Klayman v Judicial Watch, et al. FLSD – Petition to enforce Subpoena denied

Klayman loses another motion, this time in Florida.

2014-03-25 7 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING PETITION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA by Judge Audrey B. Collins denying 1 Motion to Compel Arbitration: The Court will resolve this matter without oral argument and therefore VACATES the April 7, 2014 hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, Local Rule 7-15. For the following reasons, the Petition is DENIED. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 03/25/2014)

Why? Simply said, Klayman made some fundamental errors. From the minutes:

First, Petitioner did not attach the relevant documents (e.g., the Taitz Subpoena) to his Petition. As such, Petitioner did not meet his burden of going forward.

Second, the Taitz Subpoena – attached as Exhibit 7 to the Opposition – is deficient in several respects.

So why was the subpoena deficient?

As Judge Simonton noted, Petitioner has not shown that he served Taitz with the subpoena. Petitioner claims he did serve Taitz and purports to attach the proof of service to his memorandum, but the memorandum has no attachments. The Taitz Subpoena’s proof of service page is blank. A Notice of Deposition (attached to the Opposition, Exh. 3) purports to have served counsel for Respondent, and states that pro se parties on the attached service list were served , but the service list does not identify Taitz. In short, Petitioner has not cured his lack of service problem. Petitioner’s subpoena also fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45: this rule requires a deposition subpoena to be issued from the court where the action is pending (S.D. Fl.), but Petitioner obtained his subpoena from a different court (C.D. Cal.). Third, the Scheduling Order in the Florida litigation shows that the discovery deadline passed on January 31, 2014. See Scheduling Order, Opp’n Exh. 2. As such, it appears that Petitioner is no longer entitled to conduct discovery for in the Florida litigation.

Quite a handful simple procedural errors.

3 thoughts on “Klayman v Judicial Watch, et al. FLSD – Petition to enforce Subpoena denied

  1. I’m confused. In light of Orly’s total lack of understanding of how to subpoena someone for a deposition, how did she know that the subpoena from Klayman was unenforceable? I have a mental picture of her in front of a fireplace, a la Lincoln, poring over some of her long forgotten coursework from her alma mater.

Comments are closed.