Doc.59

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2011 Page 1 of 10

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 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”) by and through their

undersigned counsel, file their Brief in Response to Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu’s (“Plaintiff”)

Motion to Compel Responses to Second Request for Production and Interrogatories and state as

follows:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE

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

that Motion will bring and end to this lawsuit and the need for discovery and ruling on the

Plaintiffs’ discovery motions.

2. Plaintiff pled guilty to charges of conspiring to illegally export military and dual

use aircraft parts to Iran. Plaintiff was sentenced to 35 months for his crimes. Towards the end

of his sentence, Plaintiff was transferred to Dismas, a “half way house,” on July 28, 2010 until

his release date of January 31, 2011. (Complaint, p. 14) Dismas is a private non-profit

corporation known as a CCC Contractor. (Complaint, p. 36)

3. Due to health issues, the Plaintiff was staying at his home subject to terms and

conditions of his halfway house release, which he agreed to in writing. His consent form is

attached to Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production allegedly filed

by the Plaintiff in support of his Motion. These conditions included the Plaintiff’s agreement not

to drive with the permission or consent of Dismas and not to possess contraband, including cell

phones.

4. When the Plaintiff drove himself to Dismas, without the permission of Dismas

and was found to be in possession of a cell phone in the car, Dismas was required to report

Plaintiff’s breaches of his release to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Federal Bureau of

Prisons then had the United States Marshall’s Service return the Plaintiff to the Federal

Detention Center-Miami to serve out the last 68 days of his federal prison sentence.

5. Since the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the Defendants, returned the Plaintiff to

prison to serve out the remainder of his sentence, then the Defendants cannot be liable for any

alleged damages sustained by the Plaintiff. As halfway house is a privilege, not a right, the

2



Plaintiff, who was still serving his felony sentence, cannot maintain a cause of action for loss of

his halfway house privileges. Further, since the Plaintiff was a felon serving out a prison

sentence at the time all of the alleged events occurred he cannot be falsely imprisoned as one

cannot falsely imprison an inmate still serving his sentence, whether it be in prison or a halfway

house. Lastly, since the Defendants are not the Federal Government or its agency, they cannot

be sued for any constitutional violations.

6. The Plaintiff has harassed and continues to harass Dismas and its employees

Gispert, Thomas and Adams by filing a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking over $3,000,000 in

damages. The Plaintiff has continued his harassment by sending each Defendant two sets of

interrogatories and two sets of request for production. The harassing nature of the discovery is

reflected in the discovery itself, which seeks personal information from each Defendant (home

address and social security number and donations to charity) when they are being sued in their

professional capacity and irrelevant financial, legal and corporate information about Dismas and

all of its employees nationwide.

7. While the Plaintiff’s Complaint is vague, confusing and fails to set forth any

proper causes of action, the Plaintiff is claiming damages from Dismas, Adams, Thomas and

Gispert for some event that allegedly occurred at Dismas. In other words, the sole basis of the

lawsuit is issues between the Plaintiffs and Defendants only.

8. However, the Plaintiff, based upon his discovery and comments via email to

defense counsel, appears to have some vendetta in which he seeks to expose alleged corruption at

Dismas nationwide and corruption with the halfway house system in general. As these matters

are not at issue, any discovery towards these issues must not be permitted as it is not relevant or

3



reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Any issues regarding the

halfway house system would be the responsibility of the appropriate Federal agency, not the

Plaintiff.

9. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel must be denied.

ARGUMENT AND CITIATION TO AUTHORITY

1. The Defendants have properly responded to the Requests for Production.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Requests for

Production against the Defendants. (Docket number 58). As the Defendants have agreed to

produce 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). The

rule states:

(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise
stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or
electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of
business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the
request;

The document inspection cannot occur at Dismas’ offices because as a condition of the

Plaintiff’s supervised release from prison, he is not allowed contact or to be around convicted

felons. As convicted felons live at Dismas, the Plaintiff should not return to Dismas. Further,

since Dismas is represented by counsel and does not want direct contact with the Plaintiff on

their premises, the inspection of documents should occur at Dismas’ counsel’s office, which is

actually closer to the Plaintiff’s home than Dismas’ offices. However, Defendants have

produced the documents requested upon receipt of copying charges paid by the Plaintiff.

4



Plaintiff claims Dismas has not produced videotape surveillance from the dates relevant

to this lawsuit. As Defendants stated in their response, the video, whether it be digital or on tape,

does not exist. Defendants cannot be compelled to produce something that does not exist. While

Plaintiff claims the Federal Bureau of Prisons requires records to be maintained for thirty years,

he offers not legal or regulatory support for this contention. Even assuming it is true, Dismas is

not the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Lastly, the Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production has twelve requests. Of the twelve,

Defendant’s objected to three (Requests 8, 9 and 10). Requests 8 and 9 requested documents

supporting defendants’ defenses to the lawsuit. As Defendants have not answered because they

filed a Motion to Dismas, the response is none. Despite the objections, Defendants responded

and referred the Plaintiff to the documents produced. Request 10 confusing requests documents

relied upon in responding the request for production. Despite the confusing nature of the request

seeking documents relied upon in responding to a request for production (the response would be

the documents themselves), Dismas again responded and referred the Plaintiff to documents it

agreed to produce in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production. Defendants have

produced the documents.

Dismas produced the documents requested by the Plaintiff, as is evidenced by the

documents attached to the response to the Second Request for Production. Dismas has also

provided the Plaintiff with the documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production

once it received payment for copying costs by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel

is moot as Defendants have complied with the Requests and produced all responsive documents.

5



2. The Defendants have properly responded to Plaintiff’s First and Second
Interrogatories.

The Defendants have properly responded and objected to Plaintiff’s First Set of

Interrogatories. With regards to the individual Defendants Thomas, Gispert and Adams,

objections were made to three questions. While objections were posed, the Defendants still

responded to the questions. (See responses to questions 1, 2 and 3) However, the individual

Defendants, who work in the correctional field with convicted felons and are being sued in their

professional capacity, should not be required to provide their home address, date of birth, social

security number and marital status. This information is not only confidential for security

purposes but not relevant.

Dismas also properly responded and objected to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.

Dismas objected to seven of the twelve questions. However, Dismas followed its objections with

responses to five of the questions, specifically questions 2, 5, 10 and 12. As Dismas has

responded to the questions after preserving its rights to object, there is nothing to compel.

In response to question one, Dismas has objected to providing the names and addresses of

its officer, directors, partners and persons with a financial interest. This information is not

relevant as Dismas, a corporation, can only be sued in its individual capacity. Dismas should not

be compelled to provide home addresses for its officers and directors so that they could then be

subjected to harassment by the Plaintiff. The request for parties with any interest in Dismas is not

only vague, but appears to be intended to find inadmissible and irrelevant financial information

about Dismas. The Plaintiff was directed to Dismas’ website so that he could find any additional

6



information about Dismas, which is a Kentucky corporation that runs halfway houses throughout

the country.

Question 9 seeks salary information about Dismas’ CEO and Executive Vice President.

This information is clearly not relevant or calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

This is yet another example of Plaintiff using the judicial process not to find out information that

may be relevant to his case, but to harass Dismas and find out irrelevant financial information.

The Plaintiff is clearly not entitled to financial information,

Question 10 again demonstrates Plaintiff’s abuse of discovery to find out irrelevant and

personal information from Dismas. This question seeks information about political contributions

made by Dismas and all of its employees. Whether Dismas or any of its employees donated to a

political party, re-election campaign or political action committee or participated in a political

event is clearly not relevant to any issue in the Plaintiff’s vague and confusing lawsuit. For

example, if a Dismas employee in Kentucky contributed to the Democratic or Republican Party

and attended a political event for someone running for the local assembly, how could that

possibly be relevant to any issue in this lawsuit involving a Florida Plaintiff?? Again, the

Plaintiff is going on a fishing expedition, through discovery, to harass Dismas so that he could

improperly find out information about Dismas, the corporate structure, finances and personal

information about its employees.

The Defendants have clearly properly responded to Plaintiff’s Second Set of

Interrogatories. Each Defendant was asked the same three questions. Each Defendant answered

the questions without objection. Accordingly, there is nothing to compel.

7



Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied as Defendants have timely and properly

responded to all discovery requests. For the reasons discussed above, the Plaintiff should be

sanctioned for filing a Motion and forcing Dismas to have to respond to the 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

8



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 28th day of September, 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

9



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

10

Doc.59

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Doc.59

More from Cocoselul Inaripat

Recently uploaded

Doc.59