Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota’s brief in response to plaintiff’s motion to supplement motion to compel responses to second request for production and interrogatories
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota’s brief in response to plaintiff’s motion to supplement motion to compel responses to second request for production and interrogatories

  • 168 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
168
On Slideshare
168
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, Plaintiff, vs. DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA Defendants. _________________________________________/ DEFENDANTS DISMAS CHARTIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS AND ADAMS LESHOTA’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota (collectively “Defendants”), through their undersigned counsel, file their Brief in Response to Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Supplement Motion to Compel Responses to Second Request for Production and Interrogatories and state as follows: 1. Plaintiff, a former Federal Inmate, has filed a vague and confusing lawsuit against his Community Correction Center/Half Way House, Dismas, and three of its employees, Gispert, Thomas and Lashanda Adams. The Complaint contains 50 paragraphs of “factual allegations” filed by a laundry list of four alleged Federal Theories of Recovery and six alleged state law theories of recovery. However, the Plaintiff cannot maintain any State or Federal cause of action against any defendant. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which has been briefed and pending ruling since June 5, 2011. Defendants believe that the disposition of
  • 2. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 2 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON that Motion will bring and end to this lawsuit and the need for discovery and ruling on the Plaintiffs’ discovery motions. 2. Despite the fact that the Defendants timely and properly responded to all discovery, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Docket number 58). Defendants timely responded to the Motion to Compel. (Docket number 59) 3. In response to the Defendants response brief, instead of replying, the Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion to Compel. (Docket 61) 4. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion and Supplemental Motion to Compel must be denied. ARGUMENT AND CITIATION TO AUTHORITY The Defendants have properly responded to the Requests for Production and Interrogatories. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Requests for Production and Second Set of Interrogatories against the Defendants. (Docket number 58). As the Defendants have responded to all interrogatories and agreed to produce and produced the requested documents at their counsel’s office as they are kept in the course of business, the Defendants have complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (2)(E). Accordingly, the Motions to Compel must be denied. Rather than be repetitive, the Defendants adopt their response brief (Docket Number 59) as though it is fully set forth herein, in response to the Supplemental Motion to Compel. The Defendants have clearly properly responded to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production. Accordingly, there is nothing to compel. 2
  • 3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 3 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied as Defendants have timely and properly responded to all discovery requests. The Plaintiff’s motion is nothing more than an attempt to argue the merits of his case rather than the propriety of the Defendants’ discovery responses. (See docket number 61, paragraphs 11, 12, 19-31 and page 7 of the Motion). For example, the Plaintiff raises the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion Argument and Title VII argument in page 6 of the Motion to Compel. Clearly, these issues have nothing to do with the Motion to Compel. A Motion to Compel is an improper forum to argue the alleged merits of his case. The Plaintiff, pro se, apparently fails to understand that the purpose of a Motion to Compel is to compel responses to discovery when the other side does not respond. In this case, the Defendants have clearly responded to all discovery. However, the Plaintiff does not like the Defendants answers to the questions as they are in contravention to his position and harm his case. The Plaintiff is confusing a Motion to Compel Responses with a Motion to Compel Responses That He Likes. The Plaintiff is apparently trying to force the Defendants to answer discovery with the answers that are satisfactory to him. However, the Plaintiff cannot force and compel the Defendants to change their answers and respond in a manner acceptable to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff apparently does not like the answers and is moving to compel the Defendants to change their answers to ones acceptable to the Plaintiff. Apparently, the Plaintiff cannot handle the truth. If the Plaintiff disagrees with the answers provided, then he has the ability to refute the Defendants’ statements at trial. The Plaintiff cannot move the Court to compel the Defendants to 3
  • 4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 4 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON change their answers to answers acceptable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Motion must be denied. As the Plaintiff’s Motion has no basis in law or fact, it should be stricken. Plaintiff should be sanctioned for forcing the Defendants’ to respond to his baseless Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied and that the Court grant any further relief it deems appropriate, including sanctions against the Plaintiff. EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL, & CHAIET, P.A. Attorneys for Defendants 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 265-South Hollywood, FL 33021 (954) 894-8000 (954) 894-8015 Fax BY: /S/ David S. Chaiet____________ DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE FBN: 963798 4
  • 5. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 5 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th day of October, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. __/s/ David S. Chaiet_______________ DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 963798 5
  • 6. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 6 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON SERVICE LIST Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc., et al. Case No..: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Traian Bujduveanu Pro Se Plaintiff 5601 W. Broward Blvd. Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 316-3828 Email: orionav@msn.com 6