• Like
Doc. 112
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Doc. 112

  • 64 views
Uploaded on

 

  • 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
64
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
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-AMS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2012 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 RESPONSE BRIEF TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota, (collectively “Defendants”) by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Response Brief to Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information as follows: 1. Plaintiff, a former Federal Inmate, filed a lawsuit against his residential reentry center, Dismas, and three of its employees, Gispert, Thomas, and Adams. The lawsuit arises from the Plaintiff’s own actions including his violations of a Bureau of Prison’s conditions for community corrections release prohibiting him from driving an automobile or possessing a cell phone. Upon being caught driving and possessing a cell phone, the Plaintiff transferred from Dismas back to a Federal Prison to complete the remaining 81 days of his Federal Prison sentence.
  • 2. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2012 Page 2 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON 2. The Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel production of documents from third parties including CCM Miami, the United States Marshall Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C., Federal Bureau of Prisons, Atlanta Regional Office, the Federal Detention Center Miami and the United States Probation Office. 3. The Plaintiff’s motion must be denied for a number of reasons. 4. First, the Court has ordered that no additional discovery is allowed. Judge Seitz entered an Order on March 16, 2012 specifically stating that “no additional discovery will be permitted.” (Docket 98, page 8 of 10.) Accordingly, the Plaintiff should not be attempting to obtain documents from third parties. 5. Second, the Plaintiff has no standing to file a motion to compel against the CCM Miami, the United States Marshall Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C., Federal Bureau of Prisons, Atlanta Regional Office, the Federal Detention Center Miami and the United States Probation Office. The Plaintiff never provided any subpoenas to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. Defense counsel never saw or received any subpoenas prior to seeing them as attachments to Plaintiff’s motion on June 29, 2012. 6. Further, the Plaintiff has not provided any subpoenas or requests for production upon these third parties. Accordingly, these entities are not required to produce documents as they are not under any Court Order or subpoena to produce documents. The subpoenas attached as exhibits to Plaintiff’s motion to compel are of questionable value as they are dated June 20, 2012 and request the production of documents on June 15, 2012. Absent a time machine, the third parties could not comply with a subpoena allegedly issued on June 20, 2012 requesting 2
  • 3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2012 Page 3 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON production of documents five days earlier on June 15, 2012. Lastly, the Plaintiff has not provided proof that the third parties were even served with the subpoenas. 7. As the Plaintiff has not properly requested documents, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the CCM Miami, the United States Marshall Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C., Federal Bureau of Prisons, Atlanta Regional Office, the Federal Detention Center Miami and the United States Probation Office are under no obligation to produce any documents to the Plaintiff. Stated differently, the Plaintiff cannot compel them to produce something they are not compelled to produce. 8. While the Motion is not directed to the Defendants, the Defendants take issue with Plaintiff’s statement that Defendants have not produced documents from the CCM Director Carlos Rodriquez, the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the Department of Justice, including documents regarding the Plaintiff’s return to prison following a Federal Bureau of Prisons hearing. These documents were not only produced but filed with the Court. Plaintiff only need look at Docket Number 83-2, pages 50-62. Apparently, Plaintiff, who signed many of the forms, is now claiming he was unaware of such proceedings; likely because the documents produced and filed by Defendant’s do not help his case. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants would move this Court for an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion and any further relief the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL, & CHAIET, P.A. Attorneys for Defendants 4000 Hollywood Boulevard 3
  • 4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2012 Page 4 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON 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-AMS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2012 Page 5 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of July, 2012, 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-AMS Document 112 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2012 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