Preview
Filing # 167387428 E-Filed 02/23/2023 10:39:34 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 16-2022-CA-006138
PATRICK WINGATE &
GINGER WINGATE
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant.
________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE
Plaintiffs, PATRICK WINGATE & GINGER WINGATE, by and through their
undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Defendant’s First Request to Produce as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks
documents and information which are protected from discovery by virtue of the attorney-client
privilege.
2. Plaintiffs object to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks
documents or information that constitute the work-product or trial preparation materials of
Plaintiffs’ attorneys or other representatives, and reflect the mental impressions, conclusions,
opinions, or legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys or other representatives.
3. Plaintiffs object to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks
ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 02/23/2023 11:21:49 AM
documents and information not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4. Plaintiffs object to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks
documents which are already in Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
5. Plaintiffs object to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks
improper and premature bad faith discovery.
6. Plaintiffs have not completed their discovery, investigation, or preparation for trial
of this matter. Accordingly, documents and information are provided without prejudice to
Plaintiffs’ right to make further objections and present additional information and documents
which are hereafter discovered or which further discovery and investigation may indicate are
relevant to this action and called for by the Defendant.
7. Plaintiffs reserve the right to object as to the competency, relevancy, materiality
and admissibility of the information disclosed pursuant to Defendant’s First Request to Produce.
8. These general objections are applicable to each and every one of the following
responses and objections, and failure to repeat an objection in response to the specific Interrogatory
shall not be deemed a waiver of these general objections.
9. Plaintiffs object to each and every Request to the extent they call for information
protected by the Constitution of the State of Florida and any applicable statutes, including, but not
limited to, the right of privacy.
10. Inadvertent production of privileged information by Plaintiffs shall not constitute
waiver of any applicable privilege or doctrine, including, but not limited to, objection on the basis
of competency, confidentiality, relevancy, materiality, privilege and/or admissibility of evidence,
as such objections may apply at trial or otherwise in this action.
11. In the event that the Court rules upon any of Plaintiffs’ written objections, Plaintiffs
reserve the right to file a privilege log (or supplemental privilege log) identifying any privileged
documents that have become “otherwise discoverable.” Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293, 296
(Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Without waiving these objections, Plaintiffs respond to the Defendant’s First Request to
Produce, in compliance with the procedures specified in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,
using Plaintiffs’ understanding of the ordinary meaning of the terms and phrases in the Defendant’s
First Request to Produce, as follows:
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE
1. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in
scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence.
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, Plaintiffs have provided the materials in Plaintiffs’
possession. Materials have been provided directly to Defendant.
2. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, Plaintiffs has provided the materials in Plaintiffs’
possession. Materials have been provided directly to Defendant.
3. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in
scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence.
4. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in
scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence.
5. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in
scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence.
6. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in
scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence.
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, portions of Defendant’s request are public records
and/or in Defendant’s possession.
7. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, Plaintiffs have provided the materials in Plaintiffs’
possession. Materials have been provided directly to Defendant.
8. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, Plaintiffs have provided the materials in Plaintiffs’
possession. Materials have been provided directly to Defendant.
9. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION SKIPS #9.
10. Defendant is already in possession of any and all communications between Plaintiffs and
Defendant.
11. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in
scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence.
12. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in
scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence.
Notwithstanding the objections above, Plaintiffs have provided the materials in Plaintiffs’
possession.
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO FOLLOW]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
by Florida’s E-Portal System which will send electronic notice to Counsel for the Defendant on
this 23rd day of February 2023.
.
/s/ Anthony Fouladi____
Anthony A. Fouladi, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 91082
Serrano Cagan & Cagan
2300 Maitland Center Pkwy. Ste. 106
Maitland, Florida 32751
Phone No.: (877)4SCC-LAW
Service: service@serranocagan.com
Primary:afouladi@serranocagan.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Preview
Filing # 167387428 E-Filed 02/23/2023 10:39:34 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 16-2022-CA-006138 PATRICK WINGATE & GINGER WINGATE Plaintiffs, vs. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant. ________________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE Plaintiffs, PATRICK WINGATE & GINGER WINGATE, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Defendant’s First Request to Produce as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks documents and information which are protected from discovery by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. 2. Plaintiffs object to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks documents or information that constitute the work-product or trial preparation materials of Plaintiffs’ attorneys or other representatives, and reflect the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys or other representatives. 3. Plaintiffs object to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 02/23/2023 11:21:49 AM documents and information not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Plaintiffs object to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks documents which are already in Defendant’s possession, custody or control. 5. Plaintiffs object to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce to the extent it seeks improper and premature bad faith discovery. 6. Plaintiffs have not completed their discovery, investigation, or preparation for trial of this matter. Accordingly, documents and information are provided without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to make further objections and present additional information and documents which are hereafter discovered or which further discovery and investigation may indicate are relevant to this action and called for by the Defendant. 7. Plaintiffs reserve the right to object as to the competency, relevancy, materiality and admissibility of the information disclosed pursuant to Defendant’s First Request to Produce. 8. These general objections are applicable to each and every one of the following responses and objections, and failure to repeat an objection in response to the specific Interrogatory shall not be deemed a waiver of these general objections. 9. Plaintiffs object to each and every Request to the extent they call for information protected by the Constitution of the State of Florida and any applicable statutes, including, but not limited to, the right of privacy. 10. Inadvertent production of privileged information by Plaintiffs shall not constitute waiver of any applicable privilege or doctrine, including, but not limited to, objection on the basis of competency, confidentiality, relevancy, materiality, privilege and/or admissibility of evidence, as such objections may apply at trial or otherwise in this action. 11. In the event that the Court rules upon any of Plaintiffs’ written objections, Plaintiffs reserve the right to file a privilege log (or supplemental privilege log) identifying any privileged documents that have become “otherwise discoverable.” Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Without waiving these objections, Plaintiffs respond to the Defendant’s First Request to Produce, in compliance with the procedures specified in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, using Plaintiffs’ understanding of the ordinary meaning of the terms and phrases in the Defendant’s First Request to Produce, as follows: PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE 1. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, Plaintiffs have provided the materials in Plaintiffs’ possession. Materials have been provided directly to Defendant. 2. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, Plaintiffs has provided the materials in Plaintiffs’ possession. Materials have been provided directly to Defendant. 3. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence. 4. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence. 5. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence. 6. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, portions of Defendant’s request are public records and/or in Defendant’s possession. 7. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, Plaintiffs have provided the materials in Plaintiffs’ possession. Materials have been provided directly to Defendant. 8. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ objections, Plaintiffs have provided the materials in Plaintiffs’ possession. Materials have been provided directly to Defendant. 9. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION SKIPS #9. 10. Defendant is already in possession of any and all communications between Plaintiffs and Defendant. 11. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence. 12. In addition to the objections above, Plaintiffs object to this request as it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to result in admissible evidence. Notwithstanding the objections above, Plaintiffs have provided the materials in Plaintiffs’ possession. [CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO FOLLOW] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Florida’s E-Portal System which will send electronic notice to Counsel for the Defendant on this 23rd day of February 2023. . /s/ Anthony Fouladi____ Anthony A. Fouladi, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 91082 Serrano Cagan & Cagan 2300 Maitland Center Pkwy. Ste. 106 Maitland, Florida 32751 Phone No.: (877)4SCC-LAW Service: service@serranocagan.com Primary:afouladi@serranocagan.com Attorney for Plaintiffs