Preview
Filing # 175043726 E-Filed 06/09/2023 11:07:06 PM
110106-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BARBARA GONZALEZ, CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff, CASE NO. 21000968CA
VS.
MICHAEL G. EDWARDS, HHS
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC
and PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC,
d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT
CHARLOTTE,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANT?’S, PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a SHOREPOINT HEALTH
PORT CHARLOTTE f/k/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE, RESPONSE
TO RE UEST TO PRODUCE
Defendant, PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a SHOREPOINT HEALTH PORT
CHARLOTTE j//k/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE, by and through the
undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to the applicable Fla. R. Civ. P., responds to Plaintiff s, First
Request For Production dated April 18, 2023, as follows:
1 Defendant is requested to produce copies of all reports, records, or any other documents
pertaining to or referencing any slip and fall, and/or trip and fall type accidents involving
the Plaintiff in its possession.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, ambiguous, vague, not limited in time or scope, and
potentially seeks documents that would be protected by work product doctrine and/or
attorney client privilege.
Specifically, as to any incident reports: Objection; this information is privileged and
confidential. The United States has submitted a Statement of Interest in the Hillsborough
County Circuit Court in the case of Brawley v. Tampa General Hospital in which it has taken
the unequivocal position that the PSQIA preempts Amendment 7. In its Statement of
Interest, the United States detailed its reasoning to include the fact that Amendment 7
undermines the policy reason for the creation of Patient Safety Organizations by compelling
the disclosure of patient safety work product. Moreover, the Charles v. Southern Baptists
CASE NO. 21000968CA
Hospital of Florida, Inc. decision is further undermined by the Department of Health and
Human Services’ Guidance Regarding Patient Safety Work Product and Providers’
External Obligations. The federal agency’s interpretation of the statutory and regulatory
provisions that have been created at the federal level make it quite clear that the
documentation that this request seeks is privileged and confidential under federal law, which
preempts Amendment 7.
Additionally, with respect to section 395.0197(4), Florida Statutes, the Fifth District Court
of Appeals recently held that adverse medical incident reports are inadmissible at trial. See
Bauduy v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., D/B/A Florida Hospital, No. 3D18-2678 (Fla.
5th DCA, Nov. 15, 2019) (finding that nothing in Amendment 7’s text addresses the
admissibility at trial of adverse medical incident reports and that the trial court’s exclusion
of the documents at issue was proper and not inconsistent with the statute’s
requirements). Accordingly, this Defendant objects to the production of any adverse medical
incident reports on grounds that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information and/or
documents that are protected under Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2017), which
protects the investigations, proceedings, and records of committees formed to evaluate and
improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of health services, to determine
that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance
with the applicable standard of care, or that the cost of health care rendered was considered
reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area. Specifically, the
statute sets forth that records of a quality assurance committee “shall not be subject to
discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a health
care provider or facility arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and
review by such committee.”
Section 395.0197, Florida Statutes (2017) mandates that each licensed health care facility
shall implement and maintain an internal risk management program, and sets forth that the
records of such program shall be confidential. Relative to that provision, Section
395.0197(14) states that the meetings of such committees, and the records of the same, are
confidential if “held solely for the purpose of achieving the objectives of risk
management.” As such, the records sought in this request remain privileged pursuant to
Section 395.0197(14). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, please see
attached medical records and billing statements.
2. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all reports, records, or any other documents
pertaining to or referencing any work-related injuries, including but not limited to Workers
Compensation records/documents, involving the Plaintiff in its possession.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, ambiguous, vague, not limited in time or scope,
unduly burdensome, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
CASE NO. 21000968CA
admissible evidence as currently phrased, and potentially seeks documents that would be
protected by work product doctrine and/or attorney client privilege. Further, Defendant
objects to this request to the extent it seeks materials that, with due diligence, are equally
available and accessible to Plaintiff.
Defendant further objects to this request to the extent 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 Plaintiff's file
may be subject to the confidential and privacy interests of the individual under the Health
Insurance Portability and Privacy Act. 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’I Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same).
Further, Defendant hereby incorporates its objections set forth in response to Interrogatory
No. 1 herein, as if fully set forth herein.
3 Defendant is requested to produce copies of all lab reports, testing results, lab records,
correspondence, or any other document pertaining to the drug/urine screen of Defendant,
Michael Edwards 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 to the extent 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 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).
4 Defendant is requested to produce copies of all tax records, W2 forms, or any other LR.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
CASE NO. 21000968CA
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’! 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.
5 Defendant is requested to produce copies of all employment ID. badges issued 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. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, any
employment I.D. badges issued to Defendant, Michael Edwards, that were in effect in July
of 2020, have been requested and will be produced upon receipt, if any such document exists.
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 y. 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’ 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.
CASE NO. 21000968CA
7 Defendant is requested to produce a copy of any employment application for
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’ Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580
(Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, any
application for employment at Bayfront Health that was submitted by Michael Edwards to
Bayfront Health between July 20, 2019 through July 20, 2020, has been requested and a
redacted version of same will be produced upon receipt, if any such application exists.
8 Defendant is requested to produce a copy of any background check performed by
or on behalf of Defendant pertaining to Michael Edwards.
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’! Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580
(Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, any
background checks performed by or on behalf of the Hospital pertaining to Michael
Edwards between July 20, 2019 through July 20, 2020, has been requested and a redacted
version of same will be produced upon receipt, if any such documentation exists.
CASE NO. 21000968CA
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 pm until 10:00 pm.
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. 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”).
In accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant provides the following
privilege log:
Date Description Privileg
7/7/2020 One (1) surveillance video taken from the surveillance work product;
camera located at/near the front entrance of the prepared in
hospital which is approximately (30) minutes. anticipation of
litigation
Defense counsel is in possession of the listed item(s).
10. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all photographs depicting the area of
the golf cart collision, to include all photographs taken of Plaintiff, any potential
witness, the golf cart, and the surrounding area which includes, but is not limited to
those photographs provided to the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office and made part
of their report concerning the golf cart collision which forms the basis of this
lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound,
and not limited in time or scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
Defendant is not in possession of any photographs of the scene of the accident other than
those already in Plaintiff’s possession.
CASE NO. 21000968CA
11 Defendant is requested to produce all security log entries, reports, emails,
handwritten notes/report, and computer generated notes/reports concerning the
event of July 7, 2020, and involving the golf cart collision which forms the basis of
this lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, compound, and not reasonably
limited in time or scope. Defendant further objects to the form of this request to the extent it
seeks documents that are protected from disclosure under the Florida Work-Product
doctrine.
12. Defendant is requested to produce all “Plant Recording System” entries from 12:00
pm on July 7, 2020 through 12:00 pm on July 31, 2020 concerning the golf cart
collision which forms the basis of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound,
and not reasonably limited in time or scope. Defendant further objects to the form of this
request to the extent it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure under the Florida
Work-Product doctrine.
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.
14. Defendant is requested to produce all written or computer generated “Plant Ops
Work Requests,” maintenance requests, emails, work slips, invoices, proof of
payment; and/or any other documents referencing the maintenance and repair of all
golf carts owned, utilized, and maintained by Defendant from July 2019 through
July 2022.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, compound, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous,
unduly burdensome, impermissible fishing expedition as currently phrased, and not
reasonably limited in time or scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
see work orders and invoices for the subject golf cart from July 2019 through July 2021
attached hereto.
15. Defendant is requested to produce all written or computer generated notes regarding
“monthly safety” meetings from May 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound,
not reasonably limited in time or scope, immaterial, impermissible fishing expedition as
currently phrased, calls for speculation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
CASE NO. 21000968CA
discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope
of this request.
16. Defendant is requested to produce all written or computer generated notes regarding
the “Daily Safety Huddle” meetings, including any/all “event summary” notes for
May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound,
not reasonably limited in time or scope, immaterial, impermissible fishing expedition as
currently phrased, calls for speculation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Defendant further objects to this
request to the extent it seeks documents that would be protected by work product doctrine
and/or attorney client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request.
17. Defendant is requested to produce all documents, written or computer generated,
concerning the policy and procedures regarding the operation and maintenance of
the Defendant’s golf carts in existence as of July 1, 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound,
not reasonably limited in time or scope, immaterial, impermissible fishing expedition as
currently phrased, calls for speculation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope
of this request.
18. Defendant is requested to produce a complete copy of the thumb drive that was
created by Joseph Gaudette regarding the golf car collision involving Plaintiffon
July 7, 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably limited in time.
Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks materials that, with due
diligence, are equally available and accessible to Plaintiff.
19. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all emails to and from all employees
of HHS/EVS from July 6, 2020, through October 1, 2022, concerning any aspect
of the golf cart collision as described in the Amended Complaint.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound,
impermissible fishing expedition as currently phrased, and not reasonably limited in time or
scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work
with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request.
CASE NO. 21000968CA
20. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all insurance policies for coverage of
any/all vehicles owned by Defendant in July 2020, including but not limited to
automobile insurance policies.
RESPONSE: Objection, relevance, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, Defendant has requested any applicable certificate(s) of insurance and copies of
same will be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of same.
21. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all insurance policies for coverage of
any/all golf carts owned by Defendant in July 2020, including but not limited to
automobile insurance policies, if different than in Request to Produce #19 above.
RESPONSE: Objection, relevance, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, Defendant has requested any applicable certificate(s) of insurance and copies of
same will be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of same.
22. Defendant is requested to produce copies of any documents requested by and
provided to Defendant, HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC prior to
February 13, 2023.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound,
immaterial, not reasonably limited in time or scope, impermissible fishing expedition, and
not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject
to and without waiving the foregoing objections, any background checks performed by or on
behalf of the Hospital pertaining to Michael Edwards between July 20, 2019 through July
20, 2020, has been requested and a redacted version of same will be produced upon receipt,
if any such documentation exists. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,
Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request.
23. Defendant is requested to produce a copy of any addendum to the HPG HHS EVA
MSA (Agreement Number HPG-12546)(effective date 11/1/16).
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, compound, immaterial, not
reasonably limited in time or scope, impermissible fishing expedition, and not calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without
waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to
narrow the scope of this request.
CASE NO. 21000968CA
24. Defendant is requested to produce a copy of the Daily Employee Checklist
submitted by HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC and/or any of its
housekeeping employees for the work performed at Bayfront Health Port Charlotte
on July 7, 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, compound, not reasonably limited
in scope, impermissible fishing expedition, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope
of this request.
25. Defendant is requested to produce a copy of any employee test results of Michael
Edwards, to include but not limited to any written tests given to Michael Edwards
within the first two weeks of his employment at the hospital.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, immaterial, compound, 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 to the extent 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). Subject to and without waiving
the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the
scope of this request.
26. Defendant is requested to produce copies of any correspondence sent to OSHA,
Charlotte County Sheriff's Office, or any other government entity, in relation to the
incident described in the Amended Complaint.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, immaterial, not reasonably limited
in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as
currently phrased. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks materials
that, with due diligence, are equally available and accessible to Plaintiff.
10
CASE NO. 21000968CA.
27. Defendant is requested to produce a copy of the registration for the 2007 Club Car
golf cart involved in the incident as described in the Amended Complaint.
RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, relevance, not limited in time, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, Defendant has requested a copy of the registration for the 2007 Club
Car golf cart involved in the incident as described in the Amended Complaint that was in
effect on July 7, 2020, and a copy of said registration, will be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel
upon receipt of same, if said registration exists and is in the possession of Defendant.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida
ePortal to: Helen Stratigakos, Esquire, helen@stratigakoslaw.com, marty@stratigakoslaw.com;
Michael J. Rossi, Esquire, michael@michaelrossilaw.com; Francesca Ippolito-Craven,
fic@kubickidraper.com; fic-kd@kubickidraper.com; Lissette. Hernandez@kubickidraper.com; on
this 9" day of June, 2023.
/s/ Brittany A. Perez, Esq.
Julie A. Campbell, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 0050134
Brittany A. Perez, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 124467
WICKER SMITH O'HARA McCOY & FORD, P.A:
Attorneys for Port Charlotte HMA, LLC d/b/a
Shorepoint Health Port Charlotte f/k/a Bayfront
Health Port Charlotte
9132 Strada PL, Suite 400
Naples, FL 34108
Phone: (239) 552-5300
Fax: (239) 552-5399
NAPertpleadings@wickersmith.com
11
Preview
Filing # 175043726 E-Filed 06/09/2023 11:07:06 PM 110106- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA BARBARA GONZALEZ, CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, CASE NO. 21000968CA VS. MICHAEL G. EDWARDS, HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC and PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC, d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE, Defendants. / DEFENDANT?’S, PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a SHOREPOINT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE f/k/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE, RESPONSE TO RE UEST TO PRODUCE Defendant, PORT CHARLOTTE HMA, LLC d/b/a SHOREPOINT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE j//k/a BAYFRONT HEALTH PORT CHARLOTTE, by and through the undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to the applicable Fla. R. Civ. P., responds to Plaintiff s, First Request For Production dated April 18, 2023, as follows: 1 Defendant is requested to produce copies of all reports, records, or any other documents pertaining to or referencing any slip and fall, and/or trip and fall type accidents involving the Plaintiff in its possession. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, ambiguous, vague, not limited in time or scope, and potentially seeks documents that would be protected by work product doctrine and/or attorney client privilege. Specifically, as to any incident reports: Objection; this information is privileged and confidential. The United States has submitted a Statement of Interest in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court in the case of Brawley v. Tampa General Hospital in which it has taken the unequivocal position that the PSQIA preempts Amendment 7. In its Statement of Interest, the United States detailed its reasoning to include the fact that Amendment 7 undermines the policy reason for the creation of Patient Safety Organizations by compelling the disclosure of patient safety work product. Moreover, the Charles v. Southern Baptists CASE NO. 21000968CA Hospital of Florida, Inc. decision is further undermined by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Guidance Regarding Patient Safety Work Product and Providers’ External Obligations. The federal agency’s interpretation of the statutory and regulatory provisions that have been created at the federal level make it quite clear that the documentation that this request seeks is privileged and confidential under federal law, which preempts Amendment 7. Additionally, with respect to section 395.0197(4), Florida Statutes, the Fifth District Court of Appeals recently held that adverse medical incident reports are inadmissible at trial. See Bauduy v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., D/B/A Florida Hospital, No. 3D18-2678 (Fla. 5th DCA, Nov. 15, 2019) (finding that nothing in Amendment 7’s text addresses the admissibility at trial of adverse medical incident reports and that the trial court’s exclusion of the documents at issue was proper and not inconsistent with the statute’s requirements). Accordingly, this Defendant objects to the production of any adverse medical incident reports on grounds that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks information and/or documents that are protected under Section 766.101(5), Florida Statutes (2017), which protects the investigations, proceedings, and records of committees formed to evaluate and improve the quality of health care rendered by providers of health services, to determine that health services rendered were professionally indicated or were performed in compliance with the applicable standard of care, or that the cost of health care rendered was considered reasonable by the providers of professional health services in the area. Specifically, the statute sets forth that records of a quality assurance committee “shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative action against a health care provider or facility arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee.” Section 395.0197, Florida Statutes (2017) mandates that each licensed health care facility shall implement and maintain an internal risk management program, and sets forth that the records of such program shall be confidential. Relative to that provision, Section 395.0197(14) states that the meetings of such committees, and the records of the same, are confidential if “held solely for the purpose of achieving the objectives of risk management.” As such, the records sought in this request remain privileged pursuant to Section 395.0197(14). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, please see attached medical records and billing statements. 2. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all reports, records, or any other documents pertaining to or referencing any work-related injuries, including but not limited to Workers Compensation records/documents, involving the Plaintiff in its possession. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, ambiguous, vague, not limited in time or scope, unduly burdensome, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of CASE NO. 21000968CA admissible evidence as currently phrased, and potentially seeks documents that would be protected by work product doctrine and/or attorney client privilege. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks materials that, with due diligence, are equally available and accessible to Plaintiff. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent 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 Plaintiff's file may be subject to the confidential and privacy interests of the individual under the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act. 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’I Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same). Further, Defendant hereby incorporates its objections set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 1 herein, as if fully set forth herein. 3 Defendant is requested to produce copies of all lab reports, testing results, lab records, correspondence, or any other document pertaining to the drug/urine screen of Defendant, Michael Edwards 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 to the extent 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 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). 4 Defendant is requested to produce copies of all tax records, W2 forms, or any other LR.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 CASE NO. 21000968CA 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’! 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. 5 Defendant is requested to produce copies of all employment ID. badges issued 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. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, any employment I.D. badges issued to Defendant, Michael Edwards, that were in effect in July of 2020, have been requested and will be produced upon receipt, if any such document exists. 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 y. 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’ 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. CASE NO. 21000968CA 7 Defendant is requested to produce a copy of any employment application for 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’ Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, any application for employment at Bayfront Health that was submitted by Michael Edwards to Bayfront Health between July 20, 2019 through July 20, 2020, has been requested and a redacted version of same will be produced upon receipt, if any such application exists. 8 Defendant is requested to produce a copy of any background check performed by or on behalf of Defendant pertaining to Michael Edwards. 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’! Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, any background checks performed by or on behalf of the Hospital pertaining to Michael Edwards between July 20, 2019 through July 20, 2020, has been requested and a redacted version of same will be produced upon receipt, if any such documentation exists. CASE NO. 21000968CA 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 pm until 10:00 pm. 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. 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”). In accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant provides the following privilege log: Date Description Privileg 7/7/2020 One (1) surveillance video taken from the surveillance work product; camera located at/near the front entrance of the prepared in hospital which is approximately (30) minutes. anticipation of litigation Defense counsel is in possession of the listed item(s). 10. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all photographs depicting the area of the golf cart collision, to include all photographs taken of Plaintiff, any potential witness, the golf cart, and the surrounding area which includes, but is not limited to those photographs provided to the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office and made part of their report concerning the golf cart collision which forms the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound, and not limited in time or scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is not in possession of any photographs of the scene of the accident other than those already in Plaintiff’s possession. CASE NO. 21000968CA 11 Defendant is requested to produce all security log entries, reports, emails, handwritten notes/report, and computer generated notes/reports concerning the event of July 7, 2020, and involving the golf cart collision which forms the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, compound, and not reasonably limited in time or scope. Defendant further objects to the form of this request to the extent it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure under the Florida Work-Product doctrine. 12. Defendant is requested to produce all “Plant Recording System” entries from 12:00 pm on July 7, 2020 through 12:00 pm on July 31, 2020 concerning the golf cart collision which forms the basis of this lawsuit. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound, and not reasonably limited in time or scope. Defendant further objects to the form of this request to the extent it seeks documents that are protected from disclosure under the Florida Work-Product doctrine. 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. 14. Defendant is requested to produce all written or computer generated “Plant Ops Work Requests,” maintenance requests, emails, work slips, invoices, proof of payment; and/or any other documents referencing the maintenance and repair of all golf carts owned, utilized, and maintained by Defendant from July 2019 through July 2022. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, compound, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, impermissible fishing expedition as currently phrased, and not reasonably limited in time or scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see work orders and invoices for the subject golf cart from July 2019 through July 2021 attached hereto. 15. Defendant is requested to produce all written or computer generated notes regarding “monthly safety” meetings from May 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound, not reasonably limited in time or scope, immaterial, impermissible fishing expedition as currently phrased, calls for speculation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the CASE NO. 21000968CA discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request. 16. Defendant is requested to produce all written or computer generated notes regarding the “Daily Safety Huddle” meetings, including any/all “event summary” notes for May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound, not reasonably limited in time or scope, immaterial, impermissible fishing expedition as currently phrased, calls for speculation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents that would be protected by work product doctrine and/or attorney client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request. 17. Defendant is requested to produce all documents, written or computer generated, concerning the policy and procedures regarding the operation and maintenance of the Defendant’s golf carts in existence as of July 1, 2020. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound, not reasonably limited in time or scope, immaterial, impermissible fishing expedition as currently phrased, calls for speculation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request. 18. Defendant is requested to produce a complete copy of the thumb drive that was created by Joseph Gaudette regarding the golf car collision involving Plaintiffon July 7, 2020. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not reasonably limited in time. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks materials that, with due diligence, are equally available and accessible to Plaintiff. 19. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all emails to and from all employees of HHS/EVS from July 6, 2020, through October 1, 2022, concerning any aspect of the golf cart collision as described in the Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound, impermissible fishing expedition as currently phrased, and not reasonably limited in time or scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request. CASE NO. 21000968CA 20. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all insurance policies for coverage of any/all vehicles owned by Defendant in July 2020, including but not limited to automobile insurance policies. RESPONSE: Objection, relevance, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has requested any applicable certificate(s) of insurance and copies of same will be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of same. 21. Defendant is requested to produce copies of all insurance policies for coverage of any/all golf carts owned by Defendant in July 2020, including but not limited to automobile insurance policies, if different than in Request to Produce #19 above. RESPONSE: Objection, relevance, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has requested any applicable certificate(s) of insurance and copies of same will be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of same. 22. Defendant is requested to produce copies of any documents requested by and provided to Defendant, HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC prior to February 13, 2023. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, compound, immaterial, not reasonably limited in time or scope, impermissible fishing expedition, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, any background checks performed by or on behalf of the Hospital pertaining to Michael Edwards between July 20, 2019 through July 20, 2020, has been requested and a redacted version of same will be produced upon receipt, if any such documentation exists. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request. 23. Defendant is requested to produce a copy of any addendum to the HPG HHS EVA MSA (Agreement Number HPG-12546)(effective date 11/1/16). RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, compound, immaterial, not reasonably limited in time or scope, impermissible fishing expedition, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request. CASE NO. 21000968CA 24. Defendant is requested to produce a copy of the Daily Employee Checklist submitted by HHS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC and/or any of its housekeeping employees for the work performed at Bayfront Health Port Charlotte on July 7, 2020. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, compound, not reasonably limited in scope, impermissible fishing expedition, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request. 25. Defendant is requested to produce a copy of any employee test results of Michael Edwards, to include but not limited to any written tests given to Michael Edwards within the first two weeks of his employment at the hospital. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, immaterial, compound, 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 to the extent 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). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant is willing to work with opposing counsel to narrow the scope of this request. 26. Defendant is requested to produce copies of any correspondence sent to OSHA, Charlotte County Sheriff's Office, or any other government entity, in relation to the incident described in the Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, immaterial, not reasonably limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as currently phrased. Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent it seeks materials that, with due diligence, are equally available and accessible to Plaintiff. 10 CASE NO. 21000968CA. 27. Defendant is requested to produce a copy of the registration for the 2007 Club Car golf cart involved in the incident as described in the Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection, overly broad, relevance, not limited in time, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant has requested a copy of the registration for the 2007 Club Car golf cart involved in the incident as described in the Amended Complaint that was in effect on July 7, 2020, and a copy of said registration, will be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of same, if said registration exists and is in the possession of Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida ePortal to: Helen Stratigakos, Esquire, helen@stratigakoslaw.com, marty@stratigakoslaw.com; Michael J. Rossi, Esquire, michael@michaelrossilaw.com; Francesca Ippolito-Craven, fic@kubickidraper.com; fic-kd@kubickidraper.com; Lissette. Hernandez@kubickidraper.com; on this 9" day of June, 2023. /s/ Brittany A. Perez, Esq. Julie A. Campbell, Esquire Florida Bar No. 0050134 Brittany A. Perez, Esquire Florida Bar No. 124467 WICKER SMITH O'HARA McCOY & FORD, P.A: Attorneys for Port Charlotte HMA, LLC d/b/a Shorepoint Health Port Charlotte f/k/a Bayfront Health Port Charlotte 9132 Strada PL, Suite 400 Naples, FL 34108 Phone: (239) 552-5300 Fax: (239) 552-5399 NAPertpleadings@wickersmith.com 11