It's interesting to see that prominent lawyers and judges don't read fine print just like regular folks don't, but I sometimes wonder whether lawyers read rules and statutes anymore either.
Here's a pretty amusing order from Magistrate Judge Simonton, in which she denies a request by a defendant bank to compel the plaintiff to pay over $2 million for producing documents in discovery.
The alleged basis for the defendant's request is a Florida statute applicable to financial institutions only in the subpoena context, not when they are defendants producing documents pursuant to Rules 26(g) and 34.
All I can say is the Magistrate Judge is way more patient in addressing this than I would have been:
Plaintiffs obtained the documents in question from Defendant Bankatlantic through discovery. Thus, the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 655.059 states that it only applies when a financial institution provides documents pursuant to a subpoena. Therefore, it appears that § 655.059(1)(e) does not apply here, where Bankatlantic is a party to this litigation, and provided the documents at issue pursuant to discovery requests, and did not provide Plaintiffs with the documents as a non-party, pursuant to subpoena. Bankatlantic has not provided any caselaw which supports its argument that § 655.059(1)(e) applies when the financial institution is a party providing discovery.Come on people, at least make an effort.