Preview
Filing # 179780549 E-Filed 08/16/2023 11:59:25 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
BARBARA GONZALEZ
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.: 21000968CA
VS.
MICHAEL G. EDWARDS and
HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC and
PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a
BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS FIRST RE! TO PRODUCE TO PORT CHARLOTTE
HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Barabra Gonzalez by and through her undersigned attorney and
files this Motion to Compel better Responses to Plaintiffs Frist Request to Produce and as grounds
thereof would show as follows:
1 This is a negligence action involving injuries sustained by the Plaintiff due to an accident
involving a golf cart.
2 This action was filed on August 8, 2021. Originally the only Defendants were HHS
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC (hereinafter “HHS”) and Michael G. Edwards.(hereinafter
“Edwards”).
3 During the course of this litigation, facts were revealed, and certain defenses were raised by
HHS that required the Plaintiff to amend her complaint and add a party, Defendant, PORT
CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE (hereinafter
“Bayfront’”’) on February 26, 2023. HHS has asserted that Edwards is a borrowed servant and or co-
employee with Bayfront. Further, HHS has alleged that Bayfront may also be responsible for this
incident as they are the owners of the golf cart in question.
4 Plaintiff propounded its First Request for Production to Defendant Bay front on April 18, 2023
with twenty seven (27) requests
5 Defendant Bayfront filed their first response to Plaintiffs First request for production on April
18, 2023 with only responses to the first six requests.
6. Undesigned counsel called counsel for Bayfront and discussed this error and agreed to an
extension for Bayfront to respond to the full request.
7
On June 7, 2023, Defendant filed its complete response to Plaintiff first request for production
objecting to the following requests, 4, 6, 9, 13, request and objection below:
REQUEST #4: Defendant is requested to produce copies of all tax records,
W2 forms, or any other I.R.S. related documents pertaining to Defendant,
Michael Edwards in its possession.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, immaterial, not
limited in time or scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Defendant further
objects to this request as it seeks information and or documents relating to
personnel files, as same is irrelevant and contains sensitive information
concerning wages, medical conditions, social security numbers, among
other things which should be protected from disclosure. Further, the
information contained in any file related to Michael Edwards, to the extent
same exists, may be subject to the confidential and privacy interests of the
individual under the Health Insurance Portability and protected by Article
1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and Privacy Act found at 5 U.S.C.
§ 552a. See Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936, 941
(Fla. 2002); Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, 863 So.2d 189 (Fla.
2003); CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1994) (discovery requests directed to personnel files implicates
privacy rights are generally improper); and Fed’l Deposit Ins. Co. v.
Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same). Moreover, the request
is overly broad, unduly burdensome, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The allegation in Plaintiff's Complaint is that Mr. Edwards is an employee of Bayfront. To the
extent that the items exist, the requested documents are discoverable. If there are no items that are
subject to this request then the Plaintiff is entitled to know this information as again it is
discoverable.
REQUEST #6: Defendant is requested to produce a copy of the
employment file for Defendant, Michael Edwards in its possession.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, immaterial, not
limited in time or scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently
phrased. Defendant further objects to this request as it seeks information
and or documents relating to personnel files, as same is irrelevant and
contains sensitive information concerning wages, medical conditions, social
security numbers, among other things which should be protected from
disclosure. Further, the information contained in any file related to Michael
Edwards, to the extent same exists, may be subject to the confidential and
privacy interests of the individual under the Health Insurance Portability
and protected by Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and
Privacy Act found at 5 U.S.C. § 552a. See Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate
of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936, 941 (Fla. 2002); Friedman v. Heart Inst. of PortSt.
Lucie, 863 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003); CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v.
Johnson, 641 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (discovery requests directed to
personnel files implicates privacy rights are generally improper); and Fed’I
Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same).
Moreover, the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, immaterial,
and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
The allegation in Plaintiff's Complaint is that Mr. Edwards is an employee of Bayfront. To the
extent that the items exist, the requested documents are discoverable. If there are no items that are
subject to this Request then the Plaintiff is entitled to know this information as again it is
discoverable.
REQUEST #9:
Defendant is requested to produce a full and complete copy of all video footage
for the surveillance camera(s) located at/near the front entrance of the hospital
for July 7, 2020, from 5:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.
RESPONSE: Objection. Vague, ambiguous, compound, overly broad, and
not reasonably limited in time. Defendant further objects to the form of this
request which seeks items that, if available, are work-product doctrine and
therefore are not discoverable. See Marshalls of MA, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So.
3
2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). See Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1980);
Honey Transportation, Inc. v. Ruiz, 893 So.2d 661 (4th DCA 2005) (photos
protected by work product privilege); see also Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette,
236 So.2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970) (holding that documents, pictures, statements
and diagrams which an attorney does not intend to use as evidence comes
within the general purview of work product). Alternatively, Defendant
should not be required to produce the surveillance video until after this
Defendant has had the opportunity to depose Plaintiff. See Dodson, 390
So.2d at 708 (“in this regard fairness requires that we allow the use of
surveillance materials to establish any inconsistency in a claim by allowing
the surveilling party to depose the party surveilled after the movies have
been taken or evidence acquired but before their contents are presented for
the adversary’s pretrial examination”).
This objection is moot; the surveillance video has been produced via subpoena by Bayfront prior
to being engaged in this litigation. Therefore we request a copy of the footage as identified in this
Request to Produce to be disclosed to the Plaintiff immediately.
REQUEST #13: Defendant is requested to produce the “shift log” for
maintenance and security personnel for the month of July 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, compound, not
reasonably limited in time or scope, immaterial, impermissible fishing
expedition, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence as currently phrased.
The Request is self-explanatory. It is not vague or ambiguous. The Plaintiff is entitled to know
who was present at the hospital during this time frame as there may be witnesses to this event or
others with information regarding the issues raised in the Complaint. This information is
discoverable.
WHERFORE, the Plaintiff Barabra Gonzalez, respectfully requests that this Court enter an
Order granting the Motion to Compel and all other relief it deems appropriate.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the forgoing has been furnished this 16" day of
August, 2023, by electronic mail to the following designated services e-mail address(es):
FRANCESCA IPPOLITO-CRAVEN, ESQUIRE at fic@kubickidraper.com; fic-
kd@kubickidraper.com and STEPHANIE B. GLICKMAN, ESQUIRE at sbg@kubickidraper.com
(Counsel for Michael G. Edwards and HHS Environmental Services, LLC); and to JULIE A.
CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE and BRITANY A PEREZ, ESQUIRE at
NAPertpleadings@wickersmith.com (counsel for Bayfront Health Port Charlotte).
For the Clerk of the Court
/s/ Helen Stratigakos, Esq.
HELEN STRATIGAKOS, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 0893633
412 East Madison Street, Suite 814
Tampa, Florida 33606
(P): (813) 226-0067
(F): (813) 259-2505
helen@stratigakoslaw.com
admin @stratigakoslaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
/s/ Michael J. Rossi, Esq.
MICHAEL J. ROSSI, ESQ.
Michael J. Rossi, P.A.
Florida Bar No.: 0868000
115 South Albany Ave
Tampa, FL 33606
(P): (813) 253-3351
Michael@michaelrossilaw.com
Preview
Filing # 179780549 E-Filed 08/16/2023 11:59:25 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION BARBARA GONZALEZ Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 21000968CA VS. MICHAEL G. EDWARDS and HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC and PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE, Defendants. / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST RE! TO PRODUCE TO PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Barabra Gonzalez by and through her undersigned attorney and files this Motion to Compel better Responses to Plaintiffs Frist Request to Produce and as grounds thereof would show as follows: 1 This is a negligence action involving injuries sustained by the Plaintiff due to an accident involving a golf cart. 2 This action was filed on August 8, 2021. Originally the only Defendants were HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC (hereinafter “HHS”) and Michael G. Edwards.(hereinafter “Edwards”). 3 During the course of this litigation, facts were revealed, and certain defenses were raised by HHS that required the Plaintiff to amend her complaint and add a party, Defendant, PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE (hereinafter “Bayfront’”’) on February 26, 2023. HHS has asserted that Edwards is a borrowed servant and or co- employee with Bayfront. Further, HHS has alleged that Bayfront may also be responsible for this incident as they are the owners of the golf cart in question. 4 Plaintiff propounded its First Request for Production to Defendant Bay front on April 18, 2023 with twenty seven (27) requests 5 Defendant Bayfront filed their first response to Plaintiffs First request for production on April 18, 2023 with only responses to the first six requests. 6. Undesigned counsel called counsel for Bayfront and discussed this error and agreed to an extension for Bayfront to respond to the full request. 7 On June 7, 2023, Defendant filed its complete response to Plaintiff first request for production objecting to the following requests, 4, 6, 9, 13, request and objection below: REQUEST #4: Defendant is requested to produce copies of all tax records, W2 forms, or any other I.R.S. related documents pertaining to Defendant, Michael Edwards in its possession. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, immaterial, not limited in time or scope, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Defendant further objects to this request as it seeks information and or documents relating to personnel files, as same is irrelevant and contains sensitive information concerning wages, medical conditions, social security numbers, among other things which should be protected from disclosure. Further, the information contained in any file related to Michael Edwards, to the extent same exists, may be subject to the confidential and privacy interests of the individual under the Health Insurance Portability and protected by Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and Privacy Act found at 5 U.S.C. § 552a. See Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936, 941 (Fla. 2002); Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, 863 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003); CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (discovery requests directed to personnel files implicates privacy rights are generally improper); and Fed’l Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same). Moreover, the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The allegation in Plaintiff's Complaint is that Mr. Edwards is an employee of Bayfront. To the extent that the items exist, the requested documents are discoverable. If there are no items that are subject to this request then the Plaintiff is entitled to know this information as again it is discoverable. REQUEST #6: Defendant is requested to produce a copy of the employment file for Defendant, Michael Edwards in its possession. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, immaterial, not limited in time or scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Defendant further objects to this request as it seeks information and or documents relating to personnel files, as same is irrelevant and contains sensitive information concerning wages, medical conditions, social security numbers, among other things which should be protected from disclosure. Further, the information contained in any file related to Michael Edwards, to the extent same exists, may be subject to the confidential and privacy interests of the individual under the Health Insurance Portability and protected by Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution and Privacy Act found at 5 U.S.C. § 552a. See Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936, 941 (Fla. 2002); Friedman v. Heart Inst. of PortSt. Lucie, 863 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003); CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (discovery requests directed to personnel files implicates privacy rights are generally improper); and Fed’I Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same). Moreover, the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The allegation in Plaintiff's Complaint is that Mr. Edwards is an employee of Bayfront. To the extent that the items exist, the requested documents are discoverable. If there are no items that are subject to this Request then the Plaintiff is entitled to know this information as again it is discoverable. REQUEST #9: Defendant is requested to produce a full and complete copy of all video footage for the surveillance camera(s) located at/near the front entrance of the hospital for July 7, 2020, from 5:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. RESPONSE: Objection. Vague, ambiguous, compound, overly broad, and not reasonably limited in time. Defendant further objects to the form of this request which seeks items that, if available, are work-product doctrine and therefore are not discoverable. See Marshalls of MA, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 3 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). See Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Honey Transportation, Inc. v. Ruiz, 893 So.2d 661 (4th DCA 2005) (photos protected by work product privilege); see also Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970) (holding that documents, pictures, statements and diagrams which an attorney does not intend to use as evidence comes within the general purview of work product). Alternatively, Defendant should not be required to produce the surveillance video until after this Defendant has had the opportunity to depose Plaintiff. See Dodson, 390 So.2d at 708 (“in this regard fairness requires that we allow the use of surveillance materials to establish any inconsistency in a claim by allowing the surveilling party to depose the party surveilled after the movies have been taken or evidence acquired but before their contents are presented for the adversary’s pretrial examination”). This objection is moot; the surveillance video has been produced via subpoena by Bayfront prior to being engaged in this litigation. Therefore we request a copy of the footage as identified in this Request to Produce to be disclosed to the Plaintiff immediately. REQUEST #13: Defendant is requested to produce the “shift log” for maintenance and security personnel for the month of July 2020. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, compound, not reasonably limited in time or scope, immaterial, impermissible fishing expedition, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. The Request is self-explanatory. It is not vague or ambiguous. The Plaintiff is entitled to know who was present at the hospital during this time frame as there may be witnesses to this event or others with information regarding the issues raised in the Complaint. This information is discoverable. WHERFORE, the Plaintiff Barabra Gonzalez, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order granting the Motion to Compel and all other relief it deems appropriate. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the forgoing has been furnished this 16" day of August, 2023, by electronic mail to the following designated services e-mail address(es): FRANCESCA IPPOLITO-CRAVEN, ESQUIRE at fic@kubickidraper.com; fic- kd@kubickidraper.com and STEPHANIE B. GLICKMAN, ESQUIRE at sbg@kubickidraper.com (Counsel for Michael G. Edwards and HHS Environmental Services, LLC); and to JULIE A. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE and BRITANY A PEREZ, ESQUIRE at NAPertpleadings@wickersmith.com (counsel for Bayfront Health Port Charlotte). For the Clerk of the Court /s/ Helen Stratigakos, Esq. HELEN STRATIGAKOS, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0893633 412 East Madison Street, Suite 814 Tampa, Florida 33606 (P): (813) 226-0067 (F): (813) 259-2505 helen@stratigakoslaw.com admin @stratigakoslaw.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF /s/ Michael J. Rossi, Esq. MICHAEL J. ROSSI, ESQ. Michael J. Rossi, P.A. Florida Bar No.: 0868000 115 South Albany Ave Tampa, FL 33606 (P): (813) 253-3351 Michael@michaelrossilaw.com