, 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in which the Court applied the higher standard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the “compelling need” standard for pro

ore tax information may be obtained by a party in discovery.” Bellosa v. Universal Tile Restoration, Inc., 2008 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Platypus Wear, I

o not consider the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the

, Inc., 2008 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir.

nte Way, Delray Beach, Fla., 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1263 -1264 (S.D.Fla.,2006), he explained that this claim of a higher standard had been rejected by Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., Inc., 107 F.3d 846, 853 (11th Cir.1997): Despite the fact that some Courts within the Southern District of Florida have r

0258 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing cases relying upon Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir.

r, has been rejected in the Eleventh Circuit. See Maddow v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Inc., 107 F.3d 846, 853