1) The defendants filed a response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents from third parties. 2) The defendants argue that the plaintiff's motion should be denied because the court has ordered that no additional discovery is allowed, and the plaintiff has no standing to file a motion to compel against third parties that he did not properly subpoena. 3) The defendants also note that they have already produced documents to the court from the Federal Bureau of Prisons regarding the plaintiff's return to prison.

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