1. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62 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 STRIKE
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE 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 Strike Defendants’ Response Brief in Response to Plaintiff’s 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

2. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 2 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
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. 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 Motion to Strike Defendant’s Response Brief to his Motion to Compel. (Docket number
60).
4. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion must be denied.
ARGUMENT AND CITIATION TO AUTHORITY
The Defendants have properly responded to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
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 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 this Motion.
2

3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 3 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
Despite the facts that the Defendants, timely responded to the Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel, the Plaintiff has moved to strike the Defendants’ Response Brief. However, the
Plaintiff has not provided any legal or factual basis to strike the Defendants’ Response Brief.
Under the local rules, the Defendants have the right to file a response brief. The Plaintiff’s five
page brief is devoid of any discussion or reason why the Response Brief should be stricken. It
appears that the only reason the Plaintiff wants to strike the response brief is because he
disagrees with the Defendants’ position stated in the response brief. The fact that the Plaintiff
does not like the content of the response brief is not a reason to strike the brief. Since the
Plaintiff has not provided any legal basis to strike Defendant’s Brief, the Plaintiff’s Motion must
be denied.
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 60,
paragraphs 1-18, pages 2-4 of the Motion). For example, the Plaintiff makes baseless allegations
that Defendant Gispert is a racist and that Defendant Thomas has people “fronting for him.”
(Docket number 60, paragraphs 17-18) Clearly, these issues have nothing to do with the
Defendants’ Response Brief. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is not only improper as a whole but
is also an improper forum to argue the alleged merits of his case.
The Plaintiff has moved to strike Defendant’s Response Brief to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel. 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
3

4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 4 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
Defendants answers to the questions as they are in contravention to his position and harm his
case.
The Plaintiff is confusing a Motion to Strike a Response Brief with a Motion to Strike a
Response Brief That He Does Not Like. 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. Further, the Plaintiff cannot strike a response brief simply because he does not
agree with or like the arguments raised in the response brief.
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 62 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 62 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