Preview
Filing# 161896562 E-Filed 11/28/2022 12:12:48 PM
IN THE CIRCU[T COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMPLEX BUSINESS DIV[SION
CASE NO.: CACE-21-16240
STRIKE X LLC,
Plaintiff,
V
THE V[LLAGE AT GULFSTREAM
PARK, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY,
GULFSTREAM PARK RACING
ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA
CORPORATION, AND BELINDA
STRONACH, AN INDIVIDUAL,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF
Defendant, The Village at Gulfstream Park, LLC by and through
("Gulfstreani'), its
undersigned counsel, moves for the entry of Order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
compellingdiscovery,and
1.380(a)(2) states:
I. INTRODUCTION
1- Plaintiffs production of responsivedocuments is deficient. Plaintiff is asserting
improper blanket objectionsover all of the requests in violation of the Rules of Court and, despite
earlier statements that its production was complete, has now walked back that representation.In
fact,after three follow up emails, Plaintiff refuses to confirm whether the productionis complete
or not.
II. ARGUMENT
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 11/28/2022 12:12:47 PM.****
2. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) provides that,"[p]a]ties
may obtain
discoveryregardingany matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the subjectmatter of the pending
action....if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b). The Florida Supreme Court has explainedthat
discoveryis a vital aspect ofa litigant's stating"the purpose ofdiscovery...is to elinlinate
rights,
the element of surprise,
to encourage settlement of cases, to avoid costlylitigation,
and to achieve
a balanced search for the truth." Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. ld 993,997 (Fla.
1999). Here, Plaintiff is prejudicingthe landlord by hiding documents behind frivolous objections
and further stone-wallingGulfstream by refusingto fullyproduce documents or confirm its
obligationof full production.
A. Plaintiffs Production is Untimely
3 Plaintiffs complete productionwas due on December 1, 2021. Despite couitesy
Agreements Extending that deadline until December 7, 2021 and then again until April 5,2022, it
is one year later,and the productionis still not complete. Because the productionis not complete,
it is late. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b)("theparty to whom the request is directed shall serve a
written response within 30 days");Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(2)("ifa party in response to a request
for under Rule 1.350
inspection fails. . . to permit inspection as requested. the . .
discoveringparty
may move for an order compelling inspection");
American Funding, Ltd. v. Hill,402 So. 2d 1369,
1370 (Fla.1 st DCA 1981 ) (grantingmotion to compel where productionwas untimely).
4- to Gulfstream. Gulfstreain's requests have
This late productionis highlyprejudicial
been outstandingfor one year and Plaintiffs failure to timely and properly comply in good faith
is to defend
prejudicingGulfstream's ability its case. Without a complete production,Gulfstream
Gulfstream would
prepare for and take the depositionsof Plaintiff's principals.
cannot effectively
2
and be surprisedlater
be highlyprejudicedto take the depositions if should additional documents
exist.
B. Plaintiffs Production is Incomplete
5. Upon review of the production,it is deficient. There is little to no conlmunieation
between the principalsof the company, and no text messages between them. For instance,there
are no text messages and few to no emails between Moises Jafif,
Marcos Jafif,and their employees
regarding the lease dated August 5, 2020 between Gulfstream and Plaintiff ("1700 Lease")
'.
Gulfstream's decision to terminate the 1700 Lease, what other propertiesthey are consideringfor
their business and a whole multitude of other topicsthat would be responsive to any of the 22
requests.
6. In its response, Plaintiff agrees to produce documents responsiveto Requests 5 -9,
11-14, and 21 without objectionand to produce documents responsiveto Requests 1-4,10 and 22
subjectto objection.Yet Plaintiff has not confirmed that production of @i]M of the requests (1-22)
is complete.
7. Even for the requests where Plaintiff agreed to produce, there are clear gaps. For
example, but without limitation,the production fails to include documents evidencing Defendant's
allegedfailure to exercise reasonable diligencein carrying out its work (RFP Nos. 8 and 11);
Plaintiffs allegedentitlement to lost profitsand specialdamages (REP Nos. 12 and 15); and
Plaintiffs records evidencinglost profits(RFP Nos. 13 and 14).
8. During a meet and confer phone call on October 6,2022, Counsel for Gulfstream
asked counsel for Strike X whether its production was complete. Counsel followed up by email at
least three times. On October 14, 2022, counsel advised that its productionwas not yet complete
and made a small supplemental production on October 21, 2022. After production of the
supplement, Gulfstreain asked again whether the production was complete. To date. Plaintiff still
3
has not confirmed whether its productionis complete and whether it is withholdingdocuments due
to its general and specificobjections.
See correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit A.
Plaintiff should be compelled to produce documents because the requests have been outstanding
for a year and the productionlong overdue.
C. Plaintiffs Should Be Ordered To Produce All Responsive Documents Before
Depositions Or Answer To the Court Why Its Pleadings Should Not be Stricken
9- Copies of the Requests for Production and Responses are attached hereto as
Composite Exhibit B for ease of reference.
10. For 12 of its responses, Plaintiff makes umbrella objectionsthat documents will be
in Request Numbers 15-20,
produced "subjectto" the objectionsasserted. Specifically, Plaintiff
agrees to produce documents subjectto generalobjections.For Request Numbers 1-4, 10 and 22,
Plaintiff agrees to produce documents subjectto both generaland specific
objections.
11. These formulaic responses that documents will be produced subjectto objections
are improper and fail to preserve the preceding objection.Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc., 149 Y.R.D.
"
399, 401 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (stating
that an objectionfollowed by a "notwithstandingthe above'
answer to the request "preservesnothing,and constitutes only a waste of effort and the resources
of both the parties and the court ... [flurther,
such practice leaves the requestingparty uncertain
as to whether the questionhas been fullyanswered, or only a portionof it has been answered.");
Molina v. Hentech, LLC, No. 6:13-cv-1111-Orl-22KRS, 2014 WL 12625948, at *n.3 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 15, 2014) (same); Vivid Entm't, LLC v. Baserva.No. 1. 2014 WL
12618322, at *1 (M.D. Fla. defendant's objectionwhich preceded a
Sept. 18, 2014) (overruling
response stating,"notwithstanding and without waiving these objections . . ." because it was
improper).As such, the objectionsare improper and should be oveiTuled.
1. Plaintiffs General Obiections Applying To All Responses Are Improper
And Should Be Overruled.
4
12. Florida courts do not permitgeneralboiletplate
objectionsthat are intended to apply
to all requests. See Thernioset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, No. 4-60268-CIV,
2014 WL 6473232, at *1 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 18,2014) ("ThisCourt, as well as many others,disfavors
'generalobjections'that fail to discuss deficiencies in specific Commodity
discoveryrequests."):
Futures Trading Commission v. Cromwell Fin. Servs., Inc., No., 2007 WL 9701837, at *1 (S.D.
Fla. Apr. 5, 2007) ("Itis well settled that general 'blanket' objectionsto discovery,even on the
basis of privilege,
are improper.").
13. Nevertheless, in the Responses, Plaintiff asserts four "General Objections" which
purportedlyapply to all requests but specifically
apply to Request Nos. 15-20.
Request Response
Subjectto the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X
RFP 15- Any and all documents, includingemails, and diligentsearch, all
will produce after a reasonable
memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other non-privileged documents and communications
communications evidencing, showing, or responsive to this request that is in its possession,
that
reflecting Plaintiff is owed consequential,custody or control that show the amount of
incidental,and/or specialdamages. consequential,incidental and/or special damages
suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Gulfstream's
breach of the 1700 Lease.
intentionally
Subject to the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X
REP 16: Any and all documents, including will produce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all
emails, memoranda, reports, correspondence,or non-privileged documents and communications
other communications evidencing,showing, or responsive to this request that is in its possession,
reflecting that Defendant has "engaged in custody or control.
unlawful and unfair methods of sale and
competition," pursuant to Paragraph 45 of the
Complaint.
RFP 17: Any and all documents, including Subject to the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X
emails, memoranda, reports,correspondence,or willproduce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all
other communications evidencing,showing, or non-privileged documents and communications
that Defendant engaged in
reflecting responsive to this request that is in its possession,
custody or control.
5
"unconscionable acts or practices,"
pursuant to
Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
RFP 18: Any and all documents, including Subject to the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X
emails, memoranda, reports,correspondence,or willproduce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all
other communications evidencing,showing, or non-privileged documents and communications
that
reflecting Defendant has engaged in "unfair responsive to this request that is in its possession,
or deceptiveacts or practicesin the conduct of custody or control.
trade or commerce," pursuant to Paragraph 45 of
the Complaint.
Subjectto the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X
RFP 19: Any and all documents, including willproduce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all
emails, memoranda, reports,correspondence,or non-privileged documents and communications
other communications evidencing,showing, or responsive to this request that is in its possession,
that
reflecting Plaintiff has suffered and custody or control.
"continues to suffer" actual damages, pursuant to
Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
Subjectto the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X
RFP documents evidencing,showing, or
20: All willproduce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all
reflectingany and all work performed by third- non-privileged documents and communications
parties behalf of You in connection with the
on responsive to this request that is in its possession,
1700 Lease including, but not limited to, design custodyor control.
drawings,plans,specifications, for
applications
permitsof any kind, or other work product
related to the design and construction of the
interior build-out of the space leased under the
1700 Lease.
6
14. to the definition of "Plaintiff,"
Plaintiffs first generalobjectionis: "Plaintiffobjects
,4
"Tenant,- 'You," and "Yours" to the extent those definitions obligatePlaintiff to produce
Documents, Communications, or Electronic Data from its attorneys or accountants, as such is
under applicable
privileged request would implicate
law." This objectionis improper.If a specific
privilegeddocuments, the objection should be included within that request-not as a general
objectionapplying to all requests. Also, Plaintiff has not produced a privilegelog. As such,
Plaintiffhas either waived its claim to privilege,
or, if there are no responsiveprivilegedocuments
(as Plaintiff's counsel contends)then the generalobjectionshould be removed.
1
15. The second generalobjectionstates- "Plaintiff objectsto the definition of Electronic
Data used by Defendant in its productionrequest. A search of all Electronic Data as defined by
Defendant would be unreasonably expensive, would be cumulative or duplicativeof any
documents and communications produced in this case, and such documents or eomtnunications
could otherwise be obtained from another source or in another manner that is more convenient,
less burdensome, and less expensive.Moreover, Plaintiff objectsto the manner in which it has
been requestedto produce Electronic Data in the Instruction Section of Defendant's Requests, as
such is overbroad and excessivelyexpensive." This is not a proper legal objection.First, if
Gulfstream's requests were overburdensome, Plaintiff would be entitled to a protectiveorder
to address the burden. Plaintiff has not
specifically filed a motion for protectiveorder. Moreover,
the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow Gulfstream to seek electronic discovery.Fla. R. Civ. P.
During a meet and confer call on October 6,2022, Plaintiffs counsel representedthat the only
1
privilegeddocuments in existence were between its firm and the principals of
regardingthe filing
the lawsuit and the litigation
going forward. Counsel claimed that it had no to
obligation log those
communications. Gulfstreain disagreesbut also asserts that it is highlyunlikelythat there are I]Q
privilegedcommunications between Strike X's principalsand their attorneys regarding the lease
of the Complaint.As such, Plaintiffshould
negotiations or any ofthe events leadingup to the filing
be compelled to produce a privilegelog.
7
Electronic discoveryis actually
1.280(b)(3). less costlyas it allows for a patty to review documents
more efficiently
with the use of search terms. Second, it is not grounds for objectionthat documents
may be cumulative of what a patty alreadyhas. Cherestal v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. 5. 12-cv-
1681-Orl-28TBS, 2013 WL 5305671, at *1, *3 (M.D. Fla. 2013).
16. Plaintiffs third and fourth general objections assert that the definition of
"document" and instruction No. 5 are overbroad. But again,Plaintiff has not moved for protection.
Nor has Plaintiff explainedwhat about the definition of "document" is inconsistent with the rules
of procedure.
17. Based on the above general objections,Gulfstream cannot discern whether
additional responsive documents exist,but Plaintiff is choosing not to search for them due to the
allegedexpenses and objections.
This is a violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 (c),
which requires the withholdingparty to file a motion for protectiveorder and only where there is
good cause shown may the court determine whether the discovery should be limited. Plaintiff has
not filed such motion.
11. Plaintiffs Specific Objections to Request Nos. 1-4, 10 and 22 are Improper
and Should Be Overruled.
18. In addition to the generalobjectionsdescribed above, Plaintiff asserts boilerplate
specificobjections to Requests 1-4, 10 and 22. Plaintiffs' formulaic "overbroad" and
"burdensome" objectionsshould be sumniarilyovemiled. Such an objection,without anything
more, is insufficient under Florida law. See First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So. 2d 1189,
1193 (Fla 4th
. DCA 1999) (holdingthat without anythingto suppoit them, the boilerplate
objection
that the request was 'overbroad, burdensome, and not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence' was '?patently
without metit" and nothing more than "stonewalling
(disapprovedon other grounds): Topp Telecom,
tactics.') Inc. v. Atk-ins,763 So. 2d 1197,1199
8
(Fla.4th DCA 2000) (no eiTor in ovemlling burden objectionunsuppoitedby evidence); Carson
V. Citv o/Ft. Lauderdale, 173 So. 2d 743, 745 (Fla.2d DCA 1965) ("Objectionsmust be specific
and supportedby a detailed explanationwhy the discoveryrequests are objectionable.").
Rivera v.
2K C/eve/ander, LLC, No. 16-21437-Civ-KING/TORRES, 2017 WL 5496158, at *3 (S.D. Fla.
'
Feb. 22, 2017) ("Defendant repeatedlyasseits that Plaintiff' s discovery requests are 'irrelevant,
'overbroad', 'ambiguous', 'protectedby the work product and/or or
attorney client privileges,'
'not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible more
information on why Plaintiff's discovery responses are improper, Defendant's objections are
meaninglessand looked upon with disfavor.").
19. The objectingparty bears the burden to establish why discoveryrequests should be
denied as overly broad or burdensome. Objecting partiesmust "quantifyfor the trial court the
manner in which such discoverymight be overlybroad or burdensome. They must be able to show
the volume of documents, or the number of man-hours requiredin their production,or some other
quantitative factor that would make it so." First City Developments of Florida. Inc. v. Hallmark of
Hollywood Condo. Ass 'n. Inc.,545 So. 2d 502, 503 (4thDCA 1989),disapprovedon other grounds
by Bd. of Trustees of Internal bitprovement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enterprises,LLC, 99 So. 3d
450 (Fla.2012)- Plaintiff has not met that burden:
Request Response
Plaintiff objectsto this request because it is overbroad,
RFP 1: Any and all documents, including emails, unreasonable and because it requiresthe productionof
memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other irrelevant document. Specifically, this request would
communications, pertaining to the solicitation, require Strike to undertake X
a laborious and time-
negotiation,execution, and/or performance of the consuming search of every document and
1700 Lease. communication the
"pertaining to solicitation,
execution,
negotiation, and/or peiformance of the 1700
Lease," regardlessof how incidental,secondary, and
trivial those documents or communications may be.
Moreover, the "solicitation,negotiationand execution"
of the 1700 Lease is not at issue in the pleadings.
9
Instead, this disputerelates to Gulfstream's intentional
breach of the 1700 Lease after it was executed, and the
damages suffered by Strike X. Indeed, by its own
admission, Gulfstreain admitted in a letter dated April
13, 2021 sent by its legalcounsel that it breached the
1700 Lease by its inabilityto "proceed with the
buildout of the building". This request is also
of Request to Produce No. 7 as well as other
duplicative
requests. Subject to the general and specific
willproduce non-
objections stated herein, Strike X
privileged documents and communications located
after a reasonable search that
pertains to its
peiformance or that of Gulfstreain under the 1700
Lease.
Strike X objectsto this requestbecauseit requests every
RFP 2: Any and all documents, includingemails, document and communication between it and
memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other Gulfstream that in any way pertainsto the 1700 Lease.
communications between You and Defendant Such request does not comply with Rule 1.350(b) in
pertaining to the 1700 Lease. that does not describe each item sought with
it
and is otherwise overbroad,
reasonablyparticularity,"
burdensome, harassingand calls for the productionof
irrelevant documents and communications. This
request represents the quintessential
fishingexpedition.
Subiect to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, Strike X will
produce non-privileged
documents and communications located after a
reasonable search that pertain the 1700 Lease.
Strike X objectsto this requestbecauseit requests every
RFP 3: Any and alldocuments, including emails, document and communication between it and any non-
memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other party that in any way pertains to the 1700 Lease. Such
communications between You and any non-party to request does not comply with Rule 1.350(b) in that it
the case pertaining to the 1700 Lease including,but does not describe each item sought with reasonably
such as brokers particularity,"
not limited to, real estate professionals and is otherwise overbroad, burdensome,
or sales persons, lenders, consultants and/or designers harassing,and irrelevant. This request represents the
regardingthe 1700 Lease. quintessentialfishing expedition. Subiect to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, Strike X
documents and
will produce responsivenon-ptivileged
communications located after a reasonable search.
Strike X objectsto this requestbecauseit requests every
RFP 4- Any and all comnlunications between You and document and communication between it and
Defendant's management company regarding the "Defendant's management company" that in any way
1700 Lease. pertains to the 1700 Lease. Such request does not
comply with Rule 1.350(b)in that it does not describe
and is
each item sought with reasonably particularity,"
otherwise overbroad, burdensome, harassing and
irrelevant. This request represents the quintessential
fishing expedition. Moreover, this request is
10
it is vague because
objectionable; it does not identify
who Defendant's management company is that is being
refeiTed to and from whom documents to and from are
sought.Subiect to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, Strike X will produce responsive non-
privileged documents and communications located
after a reasonable search.
Plaintiffobjects to this request as it is vague and
RFP 10: Any and documents, includingemails,
all premature. Strike X's demand for attorneys'fees is
memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other based on Section 26.15 of the 1700 Lease, which states
communications evidencing, showing or reflecting in relevant part that "[il f either party hereto is a patty to
that Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys'fees as it any litigationcommenced by or against the other party
pertains to Count I of the Complaint involvingthis Lease in any respect whatsoever, then the
prevailingparty in any such litigation shall receive
from the other party all costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees ineurred b.y such paily in said litigation."
Moreover, Plaintiff objectsto this request to the extent
it would requirePlaintiff to produce billingrecords of
itslegalcounsel and other information pertaining to the
amount of money paid to its legal counsel, as such
information is not yet relevant to any issue raised in the
pleadings.Subiect to the above obiections, Plaintiff is
not aware of any documents or communications that
would evidence, show or reflect that it should be
awarded attorneys'fees.
Plaintiff objectsto this Request to the extent it assumes
RFP 22- All documents evidencing, showing, or Plaintiff was obligatedto mitigateits damages after
reflectingany and all efforts undertaken by You or Gulfstream intentionallybreached the 1700 Lease.
third partieson Your behalf to mitigateYour damages Sub.iect to the general objections and specific
upon learningof the cancellation of the 1700 Lease objections stated herein, Strike X will produce after a
reasonable and diligent search, all non-privileged
documents and communications responsive to this
custody or control.
request that is in its possession,
20. These Requests seek discoverable and necessary documents for Gulfstream's
defense. However, Gulfstream cannot discern whether the production is complete, or whether
additional documents are being withheld on the basis of the unsupportableboiler-plate
objections.
21. Pursuant to Florida Rule ofCivil Procedure 1.380(a)(4),
"the court shall requirethe
patty... whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or counsel advising the conduct to
pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtainingthe order that may include
attorneys'fees." Gulfstreain was requiredto incur expenses in the form of attorneys'fees in
11
connection with preparing this motion. requests this Court award
Gulfstream respectfully
Gulfstreain all reasonable attorneys'fees it incurred.
WHEREFORE, request entry of an order (a)compelling Plaintiff
Gulfstreain respectfully
to produce all documents and
inimediately text messages responsive to Gulfstream's First Request
for Production; (b)overrulingPlaintiff's general and specificobjections:(c)compelling Plaintiff
log;(d)awarding Gulfstreain its attorneys'fees;and (e)for such other and
to produce a privilege
further relief the Couit deems justand proper.
Respectfullysubmitted,
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
333 S.E. 2 nd Avenue, Suite 4400
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 579-0519
Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
By: s/Michael N. Kreitzer
Michael N. Kreitzer, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 705561
kreitzerm@gtlaw.com
belloy@gtlaw.coin
flservice@gtlaw.com
Jennifer J. Junger, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 125853
jungerj@.gtlaw.com
Jordanna Ishmael, Esq.
Floticla Bar No. 1011647
corn
ishmaelj@.gtlaw.
eohenpa@gtlaw.coin
Attorneys for Defendants
12
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD-FAITH CONFERENCE
As requiredby Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380, Gulfstream's counsel, Jennifer Junger,Esq.,
confeiTed with Sttike X's counsel Mary Nikezic by phone on October 6,2022 and on October 21,
2022, and by email on October 6, 2022, October 7, 2022, October 10, 2022, October 12, 2022, and
October 26,2022 in a good-faitheffort to resolve the issues raised by this motion.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by e-mail
via the Florida Court E-FilingPortal,this 28th day ofNovember, 2022, on-
ZARCO EINHORN SALKOWSKI & BRITO, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-5418
Facsimile: (305) 374-5428
Robert Zareo
Florida Bar No. 502138
rzarco@zarcolaw.com
Robert F. Salkowski
Florida Bar No. 903124
rsalkowski@zarcolaw.com
acoro@zarcolaw.com
Mary Nikezic
Florida Bar No. 92928
mnikezic@zarcolaw. coin
eservice@zarcolaw. com
By. Michael N. Kreit=er
sl
MICHAEL N. KREITZER
13
COMPOS 1 -1
Rh
TTAICT 'ITA
Frni?I: Junger, Jennifer L. (Assoc-MIA-I T)
To: Mary Nikeic
Cr: 8nila.2m; Robert Salkowski; Kreitmr, Michael (Shld-MTA-IT); Tshmael, Jordanna (Assoc-MTA-l T); Bello, Yanplif
(LSS-MIA-LT); Fernandez, Fernanda L. (LSS-Mia-LT)
Subject: Re: Strike X v. Gulfstream
Date: Wednesday, October 26,2022 5:57:04 PM
Attacl?niei?ts: imaae007.Dno,
imaaeCH)8.Dno
imaaeCH)9.Dna,
imaaeolo.Dna.
imaae007.Dno,
imaaeCH)8.Dno
imaaeCH)9.Dna,
imaaeolo.Dna.
Mary,
As on the call,I asked if you would consider withdrawing your generalobjectionsto
discussed
allrequests and your specificobjectionsto requests 1-4. I have also asked multipletimes
whether your productionis complete or whether you are stillwithholding documents on the
basis of your generaland specific objections.To date you have not answered.
I disagreewith your recollection. I advised that we were lookinginto it and running some
additional searches to confirm.
Ispoke with counsel for Madison Marquette and they advised that they alreadyproduced
documents to you. Please provide all documents received from them and any other third
party.
Thank you,
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2022, at 5:16 PM, Mary Nikezic wrote:
*EXTERNAL TO GT*
Jennifer:
When we spoke last week, you requested that Plaintiff withdraw its objections to
Defendant's Requests for Production. However, because you were in trial and only
had a short time to speak,we did not have an opportunityto specifically discuss
which objections you were referringto. You said you would follow up with an email
specifyingthe objections so that we can consider them internally.I never received
that email from you. you would
like us to consider your request, please provide us
If
with the necessary information.
Also, you indicated during our call that you would not make the representation that
Defendant's production is complete, and did not believe that Defendant was
requiredto. Has your positionchanged?
As to Madison Marquette, I will circle back with you.
MARY NIKEZIC
Attorney
?ARCO
?INHORN ?ALKOWS?
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ZARCO EINHORN SALKOWSKI,P.A.
One Bjscayne Tower
2 S Biscavne Blvd 34th Floor
Miami, FT. 33131
Office: 305.374.5418
Fax: 305.374.5428
Email: mnikezic@zarcolaw.com
Website: www.Zarcolaw.CoIn
in
BebT Lavwl-
BLAW-IST
FIRMS
.1 .1
FFIANCMSE.AW -B 591
IA-,Omll
2022
DISCLAIMER This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Zarco Einhom Salkowski,
PA., which maybe confidential and/or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or
entity named above If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone at 305.3 74-5418 or by electronic mail info@zarcolaw.com, and delete the message, all
attachments and copies thereof. Thank you.
Zarco Einhom Salkowskl P.A cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mai as it has
been transmitted over a pubhc network If you suspect that the e-mall may have been intercepted or amended, please
call the sender Any views expressed by an individual in this e-mail do not necessanly reflect the views of Zarco Etnhorn
Salkowsk PA
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure comphance with recently-enacted U.S Treasury Department Regulations, we are
now required to advise youthat, unless otherwise expressly indicated- any federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone
for the purpose of avoidmg federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the federal government or for promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein-
From: jungerj@gtlaw.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26,2022 9:27 AM
To: Mary Nikezic
Cc: Anite Coro ; Robert Salkowski
; ishmaelj@gtlaw.com;
belloy@gtlaw.com; FernandezFe@gtlaw.com
Subject: Strike X v. Gulfstream
M a ry,
We received your production dated 10.21.2022. Please confirm by the end of the day
whetheryour production is now complete or if you are still withholding documents on
the basis of your general and specificobjections.
subpoenas to Madison Marquette and DWNTWN Realty,please
Also, regarding the
advise whether you would agree to limit the scope of request No. 5 to "All Documents
and Communications regarding the contemplated future redesign of the portion of the
Villagewhere the leased Premises are located." Also, for Madison Marquette we would
like to conduct a privilege review given their position as our property manager. Please
confirm by the end of the day whether we can reach an agreement on either of these
points.
Thankyou,
Jennifer L. Junger
Associate
Greenberg Traurig; P.A.
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue I Miami, FL 33131
T 305.579.0560 I F 305.961.5698 I C 5164484667
GT GreenbergTraurig
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this
email, please delete it,notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not
use or disseminate the information.
From: Junqer, kiilfer L (Assoc-MIA-LI)
To: "Mary Nikezoc-
CC Anite Ccro. Robe,t Salkowski. Kreit=. I.khael (Shld-MIA- ET); Idinael, Jorderna
{A=x-MIA-CT); Seller Yarelis (LSS-MIA-LIn
Subject: RE:SERVICE OF OOUE DOCJMENT CA5E NUMBER 062021CA016240A)00(CE STRIKE X LLC VS VnLAGE AT GU-FSTREAM PARK, UL
Date: Monday, October 17, 2022 8:00:00 PM
Attachrne,Tts: maaeC)09.o..]
irrarw,01 fl.r-,wl
in-laqe016,pr,1
imac}e017.on]
Mary,
We look forward to receiving yoursupplemental production. Will the supplement just be regarding text messages or will there be additional
documents as well?
Please advise as to your availabilityfor a meet and confer tomorrow
Preview
Filing# 161896562 E-Filed 11/28/2022 12:12:48 PM IN THE CIRCU[T COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPLEX BUSINESS DIV[SION CASE NO.: CACE-21-16240 STRIKE X LLC, Plaintiff, V THE V[LLAGE AT GULFSTREAM PARK, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND BELINDA STRONACH, AN INDIVIDUAL, Defendants. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF Defendant, The Village at Gulfstream Park, LLC by and through ("Gulfstreani'), its undersigned counsel, moves for the entry of Order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure compellingdiscovery,and 1.380(a)(2) states: I. INTRODUCTION 1- Plaintiffs production of responsivedocuments is deficient. Plaintiff is asserting improper blanket objectionsover all of the requests in violation of the Rules of Court and, despite earlier statements that its production was complete, has now walked back that representation.In fact,after three follow up emails, Plaintiff refuses to confirm whether the productionis complete or not. II. ARGUMENT *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 11/28/2022 12:12:47 PM.**** 2. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) provides that,"[p]a]ties may obtain discoveryregardingany matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subjectmatter of the pending action....if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b). The Florida Supreme Court has explainedthat discoveryis a vital aspect ofa litigant's stating"the purpose ofdiscovery...is to elinlinate rights, the element of surprise, to encourage settlement of cases, to avoid costlylitigation, and to achieve a balanced search for the truth." Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. ld 993,997 (Fla. 1999). Here, Plaintiff is prejudicingthe landlord by hiding documents behind frivolous objections and further stone-wallingGulfstream by refusingto fullyproduce documents or confirm its obligationof full production. A. Plaintiffs Production is Untimely 3 Plaintiffs complete productionwas due on December 1, 2021. Despite couitesy Agreements Extending that deadline until December 7, 2021 and then again until April 5,2022, it is one year later,and the productionis still not complete. Because the productionis not complete, it is late. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b)("theparty to whom the request is directed shall serve a written response within 30 days");Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(2)("ifa party in response to a request for under Rule 1.350 inspection fails. . . to permit inspection as requested. the . . discoveringparty may move for an order compelling inspection"); American Funding, Ltd. v. Hill,402 So. 2d 1369, 1370 (Fla.1 st DCA 1981 ) (grantingmotion to compel where productionwas untimely). 4- to Gulfstream. Gulfstreain's requests have This late productionis highlyprejudicial been outstandingfor one year and Plaintiffs failure to timely and properly comply in good faith is to defend prejudicingGulfstream's ability its case. Without a complete production,Gulfstream Gulfstream would prepare for and take the depositionsof Plaintiff's principals. cannot effectively 2 and be surprisedlater be highlyprejudicedto take the depositions if should additional documents exist. B. Plaintiffs Production is Incomplete 5. Upon review of the production,it is deficient. There is little to no conlmunieation between the principalsof the company, and no text messages between them. For instance,there are no text messages and few to no emails between Moises Jafif, Marcos Jafif,and their employees regarding the lease dated August 5, 2020 between Gulfstream and Plaintiff ("1700 Lease") '. Gulfstream's decision to terminate the 1700 Lease, what other propertiesthey are consideringfor their business and a whole multitude of other topicsthat would be responsive to any of the 22 requests. 6. In its response, Plaintiff agrees to produce documents responsiveto Requests 5 -9, 11-14, and 21 without objectionand to produce documents responsiveto Requests 1-4,10 and 22 subjectto objection.Yet Plaintiff has not confirmed that production of @i]M of the requests (1-22) is complete. 7. Even for the requests where Plaintiff agreed to produce, there are clear gaps. For example, but without limitation,the production fails to include documents evidencing Defendant's allegedfailure to exercise reasonable diligencein carrying out its work (RFP Nos. 8 and 11); Plaintiffs allegedentitlement to lost profitsand specialdamages (REP Nos. 12 and 15); and Plaintiffs records evidencinglost profits(RFP Nos. 13 and 14). 8. During a meet and confer phone call on October 6,2022, Counsel for Gulfstream asked counsel for Strike X whether its production was complete. Counsel followed up by email at least three times. On October 14, 2022, counsel advised that its productionwas not yet complete and made a small supplemental production on October 21, 2022. After production of the supplement, Gulfstreain asked again whether the production was complete. To date. Plaintiff still 3 has not confirmed whether its productionis complete and whether it is withholdingdocuments due to its general and specificobjections. See correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit A. Plaintiff should be compelled to produce documents because the requests have been outstanding for a year and the productionlong overdue. C. Plaintiffs Should Be Ordered To Produce All Responsive Documents Before Depositions Or Answer To the Court Why Its Pleadings Should Not be Stricken 9- Copies of the Requests for Production and Responses are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit B for ease of reference. 10. For 12 of its responses, Plaintiff makes umbrella objectionsthat documents will be in Request Numbers 15-20, produced "subjectto" the objectionsasserted. Specifically, Plaintiff agrees to produce documents subjectto generalobjections.For Request Numbers 1-4, 10 and 22, Plaintiff agrees to produce documents subjectto both generaland specific objections. 11. These formulaic responses that documents will be produced subjectto objections are improper and fail to preserve the preceding objection.Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc., 149 Y.R.D. " 399, 401 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (stating that an objectionfollowed by a "notwithstandingthe above' answer to the request "preservesnothing,and constitutes only a waste of effort and the resources of both the parties and the court ... [flurther, such practice leaves the requestingparty uncertain as to whether the questionhas been fullyanswered, or only a portionof it has been answered."); Molina v. Hentech, LLC, No. 6:13-cv-1111-Orl-22KRS, 2014 WL 12625948, at *n.3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2014) (same); Vivid Entm't, LLC v. Baserva.No. 1. 2014 WL 12618322, at *1 (M.D. Fla. defendant's objectionwhich preceded a Sept. 18, 2014) (overruling response stating,"notwithstanding and without waiving these objections . . ." because it was improper).As such, the objectionsare improper and should be oveiTuled. 1. Plaintiffs General Obiections Applying To All Responses Are Improper And Should Be Overruled. 4 12. Florida courts do not permitgeneralboiletplate objectionsthat are intended to apply to all requests. See Thernioset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, No. 4-60268-CIV, 2014 WL 6473232, at *1 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 18,2014) ("ThisCourt, as well as many others,disfavors 'generalobjections'that fail to discuss deficiencies in specific Commodity discoveryrequests."): Futures Trading Commission v. Cromwell Fin. Servs., Inc., No., 2007 WL 9701837, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2007) ("Itis well settled that general 'blanket' objectionsto discovery,even on the basis of privilege, are improper."). 13. Nevertheless, in the Responses, Plaintiff asserts four "General Objections" which purportedlyapply to all requests but specifically apply to Request Nos. 15-20. Request Response Subjectto the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X RFP 15- Any and all documents, includingemails, and diligentsearch, all will produce after a reasonable memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other non-privileged documents and communications communications evidencing, showing, or responsive to this request that is in its possession, that reflecting Plaintiff is owed consequential,custody or control that show the amount of incidental,and/or specialdamages. consequential,incidental and/or special damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Gulfstream's breach of the 1700 Lease. intentionally Subject to the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X REP 16: Any and all documents, including will produce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all emails, memoranda, reports, correspondence,or non-privileged documents and communications other communications evidencing,showing, or responsive to this request that is in its possession, reflecting that Defendant has "engaged in custody or control. unlawful and unfair methods of sale and competition," pursuant to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. RFP 17: Any and all documents, including Subject to the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X emails, memoranda, reports,correspondence,or willproduce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all other communications evidencing,showing, or non-privileged documents and communications that Defendant engaged in reflecting responsive to this request that is in its possession, custody or control. 5 "unconscionable acts or practices," pursuant to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. RFP 18: Any and all documents, including Subject to the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X emails, memoranda, reports,correspondence,or willproduce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all other communications evidencing,showing, or non-privileged documents and communications that reflecting Defendant has engaged in "unfair responsive to this request that is in its possession, or deceptiveacts or practicesin the conduct of custody or control. trade or commerce," pursuant to Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. Subjectto the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X RFP 19: Any and all documents, including willproduce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all emails, memoranda, reports,correspondence,or non-privileged documents and communications other communications evidencing,showing, or responsive to this request that is in its possession, that reflecting Plaintiff has suffered and custody or control. "continues to suffer" actual damages, pursuant to Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. Subjectto the generalobjectionsstated herein,Strike X RFP documents evidencing,showing, or 20: All willproduce after a reasonable and diligentsearch, all reflectingany and all work performed by third- non-privileged documents and communications parties behalf of You in connection with the on responsive to this request that is in its possession, 1700 Lease including, but not limited to, design custodyor control. drawings,plans,specifications, for applications permitsof any kind, or other work product related to the design and construction of the interior build-out of the space leased under the 1700 Lease. 6 14. to the definition of "Plaintiff," Plaintiffs first generalobjectionis: "Plaintiffobjects ,4 "Tenant,- 'You," and "Yours" to the extent those definitions obligatePlaintiff to produce Documents, Communications, or Electronic Data from its attorneys or accountants, as such is under applicable privileged request would implicate law." This objectionis improper.If a specific privilegeddocuments, the objection should be included within that request-not as a general objectionapplying to all requests. Also, Plaintiff has not produced a privilegelog. As such, Plaintiffhas either waived its claim to privilege, or, if there are no responsiveprivilegedocuments (as Plaintiff's counsel contends)then the generalobjectionshould be removed. 1 15. The second generalobjectionstates- "Plaintiff objectsto the definition of Electronic Data used by Defendant in its productionrequest. A search of all Electronic Data as defined by Defendant would be unreasonably expensive, would be cumulative or duplicativeof any documents and communications produced in this case, and such documents or eomtnunications could otherwise be obtained from another source or in another manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive.Moreover, Plaintiff objectsto the manner in which it has been requestedto produce Electronic Data in the Instruction Section of Defendant's Requests, as such is overbroad and excessivelyexpensive." This is not a proper legal objection.First, if Gulfstream's requests were overburdensome, Plaintiff would be entitled to a protectiveorder to address the burden. Plaintiff has not specifically filed a motion for protectiveorder. Moreover, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow Gulfstream to seek electronic discovery.Fla. R. Civ. P. During a meet and confer call on October 6,2022, Plaintiffs counsel representedthat the only 1 privilegeddocuments in existence were between its firm and the principals of regardingthe filing the lawsuit and the litigation going forward. Counsel claimed that it had no to obligation log those communications. Gulfstreain disagreesbut also asserts that it is highlyunlikelythat there are I]Q privilegedcommunications between Strike X's principalsand their attorneys regarding the lease of the Complaint.As such, Plaintiffshould negotiations or any ofthe events leadingup to the filing be compelled to produce a privilegelog. 7 Electronic discoveryis actually 1.280(b)(3). less costlyas it allows for a patty to review documents more efficiently with the use of search terms. Second, it is not grounds for objectionthat documents may be cumulative of what a patty alreadyhas. Cherestal v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. 5. 12-cv- 1681-Orl-28TBS, 2013 WL 5305671, at *1, *3 (M.D. Fla. 2013). 16. Plaintiffs third and fourth general objections assert that the definition of "document" and instruction No. 5 are overbroad. But again,Plaintiff has not moved for protection. Nor has Plaintiff explainedwhat about the definition of "document" is inconsistent with the rules of procedure. 17. Based on the above general objections,Gulfstream cannot discern whether additional responsive documents exist,but Plaintiff is choosing not to search for them due to the allegedexpenses and objections. This is a violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 (c), which requires the withholdingparty to file a motion for protectiveorder and only where there is good cause shown may the court determine whether the discovery should be limited. Plaintiff has not filed such motion. 11. Plaintiffs Specific Objections to Request Nos. 1-4, 10 and 22 are Improper and Should Be Overruled. 18. In addition to the generalobjectionsdescribed above, Plaintiff asserts boilerplate specificobjections to Requests 1-4, 10 and 22. Plaintiffs' formulaic "overbroad" and "burdensome" objectionsshould be sumniarilyovemiled. Such an objection,without anything more, is insufficient under Florida law. See First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So. 2d 1189, 1193 (Fla 4th . DCA 1999) (holdingthat without anythingto suppoit them, the boilerplate objection that the request was 'overbroad, burdensome, and not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence' was '?patently without metit" and nothing more than "stonewalling (disapprovedon other grounds): Topp Telecom, tactics.') Inc. v. Atk-ins,763 So. 2d 1197,1199 8 (Fla.4th DCA 2000) (no eiTor in ovemlling burden objectionunsuppoitedby evidence); Carson V. Citv o/Ft. Lauderdale, 173 So. 2d 743, 745 (Fla.2d DCA 1965) ("Objectionsmust be specific and supportedby a detailed explanationwhy the discoveryrequests are objectionable."). Rivera v. 2K C/eve/ander, LLC, No. 16-21437-Civ-KING/TORRES, 2017 WL 5496158, at *3 (S.D. Fla. ' Feb. 22, 2017) ("Defendant repeatedlyasseits that Plaintiff' s discovery requests are 'irrelevant, 'overbroad', 'ambiguous', 'protectedby the work product and/or or attorney client privileges,' 'not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible more information on why Plaintiff's discovery responses are improper, Defendant's objections are meaninglessand looked upon with disfavor."). 19. The objectingparty bears the burden to establish why discoveryrequests should be denied as overly broad or burdensome. Objecting partiesmust "quantifyfor the trial court the manner in which such discoverymight be overlybroad or burdensome. They must be able to show the volume of documents, or the number of man-hours requiredin their production,or some other quantitative factor that would make it so." First City Developments of Florida. Inc. v. Hallmark of Hollywood Condo. Ass 'n. Inc.,545 So. 2d 502, 503 (4thDCA 1989),disapprovedon other grounds by Bd. of Trustees of Internal bitprovement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enterprises,LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla.2012)- Plaintiff has not met that burden: Request Response Plaintiff objectsto this request because it is overbroad, RFP 1: Any and all documents, including emails, unreasonable and because it requiresthe productionof memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other irrelevant document. Specifically, this request would communications, pertaining to the solicitation, require Strike to undertake X a laborious and time- negotiation,execution, and/or performance of the consuming search of every document and 1700 Lease. communication the "pertaining to solicitation, execution, negotiation, and/or peiformance of the 1700 Lease," regardlessof how incidental,secondary, and trivial those documents or communications may be. Moreover, the "solicitation,negotiationand execution" of the 1700 Lease is not at issue in the pleadings. 9 Instead, this disputerelates to Gulfstream's intentional breach of the 1700 Lease after it was executed, and the damages suffered by Strike X. Indeed, by its own admission, Gulfstreain admitted in a letter dated April 13, 2021 sent by its legalcounsel that it breached the 1700 Lease by its inabilityto "proceed with the buildout of the building". This request is also of Request to Produce No. 7 as well as other duplicative requests. Subject to the general and specific willproduce non- objections stated herein, Strike X privileged documents and communications located after a reasonable search that pertains to its peiformance or that of Gulfstreain under the 1700 Lease. Strike X objectsto this requestbecauseit requests every RFP 2: Any and all documents, includingemails, document and communication between it and memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other Gulfstream that in any way pertainsto the 1700 Lease. communications between You and Defendant Such request does not comply with Rule 1.350(b) in pertaining to the 1700 Lease. that does not describe each item sought with it and is otherwise overbroad, reasonablyparticularity," burdensome, harassingand calls for the productionof irrelevant documents and communications. This request represents the quintessential fishingexpedition. Subiect to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Strike X will produce non-privileged documents and communications located after a reasonable search that pertain the 1700 Lease. Strike X objectsto this requestbecauseit requests every RFP 3: Any and alldocuments, including emails, document and communication between it and any non- memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other party that in any way pertains to the 1700 Lease. Such communications between You and any non-party to request does not comply with Rule 1.350(b) in that it the case pertaining to the 1700 Lease including,but does not describe each item sought with reasonably such as brokers particularity," not limited to, real estate professionals and is otherwise overbroad, burdensome, or sales persons, lenders, consultants and/or designers harassing,and irrelevant. This request represents the regardingthe 1700 Lease. quintessentialfishing expedition. Subiect to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Strike X documents and will produce responsivenon-ptivileged communications located after a reasonable search. Strike X objectsto this requestbecauseit requests every RFP 4- Any and all comnlunications between You and document and communication between it and Defendant's management company regarding the "Defendant's management company" that in any way 1700 Lease. pertains to the 1700 Lease. Such request does not comply with Rule 1.350(b)in that it does not describe and is each item sought with reasonably particularity," otherwise overbroad, burdensome, harassing and irrelevant. This request represents the quintessential fishing expedition. Moreover, this request is 10 it is vague because objectionable; it does not identify who Defendant's management company is that is being refeiTed to and from whom documents to and from are sought.Subiect to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Strike X will produce responsive non- privileged documents and communications located after a reasonable search. Plaintiffobjects to this request as it is vague and RFP 10: Any and documents, includingemails, all premature. Strike X's demand for attorneys'fees is memoranda, reports, correspondence, or other based on Section 26.15 of the 1700 Lease, which states communications evidencing, showing or reflecting in relevant part that "[il f either party hereto is a patty to that Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys'fees as it any litigationcommenced by or against the other party pertains to Count I of the Complaint involvingthis Lease in any respect whatsoever, then the prevailingparty in any such litigation shall receive from the other party all costs and reasonable attorneys' fees ineurred b.y such paily in said litigation." Moreover, Plaintiff objectsto this request to the extent it would requirePlaintiff to produce billingrecords of itslegalcounsel and other information pertaining to the amount of money paid to its legal counsel, as such information is not yet relevant to any issue raised in the pleadings.Subiect to the above obiections, Plaintiff is not aware of any documents or communications that would evidence, show or reflect that it should be awarded attorneys'fees. Plaintiff objectsto this Request to the extent it assumes RFP 22- All documents evidencing, showing, or Plaintiff was obligatedto mitigateits damages after reflectingany and all efforts undertaken by You or Gulfstream intentionallybreached the 1700 Lease. third partieson Your behalf to mitigateYour damages Sub.iect to the general objections and specific upon learningof the cancellation of the 1700 Lease objections stated herein, Strike X will produce after a reasonable and diligent search, all non-privileged documents and communications responsive to this custody or control. request that is in its possession, 20. These Requests seek discoverable and necessary documents for Gulfstream's defense. However, Gulfstream cannot discern whether the production is complete, or whether additional documents are being withheld on the basis of the unsupportableboiler-plate objections. 21. Pursuant to Florida Rule ofCivil Procedure 1.380(a)(4), "the court shall requirethe patty... whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or counsel advising the conduct to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtainingthe order that may include attorneys'fees." Gulfstreain was requiredto incur expenses in the form of attorneys'fees in 11 connection with preparing this motion. requests this Court award Gulfstream respectfully Gulfstreain all reasonable attorneys'fees it incurred. WHEREFORE, request entry of an order (a)compelling Plaintiff Gulfstreain respectfully to produce all documents and inimediately text messages responsive to Gulfstream's First Request for Production; (b)overrulingPlaintiff's general and specificobjections:(c)compelling Plaintiff log;(d)awarding Gulfstreain its attorneys'fees;and (e)for such other and to produce a privilege further relief the Couit deems justand proper. Respectfullysubmitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 333 S.E. 2 nd Avenue, Suite 4400 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-0519 Facsimile: (305) 579-0717 By: s/Michael N. Kreitzer Michael N. Kreitzer, Esq. Florida Bar No. 705561 kreitzerm@gtlaw.com belloy@gtlaw.coin flservice@gtlaw.com Jennifer J. Junger, Esq. Florida Bar No. 125853 jungerj@.gtlaw.com Jordanna Ishmael, Esq. Floticla Bar No. 1011647 corn ishmaelj@.gtlaw. eohenpa@gtlaw.coin Attorneys for Defendants 12 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD-FAITH CONFERENCE As requiredby Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380, Gulfstream's counsel, Jennifer Junger,Esq., confeiTed with Sttike X's counsel Mary Nikezic by phone on October 6,2022 and on October 21, 2022, and by email on October 6, 2022, October 7, 2022, October 10, 2022, October 12, 2022, and October 26,2022 in a good-faitheffort to resolve the issues raised by this motion. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by e-mail via the Florida Court E-FilingPortal,this 28th day ofNovember, 2022, on- ZARCO EINHORN SALKOWSKI & BRITO, P.A. One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5418 Facsimile: (305) 374-5428 Robert Zareo Florida Bar No. 502138 rzarco@zarcolaw.com Robert F. Salkowski Florida Bar No. 903124 rsalkowski@zarcolaw.com acoro@zarcolaw.com Mary Nikezic Florida Bar No. 92928 mnikezic@zarcolaw. coin eservice@zarcolaw. com By. Michael N. Kreit=er sl MICHAEL N. KREITZER 13 COMPOS 1 -1 Rh TTAICT 'ITA Frni?I: Junger, Jennifer L. (Assoc-MIA-I T) To: Mary Nikeic Cr: 8nila.2m; Robert Salkowski; Kreitmr, Michael (Shld-MTA-IT); Tshmael, Jordanna (Assoc-MTA-l T); Bello, Yanplif (LSS-MIA-LT); Fernandez, Fernanda L. (LSS-Mia-LT) Subject: Re: Strike X v. Gulfstream Date: Wednesday, October 26,2022 5:57:04 PM Attacl?niei?ts: imaae007.Dno, imaaeCH)8.Dno imaaeCH)9.Dna, imaaeolo.Dna. imaae007.Dno, imaaeCH)8.Dno imaaeCH)9.Dna, imaaeolo.Dna. Mary, As on the call,I asked if you would consider withdrawing your generalobjectionsto discussed allrequests and your specificobjectionsto requests 1-4. I have also asked multipletimes whether your productionis complete or whether you are stillwithholding documents on the basis of your generaland specific objections.To date you have not answered. I disagreewith your recollection. I advised that we were lookinginto it and running some additional searches to confirm. Ispoke with counsel for Madison Marquette and they advised that they alreadyproduced documents to you. Please provide all documents received from them and any other third party. Thank you, Sent from my iPhone On Oct 26, 2022, at 5:16 PM, Mary Nikezic wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* Jennifer: When we spoke last week, you requested that Plaintiff withdraw its objections to Defendant's Requests for Production. However, because you were in trial and only had a short time to speak,we did not have an opportunityto specifically discuss which objections you were referringto. You said you would follow up with an email specifyingthe objections so that we can consider them internally.I never received that email from you. you would like us to consider your request, please provide us If with the necessary information. Also, you indicated during our call that you would not make the representation that Defendant's production is complete, and did not believe that Defendant was requiredto. Has your positionchanged? As to Madison Marquette, I will circle back with you. MARY NIKEZIC Attorney ?ARCO ?INHORN ?ALKOWS? ATTORNEYS AT LAW ZARCO EINHORN SALKOWSKI,P.A. One Bjscayne Tower 2 S Biscavne Blvd 34th Floor Miami, FT. 33131 Office: 305.374.5418 Fax: 305.374.5428 Email: mnikezic@zarcolaw.com Website: www.Zarcolaw.CoIn in BebT Lavwl- BLAW-IST FIRMS .1 .1 FFIANCMSE.AW -B 591 IA-,Omll 2022 DISCLAIMER This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Zarco Einhom Salkowski, PA., which maybe confidential and/or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 305.3 74-5418 or by electronic mail info@zarcolaw.com, and delete the message, all attachments and copies thereof. Thank you. Zarco Einhom Salkowskl P.A cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mai as it has been transmitted over a pubhc network If you suspect that the e-mall may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender Any views expressed by an individual in this e-mail do not necessanly reflect the views of Zarco Etnhorn Salkowsk PA CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure comphance with recently-enacted U.S Treasury Department Regulations, we are now required to advise youthat, unless otherwise expressly indicated- any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose of avoidmg federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the federal government or for promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein- From: jungerj@gtlaw.com Sent: Wednesday, October 26,2022 9:27 AM To: Mary Nikezic Cc: Anite Coro ; Robert Salkowski ; ishmaelj@gtlaw.com; belloy@gtlaw.com; FernandezFe@gtlaw.com Subject: Strike X v. Gulfstream M a ry, We received your production dated 10.21.2022. Please confirm by the end of the day whetheryour production is now complete or if you are still withholding documents on the basis of your general and specificobjections. subpoenas to Madison Marquette and DWNTWN Realty,please Also, regarding the advise whether you would agree to limit the scope of request No. 5 to "All Documents and Communications regarding the contemplated future redesign of the portion of the Villagewhere the leased Premises are located." Also, for Madison Marquette we would like to conduct a privilege review given their position as our property manager. Please confirm by the end of the day whether we can reach an agreement on either of these points. Thankyou, Jennifer L. Junger Associate Greenberg Traurig; P.A. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue I Miami, FL 33131 T 305.579.0560 I F 305.961.5698 I C 5164484667 GT GreenbergTraurig If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it,notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information. From: Junqer, kiilfer L (Assoc-MIA-LI) To: "Mary Nikezoc- CC Anite Ccro. Robe,t Salkowski. Kreit=. I.khael (Shld-MIA- ET); Idinael, Jorderna {A=x-MIA-CT); Seller Yarelis (LSS-MIA-LIn Subject: RE:SERVICE OF OOUE DOCJMENT CA5E NUMBER 062021CA016240A)00(CE STRIKE X LLC VS VnLAGE AT GU-FSTREAM PARK, UL Date: Monday, October 17, 2022 8:00:00 PM Attachrne,Tts: maaeC)09.o..] irrarw,01 fl.r-,wl in-laqe016,pr,1 imac}e017.on] Mary, We look forward to receiving yoursupplemental production. Will the supplement just be regarding text messages or will there be additional documents as well? Please advise as to your availabilityfor a meet and confer tomorrow