Green v. Galencare Inc
8:25-cv-00579
| M.D. Fla. | Jun 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Willie Green filed suit against GalenCare Inc. (d/b/a HCA Florida Brandon Hospital) and Universal Protection Service, LLC (d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services), alleging violations of federal and state data protection statutes.
- Green, representing himself, moved for expedited discovery and a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent defendants from destroying evidence.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of Green’s motion, citing Green's delay in serving the defendants and the strong existing duty for litigants to preserve evidence.
- Green objected, arguing the defendants' prolonged data protection violations warranted immediate court intervention and that his delay was due to attempts at informal resolution.
- The District Judge reviewed the Magistrate's report de novo where relevant, ultimately overruling Green's objections.
- The court also ordered the emergency motion to be unsealed due to insufficient justification for sealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expedite discovery/TRO to preserve evidence | Imminent risk of evidence destruction due to ongoing statutory violations | Not explicitly presented | Denied; no evidence of spoliation risk |
| Effect of plaintiff's delay on urgency of motion | Delay resulted from efforts at informal resolution | Not explicitly presented | Delay undermines claim of urgency |
| Adequacy of protections under existing rules | Existing rules insufficient, injunction required | Not explicitly presented | Existing rules and sanctions adequate |
| Need to seal motion | No clear public justification; plaintiff seeks to keep sealed | Not explicitly presented | Ordered the motion unsealed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992) (de novo review required on specific objections to magistrate findings of fact)
- Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo even without objection)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007) (presumption of public access to court proceedings and filings)