No Value: SCHMITZ, WILLIAM H. vs. PIMIENTA GARRIDO, ALEXMAR

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Filing # 66053004 E-Filed 01/03/2018 03:28:24 PM



                         THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
                                IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
                                             CIVIL ACTION


         WILLIAM H. SCHMITZ and JANICE K, SCHMITZ
         As Husband and Wife,

                 Plaintiffs,

         V.                                                                CASE NO.: 16-CA-001754

         ALEXMAR PIMIENTA GARRIDO,
         JLL LOGISTIC INC and ROBERTO LI,

                 Defendants.


                       PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SERVING EXPERT INTERROGATORIES

                COME      NOW      Plaintiffs, WILLIAM     H. SCHMITZ      and JANICE     K, SCHMITZ,       by and

         through their undersigned      attorneys,   and   in accordance    with the   applicable   Rules   of Civil

         Procedure, propound the attached interrogatories to be answered separately and fully in writing

         under oath and to serve a copy of your answers on the attorney for the Plaintiff within thirty (30)

         days of service hereof.

                This discovery request is propounded pursuant to the legal authority of Florida Rule of

         Civil Procedure 1.280(b) and the following case taw: Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993

         (Fla. 1999) (hereinafter “Boecher Il"), approving Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 705 So.2d 106, (Fla.

         4 DCA 1998) (hereinafter “Boecher |’); Springer v. West, 769 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5" DCA 2000);

         and/or Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

                The Florida Supreme Court stated in Boecher Il, “We find no indication from either the

         language of rule 1.280(b)(4) or our opinion in Eikins that the rule was intended to shield a party

         from revealing the extent of its relationship with an expert witness.” 733 So. 2d at 999 (Fla. 1999).

         As explained by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in the underlying opinion:

                It occurs to us that, in this pervasively computerized generation of doing business,
                any going concern would be sorely tried to establish burdensomeness in the mere
                retrieval of this kind of information. Surely Alistate has the power to pluck the data
from its own cyberspace. The burden placed on this party should be presumed to
        be no more difficult than selecting the correct keys on a board or icons on a screen.
        Allstate has done nothing in this record to dispel such a presumption.

Boecher |, 705 So.2d at 108 (Fla. 4° DCA 1998).        Furthermore, “[w]here an insurer provides a

defense for its insured and is acting as the insured’s agent, the insurer's relationship to an expert

is discoverable form the insured. To hold otherwise would render Boecher meaningless in all but

a small class of cases.     ... [T]he information sought is relevant to the witness’s bias and will

enhance the truth-seeking function and fairness of the trial, as intended by Boecher.” Springer v.

West, 769 So. 2d at 1069 (Fla. 5" DCA 2000).

        As for discoverability of similar information held by defense counsel, please see Morgan.

Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, which upheld a trial court’s Order compelling discovery from the

Plaintiffs counsel regarding any prior dealings or relationships between the law firm and the

involved expert witness.    798 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

        Recently, the Fifth District, in dicta, has suggested that ‘a defendant may question
        a plaintiff about any relationship between his or her attorney and the plaintiff's
        expert.’ This conclusion is a natural and logical extension of the requirement that
        defendant insurance companies disclose their financial relationships with their
        chosen expert witnesses.

id., at 6 (quoting Springer, 769 So. 2d at 1069 (Fla. 5" DCA 2000).

        In further support of this Request to Produce, Plaintiffs state that it is within the scope of

Rule 1.280(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; Plaintiffs need the opportunity to inspect these

documents in preparation of this case; and that Plaintiffs are unable, without undue hardship, to

obtain the substantial equivalent by other means.

                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been

furnished by electronic mail to William Boltrek, Ill, Esquire, HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES

& HOLT, P.A., Attorneys for Defendants, Post Office Box 280, 1715 Monroe Street, Fort Myers,

FL   33902-0280,   at the   designated   email   address(es)   of william.boltrek@henlaw.com      and

brenda.sitar@henlaw.com, this aa
                              <  day of January, 2018,
GOLDBERG NOONE, LLC
      Attorneys for Plaintiffs
      Post Office Box 190
      Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0190
      (239) 461-5508
      (239) 461-3915 (Facsimile)


By:   Ara) Voc
      MichaeUM. Noone
      Florida Bar No.:   0105139
      Email: MikeNoone@goldberg-law.com
              service@goldberg-law.com
      Elizete D. Velado
      Florida Bar No.: 0099668
      Email: ElizeteVelado@goldberg-law.com