UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TIM CANOVA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 0:20-cv-61328-WPD

BRENDA C.S NIPES, DOZEL SPENCER

And the BROWARD COUNTY SUPERVISOR

OF ELECTIONS, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER

Plaintiff, TIM CANOVA, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby files this 

Objection to Defendant’s Notice of Issuance of Subpoenas Duce Tecum and Motion for Protective 

Order. This motion is made in accordance with the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

26(c)(1)(7) and 45(d). In support of the motion, Plaintiff states:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff objects to the subpoenas duces tecum filed by Defendants in this matter to the 

extent that they seek privileged or protected information. Plaintiff is entitled to a protective order 

as to the subpoenas to the extent that they seek privileged or protected information. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On or about February 18, 2021, Defendants filed a notice of issuance of subpoenas 

duces tecum seeking documents from certain non-parties. See Defendants’ Omnibus Notice of 

Issuance of Subpoenas Duces Tecum to (1) Broad and Cassel; (2) Leonard Michael Collins; and 

(3) Frank P. Rainer.

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2021 Page 1 of 5
2. The notice purported to contain subpoenas directed to Broad and Cassel, Leonard 

Michael Collins of GrayRobinson, PA, and Frank P. Rainer, General Counsel for Memorial 

Healthcare System. 

3. However, the notice appeared to simply contain three copies of the same subpoena, 

directed to:

Records Custodian, Broad and Cassel, 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 

400, Tallahassee, Florida 32301

4. The subpoenas sought documents in five categories, including any “partially 

executed settlement agreement,” “any and all drafts of the settlement agreement,” communications 

between Plaintiff and Defendants, and “a copy of any and all documents reflecting the settlement 

payment paid in Canova I.”

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff objects to each of the subpoenas. Specifically, the subpoenas seek information that 

is protected by work product and attorney-client privilege, including drafts of a settlement 

agreement, as well as “any and all documents” reflecting a settlement payment paid. Plaintiff is 

entitled to a protective order as to the subpoenas. 

Primarily, “[i]f a subpoena is overly broad and burdensome, the court may, on its own 

initiative, modify the language in order to correct the ambiguity and prevent the undue burden.” 

See Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil Co., 157 F.R.D. 691, 695 (D. Nev. 1994) (citing Westside 

Ford v. U.S., 206 F.2d 627, 635 (9th Cir. 1953)). 

Further, “the standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third party rests solely on the 

ability to assert an infringement on a personal right or privilege.” Rice v. RellaStar Life Ins. Co., 

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113773, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2011); see also Diamond State Ins. Co., 

157 F.R.D. at 695. In this context, the “term ‘privileged’ refers to protections afforded by the rules 

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2021 Page 2 of 5
of evidence.” Stevenson v. Stanley Bostitch, Inc., 201 F.R.D. 551, 555 (N.D. Ga. 2001) (citations 

omitted). 

In this matter, while the formal settlement agreement itself signed by the parties is likely 

not privileged, any drafts and internal work product between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys at 

the time are protected by Plaintiff’s personal attorney-client privilege and are work product. 

Likewise, “a copy of any and all documents reflecting the settlement payment paid in Canova I” 

necessarily encompasses communications and documents that are protected by privilege. 

Plaintiff additionally objects generally to the subpoenas to the extent that they seek 

documents that properly should be requested from Plaintiff in a request for production. Defendants 

likely possess the non-privileged documents sought by the subpoenas already. For example, the 

subpoenas seek “a copy of the fully executed settlement agreement,” which should already be in 

Defendants’ possession. Nonetheless, seeking these documents from nonparties is an unnecessary 

step. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff objects to the subpoenas issued by Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to a protective 

order as to the subpoenas to the extent that they seek privileged or protected documents and are 

overbroad and unduly burdensome. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TIM CANOVA, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court 

grant the instant motion, enter a protective order in its favor as to the subpoenas, along with any 

other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ____ day of ______ 2021, the foregoing document was 

served by email on all counsel of record listed in the Service List below. 

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2021 Page 3 of 5
DUTTON LAW GROUP, P.A.

P. O. Box 260697

Tampa, Florida 33685-0697

Designated Email Service addresses:

service.CSD@duttonlawgroup.com

service.AAS@duttonlawgroup.com

Phone: (813) 247-2222

/s/ Christopher S. Dutton

CHRISTOPHER S. DUTTON, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No: 115714

ANDREW STEADMAN, ESQUIRE

# 36553 Florida Bar No. 119402

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2021 Page 4 of 5
SERVICE LIST

Canova v Snipes, et al., 20-cv-61328-SINGHAL/VALLE

Kristen M. McIntosh

Assistant County Attorney

Broward County Attorney

115 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 423

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

kmmcintosh@broward.org

Andrew J. Meyers

Assistant County Attorney

Broward County Attorney

115 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 423

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

akatzman@broward.org

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2021 Page 5 of 5