UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61569-MC-SMITH

VINCENZO OPPEDISANO,

Petitioner, 

vs.

FORT LAUDERDALE EXECUTIVE

JET CENTER, LLC,

Respondent. 

 /

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING OBJECTION

This matter is before the Court upon Respondent’s Objection [DE 14] to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE 13]. Petitioner filed his Motion to Compel Compliance 

with Subpoena (“Motion”) to Fort Lauderdale Executive Jet Center, LLC (“Respondent”). The 

subpoena seeks discovery which is relevant to a separate action styled as Oppedisano v. Zur, No. 

20-CV-5395-VB (“Primary case”). The primary case is pending in the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of New York. See ([DE 1] at 1). Petitioner’s subpoena is a Rule 45 

subpoena which seeks to obtain document production and testimony from Respondent. 

Petitioner’s Motion also seeks fees for having to bring this action. (See generally [DE 1]). The 

Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part Petitioner’s Motion. Respondent now files its 

Objection claiming that Petitioner’s service of the subpoena was improper because Petitioner 

failed to personally serve Lynda Zur or Marshall Myles, two managers whom Respondent states

are authorized to accept service on behalf of Respondent. Respondent argues that without personal 

service on the two managers Petitioner failed to provide notice of the subpoena. In response, 

Case 0:22-mc-61569-RS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 1 of 3
Petitioner requests that the Court adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Order, compelling Respondent to 

produce the requested documents and rejecting Respondent’s argument regarding personal service 

on the two managers.

Courts in this District have held that personal service is not required to comply with Rule 

45. See TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Nektova Grp., LLC, 328 F.R.D. 664, 667 (S.D. Fla. 2019). 

Rather, Rule 45 “requires service reasonably calculated to ensure receipt of the subpoena by the 

witness.” Id. Here, Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Rule 45. Specifically, on June 

15, 2022, Petitioner mailed copies of the subpoena to Respondent’s counsel’s office and emailed

Respondent’s counsel, requesting that Respondent’s counsel accept service of the subpoena’s 

demand for document production. In a written and signed declaration, Respondent’s counsel 

admitted to receiving that email. Therefore, Respondent’s argument that it did not have notice of 

the subpoena is without merit.

Moreover, on June 17, 2022, Petitioner effectuated service by serving Scott Bottell, a 

purported manager for Respondent, who claimed he was authorized to accept service at 

Respondent’s mailing address and the address of its registered agent. See (ECF No. 1-1 at 12). 

Respondent’s manager Lynda Zur declared that Scott Bottell is not an employee or a former 

employee of the company. Consequently, Zur stated that neither she nor any other company 

representative was aware of the service of the subpoena, ultimately depriving them of the 

opportunity to respond. However, Zur never declared that she did not know Scott Bottell; she 

merely stated that he was never employed or affiliated with the company. When Respondent failed 

to respond, on July 14, 2022, Petitioner sent correspondence that contained the subpoena to 

Respondent’s principal place of business and registered address. Again, Respondent failed to 

respond, forcing Petitioner to file the Motion to Compel [DE 1] on August 24, 2022. 

Case 0:22-mc-61569-RS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 2 of 3
This Court finds that service of the Rule 45 subpoena was reasonably calculated to ensure 

receipt of the subpoena by Respondent. See TracFone Wireless, Inc., 328 F.R.D. at 667; see also 

Oppedisano v. Skylink Jets, No. 22-MC-61540-WPD (ECF No. 11 at 3) (granting Rule 45 

subpoena under nearly identical circumstances). Having reviewed, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation to District Judge and the record, Respondent’s Objection is denied.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

1) The Report and Recommendation to District Judge [DE 13] is AFFIRMED and 

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court’s Order. 

2) Respondent’s Objection [DE 14] is DENIED.

3) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel [DE 1] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

(a) The Motion is GRANTED as to document production only. Within seven (7) days of 

the date of this Order, Respondent shall produce documents responsive to the subpoena. 

(b) The Motion is DENIED as to Petitioner’s request for fees and for deposition testimony.

4) Respondent’s failure to comply with any portion of this Order will be grounds for the award 

of sanctions upon motion by Petitioner.

5) This case is CLOSED.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 21st day of July 2023.

cc: Counsel of record

Case 0:22-mc-61569-RS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 3 of 3