Almeida Michelena et al
| Rober Frank Almeida Michelena, Eduardo Marcelo Almeida Michelena, Vicky Rocio Almeida Michelena, Daniela Lizzeth Almeida Arauz and Diana Rafaela Almeida Michelena |
| Law Firm Akerman LLP |
| 1:2021mc20289 |
| January 22, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Lauren Fleischer Louis |
| K Michael Moore |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1782 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING MOTION. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned cause is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or for a Report and Recommendation regarding the Motion to Vacate Order Granting Application for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. 1782 and to Quash Subpoena. #16 . Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 3/16/2021. (thn)
|
| Filing 16 MOTION to Vacate 15 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Akerman LLP. Responses due by 3/29/2021 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Rodriguez, Francisco) |
|
Filing 15
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. #14 . Therein, Respondent requests that the Court reconsider its March 2, 2021 Paperless Order 13 denying Petitioners' Motion for Telephonic Status Conference in Relation to Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 to Obtain Discovery #12 as moot and concluding that Respondent had waived its right to object to the 1782 subpoena for failing to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Id. at 1. Additionally, Respondent requests that the Court allow it to file its motion to quash within ten (10) days. Id. at 4. "Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly." Holland v. Florida, No. 06-20182-CIV-SEITZ, 2007 WL 9705926, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration "are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). A motion for reconsideration "cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Id. A party's disagreement with the court's decision, absent a showing of manifest error, is not sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief. See Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010). Appellate review is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Here, new evidence presented by Respondent demands reconsideration of the March 2, 2021 Paperless Order. 13 . Respondent argues that service of the subpoena was never completed because "(i) the subpoena was never served by process server and (ii) the undersigned counsel was never asked to accept service of the subpoena." #14 at 1. Additionally, Respondent asserts that it gave Petitioners notice of its objection by email. See id. at 2. Respondent attached the Parties' email correspondence as exhibits to its Motion in support of its argument. See generally [14-1]; [14-2]; [14-3]. In finding that Respondent had waived its right to object, the Court relied on Petitioners' representation that "Mr. Rodriguez indicated that Akerman LLP would object to the subpoena in its entirety." See #12 at 2. The Court understood Petitioners to mean that Respondent intended to object but had not yet done so. Moreover, Petitioners' Motion was filed thirteen (13) days after the subpoena was allegedly served on Respondent. See generally id. Thus, the Court concluded that no objection had been filed within the time period allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) (stating that a person commanded to produce documents must object "before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served"). Because Respondent had, in fact, served its objections on Petitioners, the Court finds that vacation of the March 2, 2021 Paperless Order is warranted. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration #14 is GRANTED. The Court's March 2, 2021 Paperless order 13 is hereby VACATED. Respondent shall file its motion to quash on or before March 15, 2021. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 3/5/2021. (tgr)
|
| Reset Deadlines Per DE#15. Responses due by 3/15/2021 (cqs) |
| Filing 14 MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Order on Motion for Hearing,,,,,,,,,,, by Akerman LLP. Attorney Francisco A. Rodriguez added to party Akerman LLP(pty:res). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exh. A - Email dated Feb. 13, 2021, #2 Exhibit Exh. B - Email dated Feb. 15, 2021, #3 Exhibit Exh. c - Email dated March 2, 2021)(Rodriguez, Francisco) |
|
Filing 13
(VACATED PER DE#15)PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioners' Motion for Telephonic Status Conference in Relation to Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 to Obtain Discovery. #12 . On January 22, 2021, Petitioners filed the Application for Relief under 28 U.S.C. 1782. #1 . On January 26, 2021, Petitioners' Application was referred to the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge 8 , who granted it and authorized the issuance of the proposed subpoena on February 11, 2021. #10 . On February 12, 2021, Petitioners served the subpoena on Akerman LLP and attorney Francisco Rodriguez, commanding them to produce documents and for Mr. Rodriguez to appear at a deposition on March 5, 2021. Mot. at 2. Mr. Rodriguez confirmed receipt of the subpoena and indicated that Akerman LLP would object to it in its entirety on February 13, 2021. See id. Since that email, the Parties have "not [been] able to agree on a briefing scheduling in order to promptly brief and have heard Akerman LLP's potential objections/motion to quash." Id. Now, Petitioners request the Court set a telephonic status conference in order to "set a briefing schedule and a hearing, if the Court is so inclined, on the briefs." Id. at 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 states that "[a] person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection" to the subpoena "before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). Petitioners' Motion was filed thirteen (13) days after the subpoena was served on Akerman LLP and Mr. Rodriguez. And, in the Motion, Petitioners note that "Mr. Rodriguez is in a multi-day arbitration presently and as a result requires more time to prepare his objection/moving papers." Mot. at 2. There is no indication that any objections were served on Petitioners within fourteen (14) days as required by Rule 45. Thus, Akerman has waived its right to object to the subpoena. See Carroll v. TheStreet.com, Inc., No. 11-81173-CIV, 2013 WL 12383301, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2013) ("Mr. Dubocq did not serve his written objections on the Third Point Defendants before October 17, 2012, the specified date of compliance.... Thus, he has waived the objections, and the production is long overdue."). Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioners' Motion #12 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 3/2/2021. (tgr)Text Modified on 3/5/2021 (cqs).
|
| Filing 12 MOTION for Hearing VIA TELEPHONE IN RELATION TO ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1782 TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY by Daniela Lizzeth Almeida Arauz, Diana Rafaela Almeida Michelena, Eduardo Marcelo Almeida Michelena, Rober Frank Almeida Michelena, Vicky Rocio Almeida Michelena. (Osorio, Carlos) |
|
Filing 11
PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot #9 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis on 2/11/2021. (age)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #1 Application for Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 and authorizing the issuance of the proposed subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis on 2/11/2021. See attached document for full details. (age)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Hearing by Daniela Lizzeth Almeida Arauz, Diana Rafaela Almeida Michelena, Eduardo Marcelo Almeida Michelena, Rober Frank Almeida Michelena, Vicky Rocio Almeida Michelena. (Osorio, Carlos) |
|
Filing 8
PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING Application for Relief under 28 U.S.C. 1782. #1 . PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned cause is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or for a Report and Recommendation regarding the Application for Relief under 28 U.S.C. 1782 #1 . Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 1/26/2021. (tgr)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andres Francisco Rey on behalf of Daniela Lizzeth Almeida Arauz, Diana Rafaela Almeida Michelena, Eduardo Marcelo Almeida Michelena, Rober Frank Almeida Michelena, Vicky Rocio Almeida Michelena. Attorney Andres Francisco Rey added to party Daniela Lizzeth Almeida Arauz(pty:pet), Attorney Andres Francisco Rey added to party Diana Rafaela Almeida Michelena(pty:pet), Attorney Andres Francisco Rey added to party Eduardo Marcelo Almeida Michelena(pty:pet), Attorney Andres Francisco Rey added to party Rober Frank Almeida Michelena(pty:pet), Attorney Andres Francisco Rey added to party Vicky Rocio Almeida Michelena(pty:pet). (Rey, Andres) |
| Filing 6 Notice of Compliance of Filing Fee $49.00, receipt number AFLSDC-14275642, Electronic Miscellaneous Case Filing re 4 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case (Osorio, Carlos) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE by Daniela Lizzeth Almeida Arauz, Diana Rafaela Almeida Michelena, Eduardo Marcelo Almeida Michelena, Rober Frank Almeida Michelena, Vicky Rocio Almeida Michelena re 3 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case, #1 Application for Judicial Assistance/Letter Rogatory,, OF FILING CIVIL COVER SHEET (Osorio, Carlos) |
| Filing 4 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case. Filing fees not paid. Filer is instructed to file a Notice of Compliance of Filing Fee, and electronically pay the correct fees of $49.00 within 24 hours of this notice. (cds) |
| Filing 3 Clerks Notice to Filer re: Electronic Case. No Civil Cover Sheet. Filer is instructed to file a Notice (Other) with the Civil Cover Sheet attached within 24 hours of the notice. (cds) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. (cds) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Judicial Assistance For an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery from Akerman, LLP for Use in Foreign Proceedings. For an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery from Akerman, LLP for Use in Foreign Proceedings.. Filing fee $ 49.00. No IFP Filed, filed by Eduardo Marcelo Almeida Michelena, Daniela Lizzeth Almeida Arauz, Vicky Rocio Almeida Michelena, Rober Frank Almeida Michelena, Diana Rafaela Almeida Michelena. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E)(Osorio, Carlos) Text Modified on 1/25/2021 (cds). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
