Preview
Filing # 159923113 E-Filed 10/25/2022 01:32:23 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT II, LLC, CASE NO.: 2021-CA-001956
a Florida limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
V.
BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED,
PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited .
liability company, et. al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND OVERRULE DEFENDANT BRONSON
FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff, ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT II, LLC (“ELEVATION”), by and through
counsel, and pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1,280, 1.340(a), and 1.380(a),
respectfully moves for entry of an Order Overruling compelling Defendant, BRONSON FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“BRONSON”) Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Request
for Production and compelling BRONSON to provide the requested discovery and asserts as
grounds the following:
I. Introduction and Procedural Background
l. Plaintiff, ELEVATION, initiated this action on or about July 2, 2021.
2. Defendant, BRONSON, thereafter filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on or
about September 14, 2021.
3. On or about June 9, 2022, ELEVATION served its First Request for Production of
Documents (“Request for Production”) on BRONSON.
4, On July 7, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve
Plaintiff's Amended Lis Pendens.
5. On or about July 28, 2022, the Court issued its Order Denying Defendant’s Motion
to Dissolve Plaintiff's Amended Lis Pendens and requiring Plaintiff to Post Bond.
6. On or about August 3, 2022, BRONSON served its Response to ELEVATION’s
First Request for Production of Documents (“Response to RFP”). A copy of BRONSON’s
- responses are attached hereto as Exhibits “A.”
7. In response to requests, 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34 BRONSON raised different objections, but then stated
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of
Defendant will be produced,” however Defendant did not produce any documents as promised in
their response. See Response to RFP (emphasis added).
8. Counsel for Plaintiff, ELEVATION, inquired to Defendants’ counsel regarding the
absence of responsive documents from BRONSON’S responses to Plaintiff's First Request for
Production of Documents on August 5, 2022, however, counsel for BRONSON refused to provide
any timeline as to when BRONSON will complete its discovery responses by producing
documents responsive to ELEVATION’S request. A copy of correspondence between counsel for
BRONSON and ELEVATION are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “B”.
9. Counsel for Plaintiff made numerous further attempts to obtain documents
responsive to their Request for Production by email with counsel for BRONSON. On August 9,
2022 the undersigned counsel’s office sent an email to counsel for BRONSON to follow up on
when BRONSON would be producing the responsive documents, however no response was
received. See Exhibit “B”.
2
10. Again on September 8, 2022 the undersigned counsel’s office sent an email to
counsel for BRONSON to find out when the responsive documents would be produced, against no
response was received. See Exhibit “B”.
il. On or about September 14, 2022, on a call with BRONSON’s counsel, Ms. Stahl,
counsel verbally asserted to counsel for Plaintiff ELEVATION, Edmund O. Loos Il, that
BRONSON’S production of documents was forthcoming, yet, BRONSON still failed to produce
documents. :
12. Then again on September 23, 2022, the undersigned counsel sent BRONSON’s
counsel a fourth email inquiring when the responsive documents would be produced. In the
September 23, email the undersigned counsel reminded counsel for BRONSON that since there is
a proceeding on the evidentiary hearing as to the bond that her client’s alleged damages are at issue
and that the undersigned required the responsive documents to prepare for the hearing. See Exhibit
“B”. Finally, on October 14, 2022 the undersigned counsel spoke with Ms. Stahl in a final effort
to obtain the responsive documents.
13. To this date, no documents have been produced. The evidentiary hearing to
determine the amount of the bond, if any, is set for November 8, 2022. Plaintiff will be prejudiced
at the bond hearing if Defendant does not provide documents responsive to Plaintiff's First Request
for Production.
Il. Factual Background
14. This case involves a dispute between Elevation, as buyer, and BRONSON, as seller,
concerning a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the parties as to the purchase of Property in
Osceola County, Florida (“Purchase Agreement”). Elevation claims that the seller, BRONSON,
breached the Purchase Agreement and seeks specific performance of the Purchase Agreement.
3
15. Here, Elevation maintains that BRONSON is in breach of the Purchase Agreement by
its failure to uphold certain representations and warranties under § 8 and 9 of the Purchase
Agreement. § 8 of the Purchase Agreement requires BRONSON to execute and deliver certain
documents with respect to the Property, including, but not limited to: “Evidence of Seller’s
authority to convey the Property reasonably acceptable to the Title Insurer”; and “fal
Memorandum Agreement.”
16. Under § 9(1) of the Purchase Agreement BRONSON represented and warranted that
it had the “full power, authority and legal right, and has obtained all necessary consent and
approvals, to execute, deliver, and perform its obligations under this Agreement.” Under § 9(3) of
the Purchase Agreement, BRONSON also represented and warranted that “[t]o Seller’s actual
knowledge, there are no lawsuits pending or, threatened against or involving Seller or the Property
that affect title.”
17. Further, § 9(6) of the Purchase Agreement provides in pertinent part that, “[t]he foregoing
representations are, to the best of Seller’s current, actual knowledge, without any duty or obligation
to investigate or inquire, true, correct and complete, in all material respects, and the foregoing
warranties are in full force and effect and binding on Seller, as of the date hereof, and shall be true
and correct in all material respects and in full force and effect, as the case may be and deemed to
have been reaffirmed and restated by Seller as of the date and time of the Closing, and shall survive
the Closing for a period of one (1) year.” (Emphasis added).
18. Lastly, § 11(b) of the Purchase Agreement states in pertinent part that, “in the event of
default by Seller under the terms of this Agreement that is first discovered by Buyer prior to
Closing and is not cured by Seller as provided hereunder, Buyer may (i) terminate this Agreement
4
by giving written notice to the Seller whereupon the Deposit would be returned to the Buyer; or
(li) seek specific performance.”
19. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, as of the closing date, BRONSON could
not uphold their requirements, representations and warranties under §’s 8 and 9 as there was, and
still is, an existing dispute between BRONSON and Defendant, David A. Bronson, a beneficiary
of BRONSON, as to BRONSON ’s authority to execute the Purchase Agreement and convey the
Property to Elevation in the transaction. See Amended Complaint { 21-26. As-such, BRONSON
has defaulted under the Purchase Agreement entitling Elevation to the specific remedy stated in
Section 1 1(b) (ii) which allows for an action seeking specific performance.
20. More specifically, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, in July of 2019, Plaintiff
became aware that David Bronson, one of the limited partners of BRONSON, objected to the
Purchase Agreement, claiming, inter alia, the lack of the general partner’s authority to sell the
Property and had sought a judicial dissolution of BRONSON. See Amended Complaint { 21-26.
Thereafter, David Bronson filed a lawsuit styled, David A. Bronson, individually and as Trustee
ofDavid A. Bronson Irrevocable Trust v. Bronson Family Limited Partnership, Linda A. Bronson,
individually and as Trustee ofthe Qualified Terminable Interest and Generation Skipping Transfer
Trust, and Michael A. Bronson, individually and as Trustee of the Michael A. Bronson Irrevocable
Trust, Case No, 2019-CA-002232-OC, pending in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit
of Florida in and for Osceola County, Florida (the “Bronson Suit”). See Amended Complaint { 22.
Most recently, in the Bronson Suit, the Court issued an Order compelling the Parties to arbitration
and staying the case pending the final arbitration award.
21. In addition to the Bronson Suit, Sharon B. Abner, Esq., an attorney at Swann
Hadley Stump Dietrich (“Swann”), that was advising First American Title Company (the “Title
5
Company”) regarding her examination of title to the Property in conjunction with Swann’s
involvement in the purchase and sale the Property, to provide Elevation a Title Commitment for
the purchase of the Property, in order to fully inform the Title Company of any condition that may
ultimately have an effect on the issuance of a clean title policy, advised the Title Company, after
various conference calls with the Tithe Company and Bronson’s attorney, that it was determined
that Bronson was not able, or was unwilling to provide sufficient indemnifications or consents that
would be required to eliminate issues concerning the Bronson Suit. Therefore, the Tithe Company
elected not to take the risk of insuring the Property due to the pending Bronson Suit. She further
advised that the Bronson Suit brought up concerns for Elevation’s disclosure obligations to future
investors and lenders.. Further, David Bronson’s counsel made clear that David Bronson was not
in agreement with Elevation proceeding with the Agreement and threatened to sue Elevation if the
Agreement proceeded. Amended Complaint { 23. Further, the Tithe Company, which issued the
ALTA Title Commitment for the transaction, Commitment No. 2037-4341932 (the “Title
Commitment”), had included in the Title Commitment specific requirements to confirm the
authority of Bronson to execute the deed or otherwise transfer title to the property. See Amended
Complaint{ 18 and 19,
22. Additionally, during Elevation’s negotiations with Osceola County for the approval
of their development plan, the School Board for Osceola County determined that they were entitled
to an allocation of the Property for a school site, referencing Special Condition #10 of the Bronson
Bay PD07-00057, which related to a separate project across Pleasant Hill Road owned by Bronson.
See Amended Complaint {| 37-39. Although the Board of County Commissioners for Osceola
County approved Elevation’s development plan, the School Board reserved its rights at the hearing
to require a dedication of the school site. See Amended Complaint {| 38. The final determination
6
of the school site would be made part of the Site Development Plan approval process and was not
resolved by the closing date. See Amended Complaint { 38.
23. The basis for Elevation’s claim is that BRONSON could not (and cannot now)
convey marketable title as required by the Purchase Agreement. The existence of Bronson Suit in
and of itself is a breach of the representations and warranties made by Bronson under the Purchase
Agreement. The School Board allocation and Bronson Suit, which were never resolved, create a
marketability of title issue, affecting the vesting of fee simple title in Elevation and Elevation’s
future rights and ability to sell the Property, and further, other insurers could refuse to insure title
without including an exception for the Bronson Suit. Until BRONSON performs all its obligations
under the Purchase Agreement, Elevation is not required to close and may seek specific
performance by BRONSON to fulfill its obligations set forth in the Purchase Agreement.
fli. Legal Argument
a. Standard of Law
24. Rule 1.280(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure states:
Unless otherwise limited by order of the court and in accordance with these rules,
the scope of discovery is as follows:
(1) Jn General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to
the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of
any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition,
and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of and discoverable matter. It is not
grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the
trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
25. “If a party responding to a request for production pursuant to Fla, R. Civ. P. 1.350 fails
to respond, the discovering party may move for an order compelling production. See Fla. R. Civ.
P. 1.380(a)(2); see also Fla, R. Civ. P. 1.350(b) (“The party submitting the request may move for
| 7
an order under rule 1.380 concerning any objection, failure to respond to the request, or any part
of it, or failure to permit the inspection as requested.). Similarly, if a party responding to a request
for production pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 asserts objections therein, the discovering party
may move for an order concerning the merits of such objections. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b).
26. An issue can be relevant for discovery purposes on a lesser showing than would be
necessary at trial. The test is whether the material sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to
relevant evidence. Amente v. Newman, 653 8o0.2d 1030 (Fla. 1995). The discovery rules are
liberally construed in favor of permitting discovery. Weyant v. Rawlings, 389 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1980). Discovery of evidence that would not be admissible at trial is permissible if relevant
to the subject matter of the action. Amente v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1995). As more fully
argued below, the information that Plaintiff is seeking is relevant as it relates to claims and
defenses asserted.
27. Objections made to document requests should be specific, not generalized. See Fla.
R. Civ. 1.350(b) (“[T]he reasons for the objection shall be stated.”). Boilerplate objections such as
vague, overly broad, or burdensome standing are standing alone, meaningless. Alhassid v. Bank
ofAmerica, 2015 WL 1120273, *2 (S.D. Fla. March 12, 2015); see also Consumer Elecs. Ass'n v.
Compras & Buys Magazine, Inc., 08-21085-CIV, 2008 WL 4327253, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18,
2008). Federal courts have held that general objections without specificity are worthless for
anything beyond delay of discovery and are deemed a waiver of all objections. Thermoset
Corporation v. Building Materials Corp. ofAmerica, 2014 WL 6473232, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18,
2014); see also Consumer Elecs. Ass'n at 3 (holding that formulaic objections which state
“notwithstanding the above [objections],” the Party will respond to the discovery request, subject
to or without waiving such objection,” preserves nothing and serves only to waste the time and
8
resources of both the Parties and the Court. Further, such practice leaves the requesting Party
uncertain as to whether the question has actually been fully answered or whether only a portion of
the question has been answered.”) Florida courts often turn to federal courts for guidance when
construing the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. TGI Ins. Corp. ofAm. v. Johnson, 799 S0.2d 339,
341-42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
28. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, patterned closely after the federal discovery
rules, favor justice on the merits over surprise and competitive gamesmanship. See Dodson v.
Persell, 390 So. 2d 704, 707 (Fla. 1988). Consequently, full disclosure of all relevant matters is
favored. See Russell v. Stardust Cruises, Inc., 690 So. 2d 743, 745 (Fla. Sth DCA 1997). As set
forth below, there are separate and independent bases to overrule Plaintiff’s objections, and to
compel better and complete answers.
29, Furthermore, a party who responds or objects to discovery requests and who
withholds information otherwise discoverable by asserting that the information is privileged or
subject to other protection from discovery must assert a claim of privilege and must describe the
nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed, such that, without
revealing the privilege or protected information, itself, the description will enable other parties to
assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6).
30. While a waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges is not favored in
Florida, failure to provide a privilege log when objecting based on privilege may amount to a
waiver of privilege. TIG Ins. Corp. ofAm. V. Johnson., 799 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 4" DCA 2001)
(citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lease Am., Inc., 735 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 4" DCA 1999)). See
also Kaye Schaler LLP v. Zalis, 878 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“Failure to comply with
the requirements of [the rule] results in a waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges.”’).
9
31. Finally, if “generalized” objection based on attorney-client privilege or work
product doctrine is made without attaching a proper privilege log, the objection of privilege may
be deemed waived. See Consumer Elecs. Ass'n v. Compras & Buys Magazine, Inc., 08-21085-CTV,
2008 WL 4327253, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2008).
b. Defendant has Waived its Right to withhoid Privileged Documents
32, In response to Requests For Production No.’s 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20
BRONSON objects solely on grounds that the documents requested are subject to privilege,
making generalized privilege objections. However, BRONSON has failed to comply with Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6) requirement to file a privilege log or otherwise describe the nature of the
documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed due to privilege.
33, The requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6) allow the requesting party to
understand what documents may be responsive to the request that are being withheld from
production due to privilege. Without a proper privilege log, Plaintiff has no idea what documents
Defendant is withholding from production to properly assess whether a privilege exists. See TIG
fas. Corp. of Am. V. Johnson at 341.
34. Importantly, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6) requirements are construed as to hold the
producing party accountable for not filing a privilege log after asserting objections based on
attorney client privilege or work product doctrine. If a party fails to file a privilege log and makes
only “generalized” privilege objections without identifying the specific nature of the privilege
being asserted, the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue and the sender and
receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other, or fails to object on any other
basis other than privilege, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived. See Consumer Elecs.
Ass'n at 3. Therefore, BRONSON’s failure to prepare and file a proper privilege log has lead to
10
waiver of their privilege objections to Requests For Production No.’s 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and
20.
c. Defendant Must _ Produce Responsive Document and _Defendant’s
Objections Must be Overruled
35. BRONSON’s Objections to ELEVATION’s First Request for Production can be
broken down into various categories as further detailed below. Aside from their objections,
BRONSON states in Responses 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28,
29, 30, 32, 33, and 34 that “[nJotwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the
possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be produced.” First, no documents have been
produced by BRONSON to date. Second, such a response leaves Plaintiff uncertain as to whether
or not BRONSON is stating that they will produce all documents in response to these requests or
if they plan to withhold documents based on their objections. Such a response fails to preserve
BRONSON’s objections and is a waste of the parties and now the Court’s resources. See
Consumer Elecs. Ass'n at 3. At the very least, the Court should order that BRONSON provide
better responses, if not find that BRONSON’s objections have been waived,
36. In regard to BRONSON’s objections, the first category of objection based on
documents that BRONSON has determined are within the possession, custody, or control of
ELEVATION. Responses 1, 2, 3, 7, 11 and 12, fail into this category. This category of objection
is improper as it is based on BRONSON’s conclusion that ELEVATION is already in possession
of each of these categories of documents. Even if ELEVATION is in possession of certain
categories of documents, Florida law does not preclude BRONSON from their requirement to
produce these documents as a party has a duty to produce all responsive documents regardless of
whether the requesting party possess some of the documents requested. See United States of
11
America v. City of Boca Raton, Case No. 06-80879-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS/JOHNSON, 2008
WL 11406063, *3 (S.D. Fla. January 8, 2008) citing Kindred Rehab Services, Inc. v. Florida
Convalescent Centers, Inc., Case No. 06-CV-218-J-33MCR, 2007 WL 1695991, *2 (M.D. Fla.
June 11, 2007), As such Defendants’ objections should be overruled.
37. BRONSON’s second category of objections, are based on relevancy of certain internal
communications between the BRONSON members, stating that the internal correspondence
between BRONSON and its Defendant members, David -A. Bronson, Linda A. Bronson and
Michael A. Bronson, “have no bearing on the facts or issues in this lawsuit.” Responses 4, 5 and
6 fall into this category. Responses 4, 5 and 6 each request correspondence, letters, emails or other
like documents between BRONSON and David A. Bronson, Linda A. Bronson and Michael A.
Bronson, respectively, from January 1, 2019 to present. Certainly, the production of
correspondence between Defendants, in a limited timeframe, who were involved in the transaction
that is the subject of this lawsuit, can lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to the
transaction that is the subject of this lawsuit. A central issue in this lawsuit is the internal dispute
between members of BRONSON and their disagreement as to the authority of the members to act
on behalf of BRONSON. As such, Defendant’s objections should be overruled.
38. BRONSON’s third category of objections is based on duplicative requests,
however, BRONSON fails to state which requests each request is duplicative of. This is a classic
example of an improper non-specific, boilerplate objection. Requests 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 fall
under this category. The Court should overrule these objections or at the very least, BRONSON
should provide better responses to this request to inform ELEVATION which request they are
duplicative of.
12
39. BRONSON’ fourth category of objection is based on the request being overly broad
and burdensome by not defining a “temporal scope”. Responses 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 fall into this
category. The corresponding requests for these responses seeks information related to title search
reports and commitments, feasibility studies, financing applications, financial projections, and
plans and inspection reports regarding the subject property. The responses to the aforementioned
requests also object on relevance and privilege. First, this category of objections is flawed as
ELEVATION’s First Request for Production defines the temporal scope at paragraph 12 of the
Instructions section which states, “[t]he relevant time frame for these requests is from January 1,
2018 to present.” Second, the information requested is certainly relevant to the issues in this
lawsuit as ELEVATION has alleged that there were issues with title that lead to ELEVATION’s
inability to close on the subject transaction. The Court should therefore overrule BRONSON’s
objections and compel production of responsive documents.
40. BRONSON’s fifth category of objections is based on relevance. Each response in
this category gives the boilerplate response that the requests are “not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence” or that the request is “overly broad and burdensome”.
Responses 27, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 fall under this category. BRONSON
’s objections should
be overruled for the following reasons:
a. Response 27 ~ Request 27 seeks leases and agreements relating to the property in
force as of January 1, 2019 to present. This category of documents is relevant to
valuation of the property which is an essential element to the amount of any bond
that will be required under the Court’s July 28, 2022 Order.
b. Response 31 ~ Request 31 requests any and all documents relating to the David
Bronson Litigation as defined in the action Case No. 2019-CA-002232 pending in
13
Osceola County, FL. This category of documents is relevant to Plaintiff’s
allegations relating to David A. Bronson’s objections to the sale of the subject
property to ELEVATION, which created the title issue preventing the parties from
closing on the subject transaction.
c. Responses 36-40 — Requests 36-40 request information relating to any contract or
agreement between BRONSON, DAVID A. BRONSON, MICHAEL A.
BRONSON and/or LINDA A. BRONSON, with any person, to purchase the
subject property from January 1, 2019 to present. This category of documents again,
is relevant to the valuation of the subject property which has direct consequences
on the amount of the bond that may be set pursuant to the Court’s July 28, 2022
Order.
Al, BRONSON’s sixth category of objections is based on ambiguity of ELEVATION’s
request. Responses 32, 33 and 34 fall under this category. Requests 32, 33 and 34 each request
information related to the pleadings in this lawsuit. Each requests documents showing, evidencing,
supporting or relating to allegations set forth in BRONSON’s Counterclaim, affirmative defenses
to ELEVATION’s Amended Complaint and denials to ELEVATION’ s allegations in the Amended
Complaint, respectively. These requests are specific in that they are directed to specific sections
of the pleadings. Therefore, the Court should overrule BRONSON’s objections and require
production of responsive documents.
42. Finally, Response 13 is a stand alone category of objection. Request 13 requests:
correspondence, letters, emails or other like documents containing, regarding or referring to any
and all drafts of the Agreement between the parties. Defendant objects on the grounds that the
request does not define whose correspondence is being requested. This objection is improper as
14
ELEVATION’s First Request for Production is directed to BRONSON, therefore the request
applies to the requested category of documents in the possession, custody or control of
BRONSON. The Court should overrule this objection as the request is clearly directed to
BRONSON.
Certification of Good Faith Conference
Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380, I hereby certify that Counsel conferred or attempted to
confer with Counsel forBRONSON, regarding the responses discussed in this Motion, in an effort
to secure the information and/or material without Court action, but were unable to resolve their
outstanding discovery disputes.
DATED this 25th day of October, 2022.
Respectfully submitted,
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
201 East Pine Street, Suite 500
Oriando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-425-6559
Fax: 407-563-9665
E-mail: Edmund.Loos@ gmlaw.com
E-mail: Patrick, Hennessey @ gmlaw.com
E-mail 2: Tami.Austin@gmlaw.com
E-mail 2: Eric.Cruz@gmlaw.com
E-mail 3: chad.tamaroff@gmlaw.com
E-mail 3: agatha. mctier@ gmlaw.com
By: /s/f Edmund Q. Loos HI
EDMUND 0. LOOS, II, Esq.
Fiorida Bar No.: 899161
PATRICK J. HENNESSEY JR, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0106964
CHAD J. TAMAROFF, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 163368
Counsel for Plaintiff ELEVATION
DEVELOPMENT I, LLC
15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 25, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court by using the Florida Court’s E-Filing Portal, which will send a
Notification of Electronic Filing along with a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to
all counsel of record.
fs/ Edmund O. Loos If
EDMUND O. LOOS, IT, Esq.
16
| | EXHIBIT .
A
Filing # 154633697 E-Filed 08/03/2022 04:38:00 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 2021-CA-001956
ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT II, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Nevada limited partnership, DAVID A.
BRONSON, individually and as Trustee of the
David A. Bronson Irrevocable Trust,
LINDA A. BRONSON, individually and as
Trustee of the Qualified Terminable Interest and
Generation Skipping Transfer Trust, and
MICHAEL A. BRONSON, individually and as
Trustee of the Michael A. Bronson Irrevocable
Trust,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT, BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S, RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant, BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“Bronson Family L.P.”),
by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350, Fla. R. Civ. P., responds to
Plaintiff, ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT I], LLC’s, First Request for Production of Documents
to Bronson Family L.P. dated June 9, 2022, as follows:
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
1. Any and ail correspondence sent to the Plaintiff relating to the Agreement by and
between ELEVATION and BRONSON from January 1, 2019 to present.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it seeks information not in
Defendant’s possession, custody, or contrel and already in the possession of
Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession,
custody, or control of Defendant will be produced.
Page 1 of 11
2. Any and all notes or other records created and/or maintained by BRONSON relating to
any communications with the Plaintiff, including but not limited to, telephone logs.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, to the extent it seeks privileged
information. Additionally, Defendant objects as it seeks information not in
Defendant’s possession, custedy, or contrel and already in the possession of
Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, non-privileged responsive documents in
the possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be produced.
3. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and Plaintifffrom January 1, 2019,
to the present relating or pertaining to the negotiations for purchase and sale of the
, subject property, the subject property, the Agreement and/or the Amendments and/or
the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the Agreement. ;
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it duplicative of Request 1. It
additionally seeks information not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control
and already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be
produced.
4, The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or DAVID A. BRONSON
from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to the negotiations for
purchase and sale of the subject property, the subject property, the Agreement and/or
the Amendments and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the
Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it seeks privileged information.
Defendant additionally objects to this request as it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as the internal correspondence
between Bronson and with David A. Bronson has no bearing on the facts or issues
in this lawsuit.
5. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or LINDA A. BRONSON
from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to the negotiations for
purchase and sale of the subject property, the subject property, the Agreement and/or
the Amendments and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the
Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it seeks privileged information.
Defendant additionally objects to this request as it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as the internal correspondence
between Bronson and with Linda Bronson has no bearing on the facts or issues in
this lawsuit.
Page 2 of 11
6. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or MICHAEL A. BRONSON
from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to the negotiations for
purchase and sale of the subject property, the subject property, the Agreement and/or
the Amendments and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the
Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it seeks privileged information.
Defendant additionally objects to this request as it is not reasonably calculated to
-lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as the internal correspondence
, between Bronson and with Michael A. Bronson has no bearing on the facts or ,
issues in this lawsuit.
7. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or ELEVATION from
January 1, 2019, to the present relation or pertaining to ELEVATION, the subject
property and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it duplicative of other
Requests. It additionally seeks information not in Defendant’s possession,
custody, or control and already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of
Defendant wiil be preduced.
8. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or DAVID A. BRONSON
from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to BRONSON’s authority to
enter into an agreement for purchase and sale of the subject property.
RESPONSE: There are no documents responsive to this request.
9. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or LINDA A. BRONSON
from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to BRONSON’s authority to
enter into an agreement for purchase and sale ofthe subject property.
RESPONSE: There are no documents responsive to this request.
10. The original or a true and correct copy of ary and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or MICHAEL A. BRONSON
Page 3 of 11
from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to BRONSON’s authority to
enter into an agreement for purchase and sale ofthe subject property.
RESPONSE: There are ne documents responsive to this request.
11. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or ELEVATION from
January 1, 2019, to the present relation or pertaining to BRONSON’s authority to enter
into the Agreement for purchase and sale of the subject property with ELEVATION.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it duplicative of other
Requests, It additionally seeks information not in Defendant’s possession,
custody, or control and already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of
Defendant will be produced.
iz. All drafts, revisions and versions of the Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it seeks information already in
the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents
will be produced
13, The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents containing, regarding or referring to any and all drafts of the
Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome
by not defining whose correspondence is being requested.
14. _ All drafts, revisions and versions of the Amendments to the Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege.
Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents
in its possession, custody, or control.
15. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like documents containing, regarding or referring to any and all drafts of the
Amendments to the Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege.
Defendant additionally objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding
the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
custody, or control.
Page 4 of 11
16. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like regarding or relating to any discussion, communications, proposal or
negotiation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant about how the Deposit would be
distributed under the Contract.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding
the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
custody, or control,
17. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like regarding or relating to any understanding between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant about how the Deposit would be distributed under the Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege.
Defendant additionally objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding
the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
custody, or control.
18. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like regarding or relating to any agreement between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant about how the Deposit would be distributed under the Agreement, including
but not limited to any condition(s) precedent required to be performed on or before the
closing of the sale of the subject property.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege.
Defendant additionally objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding
the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
custody, or control,
19. The original or a true and correct copy of any and ail correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like regarding or relating to any discussion, communications, proposal or
negotiation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant about extending the June 20, 2021
closing deadline detailed in the Seventh Amendment to the Agreement.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege.
Defendant additionally objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding
the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
custody, or control.
20. All due diligence materials regarding the subject property.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege.
Notwithstanding the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged
documents in its possession, custody, or control.
Page 5o0f11
2i. Any plats, site plans, master plan maps, building plans, sketches, photographs,
drawings and/or surveys of the subject property, or any portion thereof.
RESPONSE: Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession,
custody, or control.
22, All title search reports, title insurance commitments, and title insurance policies
referencing or referring to the subject property.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects ta this Request, as overly broad and burdensome
by not defining a temporal scope. Title search reports and commitments prior to
a certain date are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible
evidence, Subject te the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged
documents in its possession, custody, or control.
23. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
ot other like regarding or relating to the commitment to issue a title insurance policy
by and between BRONSON and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
referencing or referring to the subject property.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome
by not defining a temporal scope. Title search reports and commitments prior to
a certain date are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Defendant additionally objects to the extent the request secks privileged
information or documents not in the possession, custody, orcontrol of Bronson.
Subject to the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its
possession, custody, or control.
24, All documents relating to the issuance ofa title insurance commitment by Fidelity
National Title Insurance Company referencing or referring to the subject property.
, RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome
by not defining a temporal scope. Title search reports and commitments prior to
a certain date are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Defendant additionally objects to the extent the request seeks privileged
information or documents not in the possession, custody, or control of Bronson.
Subject to the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its
possession, custody, or control.
25. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails
or other like regarding or relating to the commitment to issue a title insurance policy
by and between BRONSON and any Title Insurance Company referencing or referring
to the subject property.
Page 6 of 11
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome
by not defining a temporal scope. Title search reports and commitments prior to
a certain date are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Defendant additionally objects to the extent the request seeks privileged
information or documents not in the possession, custody, or control of Bronson.
Subject to the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its
possession, custody, or control,
26. All feasibility studies, financing applications, financial projections, plans and
inspection reports regarding the subject property. .
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome
by not defining a temporal scope, and by not specifying whose “feasibility studies,
financing applications, financial projections, plans and inspection reports
regarding the subject property.” Defendant additionally objects that the Request
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that
the information sought is not related to any claim or defense in this action.
27. Copies of all leases and agreements relating to the property, if any,
Preview
Filing # 159923113 E-Filed 10/25/2022 01:32:23 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT II, LLC, CASE NO.: 2021-CA-001956 a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, V. BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED, PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited . liability company, et. al., Defendants. PLAINTIFE’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND OVERRULE DEFENDANT BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT II, LLC (“ELEVATION”), by and through counsel, and pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1,280, 1.340(a), and 1.380(a), respectfully moves for entry of an Order Overruling compelling Defendant, BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“BRONSON”) Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Request for Production and compelling BRONSON to provide the requested discovery and asserts as grounds the following: I. Introduction and Procedural Background l. Plaintiff, ELEVATION, initiated this action on or about July 2, 2021. 2. Defendant, BRONSON, thereafter filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on or about September 14, 2021. 3. On or about June 9, 2022, ELEVATION served its First Request for Production of Documents (“Request for Production”) on BRONSON. 4, On July 7, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve Plaintiff's Amended Lis Pendens. 5. On or about July 28, 2022, the Court issued its Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve Plaintiff's Amended Lis Pendens and requiring Plaintiff to Post Bond. 6. On or about August 3, 2022, BRONSON served its Response to ELEVATION’s First Request for Production of Documents (“Response to RFP”). A copy of BRONSON’s - responses are attached hereto as Exhibits “A.” 7. In response to requests, 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34 BRONSON raised different objections, but then stated “Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be produced,” however Defendant did not produce any documents as promised in their response. See Response to RFP (emphasis added). 8. Counsel for Plaintiff, ELEVATION, inquired to Defendants’ counsel regarding the absence of responsive documents from BRONSON’S responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents on August 5, 2022, however, counsel for BRONSON refused to provide any timeline as to when BRONSON will complete its discovery responses by producing documents responsive to ELEVATION’S request. A copy of correspondence between counsel for BRONSON and ELEVATION are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “B”. 9. Counsel for Plaintiff made numerous further attempts to obtain documents responsive to their Request for Production by email with counsel for BRONSON. On August 9, 2022 the undersigned counsel’s office sent an email to counsel for BRONSON to follow up on when BRONSON would be producing the responsive documents, however no response was received. See Exhibit “B”. 2 10. Again on September 8, 2022 the undersigned counsel’s office sent an email to counsel for BRONSON to find out when the responsive documents would be produced, against no response was received. See Exhibit “B”. il. On or about September 14, 2022, on a call with BRONSON’s counsel, Ms. Stahl, counsel verbally asserted to counsel for Plaintiff ELEVATION, Edmund O. Loos Il, that BRONSON’S production of documents was forthcoming, yet, BRONSON still failed to produce documents. : 12. Then again on September 23, 2022, the undersigned counsel sent BRONSON’s counsel a fourth email inquiring when the responsive documents would be produced. In the September 23, email the undersigned counsel reminded counsel for BRONSON that since there is a proceeding on the evidentiary hearing as to the bond that her client’s alleged damages are at issue and that the undersigned required the responsive documents to prepare for the hearing. See Exhibit “B”. Finally, on October 14, 2022 the undersigned counsel spoke with Ms. Stahl in a final effort to obtain the responsive documents. 13. To this date, no documents have been produced. The evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of the bond, if any, is set for November 8, 2022. Plaintiff will be prejudiced at the bond hearing if Defendant does not provide documents responsive to Plaintiff's First Request for Production. Il. Factual Background 14. This case involves a dispute between Elevation, as buyer, and BRONSON, as seller, concerning a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the parties as to the purchase of Property in Osceola County, Florida (“Purchase Agreement”). Elevation claims that the seller, BRONSON, breached the Purchase Agreement and seeks specific performance of the Purchase Agreement. 3 15. Here, Elevation maintains that BRONSON is in breach of the Purchase Agreement by its failure to uphold certain representations and warranties under § 8 and 9 of the Purchase Agreement. § 8 of the Purchase Agreement requires BRONSON to execute and deliver certain documents with respect to the Property, including, but not limited to: “Evidence of Seller’s authority to convey the Property reasonably acceptable to the Title Insurer”; and “fal Memorandum Agreement.” 16. Under § 9(1) of the Purchase Agreement BRONSON represented and warranted that it had the “full power, authority and legal right, and has obtained all necessary consent and approvals, to execute, deliver, and perform its obligations under this Agreement.” Under § 9(3) of the Purchase Agreement, BRONSON also represented and warranted that “[t]o Seller’s actual knowledge, there are no lawsuits pending or, threatened against or involving Seller or the Property that affect title.” 17. Further, § 9(6) of the Purchase Agreement provides in pertinent part that, “[t]he foregoing representations are, to the best of Seller’s current, actual knowledge, without any duty or obligation to investigate or inquire, true, correct and complete, in all material respects, and the foregoing warranties are in full force and effect and binding on Seller, as of the date hereof, and shall be true and correct in all material respects and in full force and effect, as the case may be and deemed to have been reaffirmed and restated by Seller as of the date and time of the Closing, and shall survive the Closing for a period of one (1) year.” (Emphasis added). 18. Lastly, § 11(b) of the Purchase Agreement states in pertinent part that, “in the event of default by Seller under the terms of this Agreement that is first discovered by Buyer prior to Closing and is not cured by Seller as provided hereunder, Buyer may (i) terminate this Agreement 4 by giving written notice to the Seller whereupon the Deposit would be returned to the Buyer; or (li) seek specific performance.” 19. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, as of the closing date, BRONSON could not uphold their requirements, representations and warranties under §’s 8 and 9 as there was, and still is, an existing dispute between BRONSON and Defendant, David A. Bronson, a beneficiary of BRONSON, as to BRONSON ’s authority to execute the Purchase Agreement and convey the Property to Elevation in the transaction. See Amended Complaint { 21-26. As-such, BRONSON has defaulted under the Purchase Agreement entitling Elevation to the specific remedy stated in Section 1 1(b) (ii) which allows for an action seeking specific performance. 20. More specifically, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, in July of 2019, Plaintiff became aware that David Bronson, one of the limited partners of BRONSON, objected to the Purchase Agreement, claiming, inter alia, the lack of the general partner’s authority to sell the Property and had sought a judicial dissolution of BRONSON. See Amended Complaint { 21-26. Thereafter, David Bronson filed a lawsuit styled, David A. Bronson, individually and as Trustee ofDavid A. Bronson Irrevocable Trust v. Bronson Family Limited Partnership, Linda A. Bronson, individually and as Trustee ofthe Qualified Terminable Interest and Generation Skipping Transfer Trust, and Michael A. Bronson, individually and as Trustee of the Michael A. Bronson Irrevocable Trust, Case No, 2019-CA-002232-OC, pending in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Osceola County, Florida (the “Bronson Suit”). See Amended Complaint { 22. Most recently, in the Bronson Suit, the Court issued an Order compelling the Parties to arbitration and staying the case pending the final arbitration award. 21. In addition to the Bronson Suit, Sharon B. Abner, Esq., an attorney at Swann Hadley Stump Dietrich (“Swann”), that was advising First American Title Company (the “Title 5 Company”) regarding her examination of title to the Property in conjunction with Swann’s involvement in the purchase and sale the Property, to provide Elevation a Title Commitment for the purchase of the Property, in order to fully inform the Title Company of any condition that may ultimately have an effect on the issuance of a clean title policy, advised the Title Company, after various conference calls with the Tithe Company and Bronson’s attorney, that it was determined that Bronson was not able, or was unwilling to provide sufficient indemnifications or consents that would be required to eliminate issues concerning the Bronson Suit. Therefore, the Tithe Company elected not to take the risk of insuring the Property due to the pending Bronson Suit. She further advised that the Bronson Suit brought up concerns for Elevation’s disclosure obligations to future investors and lenders.. Further, David Bronson’s counsel made clear that David Bronson was not in agreement with Elevation proceeding with the Agreement and threatened to sue Elevation if the Agreement proceeded. Amended Complaint { 23. Further, the Tithe Company, which issued the ALTA Title Commitment for the transaction, Commitment No. 2037-4341932 (the “Title Commitment”), had included in the Title Commitment specific requirements to confirm the authority of Bronson to execute the deed or otherwise transfer title to the property. See Amended Complaint{ 18 and 19, 22. Additionally, during Elevation’s negotiations with Osceola County for the approval of their development plan, the School Board for Osceola County determined that they were entitled to an allocation of the Property for a school site, referencing Special Condition #10 of the Bronson Bay PD07-00057, which related to a separate project across Pleasant Hill Road owned by Bronson. See Amended Complaint {| 37-39. Although the Board of County Commissioners for Osceola County approved Elevation’s development plan, the School Board reserved its rights at the hearing to require a dedication of the school site. See Amended Complaint {| 38. The final determination 6 of the school site would be made part of the Site Development Plan approval process and was not resolved by the closing date. See Amended Complaint { 38. 23. The basis for Elevation’s claim is that BRONSON could not (and cannot now) convey marketable title as required by the Purchase Agreement. The existence of Bronson Suit in and of itself is a breach of the representations and warranties made by Bronson under the Purchase Agreement. The School Board allocation and Bronson Suit, which were never resolved, create a marketability of title issue, affecting the vesting of fee simple title in Elevation and Elevation’s future rights and ability to sell the Property, and further, other insurers could refuse to insure title without including an exception for the Bronson Suit. Until BRONSON performs all its obligations under the Purchase Agreement, Elevation is not required to close and may seek specific performance by BRONSON to fulfill its obligations set forth in the Purchase Agreement. fli. Legal Argument a. Standard of Law 24. Rule 1.280(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure states: Unless otherwise limited by order of the court and in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows: (1) Jn General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of and discoverable matter. It is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 25. “If a party responding to a request for production pursuant to Fla, R. Civ. P. 1.350 fails to respond, the discovering party may move for an order compelling production. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(2); see also Fla, R. Civ. P. 1.350(b) (“The party submitting the request may move for | 7 an order under rule 1.380 concerning any objection, failure to respond to the request, or any part of it, or failure to permit the inspection as requested.). Similarly, if a party responding to a request for production pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 asserts objections therein, the discovering party may move for an order concerning the merits of such objections. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b). 26. An issue can be relevant for discovery purposes on a lesser showing than would be necessary at trial. The test is whether the material sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence. Amente v. Newman, 653 8o0.2d 1030 (Fla. 1995). The discovery rules are liberally construed in favor of permitting discovery. Weyant v. Rawlings, 389 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Discovery of evidence that would not be admissible at trial is permissible if relevant to the subject matter of the action. Amente v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1995). As more fully argued below, the information that Plaintiff is seeking is relevant as it relates to claims and defenses asserted. 27. Objections made to document requests should be specific, not generalized. See Fla. R. Civ. 1.350(b) (“[T]he reasons for the objection shall be stated.”). Boilerplate objections such as vague, overly broad, or burdensome standing are standing alone, meaningless. Alhassid v. Bank ofAmerica, 2015 WL 1120273, *2 (S.D. Fla. March 12, 2015); see also Consumer Elecs. Ass'n v. Compras & Buys Magazine, Inc., 08-21085-CIV, 2008 WL 4327253, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2008). Federal courts have held that general objections without specificity are worthless for anything beyond delay of discovery and are deemed a waiver of all objections. Thermoset Corporation v. Building Materials Corp. ofAmerica, 2014 WL 6473232, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2014); see also Consumer Elecs. Ass'n at 3 (holding that formulaic objections which state “notwithstanding the above [objections],” the Party will respond to the discovery request, subject to or without waiving such objection,” preserves nothing and serves only to waste the time and 8 resources of both the Parties and the Court. Further, such practice leaves the requesting Party uncertain as to whether the question has actually been fully answered or whether only a portion of the question has been answered.”) Florida courts often turn to federal courts for guidance when construing the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. TGI Ins. Corp. ofAm. v. Johnson, 799 S0.2d 339, 341-42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). 28. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, patterned closely after the federal discovery rules, favor justice on the merits over surprise and competitive gamesmanship. See Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704, 707 (Fla. 1988). Consequently, full disclosure of all relevant matters is favored. See Russell v. Stardust Cruises, Inc., 690 So. 2d 743, 745 (Fla. Sth DCA 1997). As set forth below, there are separate and independent bases to overrule Plaintiff’s objections, and to compel better and complete answers. 29, Furthermore, a party who responds or objects to discovery requests and who withholds information otherwise discoverable by asserting that the information is privileged or subject to other protection from discovery must assert a claim of privilege and must describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed, such that, without revealing the privilege or protected information, itself, the description will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6). 30. While a waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges is not favored in Florida, failure to provide a privilege log when objecting based on privilege may amount to a waiver of privilege. TIG Ins. Corp. ofAm. V. Johnson., 799 So. 2d 339, 341 (Fla. 4" DCA 2001) (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lease Am., Inc., 735 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 4" DCA 1999)). See also Kaye Schaler LLP v. Zalis, 878 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“Failure to comply with the requirements of [the rule] results in a waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges.”’). 9 31. Finally, if “generalized” objection based on attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine is made without attaching a proper privilege log, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived. See Consumer Elecs. Ass'n v. Compras & Buys Magazine, Inc., 08-21085-CTV, 2008 WL 4327253, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2008). b. Defendant has Waived its Right to withhoid Privileged Documents 32, In response to Requests For Production No.’s 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 BRONSON objects solely on grounds that the documents requested are subject to privilege, making generalized privilege objections. However, BRONSON has failed to comply with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6) requirement to file a privilege log or otherwise describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed due to privilege. 33, The requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6) allow the requesting party to understand what documents may be responsive to the request that are being withheld from production due to privilege. Without a proper privilege log, Plaintiff has no idea what documents Defendant is withholding from production to properly assess whether a privilege exists. See TIG fas. Corp. of Am. V. Johnson at 341. 34. Importantly, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(6) requirements are construed as to hold the producing party accountable for not filing a privilege log after asserting objections based on attorney client privilege or work product doctrine. If a party fails to file a privilege log and makes only “generalized” privilege objections without identifying the specific nature of the privilege being asserted, the nature and subject matter of the communication at issue and the sender and receiver of the communication and their relationship to each other, or fails to object on any other basis other than privilege, the objection of privilege may be deemed waived. See Consumer Elecs. Ass'n at 3. Therefore, BRONSON’s failure to prepare and file a proper privilege log has lead to 10 waiver of their privilege objections to Requests For Production No.’s 2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. c. Defendant Must _ Produce Responsive Document and _Defendant’s Objections Must be Overruled 35. BRONSON’s Objections to ELEVATION’s First Request for Production can be broken down into various categories as further detailed below. Aside from their objections, BRONSON states in Responses 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34 that “[nJotwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be produced.” First, no documents have been produced by BRONSON to date. Second, such a response leaves Plaintiff uncertain as to whether or not BRONSON is stating that they will produce all documents in response to these requests or if they plan to withhold documents based on their objections. Such a response fails to preserve BRONSON’s objections and is a waste of the parties and now the Court’s resources. See Consumer Elecs. Ass'n at 3. At the very least, the Court should order that BRONSON provide better responses, if not find that BRONSON’s objections have been waived, 36. In regard to BRONSON’s objections, the first category of objection based on documents that BRONSON has determined are within the possession, custody, or control of ELEVATION. Responses 1, 2, 3, 7, 11 and 12, fail into this category. This category of objection is improper as it is based on BRONSON’s conclusion that ELEVATION is already in possession of each of these categories of documents. Even if ELEVATION is in possession of certain categories of documents, Florida law does not preclude BRONSON from their requirement to produce these documents as a party has a duty to produce all responsive documents regardless of whether the requesting party possess some of the documents requested. See United States of 11 America v. City of Boca Raton, Case No. 06-80879-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS/JOHNSON, 2008 WL 11406063, *3 (S.D. Fla. January 8, 2008) citing Kindred Rehab Services, Inc. v. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., Case No. 06-CV-218-J-33MCR, 2007 WL 1695991, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 11, 2007), As such Defendants’ objections should be overruled. 37. BRONSON’s second category of objections, are based on relevancy of certain internal communications between the BRONSON members, stating that the internal correspondence between BRONSON and its Defendant members, David -A. Bronson, Linda A. Bronson and Michael A. Bronson, “have no bearing on the facts or issues in this lawsuit.” Responses 4, 5 and 6 fall into this category. Responses 4, 5 and 6 each request correspondence, letters, emails or other like documents between BRONSON and David A. Bronson, Linda A. Bronson and Michael A. Bronson, respectively, from January 1, 2019 to present. Certainly, the production of correspondence between Defendants, in a limited timeframe, who were involved in the transaction that is the subject of this lawsuit, can lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to the transaction that is the subject of this lawsuit. A central issue in this lawsuit is the internal dispute between members of BRONSON and their disagreement as to the authority of the members to act on behalf of BRONSON. As such, Defendant’s objections should be overruled. 38. BRONSON’s third category of objections is based on duplicative requests, however, BRONSON fails to state which requests each request is duplicative of. This is a classic example of an improper non-specific, boilerplate objection. Requests 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 fall under this category. The Court should overrule these objections or at the very least, BRONSON should provide better responses to this request to inform ELEVATION which request they are duplicative of. 12 39. BRONSON’ fourth category of objection is based on the request being overly broad and burdensome by not defining a “temporal scope”. Responses 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 fall into this category. The corresponding requests for these responses seeks information related to title search reports and commitments, feasibility studies, financing applications, financial projections, and plans and inspection reports regarding the subject property. The responses to the aforementioned requests also object on relevance and privilege. First, this category of objections is flawed as ELEVATION’s First Request for Production defines the temporal scope at paragraph 12 of the Instructions section which states, “[t]he relevant time frame for these requests is from January 1, 2018 to present.” Second, the information requested is certainly relevant to the issues in this lawsuit as ELEVATION has alleged that there were issues with title that lead to ELEVATION’s inability to close on the subject transaction. The Court should therefore overrule BRONSON’s objections and compel production of responsive documents. 40. BRONSON’s fifth category of objections is based on relevance. Each response in this category gives the boilerplate response that the requests are “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” or that the request is “overly broad and burdensome”. Responses 27, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 fall under this category. BRONSON ’s objections should be overruled for the following reasons: a. Response 27 ~ Request 27 seeks leases and agreements relating to the property in force as of January 1, 2019 to present. This category of documents is relevant to valuation of the property which is an essential element to the amount of any bond that will be required under the Court’s July 28, 2022 Order. b. Response 31 ~ Request 31 requests any and all documents relating to the David Bronson Litigation as defined in the action Case No. 2019-CA-002232 pending in 13 Osceola County, FL. This category of documents is relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations relating to David A. Bronson’s objections to the sale of the subject property to ELEVATION, which created the title issue preventing the parties from closing on the subject transaction. c. Responses 36-40 — Requests 36-40 request information relating to any contract or agreement between BRONSON, DAVID A. BRONSON, MICHAEL A. BRONSON and/or LINDA A. BRONSON, with any person, to purchase the subject property from January 1, 2019 to present. This category of documents again, is relevant to the valuation of the subject property which has direct consequences on the amount of the bond that may be set pursuant to the Court’s July 28, 2022 Order. Al, BRONSON’s sixth category of objections is based on ambiguity of ELEVATION’s request. Responses 32, 33 and 34 fall under this category. Requests 32, 33 and 34 each request information related to the pleadings in this lawsuit. Each requests documents showing, evidencing, supporting or relating to allegations set forth in BRONSON’s Counterclaim, affirmative defenses to ELEVATION’s Amended Complaint and denials to ELEVATION’ s allegations in the Amended Complaint, respectively. These requests are specific in that they are directed to specific sections of the pleadings. Therefore, the Court should overrule BRONSON’s objections and require production of responsive documents. 42. Finally, Response 13 is a stand alone category of objection. Request 13 requests: correspondence, letters, emails or other like documents containing, regarding or referring to any and all drafts of the Agreement between the parties. Defendant objects on the grounds that the request does not define whose correspondence is being requested. This objection is improper as 14 ELEVATION’s First Request for Production is directed to BRONSON, therefore the request applies to the requested category of documents in the possession, custody or control of BRONSON. The Court should overrule this objection as the request is clearly directed to BRONSON. Certification of Good Faith Conference Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380, I hereby certify that Counsel conferred or attempted to confer with Counsel forBRONSON, regarding the responses discussed in this Motion, in an effort to secure the information and/or material without Court action, but were unable to resolve their outstanding discovery disputes. DATED this 25th day of October, 2022. Respectfully submitted, GREENSPOON MARDER LLP Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff 201 East Pine Street, Suite 500 Oriando, FL 32801 Phone: 407-425-6559 Fax: 407-563-9665 E-mail: Edmund.Loos@ gmlaw.com E-mail: Patrick, Hennessey @ gmlaw.com E-mail 2: Tami.Austin@gmlaw.com E-mail 2: Eric.Cruz@gmlaw.com E-mail 3: chad.tamaroff@gmlaw.com E-mail 3: agatha. mctier@ gmlaw.com By: /s/f Edmund Q. Loos HI EDMUND 0. LOOS, II, Esq. Fiorida Bar No.: 899161 PATRICK J. HENNESSEY JR, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 0106964 CHAD J. TAMAROFF, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 163368 Counsel for Plaintiff ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT I, LLC 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 25, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the Florida Court’s E-Filing Portal, which will send a Notification of Electronic Filing along with a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to all counsel of record. fs/ Edmund O. Loos If EDMUND O. LOOS, IT, Esq. 16 | | EXHIBIT . A Filing # 154633697 E-Filed 08/03/2022 04:38:00 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 2021-CA-001956 ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership, DAVID A. BRONSON, individually and as Trustee of the David A. Bronson Irrevocable Trust, LINDA A. BRONSON, individually and as Trustee of the Qualified Terminable Interest and Generation Skipping Transfer Trust, and MICHAEL A. BRONSON, individually and as Trustee of the Michael A. Bronson Irrevocable Trust, Defendants. DEFENDANT, BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP'S, RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant, BRONSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“Bronson Family L.P.”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350, Fla. R. Civ. P., responds to Plaintiff, ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT I], LLC’s, First Request for Production of Documents to Bronson Family L.P. dated June 9, 2022, as follows: OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 1. Any and ail correspondence sent to the Plaintiff relating to the Agreement by and between ELEVATION and BRONSON from January 1, 2019 to present. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it seeks information not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or contrel and already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be produced. Page 1 of 11 2. Any and all notes or other records created and/or maintained by BRONSON relating to any communications with the Plaintiff, including but not limited to, telephone logs. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, to the extent it seeks privileged information. Additionally, Defendant objects as it seeks information not in Defendant’s possession, custedy, or contrel and already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, non-privileged responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be produced. 3. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and Plaintifffrom January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to the negotiations for purchase and sale of the , subject property, the subject property, the Agreement and/or the Amendments and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the Agreement. ; RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it duplicative of Request 1. It additionally seeks information not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control and already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be produced. 4, The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or DAVID A. BRONSON from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to the negotiations for purchase and sale of the subject property, the subject property, the Agreement and/or the Amendments and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it seeks privileged information. Defendant additionally objects to this request as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as the internal correspondence between Bronson and with David A. Bronson has no bearing on the facts or issues in this lawsuit. 5. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or LINDA A. BRONSON from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to the negotiations for purchase and sale of the subject property, the subject property, the Agreement and/or the Amendments and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it seeks privileged information. Defendant additionally objects to this request as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as the internal correspondence between Bronson and with Linda Bronson has no bearing on the facts or issues in this lawsuit. Page 2 of 11 6. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or MICHAEL A. BRONSON from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to the negotiations for purchase and sale of the subject property, the subject property, the Agreement and/or the Amendments and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this request as it seeks privileged information. Defendant additionally objects to this request as it is not reasonably calculated to -lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as the internal correspondence , between Bronson and with Michael A. Bronson has no bearing on the facts or , issues in this lawsuit. 7. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or ELEVATION from January 1, 2019, to the present relation or pertaining to ELEVATION, the subject property and/or the performance of ELEVATION’s obligations under the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it duplicative of other Requests. It additionally seeks information not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control and already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant wiil be preduced. 8. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or DAVID A. BRONSON from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to BRONSON’s authority to enter into an agreement for purchase and sale of the subject property. RESPONSE: There are no documents responsive to this request. 9. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or LINDA A. BRONSON from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to BRONSON’s authority to enter into an agreement for purchase and sale ofthe subject property. RESPONSE: There are no documents responsive to this request. 10. The original or a true and correct copy of ary and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or MICHAEL A. BRONSON Page 3 of 11 from January 1, 2019, to the present relating or pertaining to BRONSON’s authority to enter into an agreement for purchase and sale ofthe subject property. RESPONSE: There are ne documents responsive to this request. 11. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents by and between BRONSON and/or ELEVATION from January 1, 2019, to the present relation or pertaining to BRONSON’s authority to enter into the Agreement for purchase and sale of the subject property with ELEVATION. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it duplicative of other Requests, It additionally seeks information not in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control and already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant will be produced. iz. All drafts, revisions and versions of the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as it seeks information already in the possession of Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, responsive documents will be produced 13, The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents containing, regarding or referring to any and all drafts of the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome by not defining whose correspondence is being requested. 14. _ All drafts, revisions and versions of the Amendments to the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. 15. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like documents containing, regarding or referring to any and all drafts of the Amendments to the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege. Defendant additionally objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. Page 4 of 11 16. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like regarding or relating to any discussion, communications, proposal or negotiation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant about how the Deposit would be distributed under the Contract. RESPONSE: Defendant objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control, 17. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like regarding or relating to any understanding between the Plaintiff and the Defendant about how the Deposit would be distributed under the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege. Defendant additionally objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. 18. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like regarding or relating to any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant about how the Deposit would be distributed under the Agreement, including but not limited to any condition(s) precedent required to be performed on or before the closing of the sale of the subject property. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege. Defendant additionally objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control, 19. The original or a true and correct copy of any and ail correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like regarding or relating to any discussion, communications, proposal or negotiation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant about extending the June 20, 2021 closing deadline detailed in the Seventh Amendment to the Agreement. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege. Defendant additionally objects that the Request is duplicative. Notwithstanding the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. 20. All due diligence materials regarding the subject property. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to the extent documents are subject to privilege. Notwithstanding the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. Page 5o0f11 2i. Any plats, site plans, master plan maps, building plans, sketches, photographs, drawings and/or surveys of the subject property, or any portion thereof. RESPONSE: Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. 22, All title search reports, title insurance commitments, and title insurance policies referencing or referring to the subject property. RESPONSE: Defendant objects ta this Request, as overly broad and burdensome by not defining a temporal scope. Title search reports and commitments prior to a certain date are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, Subject te the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. 23. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails ot other like regarding or relating to the commitment to issue a title insurance policy by and between BRONSON and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company referencing or referring to the subject property. RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome by not defining a temporal scope. Title search reports and commitments prior to a certain date are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to the extent the request secks privileged information or documents not in the possession, custody, orcontrol of Bronson. Subject to the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. 24, All documents relating to the issuance ofa title insurance commitment by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company referencing or referring to the subject property. , RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome by not defining a temporal scope. Title search reports and commitments prior to a certain date are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to the extent the request seeks privileged information or documents not in the possession, custody, or control of Bronson. Subject to the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. 25. The original or a true and correct copy of any and all correspondence, letters, e-mails or other like regarding or relating to the commitment to issue a title insurance policy by and between BRONSON and any Title Insurance Company referencing or referring to the subject property. Page 6 of 11 RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome by not defining a temporal scope. Title search reports and commitments prior to a certain date are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant additionally objects to the extent the request seeks privileged information or documents not in the possession, custody, or control of Bronson. Subject to the objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control, 26. All feasibility studies, financing applications, financial projections, plans and inspection reports regarding the subject property. . RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Request, as overly broad and burdensome by not defining a temporal scope, and by not specifying whose “feasibility studies, financing applications, financial projections, plans and inspection reports regarding the subject property.” Defendant additionally objects that the Request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that the information sought is not related to any claim or defense in this action. 27. Copies of all leases and agreements relating to the property, if any,