📄 Extracted Text (14,557 words)
Filing # 35983588 E-Filed 12/29/2015 03:18:34 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
EDWARDS, et at,
Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT / COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ'S
OBJECTIONS TO PLAIN 17N1•b'
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT (PUNITIVE DAMAGES)
Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan M. Dershowitz ("Defendant") submits the
following objections and responses to the Request for Production to Defendant (Punitive
Damages) ("Document Request") propounded by Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants Bradley
J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell ("Plaintiffs").
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
These responses and objections reflect the current state of Defendant's knowledge
regarding the matters discussed herein. Defendant has not completed his discovery or trial
preparation in this matter. Accordingly, Defendant reserves the right to revise, correct, clarify,
supplement, or amend his objections and responses to reflect information hereafter discovered or
acquired. These responses and objections are provided without prejudice to the rights of
Defendant to use or rely upon subsequently discovered information or documents at any time,
including at trial. The fact that a Document Request has been complied with in part shall not be
construed as a waiver of all or any part of any objection that Defendant might or could make to
EFTA00593906
any Document Request propounded by Plaintiffs. Defendant further reserves the right to object
to the admission in evidence of any and all information made available in response to the
Document Request on any ground, including, but not limited to, the ground that it is irrelevant
and immaterial to the issues in this action.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST
1. Please product all Financial Statements prepared for or submitted to any Lender
or Investor for the past three (3) years by you personally or on your behalf or on behalf of any
entity in which you hold a controlling interest.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
2
EFTA00593907
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
2. Please product the W-2's and any other documents reflecting any income
(including salary, bonuses, dividends, profit distributions, royalties, advances, and any other
3
EFTA00593908
form of income), including all gross and net revenue received by you directly or indirectly for
the past three (3) years.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
4
EFTA00593909
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the term "indirectly" as
vague and ambiguous as used in the context of this Document Request. Defendant objects to the
"instructions" to the extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in
the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to
require a privilege log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects
to the extent that the "instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in
which any privilege log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant
objects to Plaintiffs' "Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the
obligations of the parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
3. All tax returns filed with any taxing entity during the past three (3) years by you
or on your behalf, or on behalf of any entity in which you hold or held a controlling interest at
the time of filing.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
5
EFTA00593910
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
6
EFTA00593911
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
4. All bank statements or other financial statements which were prepared by you, on
your behalf or by or on behalf of any entity in which you had an ownership interest of 10% or
more at any time during the past three (3) years.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
7
EFTA00593912
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
8
EFTA00593913
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
5. All financial statements which were prepared by you or on your behalf, or by or
on behalf of any entity in which you held an ownership interest of 10% or more at any time
during the past three (3) years.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
9
EFTA00593914
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
6. The deeds and titles to all real property owned by you or held on your behalf
either directly or indirectly at any time during the past three (3) years.
I0
EFTA00593915
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
11
EFTA00593916
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the phrase "held on your
behalf" as vague and ambiguous as used in the context of this Document Request. Defendant
objects to the "instructions" to the extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant
beyond those in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"instruction" purporting to require a privilege log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any
privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the "instruction" purports to require a
privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege log that Plaintiffs ultimately may
produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "Continuing Request" as inconsistent
with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the parties in this action with respect to
discovery responses.
7. All passbooks with respect to all savings accounts, checking accounts and savings
and loan association share accounts owned by you or on which you hold a right or have a held a
right to withdraw funds at any time during the past three (3) years.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
12
EFTA00593917
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
13
EFTA00593918
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
8. All passbooks with respect to all savings accounts, checking accounts and savings
loan association share accounts, owned by you in whole or in part jointly as co-owner, partner, or
joint venturer, in any business enterprise, or owned by an entity in which you have or have had a
controlling interest at any time during the past three (3) years.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
14
EFTA00593919
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
15
EFTA00593920
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
9. The bank ledger sheets in your possession, or accessible by you on the internet or
otherwise, with respect to all bank accounts in which you have a right to withdraw funds,
reflecting the highest balance in said accounts for each month during the 365 days preceding
your receipt of this Request.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
16
EFTA00593921
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
10. The bank ledger sheets in your possession, or accessible by you on the internet or
otherwise, with respect to all bank accounts owned by you solely, or jointly as co-owner, partner,
17
EFTA00593922
or joint venturer, in any business enterprise, or any entity in which you have or have had a
controlling interest at any time during the past three (3) years, reflecting the highest balance in
said accounts for each month during the 365 days preceding your receipt of this Request.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
18
EFTA00593923
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
11. All checkbooks for all accounts on which you were authorized to withdraw funds
for the past three (3) years.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
19
EFTA00593924
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks documents generated since this action began as overly burdensome.
Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of
things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant
objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as
application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your information
technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network
drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data
storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols" as
overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and
"You." Defendant is an individual and has no officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's
attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and therefore, seeking their own personal
20
EFTA00593925
documents is improper. Defendant objects to the time frame stated within this Document
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to the "instructions" to the
extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to require a privilege
log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects to the extent that the
"instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in which any privilege
log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs'
"Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the obligations of the
parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
12. All corporate securities (stocks or bonds) owned by you, directly or indirectly.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive damages, which must be more
than the mere assertion of an intentional act that, as a matter of law, potentially permits recovery
of punitive damages. By responding to this Document Request, Defendant does not concede that
any document requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant objects to the
extent that any documents that might be responsive to this Document Request are not relevant to
any issues in dispute in this litigation and the Document Request is not reasonably calculated to
21
EFTA00593926
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant objects to the production of personal
financial information prematurely in this action and without appropriate additional
confidentiality order. Defendant expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery on the
subject matter of this Document Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the
extent that it seeks intangible items and as an improper Interrogatory misstated as a Document
Request. Defendant objects to this Document Request to the extent that it seeks documents
generated since this action began as overly burdensome. Defendant objects to the definition of
"Documents" to the extent that it seeks the production of things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280
of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to
the extent that it seeks "electronic data as well as application metadata and system metadata" and
"inventories and rosters of your information technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software
and data, including but not limited to network drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers,
PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data storage and/or transmission features), programs, data
maps and security tools and protocols" as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant
objects to the definitions of "Defendant" and "You." Defendant is an individual and has no
officers or directors; moreover, Defendant's attorneys, employees, and agents are not parties and
therefore, seeking their own personal documents is improper. Defendant objects to the
"instructions" to the extent that they purport to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those in
the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' "instruction" purporting to
require a privilege log unless and until Plaintiffs' produce any privilege log, and further objects
to the extent that the "instruction" purports to require a privilege log with detail or in a format in
which any privilege log that Plaintiffs ultimately may produce does not include. Defendant
22
EFTA00593927
objects to Plaintiffs' "Continuing Request" as inconsistent with Plaintiffs' position regarding the
obligations of the parties in this action with respect to discovery responses.
13. The latest available balance sheets and other financial statements with respect to
any and all business enterprises of whatever nature in which you possess any ownership interest
of 10% or more, whether as partner, joint venturer, stockholder, or otherwise.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as premature because Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a claim for punitive damages.
Defendant will move for summary judgment on the requesting parties' claim for punitive
damages. Defendant further objects to this Document Request because net worth is not a
relevant subject matter and has no probative value until the trial court makes a determination that
there is a reasonable evidenti
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
20ba7c838520517f74811c3d024500e42e3cebd86f45c29fd7a6056d04fab089
Bates Number
EFTA00593906
Dataset
DataSet-9
Document Type
document
Pages
48
Comments 0