parties make every effort to resolve their disagreements by compromise and by application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida. If the Court believes that the Parties are engaging in inappropriate discovery tactics, the Court may issue sanctions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that (1) Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (DE 536) is DENIED. (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (DE 538) is DENIED AS MOOT. (3) Non-Party Steve Roumaya's Motion for Protective Order (DE 539) is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 23 day of November, 2016.