FUNDAMENTAL ADMIN. SERVS., LLC, Plaintiff,
KRISTI ANDERSON, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.
This memorandum and order incorporates the Court's prior order of June 24, 2013 (ECF No. 13), dissolving the temporary restraining order entered on June 14 (ECF No. 5), denying Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 2), denying without prejudice Defendant's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 9), vacating the hearing set for June 25 to consider the question of preliminary injunctive relief, quashing Defendant's subpoena to Mark Fulchino, and denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena (ECF No. 11). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14), indicating the Court's June 24 order was entered before Plaintiff had an opportunity to file its reply brief. Attached to the motion are the reply brief and exhibits.
The motion will be granted to the extent the Court has considered the additional materials filed by Plaintiff, but its ruling remains the same. The Court was, and is, satisfied that the standard for preliminary injunctive relief established in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), has not been met. The Court emphasizes that the only question on which a ruling has been made is whether Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. No ruling has been made on the merits, and the Court has not declared that Defendant is not bound by her ethical and contractual obligations to Plaintiff.
Further, the context in which preliminary injunctive relief was denied was this Court's review of what has occurred in the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, including the orders and opinions that have been supplied to this Court and the transcript of the June 17 hearing conducted on the joint motion to compromise claims against Defendant by the debtor's trustee, as well as the representations made by defense counsel in the hearing conducted in this Court on June 14. Thus, it is this Court's understanding from those sources that Plaintiff has an adequate forum in which to assert objections based upon privilege, work product, and confidentiality and to have those objections resolved before testimony or production of documents is allowed or compelled in the Rule 2004 proceeding. This Court was focused in the June 24 order on the Bankruptcy Court proceedings and did not address any conduct outside of the Rule 2004 proceeding, but the Court does not interpret the Bankruptcy Court's order to give license to Defendant to act contrary to her ethical and contractual obligations to Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the motion (ECF No. 14) for reconsideration of the Court's June 24, 2013, order is GRANTED to the extent the Court has now considered Plaintiff's reply brief and ...