Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF FLO RIDA CA SE N O . I7-8OIZI-CV -M A RR A/M A TTH EW M AN A LFREDO CO LLA D O ,
Plaintiff,
FILED jy D.C. AdC 2 3 2217 ENTERPRISE LEASING COM PANY SJIa'tCb%IWï!.E OF FLORIDA, LLC, d/b/a ENTERPRISE s.o. ofr F'L/. - w pa. REN T-A -TRU CK ,
Defendant. O R DE R R EG A RD IN G IN CA M EM REV IEW O N W ILL IA M W . PR ICE . P.A .'S OBJECTIONS AND M OTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff, Alfredo Collado (ûçplaintiff), and non- party, W illiam W . Price,P.A.'S Objections and M otion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tec= (sçMotion'') (DE 151.Defendant, Enterprise Leasing Company (Cr efendanf') filed a Response to Objections and Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and lncomorated M emorandum of Law gDE 1 8j. This matter was referred to the undersigned upon an Order refening al1 discovery m atters to the undersigned for appropriate disposition. See DE 8. The undersigned conducted a hearing on the M otion on June 8, 2017. (DE 201.
The Court took the M otion under advisement and ordered non-party, W illiam W . Price, P.A . to subm it its tile on Plaintiff to the Court for ex parte, in cam era review in order to ensure that D efendant obtains all relevant discovery in this law suit without infringing on any w ork product privilege or attorney-client privilege. (DE 25, p. 2J.
The Court has received the docum ents and has carefully conducted an in camera review *2 of them . Aher review, the Court finds the following docum ents from Plaintiff s file at W illiam W . Price, P.A. are relevant and should be produced: Progressive.ool.seulement.offer (Unredacted); Progressive.oo4 (Unredacted); Progressive.oo6 (Unzedacted); M ediation.summary.Romano (Unredacted); Client.ol I.IM E (Everything redacted except for the first pazagraph the letter); Closing.statement (Financial amounts redacted); and MedicalBillsummary.lkc (Unredaded). See S.E.C. v. M erkin, N o. 11-23585-CIV , 2012 W L 2568158, *3 (S.D. Fla. Jtme 29, 2012) (tholding that attorney work product may be produced in redacted fonn if factual inform ation was not othem ise available and m oving party showed substantial need and undue hardship.l). The Court agrees with Defendant that these documents are relevant because they contain information relating to Plaintiff's prior car crash and his sustained injuries, which are similar to the injuries that Plaintiff is claiming in the instant case. The other docum ents in Plaintiff s file at W illiam Price, P.A. are irrelevant and shall not be produced.
Although W illiam Price, P.A. claim s that these docum ents are privileged because of the w ork-product protection, D efendant has show n a substantial need for the docum ents, which cnnnot be otherwise obtained without tmdue hardship.See Pipino v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 15- cv-80330, 2016 W L 4184185, *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2016); Stern v.O 'Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 686 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Defendant attempted to obtain these documents and related documents from Plaintiff s previous doctors and other medical sources, but those sources have produced little to no infonnation on Plaintiff s prior accident and injuries.
Moreover, as to the mediation summary, Florida Statute 44.405 states that tdlilnformation that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or protected from discovery by reason of its disclosure or use in mediation.'' Fla. Stat. j 44.40545). dt-f'he *3 purpose of the ban on disclosure of m ediation comm unications is to preclude adm ission of settlem ent offers betw een parties who are opposing parties at the trial in which the evidence of the settlement is sought to be introduced.'' Carles Const., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. dr Sur. Co. of America, 56 F.supp.3d 1259, 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2014).Therefore, the information contained in the mediation summary on Plaintiff s doctor for his knee surgery and other injuries is relevant and not protected.
Further, Local Rule 16.2(g) refers to çs-l-rial Upon Failure to Settle'' and requires that a11 proceedings of the mediation from the sam e case rem ain confidential and not be used tdfor any pum ose as an adm ission against interest.'' How ever, Local Rule 16.2 does not relate to the use of m ediation proceedings in another case. See Carles Const, Inc. , 56 F.supp.3d at 1271, n. 33. A dditionally, none of the Stsettlem ent offer'' letters sent by W illiam Price, P.A . to Progressive indicate that they are confidential in any way.
Therefore, it is hereby O R D ER ED and AD JU D G ED :
l . Non-party, W illiam W . Price, P.A.'S Objections and M otion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum (DE 15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Non-party, W illiam Price, P.A., m ust produce the documents as described above to Defendant on or before A ugust 11, 2017. N on-party, W illiam Price, P.A ., shall be permitted to redact only the information described above from the docum ents.
3. A s to the non-party's request for attom ey's fees and costs in preparing the M otion and privilege log pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, the Court denies this request. Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(1), Cç(a) party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena m ust take reasonable steps to avoid im posing *4 undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required m ust enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction- which m ay include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees--on a party or attom ey who fails to com ply.'' In this case, Defendant attem pted to limit the subpoena both before the non-party, W illiam Price, P.A ., tiled its objections and dtlring the hearing. Therefore, the circumstances do not warrant an award of attorney's fees. See DHA Corp. v. Hardy, No.15-M C-80201, 2015 W L 3707378, *3 (S.D. Fla. Jtme 15, 2015). Further, the Court finds that an award of attorney's fees would be unjust.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to M ichael S. Herman, Jr., Esq., W illiam W . Price, P.A ., 521 South O live Avenue, W est Palm Beach, FL 33401 and to A lfredo Collado, 809 Royal Hibiscus Drive, Royal Palm Beach, FL 3341 1.
DO E and ORDERED in Cham bers at W est Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 3 ay ot-August , 2017. this
# W ILLIA M M A TTHEW M N UN ITED STATES M A G STM TE JU D G E