This document is a reply brief filed by defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota in support of their motion to strike plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu's motions to compel discovery. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has filed multiple discovery motions in violation of a court order requiring approval from the magistrate judge before filing motions. They assert the plaintiff has not obtained this approval and failed to properly rebut their arguments. The defendants request that the court grant their motion and strike the plaintiff's discovery motions.

1. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 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 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL, SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS AND MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY FROM PLAINTIFF
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 Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Motions to Compel, Supplemental Motions and Motion to Stay Discovery from Plaintiff 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 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 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. Plaintiff filed four separate Motions and Supplemental Motions regarding
Defendants’ discovery response. (See Docket Numbers 53, 58, 60 and 61).The filing of these
motions has required the Defendants to respond to all motions while their motion to dismiss has
been pending since June, 2011. This has resulted in significant cost and time to Defendants and
their counsel.
3. The Plaintiff, in filing these discovery Motions, has violated the Order Setting
Trial Date, Pretrial Deadlines and Referral to Magistrate, docket number 44. The Discovery
Procedures for Magistrate Simonton, section C, No Written Motions, specifically states that:
No written discovery motions, including motions to compel and motions for
protective order shall be filed unless requested by Magistrate Judge
Simonton. It is the intent of this procedure to minimize the necessity of
Motions.
4. Despite the Court’s order, the Plaintiff continues to file discovery motions to
compel even though the Magistrate has not requested a motion to compel. Defendants filed a
Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, as well as a Motion to Stay the Plaintiff from
filing additional harassing discovery pending ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
5. In response to Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff filed a Response Brief. However,
the Plaintiff’s Response Brief fails to properly refute the Defendants’ Motion, which
demonstrates that Plaintiff’s discovery Motions, violated the Order Setting Trial Date, Pretrial
Deadlines and Referral to Magistrate, docket number 44, Discovery Procedures for Magistrate
Simonton, section C. Since Plaintiff cannot prove that Magistrate Simonton has requested four
discovery Motions, the Defendants’ Motion must be granted. As the Plaintiff has improperly
2

3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 3 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
filed discovery motions absent any request for a motion from the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiffs
Motions (Docket numbers 53, 58, 60 and 61) must be stricken.
6. In his Response Brief, the Plaintiff fails to address the points raised in
Defendants’ Motion. Instead, the Plaintiff improperly attempts to use his Brief as a forum to
argue his case (Response Brief, p. 3-5). The Plaintiff also improperly makes personal attacks
against defense counsel. (Response Brief, p. 2-3, paragraphs 8 and 9). The Plaintiff also
improperly includes confidential settlement discussions between defense counsel and the pro se
Plaintiff in his Motion. (Response Brief, p. 3, paragraph 9). As these allegations and the
majority of the Plaintiff’s Response Brief have nothing to do with Defendants’ Motion to Quash
and Stay, Defendants will not be responding to these irrelevant accusations and incorrect
remarks.
7. Since the Plaintiff has failed to properly rebut the Defendants’ Motion, the
Motion to Quash and Stay must be granted.
3

4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 4 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
WHEREFORE, Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and
Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota respectfully request that Defendants’
Motion be granted 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 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 5 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 24th 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 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 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