Doc.63

Document Sample
Doc.63 Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63             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
    SUPPLEMENT 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”), through their undersigned

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

  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
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63           Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 2 of 6


                                            CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON

  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 Supplemental Motion to Compel. (Docket 61)

         4.      For the reasons set forth below, the Motion and Supplemental Motion to Compel

  must be denied.

                       ARGUMENT AND CITIATION TO AUTHORITY

         The Defendants have properly responded to the 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 to Compel 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 the

  Supplemental Motion to Compel.

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

  Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production. Accordingly, there is nothing to compel.




                                                 2
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63             Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 3 of 6


                                             CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON

  Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied as Defendants have timely and properly responded to all

  discovery requests.

          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 61,

  paragraphs 11, 12, 19-31 and page 7 of the Motion). For example, the Plaintiff raises the First

  Amendment, Freedom of Religion Argument and Title VII argument in page 6 of the Motion to

  Compel. Clearly, these issues have nothing to do with the Motion to Compel. A Motion to

  Compel is an improper forum to argue the alleged merits of his case.

          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

  Defendants answers to the questions as they are in contravention to his position and harm his

  case.

          The Plaintiff is confusing a Motion to Compel Responses with a Motion to Compel

  Responses That He Likes. 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. The Plaintiff apparently does not like the answers and is moving to compel the

  Defendants to change their answers to ones acceptable to the Plaintiff. Apparently, the Plaintiff

  cannot handle the truth.

          If the Plaintiff disagrees with the answers provided, then he has the ability to refute the

  Defendants’ statements at trial. The Plaintiff cannot move the Court to compel the Defendants to




                                                   3
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63              Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 4 of 6


                                              CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON

  change their answers to answers acceptable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Motion must be

  denied.

            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
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63           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
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63        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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Stats:
views:1
posted:10/18/2011
language:English
pages:6
Description: United States Court House,Southern District Of Florida,Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities,Ana Gispert,Derek Thomas,LaShonda Adams