Dixon et al v. Green Tree Servicing,LLC, No. 9:2019cv80022 - Document 82 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying 70 Federal National Mortgage Association's Motion to Quash Subpoena. Federal National Mortgage Association shall produce the documents responsive to the subpoena to Plaintiffs on or before August 20, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 8/9/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dixon et al v. Green Tree Servicing,LLC Doc. 82 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOU THERN D ISTRICT O F FLOR ID A CivilN o.19-80022-CV-M arra/M at4hew m an RO Y J.D IX ON ,JR.and BLAN CH E L.D IX ON , Plaintiffs, FILED BY D.C. VS. BAN K OF AM ERICA ,N .A .,as successorby m ergerto BAC H OM E LOA N S SERV ICIN G ,LP, Atlp 29 2019 ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U. S DISI CT: s.D-oFFtA.-w.p.:. Defendant. / O RD ER D ENY ING FED EM L NA TIO N AL M O R TG A G E A SSO C IA TIO N 'S M O TIO N TO OUASH SUBPOENA IDE 701 TH IS CA U SE is before the Court upon non-party Federal N ational M ortgage Association's(çsFnnnieM ae'')M otion to Quash Subpoena($tM otion'')(DE 701.Thismatterwas referred to the undersigned by United StatesD istrictJudge K enneth A .M arra.See D E 71. 1. Backeround On July 26,2019,theCourtentered an OrdergDE 721,stating thatFannieM ae wasnot required to produce any docum ents in response to the subpoena untilthe M otion w asfully briefed and the Courthad theopportunity to rule on the M otion by furtherOrder.The Cotu' tstayed any production pursuantto the subpoena pending the com pletion ofbriefing and furtherCourtOrder. Thereafter,thepr/sePlaintiffs,RoyJ.Dixon,Jr.,andBlancheL.DixonCçplaintiffs'')tiled aResponseandM emorandum ofLaw inOppositiontoThirdPartyFannieM ae'sM otiontoQuash SubpoenaforProduction ofDocumentsgDE 751.Plaintiffsalso filed theDeclaration ofRoy J. 1 Dockets.Justia.com DixonJr.gDE 76)in supportoftheirResponse.Notimelyreplywasfiled;however,FannieM ae fileda CiResponseto ThisCourt'sJuly26,2019 OrderRegardingNon-party'sM otion to Quash SubpoenagDE 701andStayingProductionPursuanttotheSubpoenaPendingFurtherCourtOrder (DocketNo.72).''gDE 801.Thismatterisnow ripeforreview astheCourthascarefullyreviewed the M otion,Response,and Declaration,asw ellas the entire docketin thiscase. Il. A nalvsis Upon carefulconsideration,the CourtfindsthatFarmie M ae'sM otion isdueto bedenied on the following grounds. (A)Rule2649 doesnotpreventPlaintifpssubpoena. First,Fannie M ae arguesthatthe subpoena w asim properly issued before the partiesin the casehadconferredasrequiredbyRule26(9.However,Rule26(d)(1)statesasfollows:S1A party m ay not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(9,exceptin aproceedingexempted from initialdisclosureunderRule 26(a)(1)(B),orwhen authorized by these rules,by stipulation,or by court order.''Fed.R .Civ.P.26.lçplaintiffm ay conductdiscovery before aRule26(9 discovery conference ifthe Courtfindsthatgood cause exists forthe discovery.''M anny Film,LLC v.D oe,N o.15-80306-ClV ,2015 W L 2411201,at*1 (S.D.Fla.M ay20,2015);Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b). H ere, the case has been pending for approxim ately seven m onths, and, according to Plaintiffs'ResponsegDE 75,p.2)andtheattachmentsthereto,Plaintiffshavebeen attemptingto obtain theirm ortgage loan recordssince M arch 2017.The Courtfinds good cause forthe issuance ofasubpoenabeforetheRule26(9 conference,which doesnotappeartohaveevenbeenordered to take place yet. 2 (B)Thesubpoenawasnotimproperly served. Second,Fannie M ae contends that the subpoena should be quashed because it w as not properly served.In itsM otion,Fannie M ae also acknowledges thatcourtsare generally spliton theissueofwhetherRule 45 requiressubpoenasto be personally served.(DE 70,p.2,f.n.1). FannieM aeexplainsthat,çslwlhileseveralrecentdecisionsofthisCourthaveheldthatsubpoenas m ay be served via m eans other than personalservice,m ostofthese decisions are either upon a motionbytheservingpartyorinvolvemultipleattemptsbytheservingpartgyqtoeffectpersonal service,neither ofw hich isapplicable in this m atter.''1d. There isclearly coniicting authority on the issue ofw hetherpersonalservice ofa subpoena isrequired.SeeRainey v.Taylor,No.18-24802-M C,2019W L 1922000,at*2(S.D.Fla.Apr.30, 2019).However,recentdecisionsinthisDistricthavefotmdthatRule45doesnotrequirepersonal service, but it does require service that is reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt of the subpoena.See e.g.,TracFone W ireless,Inc.v.SCS Supply Chain LLC,330 F.R .D .613,616 (S.D.Fla.2019);Rainey v.Taylor,2019 W L 1922000,at #2;Bozo v.Bozo,No,2013 W L 12128680,at*1-2(S.D.Fla.Aug.16,2013). H ere,the subpoena was addressed to the executive vice presidentof Fannie M ae,and the certifiedmailreceiptwassignedbyTujummaW illiams,avicepresidentatFarmieM ae.TheCourt tindsthat,as a vice presidentatFannie M ae actually signed forthe certified m ailthatcontained the subpoena,the serviceofthe subpoenaw asclearly reasonably calculated to ensure actualreceipt ofthe subpoena.M oreover,the subpoena m ade its w ay to Farm ie M ay's legalcounsel,w ho then filed the pending M otion.The Courtw illnotplace form over substance and quash the subpoena on the grounds that it w as im properly served, especially when Plaintiffs are representing them selvespro se. (C)ThereisinsufficientevidencethatPlaintiffsissuedthesubpoenatoharassFannieM ae and delay the litigation. Third,FannieM ae contendsthatPlaintiffstshave adm itted in theirfilingsherein thatthey have reached outto Fannie M ae on m ultiple occasionsfordocum entsand Fannie M ae hasreplied on m ultiple occasions....A s such,the Subpoena is sim ply anotheractto harass Fannie M ae and prolongtheDixons'litigation.''(DE 70,p,21.ltdoesappearbasedon someoftheallegationsin Plaintiffs'Amended ComplaintgDE 41andbased on someofPlaintiffs'representationsintheir ResponsetotheMotion (DE 75,p.2j,thatPlaintiffshavesoughtsomedocumentsfrom Fannie M ae in the past.Plaintiffs soughtthose docum ents through m ore infonnalcom m unications w ith Fannie M ae and through Freedom of Inform ation A ct requests. It appears to the Court that Plaintiffs'previous attem pts to obtain docum ents from Farm ie M ae involved a slightly different universe ofdocum ents than are soughtin the instantsubpoena.Therefore,itis notclear w hether Fannie M ae is in possession of the doctlm ents sought in the instant subpoena or not.M oreover, there is insufficientevidence to supporta finding by thisCourtthatPlaintiffs issued the subpoena to harassFannie M ae ordelay thisproceeding. (D)TheissueofrelevancvandproportionalityunderRule26(b)(1)hasbeenwaived. TheCourthassomedoubtsaboutwhetherthesubpoenaed infonnation isactually relevant and proportionalin lightofthe allegations in the Second A m ended Com plaint.H ow ever,Farm ie M ae m akes no argum entin itsM otion thatthe subpoena isoverly broad,is unduly burdensom e, orthatitseeks irrelevantordisproportionate inform ation.By failing to raise such issues,they are deem ed waived by Fannie M ae. Furtherm ore,D efendant has sat absolutely silent and has not lodged any objections whatsoever to the subpoena.Therefore, Defendant has waived any relevancyorproportionalityobjections.Therefore,eventhoughtheCourthassomerelevancyand 4 proportionalityconcernsregardingthesubjectmattersoughtby thesubpoena,theCourtwillnot quash the subpoena on lack of relevancy or disproportionality grounds.lf the non-party or DefendantwantedtheissueofrelevancyorproportionalityunderRule26(b)(1)to bedecidedby the Court,itw astheirbtlrden to raise the issue. (E)Fannie M ae'srequestforthis Courtto stay a decision on the M otion to Ouash is reiected. In FannieM ae'sAugust5,2019ResponsetothisCourt'sJuly 26,2019 Order(DE 80j, FannieMaerequeststhattlshouldtheCourtbeinclinedtodenyFarmieM ae'sM otiontoQuash...it hold such a decision until ithas ruled on BAN A 'S m otion to dism iss.If,of course,the Current Complaintisdismissed,theSubpoenaismoot.''1d.atp.3.TheCourtherebyrejectsFannieM ae's request.Farm ie M ae,asa non-party,hasno standing to requesta stay ofdiscovery,and D efendant has notso m oved in a tim ely m anner.M oreover,the Courtdoes notw antto delay the discovery process any further.A ccordingly,this Courtwill not stay its decision until after the m otion to dism iss is decided. 111. Conclusion ln light of the foregoing, it is hereby O R D ERED that Federal N ational M ortgage Association's M otion to Quash Subpoena (DE 70J is DENIED.FederalNationalM ortgage A ssociation shallproduce the docum ents responsive to the subpoena to Plaintiffs on or before A ugust20,2019.IfFannie M ae discoversupon investigation thatithas no responsive docum ents in its possession as to som e or allofthe categories sought by Plaintiffs in the subpoena,itshall speciûcally notify Plaintiffs.The Courtalso hereby puts Plaintiffs and a11parties on notice that they arerequired to comply with Rule 26(b)(1),the LocalRulesofthisCourt,and theCourt's OrderSettingDiscoveryProcedure(DE 74jthroughoutthediscoveryprocess. The Clerk ofCourtisDIRECTED to maila copy ofthis Orderto thepro sePlaintiffs, Roy J.Dixon,Jr.,and BlancheL.Dixon,at163 Riviera Court,RoyalPalm Beach,FL 33411. D NE and O R D ERED in Cham bersatW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach Cotmty,Florida, thisYuyofAugust,2019. % ILLIA M M A TT EW M AN UN ITED STA TES M A GISTR ATE JU D GE 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
