Preview
Filing# 166809011 E-Filed 02/14/2023 05:24:00 PM
INTHE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 21CA010729AXXXCE
ALDHOPE WILCENE BORNEUS,
Plaintiff(s),
VS.
TERRELL P. WINKLER
Defendant(s).
'
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST
FOR COMPULSORY PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
ALDHOPE
Plaintiff, WILCENE BORNEUS by and through his undersigned
("Plaintiff'),
counsel and pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.360 and 1.280, files his Objectionto
Defendant's Request for Physical Examination of Person and Motion for Protective Order, and as
grounds thereof states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Defendant, TERRELL P. WINKLER, (hereinafterthe "Defendant"), by and through their attorney
requested Plaintiff to submit to a Physical Examination ("CME") to take place on March 14, 2023, at
08:45 A.M. A copy of the Physical Examination Request is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Fla. R.
Civ. Pro. 1.280(c),a protectiveorder may be issued by this Court "to protect a party...from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense that justicerequires,including...
(1) that the discovery not be had."
2. Plaintiff to Paragraph three (3) of Defendant's Request for Physical
objectsspecifically
examination on the grounds that the scope of the examination does not comply with Fla. R.
Defendants failed to
Civ. Pro. 1.360(a)(1)(A). list on
specifically its request the tests to be
performed during the examination. Defendants have merely stated: "This examination would
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02/15/2023 05:37:17 PM.****
be conducted in the normal manner all such examinations are done, and will include,but not
be limited to: the taking of a written and/or oral history,x-rays and other radiographs,if
appropriate,testingand examination. The scope of the examination would be to inquireinto
all issues raised by problems allegedwithin the examiner's field of expertiseas
the particular
designated above." See Exhibit 1. Defendants have generally disclosed the nature of the
examinations. Since such testingmay include invasive tests which, if improperly performed,
may the permittanceof this examination as
cause serious injury, it stands would constitute a
departure from the essential requirements of law. See Schargrin v. Nacht, 683 So. 2d 1174,
1173 (Fla.4th DCA 1996). The taking of historyof the incident and any matter related to
of the Defendants
potentialliability is which would effectively
completely inappropriate,
result in a second depositionof the Plaintiffbya medical doctor.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ANALYSIS
3. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)requiresthat the requestingparty of the CME can
show the following:(a)the person's physicalor mental condition is at issue in the underlying
cause; and (b) good cause can be shown to permit the request. Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.360(a)(1)-
(2).The burden of showing that these two requirements have been met is placed on the
requestingparty at Upon the request of the party to be examined
hearing.Id. 1.360(a)(2).
"the court may establish rules governing such examination." Id. 1.360(a)(3).
protective
4. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280(c)(4),
a protectiveorder may be issued by this Court
whereby certain matters will not be inquiredinto,or the scope of discovery will be limited in
those certain matters.
5. Plaintiff requests to limit the scope ofthis evaluation as follows:
6. Plaintiff requests this court to:
a. Allow audio and videotapingof the entire examination/evaluation;
b. Require test materials to be provided by Dr. Warren Grossman, to
Plaintiff's counsel, within 30 days from the date of the evaluation, for the
and
use during this litigation at trial in this case;
C Allow the attendance o f Plaintiff's counsel at the evaluation;
d. Limit the history taken by the examiner to past medical history,the
mechanics o f the injuryand the current medical condition o f the Plaintiff;
7. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.4th DCA
1986), reasoned that Plaintiff's counsel should be permitted to be present during a
compulsory examination, as a "physician selected by defendant to examine plaintiff
is not
impartialmedical expert, indifferent
necessarilya disinterested, to the interests of
conflicting
the parties.The possibleadversary status of the examining doctor for the defense is,under
counsel to be present
ordinary circumstances, a compelling reason to permit plaintiff's to
guarantee, for example, that the doctor does not interrogate on liability
the plaintiff questions
in order to seek damaging admissions."
8. Plaintiff objects to the presence of anyone at the examination on Defendants'
behalf, includingbut not limited to, defense counsel. See Prince v. Mallari. 36 So.3d 128,
131-132 (Fla Sth DCA 2010) (defense counsel does not have the rightto be present at the
examination; Defendant is alreadyrepresentedby the examiner).
9. Plaintiff objects to being required to provide any materials as same is the
of the individual requestingthe exam, includingmedical records as they were
responsibility
produced to Defendants.
10. Plaintiff further requests this Court to restrict Dr. Grossman from requestingthe following
historyfrom the Plaintiff.
a. Plaintiff's version of how the accident happened, other than to describe the impact;
b. Timing as to when Plaintiff retained an attorney;
C Who referred Plaintiff to doctor or other health care provider;
any particular
d. Statements that Plaintiff may have made to others about the accident or about
Plaintiff' s injuries(such as police o fficers,EMT personnel, hospitalpersonnel,
doctors, etc.);
e. Details of prioraccidents that Plaintiff may have been involved in;
f. Timing as to when Plaintiff first saw a doctor or other health care providerin relation
to this accident;and
go Plaintiff's priorwork history.
11. Plaintiff objectsto the examiner rendering any opinions at trial outside of those contained
within the examiner's report, the compulsory medical examiner should also be precluded
from offeringopinions or other assessments of whether Plaintiff was frank,honest, credible,
truthful or not, and the examiner should be precluded from testifying
as to the time or
circumstances under which Plaintiff employed an attorney. See Wasden v. Seaboard Coast
Line Railroad Co., 474 So. 2d 825 (Fla.2d DCA 1985);Carver v. Orange County, 444 So. 2d
452 (Fla.5th DCA 1985); Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787
(Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. f DCA
th
1978);
Watson v. Builder's Square,563 So. 2d 721 (Fla.4?
th
DCA 1990).
12. Plaintiff requests that the CME physician be required to submit, to Defense counsel and
Plaintiff's counsel a written report within thirty(30)days of the examination.
simultaneously,
S*Q Fla. R. Civ. Pro. Further,Plaintiff requests that the
1.360(b)(1). CME physicianshall not
be permitted to change his opinions in his report. In the event the CME physician changes
the partiesshall file whatever additional motions they feel are
his testimony during trial,
appropriate.
13. Plaintiff requests leave to serve permittedby Elkins
interrogatories v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517
(Fla.1996) and Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So2d 993 (Fla.1999) approving Allstate
Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 705 So. 2d 106 (Fla.4th DCA 1998), and Springerv. West, 769 So2d
1068 (Fla.5th DCA 2000) (approvingBoecher).
14. Plaintiff requests Defendant be responsiblefor notifyingthe examining doctor of the terms of
the Order entered on these objections.Moreover, Plaintiff requests the examination not be
referred to as an "Independent Medical Examination" or any other designationor description
on the behalf of the
that suggests impartiality CME doctor.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff objects to Defendants' Request for Plaintiff to Submit to a compulsory physical
examination CME to be performed by Dr. Warren Grossman. Plaintiff requests this Honorable
Court to enter a Protective Order detailing
Plaintiff's request as described infra.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served via Florida's E-Filing Portal upon counsels of record on this 132
day of February 2023
Pike & Lustig,LLP
/s/ Daniel Lustijz
Michael J. Pike
Florida Bar No.: 617296
Daniel Lustig
Florida Bar No.: 059225
1209 N. Olive Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 855-7585
Facsimile: (561) 855-7710
Dleadings@pikelustig.com
EXHIBIT 1
Filing# 165072318 E-Filed 01/19/2023 04:07:32 PM
SFF-36476BC1/SZP
INTHE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.. CACE-21-010729
ALDOPHE WILCENE BORNEUS,
Plaintiff(s),
VS.
TERRELL P. WINKLER,
Defendant(s).
i
REQUEST FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION UNDER FLA. R. CIV. P. 1.360
AND DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS
(Please advise ifinterpreteris necessary)
with current address is requiredat time of examination)
(Stateissued photo identification
COME NOW the Defendants, TERRELL P. WINKLER, by and through undersigned
counsel,pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360, and states:
1. TYPE OF EXAMINATION REQUESTED - The Defendant, TERRELL P.
WINKLER requests the Plaintiff,ALDOPHE WILCENE BORNEUS, to submit to an
ORTHOPEDIC EXAMINATION with Dr. Warren Grossman of Orthopaedic Associates of
South Broward.
2. TIME AND PLACE OF EXAMINATION - This examination will be held on Tuesday,
March 14, 2023, at 8:45 AMat the office of Dr. Warren Grossman, Orthopaedic Associates of
South Broward, 1 S.W. 129th Avenue Suite #401 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028.
3 MANNER, CONDITIONS AND SCOPE OF EXAMINATION - This
examination would be conducted in the normal manner all such examinations are done, and will
include, but not be limited to: the taking of a written and/or oral history,x-rays and other
CASE NO: CACE-21-010729
Page 2
testingand examination. The scope of the examination would be to
radiographs,if appropriate,
inquireinto all issues raised by problems allegedwithin the examiner's field of
the particular
expertiseas designated above. A detailed written report, settingout the findings,including
results of all tests made, diagnosisand conclusions would be prepared by the expert which would
be available to counsel o f the examined party if requestedunder the provisionsof Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.360. The requesting party will pay for the examination, subjectto being taxed as costs, if
applicable.All similar reports of all earlier examinations of the same condition would be made
available as well. The requestingparty reserves all rightsunder Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360(b)(1)and
(3). THE PARTY TO BE EXAMINED IS REQUESTED TO GIVE NO LESS THAN 72
HOURS NOTICE (EXCLUDING WEEKENDS and HOLIDAYS) IF THE
APPOINTMENT CANNOT BE KEPT. THE EXAMINER MAY SEEK A
CANCELLATION FEE OF $500 IF APPROPRIATE NOTICE IS NOT GIVEN.
4. REASON FOR EXAMINATION - The party to be examined filed an action for
personalinjuriesand placed those allegationsin issue. There is good cause for the examination
as the requestingparty is permittedto inquireinto the allegedcondition(s).
5. DESIGNATION OF EXPERT - The examiner shall be referred to as a "Defense
requestedexpert."
6. RESPONSE REQUESTED- In accordance with the provisionsof Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.360, a response is requested. Should there be no objection,in order to prevent delay,it is
requestedcounsel for the party to be examined respond upon rece*t of this request.
respectfully
7. REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF THIRD PARTY PARTICIPATION- Fla.
R. Civ. P. 1.360 requires the request for the examination to indicate it will be recorded and
to specify the number of people attending, their role, and the method of recording
CASE NO: CACE-21-010729
Page 3
The Plaintiff is requestedto notifythe undersigned counsel if the examination is going to
be video taped, attended by counsel, attended by a Court reporter or any other person. The
identityof the person to attend and the capacity he or she will attend the examination in is
requestedwith the response to this notice.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy o f the foregoinghas been furnished
th
via Electronic Mail, to all counsel ofrecord on the attached Service List,this 19 day of January,
2023.
LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO,
COHEN & PETERFRIEND
Attorneys for Defendant
150 W. FlaglerStreet
Suite 2600
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 377-8900
Facsimile: (305) 377-8901
By /s/ Andrew J. Miller
Patrick W. Zalman
Florida Bar No.. 109334
Andrew J. Miller
Florida Bar No.: 1025552
LUKSMIA-Pleadings@LS-Law.com
SERVICE LIST
Counsel for Plaintiff;
Tephaine Whitmore, Esq.
OVADIA LAW GROUP, P.A.
4800 N. Federal Highway, Suite D204
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Preview
Filing# 166809011 E-Filed 02/14/2023 05:24:00 PM INTHE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 21CA010729AXXXCE ALDHOPE WILCENE BORNEUS, Plaintiff(s), VS. TERRELL P. WINKLER Defendant(s). ' PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR COMPULSORY PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ALDHOPE Plaintiff, WILCENE BORNEUS by and through his undersigned ("Plaintiff'), counsel and pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.360 and 1.280, files his Objectionto Defendant's Request for Physical Examination of Person and Motion for Protective Order, and as grounds thereof states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Defendant, TERRELL P. WINKLER, (hereinafterthe "Defendant"), by and through their attorney requested Plaintiff to submit to a Physical Examination ("CME") to take place on March 14, 2023, at 08:45 A.M. A copy of the Physical Examination Request is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280(c),a protectiveorder may be issued by this Court "to protect a party...from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense that justicerequires,including... (1) that the discovery not be had." 2. Plaintiff to Paragraph three (3) of Defendant's Request for Physical objectsspecifically examination on the grounds that the scope of the examination does not comply with Fla. R. Defendants failed to Civ. Pro. 1.360(a)(1)(A). list on specifically its request the tests to be performed during the examination. Defendants have merely stated: "This examination would *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02/15/2023 05:37:17 PM.**** be conducted in the normal manner all such examinations are done, and will include,but not be limited to: the taking of a written and/or oral history,x-rays and other radiographs,if appropriate,testingand examination. The scope of the examination would be to inquireinto all issues raised by problems allegedwithin the examiner's field of expertiseas the particular designated above." See Exhibit 1. Defendants have generally disclosed the nature of the examinations. Since such testingmay include invasive tests which, if improperly performed, may the permittanceof this examination as cause serious injury, it stands would constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Schargrin v. Nacht, 683 So. 2d 1174, 1173 (Fla.4th DCA 1996). The taking of historyof the incident and any matter related to of the Defendants potentialliability is which would effectively completely inappropriate, result in a second depositionof the Plaintiffbya medical doctor. MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ANALYSIS 3. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)requiresthat the requestingparty of the CME can show the following:(a)the person's physicalor mental condition is at issue in the underlying cause; and (b) good cause can be shown to permit the request. Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.360(a)(1)- (2).The burden of showing that these two requirements have been met is placed on the requestingparty at Upon the request of the party to be examined hearing.Id. 1.360(a)(2). "the court may establish rules governing such examination." Id. 1.360(a)(3). protective 4. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280(c)(4), a protectiveorder may be issued by this Court whereby certain matters will not be inquiredinto,or the scope of discovery will be limited in those certain matters. 5. Plaintiff requests to limit the scope ofthis evaluation as follows: 6. Plaintiff requests this court to: a. Allow audio and videotapingof the entire examination/evaluation; b. Require test materials to be provided by Dr. Warren Grossman, to Plaintiff's counsel, within 30 days from the date of the evaluation, for the and use during this litigation at trial in this case; C Allow the attendance o f Plaintiff's counsel at the evaluation; d. Limit the history taken by the examiner to past medical history,the mechanics o f the injuryand the current medical condition o f the Plaintiff; 7. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.4th DCA 1986), reasoned that Plaintiff's counsel should be permitted to be present during a compulsory examination, as a "physician selected by defendant to examine plaintiff is not impartialmedical expert, indifferent necessarilya disinterested, to the interests of conflicting the parties.The possibleadversary status of the examining doctor for the defense is,under counsel to be present ordinary circumstances, a compelling reason to permit plaintiff's to guarantee, for example, that the doctor does not interrogate on liability the plaintiff questions in order to seek damaging admissions." 8. Plaintiff objects to the presence of anyone at the examination on Defendants' behalf, includingbut not limited to, defense counsel. See Prince v. Mallari. 36 So.3d 128, 131-132 (Fla Sth DCA 2010) (defense counsel does not have the rightto be present at the examination; Defendant is alreadyrepresentedby the examiner). 9. Plaintiff objects to being required to provide any materials as same is the of the individual requestingthe exam, includingmedical records as they were responsibility produced to Defendants. 10. Plaintiff further requests this Court to restrict Dr. Grossman from requestingthe following historyfrom the Plaintiff. a. Plaintiff's version of how the accident happened, other than to describe the impact; b. Timing as to when Plaintiff retained an attorney; C Who referred Plaintiff to doctor or other health care provider; any particular d. Statements that Plaintiff may have made to others about the accident or about Plaintiff' s injuries(such as police o fficers,EMT personnel, hospitalpersonnel, doctors, etc.); e. Details of prioraccidents that Plaintiff may have been involved in; f. Timing as to when Plaintiff first saw a doctor or other health care providerin relation to this accident;and go Plaintiff's priorwork history. 11. Plaintiff objectsto the examiner rendering any opinions at trial outside of those contained within the examiner's report, the compulsory medical examiner should also be precluded from offeringopinions or other assessments of whether Plaintiff was frank,honest, credible, truthful or not, and the examiner should be precluded from testifying as to the time or circumstances under which Plaintiff employed an attorney. See Wasden v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 474 So. 2d 825 (Fla.2d DCA 1985);Carver v. Orange County, 444 So. 2d 452 (Fla.5th DCA 1985); Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. f DCA th 1978); Watson v. Builder's Square,563 So. 2d 721 (Fla.4? th DCA 1990). 12. Plaintiff requests that the CME physician be required to submit, to Defense counsel and Plaintiff's counsel a written report within thirty(30)days of the examination. simultaneously, S*Q Fla. R. Civ. Pro. Further,Plaintiff requests that the 1.360(b)(1). CME physicianshall not be permitted to change his opinions in his report. In the event the CME physician changes the partiesshall file whatever additional motions they feel are his testimony during trial, appropriate. 13. Plaintiff requests leave to serve permittedby Elkins interrogatories v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1996) and Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So2d 993 (Fla.1999) approving Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 705 So. 2d 106 (Fla.4th DCA 1998), and Springerv. West, 769 So2d 1068 (Fla.5th DCA 2000) (approvingBoecher). 14. Plaintiff requests Defendant be responsiblefor notifyingthe examining doctor of the terms of the Order entered on these objections.Moreover, Plaintiff requests the examination not be referred to as an "Independent Medical Examination" or any other designationor description on the behalf of the that suggests impartiality CME doctor. CONCLUSION Plaintiff objects to Defendants' Request for Plaintiff to Submit to a compulsory physical examination CME to be performed by Dr. Warren Grossman. Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to enter a Protective Order detailing Plaintiff's request as described infra. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via Florida's E-Filing Portal upon counsels of record on this 132 day of February 2023 Pike & Lustig,LLP /s/ Daniel Lustijz Michael J. Pike Florida Bar No.: 617296 Daniel Lustig Florida Bar No.: 059225 1209 N. Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 855-7585 Facsimile: (561) 855-7710 Dleadings@pikelustig.com EXHIBIT 1 Filing# 165072318 E-Filed 01/19/2023 04:07:32 PM SFF-36476BC1/SZP INTHE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.. CACE-21-010729 ALDOPHE WILCENE BORNEUS, Plaintiff(s), VS. TERRELL P. WINKLER, Defendant(s). i REQUEST FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION UNDER FLA. R. CIV. P. 1.360 AND DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESS (Please advise ifinterpreteris necessary) with current address is requiredat time of examination) (Stateissued photo identification COME NOW the Defendants, TERRELL P. WINKLER, by and through undersigned counsel,pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360, and states: 1. TYPE OF EXAMINATION REQUESTED - The Defendant, TERRELL P. WINKLER requests the Plaintiff,ALDOPHE WILCENE BORNEUS, to submit to an ORTHOPEDIC EXAMINATION with Dr. Warren Grossman of Orthopaedic Associates of South Broward. 2. TIME AND PLACE OF EXAMINATION - This examination will be held on Tuesday, March 14, 2023, at 8:45 AMat the office of Dr. Warren Grossman, Orthopaedic Associates of South Broward, 1 S.W. 129th Avenue Suite #401 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028. 3 MANNER, CONDITIONS AND SCOPE OF EXAMINATION - This examination would be conducted in the normal manner all such examinations are done, and will include, but not be limited to: the taking of a written and/or oral history,x-rays and other CASE NO: CACE-21-010729 Page 2 testingand examination. The scope of the examination would be to radiographs,if appropriate, inquireinto all issues raised by problems allegedwithin the examiner's field of the particular expertiseas designated above. A detailed written report, settingout the findings,including results of all tests made, diagnosisand conclusions would be prepared by the expert which would be available to counsel o f the examined party if requestedunder the provisionsof Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360. The requesting party will pay for the examination, subjectto being taxed as costs, if applicable.All similar reports of all earlier examinations of the same condition would be made available as well. The requestingparty reserves all rightsunder Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360(b)(1)and (3). THE PARTY TO BE EXAMINED IS REQUESTED TO GIVE NO LESS THAN 72 HOURS NOTICE (EXCLUDING WEEKENDS and HOLIDAYS) IF THE APPOINTMENT CANNOT BE KEPT. THE EXAMINER MAY SEEK A CANCELLATION FEE OF $500 IF APPROPRIATE NOTICE IS NOT GIVEN. 4. REASON FOR EXAMINATION - The party to be examined filed an action for personalinjuriesand placed those allegationsin issue. There is good cause for the examination as the requestingparty is permittedto inquireinto the allegedcondition(s). 5. DESIGNATION OF EXPERT - The examiner shall be referred to as a "Defense requestedexpert." 6. RESPONSE REQUESTED- In accordance with the provisionsof Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360, a response is requested. Should there be no objection,in order to prevent delay,it is requestedcounsel for the party to be examined respond upon rece*t of this request. respectfully 7. REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF THIRD PARTY PARTICIPATION- Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360 requires the request for the examination to indicate it will be recorded and to specify the number of people attending, their role, and the method of recording CASE NO: CACE-21-010729 Page 3 The Plaintiff is requestedto notifythe undersigned counsel if the examination is going to be video taped, attended by counsel, attended by a Court reporter or any other person. The identityof the person to attend and the capacity he or she will attend the examination in is requestedwith the response to this notice. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy o f the foregoinghas been furnished th via Electronic Mail, to all counsel ofrecord on the attached Service List,this 19 day of January, 2023. LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO, COHEN & PETERFRIEND Attorneys for Defendant 150 W. FlaglerStreet Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 377-8900 Facsimile: (305) 377-8901 By /s/ Andrew J. Miller Patrick W. Zalman Florida Bar No.. 109334 Andrew J. Miller Florida Bar No.: 1025552 LUKSMIA-Pleadings@LS-Law.com SERVICE LIST Counsel for Plaintiff; Tephaine Whitmore, Esq. OVADIA LAW GROUP, P.A. 4800 N. Federal Highway, Suite D204 Boca Raton, FL 33431