Opinion
6:21-cv-1642-GAP-EJK
01-10-2023
MARCUS BERNARD WOODS, Plaintiff, v. FABIAN RAMIREZ, Defendant.
ORDER
EMBRY J. KIDD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause comes before the Court on the following Motions:
• Publife Mac, LLC's Notice of Objection to Defendant Deputy Fabian Ramirez's Subpoena Duces Tecum and Motion to Quash (Doc. 81);
• Defendant Ramirez's Motion to Compel Non-Party OPG Security, LLC to Respond to Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 87);
• Defendant Ramirez's Rule 37 Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents. (Doc. 88.)In sum, Defendant Ramirez seeks documents and information pertaining to the settlement agreement and releases between Plaintiff and the former defendants in this case. (See Docs. 81, 87, 88.) Ramirez asserts that the requested documents are relevant for impeachment purposes, as well as potentially for damages. (Doc. 88 at 2.) Plaintiff and non-party Publife Mac argue the documents are confidential and bear no relevance to the claims at issue. (Docs. 81, 91.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides, in pertinent part, that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). However, Rule 26(c) also provides “[t]hat the Court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, ....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Therefore, Defendant, as the party seeking discovery, has the burden to show the relevance of the documents sought. U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Choate Constr. Co., Inc., No. 3:08-cv-910-J-34MCR, 2009 WL 10672925, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2009).
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant's blanket assertion that the requested documents are “relevant to the issues of bias and credibility as well as potentially to damages.” (Doc. 88 at 2.) While the undersigned recognizes Ramirez's citation to Kadiyala v. Pupke, 2019 WL 3752654, at *4-5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2019), Ramirez does not state with sufficient specificity how these documents could potentially be used in this case to impeach a witness or to make a damages argument.
It is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Publife Mac, LLC's Notice of Objection to Defendant Deputy Fabian Ramirez's Subpoena Duces Tecum and Motion to Quash (Doc. 81) is GRANTED.
2. Defendant Ramirez's Motion to Compel Non-Party OPG Security, LLC to Respond to Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 87) is DENIED.
3. Defendant Ramirez's Rule 37 Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents. (Doc. 88) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED