UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

IN ADMIRALTY

ALL UNDERWRITERS SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY OF INSURANCE NUMBER DWMZ15055BAA, etc., et al.

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 3:24-cv-125-TJC-SJH

NORTH FLORIDA SHIPYARDS, INC., etc.,

Defendant. /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Federal Subpoena Duces Tecum to Jones Superyacht Miami, Inc. (“Motion”). Doc. 22. Plaintiffs allege that they served a subpoena duces tecum on nonparty Jones Superyacht Miami, Inc. (“Jones Superyacht”) but that Jones Superyacht failed to comply. Id. at 2-3. A copy of the subpoena at issue is attached to the Motion (“Subpoena”). Doc. 22-1. In the Motion, Plaintiffs move to compel Jones Superyacht to comply with the Subpoena pursuant to Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”). Doc. 22 at 3.1

1 The Motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) and does not indicate it has been served on Jones Superyacht. See Doc. 22 at 3-4. Each of these failures independently warrants A motion to compel under Rule 45 must be filed in “the court for the district where compliance is required[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). “The prevailing rule across federal courts, and the courts within this circuit, is

that a subpoena’s place of compliance is the district where documents are to be produced.” Celestin v. City of Ocoee, No. 6:21-cv-896-RBD-EJK,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2022) (collecting cases); see also Lebarr v. Lay, No. 3:20-cv-88- HLA-JBT,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2022); Taser Int’l, Inc. v.

Phazzer Elecs., Inc., No. 6:16-cv-366-PGB-LHP,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2022). Any other district lacks jurisdiction over a Rule 45 motion to compel. See Lebarr,

, at *1; Celestin,

, at *1; Taser Int’l,

, at *1. Here, the Subpoena commanded the production of documents in Coral Gables,

Florida. Doc. 22-1 at 3. Nevertheless, and without any discussion or explanation, Plaintiffs contend that “this Court has the authority to compel Jones Superyacht to produce the requested documents” pursuant to Rule 45. Doc. 22 at 3. That is not so. Because the Subpoena from Plaintiffs commanded the production of documents in Coral Gables, Florida, the Middle District of Florida lacks jurisdiction over the

denial of the Motion. See, e.g., Gray v. Am. Marine Design Corp., No. 3:20-cv-1331-BJD-PDB,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 18, 2022); Shaw Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 12-cv-257-JJB-RLB,

, at *1 (M.D. La. Jan. 8, 2014). Moreover, though it is in turn unclear whether and to what extent the Motion is opposed (or, as to Jones Superyacht, is even known), upon consideration, the Court does not deem a response necessary, see Hot Wheels Lux, LLC v. Morris, No. 6:23-cv-394-PGB-DCI,

, at *1 & n.1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2024), and the Motion is further due to be denied as stated herein. Motion. See Lebarr,

, at *1; Celestin,

, at *1; Taser Int’l,

, at *1. Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. 22) is denied without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on March 13, 2025.

[Z J. Horovitz United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: Counsel of Record