Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiffs,
VS.
Defendants.
1
This matter is before this Court on defendant Insurance Company of North America's
Motion for Protective Order ...(D.E. 812). The Court has considered the motion, the response, and
all pertinent materials in the file. The Court notes that although this motion was addressed to
plaintiffs, the subpoenas were issued by IYC, and only IYC has responded to same.
The beat goes on - but rises to new heights. This attempt at "discovery", which has
absolutely nothing to do with any claim in this lawsuit, relates back to plaintiffs' own motion filed
November 6,2009, which raised a collateral issue having nothing to do with the claims in this case.
A review of the current complaint, now reduced to some 43 pages (but even going back to the prior
complaints much longer than this) reveals it has no claims related to the matters to which this
"discovery" relates.
Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 877 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2010 Page 2 of 4
In addition, this Court indicated that the original request for an evidentiary hearing would be
"DENIED, without prejudice. To be kind, it is premature at this time. There is at best some hearsay
from another case that supports this extraordinary request" (D.E. 4 14,v 1). That statement was made
in the order ofNovember 17,2009. Despite that statement, and despite the fact that the response was
filed "along with hundreds of pages of exhibits, including declarations and depositions (sic)
transcripts" (see D.E. 667), no reply was ever filed. This Court made the previous statement in its
Order Re: Ex-Parte Emergency Motion for Protective Order on April 21,201 0.
Plaintiff IYC argues in its response to this motion that it was precluded from taking
depositions as of May 24,2010 per the Order re: Joint Motion for Abatement (D.E. 706) (see Resp.
p. 4), but never addresses why these depositions - if needed at all - were not taken in the months
preceding said order. It never addresses why they weren't taken during the period of April 21 - May
24,20 10 (see D.E. 667). Apparently, according to the response, the depositions were not set earlier
because "NA's Show Cause Reply was not served until June 1,2010" (Resp. p. 4). Apparently
plaintiff thinks it can wait until after the matter was fully briefed to - without leave of Court - set
discovery on the matter already briefed, and which it knows would result in more filings by both
The motion states that "None of these witnesses...have any knowledge regarding any issue
in this case. These depositions have absolutely no relevance to the allegations made in the Fourth
Amended Complaint" (Mot. p. 7). These arguments are not addressed, at all, in the response. The
motion further alleges that several of these proposed deponents have already been deposed regarding
the very same issues in the state (Europa Roofing) case (see Mot. pp. 5-6). That also is not addressed
in the response.
Even the law cited in support of the taking of the depositions is quite telling. Plaintiff starts
Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 877 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2010 Page 3 of 4
by quoting the case ofRosenbaum v. Becker & Poliakoff. P.A., No 08-CV-8 1004,2010 WL 623699
at * 1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23,2010), and a string of other cases, as follows: "The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure strongly favor a full and broad scope of discovery whenever possible, allowing a party to
obtain discovery of 'any matter, not privileged, that is relevant..."'. Conspicuously missing is the
remainder of the quote, which are the words that follow relevant, ... "to the claim or defense of any
party". As noted, supra, the relevance of these depositions "to the claim or defense of any party"
The Court has no choice but to conclude that this is the latest in a lengthy string of actions
vexatiously" (see 28 U.S.C. $1927). This Court has cajoled, warned, and pleaded with plaintiff to
act professionally, ethically, and appropriately, but it seems that even significant sanctions and a
finding of civil contempt2have not deferred it fkom proceeding down a path of obfuscation, delay,
Plaintiff "waives the flag" and argues the "catastrophic" effect on the right of Plaintiffs to
a fair trial, but apparently it wasn't "catastrophic" enough in November, 2009 to require all this
discovery back then. This is, purely and simply, just another of plaintiffs smokescreens ...
heightened, if that were possible, by seeking sanctions against INA for their alleged (and totally
unspecified) misconduct (see Resp. p. 19) ... unless opposing depositions that have already been
taken in another case and could easily be used herein constitutes bad faith ... or opposing last minute
depositions that could have been taken months ago constitutes bad faith ... or unless opposing
'There is nothing in the record to show that either plaintiff HPC or plaintiff Peter Halmos,
individually, were involved in the issuance of these subpoenas or the scheduling of these
depositions.
depositions on a matter totally irrelevant to the issues in this case - and without even seeking leave
-
of court to go there constitutes bad faith ... or unless opposing depositions set after a matter is fully
The Court being otherwise hlly advised in the premises it is hereby ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The motion for protective order be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
2, The Court finds that the depositions set, as noted, supra are in clear violation of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927.
4. The Court finds that this is "the last straw". PLAINTIFF IYC IS PLACED ON
5. The sanction of dismissal sought by INA is DENIED, without prejudice and may be
-4-