Preview
Filing# 142829638 E-Filed 01/28/2022 08:08:58 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
17thJUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CRAIG BERKY, CASE NO.: CACE-21-010698
Plaintiff,
VS.
NAGLREITER CONSULTING, LLC,
Defendant.
i
CRAIG BERKY'S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS TO SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,CRAIG BERKY, pursuant to Rules 1.280 and 1.340 of the
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves to compel better answers from NAGLREITER
CONSULTING, LLC to and
Berky's Second Set of Interrogatories states:
1. On November 3, 2021, Berky served his Second Set of Interrogatorieson
Naglreiter.
2. On December 30, 2021, Naglreiterserved its Answers to Counter-Defendant's
A copy
Second Set of Interrogatories. is attached as Exhibit "1".
3. answers
Naglreiter's to numbered 2,3, and 4 are deficient and
interrogatories
unresponsive. Accordingly, Berky seeks better answers to those interrogatories.
4. Naglreiterallegesthe followingin Paragraph 11 o f its Counterclaim:
As a consequence of Craig Berky's breach of the Consulting Agreement,
NMDDO has been damaged in its business and property. Among other things,
three engineers resigned their positionswith NMDDO
as a direct result of
Craig Berky's breaches of the Consulting Agreement, causing in excess of
$100,000 in damage to NMDDO.
llPage
BARNHART LAW FIRM
12555 Orange Drive '
Second Floor Davie, FL 33330
Phone (954) 526- 1814
'
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 01/28/2022 08:08:57 AM.****
5. In Interrogatory No. 2, Berky sought the name of the engineers referenced in
Paragraph 11 of the Counterclaim, as well as their email addresses, phone numbers, mailing
addresses and dates of resignation.
6. answer
Naglreiter's to InterrogatoryNo. 2 is insufficient in that it only identifies
two engineers,failingidentifythe third. Furthermore, Naglreiterfailed to provide the last known
email addresses and telephonenumbers for the engineers.
7. As for InterrogatoryNo. 3, Counter-Defendant sought the amount, basis, and
answer is unresponsive and insufficient
calculation ofNaglreiter'sclaimed damages. Naglreiter's
as it wholly failed to answer the interrogatory.
Naglreiterinstead refused to answer the question,
it will defer
indicating to expert testimony. While Counter-Defendant anticipates
eventual expert
testimony with respect to damages, it is entitled to the current information. Counter-Defendant is
includingat a minimum (i)the "in excess of $100,00 in damage'
..
entitled to the current information
caused by the "resignation"of the three engineers alleged in Paragraphs 11 and 22 of the
Counterclaim, and (ii)the amount and volume of the alleged unbilled work. To the extent
Naglreiterclaims that its engineersnot being paid for this work is a component of its damages,
Counter-Defendant is entitled to that information as well.
8 In Paragraphs 7 and 19 of its Counterclaim, Naglrieter alleges Mr. Berky
"concealed the contents of the Provider Services Agreement from Senior Management of
NMDDO", Paragraph 7
specifically states as follows:
The Provider Services Agreement that Craig Berky caused NMDDO to enter into
with Dalent was extremely one-sided in favor o f Dalent. Essentially,Craig Berky
caused NMDDO to become contractually to
obligated provide services to Dalent
for far less than the services were worth. Senior management of NMDDO never
would have agreed to enter into the Provider Services Agreement that Craig Berky
negotiatedand then signed on behalf of NMDDO, but for the fact that Craig Berky
21Page
BARNHART LAW FIRM
12555 Orange Drive '
Second Floor Davie, FL 33330
Phone (954) 526- 1814
'
concealed the contents of the Provider Services Agreement from senior
management ofNMDDO.
9- In InterrogatoryNo. 4, Berky requested all facts supportingNaglreiter's
claim that
he concealed the Dalent Agreement. In response, Naglreiterstated that it "does not claim that
,,.
Berky 'concealed the Dalent Agreement.
10. Based on the allegations
in the Counterclaim that Berky "concealed the contents of
the Dalent Agreement," which underpinNaglreiter's
claims, Berky is entitled to discover the facts
upon which Naglrietermakes its claim of concealment.
11. Berky will be prejudiced without the benefit of full and complete answers to
No. 2,3, and 4.
Interrogatories
12. Prior to this Motion being filed,undersigned counsel sent a good faith conferral
letter to counsel on January 14,2022.
Naglreiter's A copy is attached as Exhibit "2." A response
was requestedby January 20,2022. As ofthe filing
ofthis Motion no response has been received.
WHEREFORE, Counter-Defendant, CRAIG BERKY, respectfullyrequests this Court
enter an Order grantinghis Motion to Compel Better Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories
(No. 2,3, and 4) and for such other relief this Court deems justand proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON FOLLOWING PAGE
31Page
BARNHART LAW FIRM
12555 Orange Drive '
Second Floor Davie, FL 33330
'
Phone (954) 526- 1814
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 27, 2022, I filed the foregoing
electronically
document with the Clerk of Court using the Florida E-FilingPortal.
By-./s/ Valerie Barnhart
Valerie B. Barnhart, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 88549
[rm.com
valerie@barnhartfii
BARNHART LAWFIRM
12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor
Davie, Florida 33330
Telephone: 954-526-1814
41Page
BARNHART LAW FIRM
12555 Orange Drive '
Second Floor Davie, FL 33330
'
Phone (954) 526- 1814
EXHIBIT 1
INTHE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case no. CACE-21-010698
Division 03
THREE RIVERS PARTNERS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
VS.
NAGLREITER CONSULTING, LLC,
Defendant.
i
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,NAGLREITER CONSULTING, LLC, serves its responses
to the correspondinglynumbered paragraphs of Counter-Defendant CRAIG BERKY's Second Set
of Interrogatories
to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff as follows:
1. What is the name and address of the person answering these interrogatories,
and, if
applicable,the person's official with
positionor relationship NAGLREITER CONSULTING,
LLC?
Response-. Brett Naglreiter,manager for NaglreiterConsulting,LLC
3451 Commerce Parkway, Miramar, FL 33025
2. Please identify
the name ofthe engineersand associates referenced in paragraph 11
ofyour Counterclaim, and for each provide their last known email address,phone number, mailing
address and dates of resignation.
Response: ChristopherAccetmro, , did not resign
but declined to work any additional hours for NaglreiterConsulting,LLC startingin May
012021; and
Venkatesh Vasudevan, , resigned on
4/23/2021.
3 Please describe in complete detail each item of damage you contend you sustained
as a result of the claims set forth in your Counterclaim. Include in your answer: (i)the nature and
amount of damage, including,without limitation,whether the damage being claimed is actual or
statutory; (ii) an explanationof how
the factual basis for each item of damage; (iii) you computed
each item of damage, including any mathematical formula used; and (iv)the identityof any
documents and/or electronically
stored data reviewed, relied upon and/or supportingyour damage
calculation.
Response-. Damages have not been determined at this time. It is anticipatedthat this
?
this,in part, will be the subjectof expert testimony.
4. Please state all facts that support your claim that the Berky concealed the Dalent
agreement.
Response-. NaglreiterConsulting does not claim that Berky "concealed the Dalent
agreement." NaglreiterConsulting maintains that, while employed by NaglreiterConsulting,
Berky negotiateda Provider Services Agreement with Dalent that was one-sided infavor of Dalent.
5. Please state all facts that support your claim that the Berky told engineers and
associates assignedto work for Dalent not to bill for all of their time, as stated in Paragraph 8 of
the Counterclaim.
2
Response-. The individuals referenced in the response to Interrogatoryno. 2 above
Craig Berky,directed them not to record time
reportedto NaglreiterConsultingthat the Plaintiff,
theyworked on the Dalent matter.
As authorized by Fla. Stat. §92.55, under penaltiesofperjury,I declare that I have read the
foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true.
Dated: December 30,2021.
NaglreiterConsulting,LLC
By: /s/ Brett Naglreiter
Brett Naglreiter,
Manager
3
61039239;1
t 1'112
B
JAANHATTLAWF 7
A BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
Valerie Barnhart. Esc].
rm.com
valerie@barnhartfi
January 13, 2022
Via E-mail (mark.bernet@#kerman.com)
Mark Bernet, Esq.
Akerman LLP
401 East Jackson Street,Suite 1700
Tampa, FL 33602
RE: Craig Berky v. NaglreiterConsulting / Conferral on Naglreieter'sDiscovery Responses
Dear Mr. Bernet:
Please allow this correspondenceto serve as our conferral regardingNaglreiter's
responses to Craig
Berky's Second Set of Interrogatories.
I. Deficiencies with Naglreiter's Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories.
1. In Paragraph 11 of its Counterclaim, Naglreiteralleges:
11. As a consequence of Craig Berky'sbreach of the Consulting Agreement,
NMDDO has been damaged in its business and property. Among other three engineers
things,
resignedtheir positionswith NMDDO as a direct result of Craig Berky'sbreaches of the
ConsultingAgreement, causingin excess of $100,000 in damage to NMDDO.
No. 2 seeks the name of the engineersand associates referenced in Paragraph 11 as well
Interrogatory
as their last known email address,phone number, mailing address and dates ofresignation.
Only two engineers
(one of whom admittedly did not resign as alleged in Naglreiter'sCourt filing)Christopher Accetturo and
Venkatesh Vasudevan are identified. The third engineeris not identified. In addition,their last known email
addresses and telephonenumbers were not provided.
2. InterrogatoryNo. 3 seeks the amount, basis and calculation ofNaglreiter's
claimed damages.
I understand that Naglreiteranticipates eventual expert testimony on damages. However, damages are an
element of both ofNaglreiter'sclaims and Mr. Berky is entitled to the current information. This includes, at
minimum (i)the "in excess of $100,000 in damage" caused by the "resignation"of the three engineers
allegedin Paragraphs 11 and 22, and (ii)the amount and volume of the allegedunbilled work. To the extent
Naglreiterclaims that its engineersnot being paid for this work (which would have saved it money, if true)
is a component of its damages, this information should be provided as well.
3. InterrogatoryNo. 4 requests all facts that support Naglreiter's claim that the Berky concealed
the Dalent agreement. In response, Naglreiterstates that it "does not claim that Berky 'concealed the Dalent
agreement."' However, in Paragraphs7 and 19 ofthe Counterclaim, NaglreiterallegesMr. Berky "concealed
the contents ofthe Provider Services Agreement from Senior Management ofNMDDO":
7. The Provider Services Agreement that Craig Berky caused NMDDO to enter into
with Dalent was extremely one-sided in favor of Dalent. Essentially, Craig Berky caused
NMDDO to become contractually obligated to provide services to Dalent for far less than the
services were worth. Senior management ofNMDDO never would have agreed to enter into the
Provider Services Agreement that Craig Rerky negotiated and then signed on behalfofNMDDO,
but for the fact that Craig Berky concealed the contents ofthe Provider Services Agreement from
senior management ofNMDDO.
As such, Mr. Berky is entitled to discover the facts upon which Naglreitermakes its claim of concealment
Please let me know by January 20,2022 ifNaglreiter
is willingto amend its answers to Second Set
of Interrogatoriesto cure the above deficiencies.
Sincerely,
/s/ Valerie Barnhart
Preview
Filing# 142829638 E-Filed 01/28/2022 08:08:58 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17thJUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CRAIG BERKY, CASE NO.: CACE-21-010698 Plaintiff, VS. NAGLREITER CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant. i CRAIG BERKY'S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS TO SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,CRAIG BERKY, pursuant to Rules 1.280 and 1.340 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves to compel better answers from NAGLREITER CONSULTING, LLC to and Berky's Second Set of Interrogatories states: 1. On November 3, 2021, Berky served his Second Set of Interrogatorieson Naglreiter. 2. On December 30, 2021, Naglreiterserved its Answers to Counter-Defendant's A copy Second Set of Interrogatories. is attached as Exhibit "1". 3. answers Naglreiter's to numbered 2,3, and 4 are deficient and interrogatories unresponsive. Accordingly, Berky seeks better answers to those interrogatories. 4. Naglreiterallegesthe followingin Paragraph 11 o f its Counterclaim: As a consequence of Craig Berky's breach of the Consulting Agreement, NMDDO has been damaged in its business and property. Among other things, three engineers resigned their positionswith NMDDO as a direct result of Craig Berky's breaches of the Consulting Agreement, causing in excess of $100,000 in damage to NMDDO. llPage BARNHART LAW FIRM 12555 Orange Drive ' Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 Phone (954) 526- 1814 ' *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 01/28/2022 08:08:57 AM.**** 5. In Interrogatory No. 2, Berky sought the name of the engineers referenced in Paragraph 11 of the Counterclaim, as well as their email addresses, phone numbers, mailing addresses and dates of resignation. 6. answer Naglreiter's to InterrogatoryNo. 2 is insufficient in that it only identifies two engineers,failingidentifythe third. Furthermore, Naglreiterfailed to provide the last known email addresses and telephonenumbers for the engineers. 7. As for InterrogatoryNo. 3, Counter-Defendant sought the amount, basis, and answer is unresponsive and insufficient calculation ofNaglreiter'sclaimed damages. Naglreiter's as it wholly failed to answer the interrogatory. Naglreiterinstead refused to answer the question, it will defer indicating to expert testimony. While Counter-Defendant anticipates eventual expert testimony with respect to damages, it is entitled to the current information. Counter-Defendant is includingat a minimum (i)the "in excess of $100,00 in damage' .. entitled to the current information caused by the "resignation"of the three engineers alleged in Paragraphs 11 and 22 of the Counterclaim, and (ii)the amount and volume of the alleged unbilled work. To the extent Naglreiterclaims that its engineersnot being paid for this work is a component of its damages, Counter-Defendant is entitled to that information as well. 8 In Paragraphs 7 and 19 of its Counterclaim, Naglrieter alleges Mr. Berky "concealed the contents of the Provider Services Agreement from Senior Management of NMDDO", Paragraph 7 specifically states as follows: The Provider Services Agreement that Craig Berky caused NMDDO to enter into with Dalent was extremely one-sided in favor o f Dalent. Essentially,Craig Berky caused NMDDO to become contractually to obligated provide services to Dalent for far less than the services were worth. Senior management of NMDDO never would have agreed to enter into the Provider Services Agreement that Craig Berky negotiatedand then signed on behalf of NMDDO, but for the fact that Craig Berky 21Page BARNHART LAW FIRM 12555 Orange Drive ' Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 Phone (954) 526- 1814 ' concealed the contents of the Provider Services Agreement from senior management ofNMDDO. 9- In InterrogatoryNo. 4, Berky requested all facts supportingNaglreiter's claim that he concealed the Dalent Agreement. In response, Naglreiterstated that it "does not claim that ,,. Berky 'concealed the Dalent Agreement. 10. Based on the allegations in the Counterclaim that Berky "concealed the contents of the Dalent Agreement," which underpinNaglreiter's claims, Berky is entitled to discover the facts upon which Naglrietermakes its claim of concealment. 11. Berky will be prejudiced without the benefit of full and complete answers to No. 2,3, and 4. Interrogatories 12. Prior to this Motion being filed,undersigned counsel sent a good faith conferral letter to counsel on January 14,2022. Naglreiter's A copy is attached as Exhibit "2." A response was requestedby January 20,2022. As ofthe filing ofthis Motion no response has been received. WHEREFORE, Counter-Defendant, CRAIG BERKY, respectfullyrequests this Court enter an Order grantinghis Motion to Compel Better Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 2,3, and 4) and for such other relief this Court deems justand proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON FOLLOWING PAGE 31Page BARNHART LAW FIRM 12555 Orange Drive ' Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 ' Phone (954) 526- 1814 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 27, 2022, I filed the foregoing electronically document with the Clerk of Court using the Florida E-FilingPortal. By-./s/ Valerie Barnhart Valerie B. Barnhart, Esq. Florida Bar No. 88549 [rm.com valerie@barnhartfii BARNHART LAWFIRM 12555 Orange Drive, Second Floor Davie, Florida 33330 Telephone: 954-526-1814 41Page BARNHART LAW FIRM 12555 Orange Drive ' Second Floor Davie, FL 33330 ' Phone (954) 526- 1814 EXHIBIT 1 INTHE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA Case no. CACE-21-010698 Division 03 THREE RIVERS PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff, VS. NAGLREITER CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant. i DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFF Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,NAGLREITER CONSULTING, LLC, serves its responses to the correspondinglynumbered paragraphs of Counter-Defendant CRAIG BERKY's Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff as follows: 1. What is the name and address of the person answering these interrogatories, and, if applicable,the person's official with positionor relationship NAGLREITER CONSULTING, LLC? Response-. Brett Naglreiter,manager for NaglreiterConsulting,LLC 3451 Commerce Parkway, Miramar, FL 33025 2. Please identify the name ofthe engineersand associates referenced in paragraph 11 ofyour Counterclaim, and for each provide their last known email address,phone number, mailing address and dates of resignation. Response: ChristopherAccetmro, , did not resign but declined to work any additional hours for NaglreiterConsulting,LLC startingin May 012021; and Venkatesh Vasudevan, , resigned on 4/23/2021. 3 Please describe in complete detail each item of damage you contend you sustained as a result of the claims set forth in your Counterclaim. Include in your answer: (i)the nature and amount of damage, including,without limitation,whether the damage being claimed is actual or statutory; (ii) an explanationof how the factual basis for each item of damage; (iii) you computed each item of damage, including any mathematical formula used; and (iv)the identityof any documents and/or electronically stored data reviewed, relied upon and/or supportingyour damage calculation. Response-. Damages have not been determined at this time. It is anticipatedthat this ? this,in part, will be the subjectof expert testimony. 4. Please state all facts that support your claim that the Berky concealed the Dalent agreement. Response-. NaglreiterConsulting does not claim that Berky "concealed the Dalent agreement." NaglreiterConsulting maintains that, while employed by NaglreiterConsulting, Berky negotiateda Provider Services Agreement with Dalent that was one-sided infavor of Dalent. 5. Please state all facts that support your claim that the Berky told engineers and associates assignedto work for Dalent not to bill for all of their time, as stated in Paragraph 8 of the Counterclaim. 2 Response-. The individuals referenced in the response to Interrogatoryno. 2 above Craig Berky,directed them not to record time reportedto NaglreiterConsultingthat the Plaintiff, theyworked on the Dalent matter. As authorized by Fla. Stat. §92.55, under penaltiesofperjury,I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. Dated: December 30,2021. NaglreiterConsulting,LLC By: /s/ Brett Naglreiter Brett Naglreiter, Manager 3 61039239;1 t 1'112 B JAANHATTLAWF 7 A BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM Valerie Barnhart. Esc]. rm.com valerie@barnhartfi January 13, 2022 Via E-mail (mark.bernet@#kerman.com) Mark Bernet, Esq. Akerman LLP 401 East Jackson Street,Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33602 RE: Craig Berky v. NaglreiterConsulting / Conferral on Naglreieter'sDiscovery Responses Dear Mr. Bernet: Please allow this correspondenceto serve as our conferral regardingNaglreiter's responses to Craig Berky's Second Set of Interrogatories. I. Deficiencies with Naglreiter's Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories. 1. In Paragraph 11 of its Counterclaim, Naglreiteralleges: 11. As a consequence of Craig Berky'sbreach of the Consulting Agreement, NMDDO has been damaged in its business and property. Among other three engineers things, resignedtheir positionswith NMDDO as a direct result of Craig Berky'sbreaches of the ConsultingAgreement, causingin excess of $100,000 in damage to NMDDO. No. 2 seeks the name of the engineersand associates referenced in Paragraph 11 as well Interrogatory as their last known email address,phone number, mailing address and dates ofresignation. Only two engineers (one of whom admittedly did not resign as alleged in Naglreiter'sCourt filing)Christopher Accetturo and Venkatesh Vasudevan are identified. The third engineeris not identified. In addition,their last known email addresses and telephonenumbers were not provided. 2. InterrogatoryNo. 3 seeks the amount, basis and calculation ofNaglreiter's claimed damages. I understand that Naglreiteranticipates eventual expert testimony on damages. However, damages are an element of both ofNaglreiter'sclaims and Mr. Berky is entitled to the current information. This includes, at minimum (i)the "in excess of $100,000 in damage" caused by the "resignation"of the three engineers allegedin Paragraphs 11 and 22, and (ii)the amount and volume of the allegedunbilled work. To the extent Naglreiterclaims that its engineersnot being paid for this work (which would have saved it money, if true) is a component of its damages, this information should be provided as well. 3. InterrogatoryNo. 4 requests all facts that support Naglreiter's claim that the Berky concealed the Dalent agreement. In response, Naglreiterstates that it "does not claim that Berky 'concealed the Dalent agreement."' However, in Paragraphs7 and 19 ofthe Counterclaim, NaglreiterallegesMr. Berky "concealed the contents ofthe Provider Services Agreement from Senior Management ofNMDDO": 7. The Provider Services Agreement that Craig Berky caused NMDDO to enter into with Dalent was extremely one-sided in favor of Dalent. Essentially, Craig Berky caused NMDDO to become contractually obligated to provide services to Dalent for far less than the services were worth. Senior management ofNMDDO never would have agreed to enter into the Provider Services Agreement that Craig Rerky negotiated and then signed on behalfofNMDDO, but for the fact that Craig Berky concealed the contents ofthe Provider Services Agreement from senior management ofNMDDO. As such, Mr. Berky is entitled to discover the facts upon which Naglreitermakes its claim of concealment Please let me know by January 20,2022 ifNaglreiter is willingto amend its answers to Second Set of Interrogatoriesto cure the above deficiencies. Sincerely, /s/ Valerie Barnhart