Preview
Filing # 133590928 E-Filed 08/27/2021 04:30:30 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit
corporation,
Plaintiff,
Vv. CASE NO.: 2020-CA-002942-ON
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION LLC;
ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a
Florida corporation, DON KING’S CONCRETE,
INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; DEFENDANT/CROSS CLAIM
IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida PL. TIFF, ROYAL OAK
corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF HOMES, LLC’S RESPONSE TO
CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. n/k/a TGK STUCCO, WELL HUNG WINDOWS AND
INC., a Florida corporation, WEATHERMASTER DOORS, LLC’S FIRST REQUEST
BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida FOR PRODUCTION
corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS &
FORENSICS, INC. ni/k/a WEINTRAUB
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a
Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company; WOLF’S
IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida
corporation; SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a
Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation;
EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING,
INC., a Florida corporation;
Defendants.
/
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, fik/a AVH
ACQUISITION,
Cross Claim Plaintiff,
Vv.
ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a
Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE,
126697575.1
INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation;
IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida
corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF
CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. n/k/a TGK STUCCO,
INC., a Florida corporation, WEATHERMASTER
BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida
corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS &
FORENSICS, INC. ni/k/a WEINTRAUB
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a
Florida corporation; WOLF’S IRRIGATION &
LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation;
BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a
Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING &
PRESSURE WASHING, _INC., a Florida
corporation;
Cross Claim Defendants.
/
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida Corporation;
DON KING’S
CONCRETE INC., a Florida Corporation,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
Vv.
ALL GLASS INSTALLATION COPRP., a Florida
corporation; CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a
Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; HELBERG
ENGERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; T&M CONSTRUCTION
OF SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WELL
DONE WINDOWS, INC., a Florida corporation; and
WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company; E.R.O.
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation;
LIOS CONCRETE CORP., a Florida Corporation;
and ATLANTIC CONCRETE SYSTEMS, INC., a
Florida Corporation,
Third-Party Defendants.
126697575.1
DEFENDANT/CROSS CLAIM PLAINTIFF, ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC’S RESPONSE
TO THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, WELL HUNG WINDOWS AND DOORS, LLC’S
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Defendant/Cross Claim Plaintiff Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“Royal Oak”), pursuant to
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby serves its Response to Well Hung Windows and Doors,
LLC’s (“WHWD?’) First Request for Production Numbers | through 20.
Please note that pursuant to the Case Management Order (“CMO”) Royal Oak has
produced in previous productions non-privileged documents, to the extent they exist, and job file
materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design,
development, construction, repair or sale and have supplemented this production as appropriate.
These documents can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. Some documents
containing personal or proprietary information, for example, (a) insurance policy documents that
may contain premium or related cost information (“Policies”); and (b) individual Villas at Emerald
Lakes homeowner files (“House Files”) were subject to the execution of a confidentiality
agreement and, upon a party’s execution of same, were provided to that party.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
1 All contracts proposals, subcontracts, agreements, assignments, change orders,
approved or not, field orders, work orders, requests for quotations, and other documents which
relate in any manner to materials furnished, or services performed by WHWD.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has
produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged
job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's
design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody,
or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
126697575.1
2 All correspondence, internal memoranda, emails, and other documents reflecting,
evidencing or referring to communications between you and WHWD, as well as communications
between you and any other person, firm or entity, relating in any way to work performed by
WHWD on the Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project. Royal Oak is unware of any correspondence or communication it had
with WHWD.
3 All architectural plans, structural plans, surveys, site, plat, and shop drawings,
working drawings and other documents evidencing and/or depicting the work performed by
WHWD on the Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has
produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged
job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's
design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody,
or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
4 All warranties, manufacturer’s warranties, owner’s manuals, and warranty related
correspondence for any of the materials furnished, or serviced performed, by WHWD on the
Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has
produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged
4
126697575.1
job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's
design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody,
or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
5 All documentation of any amounts you intend to claim as damages due to alleged
construction defects for which you contend WHWD is liable in whole or in part.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project.
6. All records of any maintenance, warranty work, and repairs made to the Subject
Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad, irrelevant, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it seeks
documents for scopes of work not implicated by the deficiencies alleged in the
operative Complaint. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states
that pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or
otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file
materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design,
development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or
control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
7.
All documentation of any complaints about the scope of work (i,e., alleged
installation of windows and sliding glass doors) performed by WHWD, at the Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has
produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged
job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's
5
126697575.1
design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody,
or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
8 All quotations, requests for quotations, invitations to bid or other documentation
containing actual or estimated prices, costs of repair work for WHWD’S scope of work (ie.
alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors) at the Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has
produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged
job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's
design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody,
or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
9. All photographs, videos, or drawings of the scope of work (i,e., alleged installation
of windows and sliding glass doors) performed by WHWD on the Subject Property, including
any areas that you contend to have been defectively constructed or in need of repair or remediation.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness
files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying
experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and
without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the
scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak
did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Plaintiffs action alleges
potential deficiencies regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at the
Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiffs claims. However, to the
extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects
alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work
or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiff’s
operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of
Plaintiff’s claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report.
126697575.1
10. All documents showing any inspection of the Subject Property, including, without
limitation, all non-privileged inspection reports, analyses, reports, memoranda, and other
documents concerning inspection-related visits, regarding or involving WHWD’S alleged scope
of work (i,e., alleged installation of windows and slidin: lass doors) at the Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness
files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying
experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and
without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the
scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak
did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Plaintiff’s action alleges
potential deficiencies regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at the
Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiff’s claims. However, to the
extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects
alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work
or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiffs
operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of
Plaintiff's claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report.
Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or
otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file
materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design,
development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or
control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
11. All quotations, bids, and invoices for any repairs or remediation for defects in
WHWD’S alleged scope of work (i.e., alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors)
on the Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness
files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying
experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and
7
126697575.1
without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the
scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak
did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Plaintiff’s action alleges
potential deficiencies regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at the
Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiffs claims. However, to the
extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects
alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work
or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiff’s
operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of
Plaintiff's claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report.
12. All documents pertaining to warranties, guaranties, or other any other forms
ensuring the workmanship and material installed at the subject project, as these relate to the work
performed by WHWD on the Subject Project.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has
produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged
job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's
design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody,
or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
13. A list containing the names and addresses of any persons who performed any
inspection reports, analyses, surveys, and like of the Subject Project, as these relate to the work
performed by WHWD on the Subject Property
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project.
14, All written statements, guidelines and criteria for the acceptability and inspection
of the work any party to this litigation performed on the Subject Project.
126697575.1
RESPONSE:
Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or
otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file
materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design,
development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or
control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
15. All insurance policies that may provide any coverage for any of the claims alleged
in this cause of action, including applicable declaration pages.
RESPONSE:
WHWD is directed to Royal Oak’s response to the Court’s Standard Insurance
Questionnaire produced in this action. Royal Oak is in the process of gathering
insurance policy information and will provide them upon receipt of the policies along
with WHWD’s execution of the confidentiality agreement.
16. Please provide a listing of every individual tenant/occupant/owner of any
townhome who, to your knowledge, has made a complaint regarding any issues with respect to the
work performed by WHWD on the Subject Property, including the specifics of the complaint, the
date of complaint, full name of the tenant/occupant/owner, and building and unit number involved.
RESPONSE:
This request appears to be an interrogatory as opposed to a request for production of
documents. In any event, Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or
services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain
WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Royal Oak is also not in possession of the
Project such that it will receive Complaints from tenants/owner. To the extent the
request is directed to warranty work performed on the Project, pursuant to the CMO,
and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to
the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to,
or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction,
repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive
to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime
Repository for this matter.
126697575.1
17. All contracts and agreements relating to the property management services
performed from the date of issuance of the certificates of occupancy to the present for the Subject
Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak is not in possession of the Project such that it is in possession of contracts
and agreements relating to the property management services performed at the
Project.
18. All documents that evidence or relate to any violations of building codes pertaining
to WHWD’s alleged scope of work (i.e., alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors)
at the Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness
files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying
experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and
without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the
scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak
did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Plaintiffs action alleges
potential deficiencies and building code violations regarding the installation of
windows and glass doors at the Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the
Plaintiff’s claims. However, to the extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for
recovery for the construction defects alleged to exist with the Project, the parties
responsible for furnishing defective work or materials on the Project bear
responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiffs operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and
accompanying documents filed in support of Plaintiff’s claims with respect to alleged
defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report.
19, All correspondence between You and VELHA or WBP regarding the scope of work
performed by WHWD (i.e., alleged_ installation of windows and sliding glass doors) at the
Subject Property.
RESPONSE:
10
126697575.1
Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly
performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for
the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has
produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged
job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's
design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody,
or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be
found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter.
20. All documentation on which you intend to rely to support your contention that
WHWD was negligent or that WHWD’s scope of work (i.e., alleged installation of windows and
sliding glass doors) on the Project was defective.
RESPONSE:
Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness
files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying
experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and
without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the
scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak
did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Royal Oak has asserted no
claims against WHWD in this action. Plaintiff’s action alleges potential deficiencies
and building code violations regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at
the Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiffs claims. However, to
the extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects
alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work
or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiff’s
operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of
Plaintiff’s claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robin H. Leavengood
Lannie D. Hough Jr.
Florida Bar No. 149470
Robin H. Leavengood
Florida Bar No. 0547751
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33607-5780
Telephone: (813) 223-7000
11
126697575.1
Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
lhough@carltonfields.com
nbonilla@carltonfields.com
rleavengood@carltonfields.com
ejohnson@carltonfields.com
mwalls@carltonfields.com
bporter@carltonfields.com
Attorneys for Defendant, Royal Oak Homes, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 27, 2021, the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court by using the E-filing Portal, which will electronically serve this document
to all registered counsel of record.
/s/ Robin H. Leavengood
Attorney
12
126697575.1
Preview
Filing # 133590928 E-Filed 08/27/2021 04:30:30 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Plaintiff, Vv. CASE NO.: 2020-CA-002942-ON ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION LLC; ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, DON KING’S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; DEFENDANT/CROSS CLAIM IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida PL. TIFF, ROYAL OAK corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF HOMES, LLC’S RESPONSE TO CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. n/k/a TGK STUCCO, WELL HUNG WINDOWS AND INC., a Florida corporation, WEATHERMASTER DOORS, LLC’S FIRST REQUEST BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida FOR PRODUCTION corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. ni/k/a WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida corporation; Defendants. / ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, fik/a AVH ACQUISITION, Cross Claim Plaintiff, Vv. ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE, 126697575.1 INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. n/k/a TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation, WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. ni/k/a WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, _INC., a Florida corporation; Cross Claim Defendants. / WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida Corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE INC., a Florida Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, Vv. ALL GLASS INSTALLATION COPRP., a Florida corporation; CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HELBERG ENGERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; T&M CONSTRUCTION OF SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WELL DONE WINDOWS, INC., a Florida corporation; and WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; E.R.O. CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation; LIOS CONCRETE CORP., a Florida Corporation; and ATLANTIC CONCRETE SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Third-Party Defendants. 126697575.1 DEFENDANT/CROSS CLAIM PLAINTIFF, ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC’S RESPONSE TO THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, WELL HUNG WINDOWS AND DOORS, LLC’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Defendant/Cross Claim Plaintiff Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“Royal Oak”), pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby serves its Response to Well Hung Windows and Doors, LLC’s (“WHWD?’) First Request for Production Numbers | through 20. Please note that pursuant to the Case Management Order (“CMO”) Royal Oak has produced in previous productions non-privileged documents, to the extent they exist, and job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale and have supplemented this production as appropriate. These documents can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. Some documents containing personal or proprietary information, for example, (a) insurance policy documents that may contain premium or related cost information (“Policies”); and (b) individual Villas at Emerald Lakes homeowner files (“House Files”) were subject to the execution of a confidentiality agreement and, upon a party’s execution of same, were provided to that party. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 All contracts proposals, subcontracts, agreements, assignments, change orders, approved or not, field orders, work orders, requests for quotations, and other documents which relate in any manner to materials furnished, or services performed by WHWD. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 126697575.1 2 All correspondence, internal memoranda, emails, and other documents reflecting, evidencing or referring to communications between you and WHWD, as well as communications between you and any other person, firm or entity, relating in any way to work performed by WHWD on the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Royal Oak is unware of any correspondence or communication it had with WHWD. 3 All architectural plans, structural plans, surveys, site, plat, and shop drawings, working drawings and other documents evidencing and/or depicting the work performed by WHWD on the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 4 All warranties, manufacturer’s warranties, owner’s manuals, and warranty related correspondence for any of the materials furnished, or serviced performed, by WHWD on the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged 4 126697575.1 job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 5 All documentation of any amounts you intend to claim as damages due to alleged construction defects for which you contend WHWD is liable in whole or in part. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. 6. All records of any maintenance, warranty work, and repairs made to the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it seeks documents for scopes of work not implicated by the deficiencies alleged in the operative Complaint. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 7. All documentation of any complaints about the scope of work (i,e., alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors) performed by WHWD, at the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's 5 126697575.1 design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 8 All quotations, requests for quotations, invitations to bid or other documentation containing actual or estimated prices, costs of repair work for WHWD’S scope of work (ie. alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors) at the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 9. All photographs, videos, or drawings of the scope of work (i,e., alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors) performed by WHWD on the Subject Property, including any areas that you contend to have been defectively constructed or in need of repair or remediation. RESPONSE: Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Plaintiffs action alleges potential deficiencies regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at the Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiffs claims. However, to the extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiff’s operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of Plaintiff’s claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report. 126697575.1 10. All documents showing any inspection of the Subject Property, including, without limitation, all non-privileged inspection reports, analyses, reports, memoranda, and other documents concerning inspection-related visits, regarding or involving WHWD’S alleged scope of work (i,e., alleged installation of windows and slidin: lass doors) at the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Plaintiff’s action alleges potential deficiencies regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at the Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiff’s claims. However, to the extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiffs operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of Plaintiff's claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 11. All quotations, bids, and invoices for any repairs or remediation for defects in WHWD’S alleged scope of work (i.e., alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors) on the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and 7 126697575.1 without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Plaintiff’s action alleges potential deficiencies regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at the Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiffs claims. However, to the extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiff’s operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of Plaintiff's claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report. 12. All documents pertaining to warranties, guaranties, or other any other forms ensuring the workmanship and material installed at the subject project, as these relate to the work performed by WHWD on the Subject Project. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 13. A list containing the names and addresses of any persons who performed any inspection reports, analyses, surveys, and like of the Subject Project, as these relate to the work performed by WHWD on the Subject Property RESPONSE: Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. 14, All written statements, guidelines and criteria for the acceptability and inspection of the work any party to this litigation performed on the Subject Project. 126697575.1 RESPONSE: Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 15. All insurance policies that may provide any coverage for any of the claims alleged in this cause of action, including applicable declaration pages. RESPONSE: WHWD is directed to Royal Oak’s response to the Court’s Standard Insurance Questionnaire produced in this action. Royal Oak is in the process of gathering insurance policy information and will provide them upon receipt of the policies along with WHWD’s execution of the confidentiality agreement. 16. Please provide a listing of every individual tenant/occupant/owner of any townhome who, to your knowledge, has made a complaint regarding any issues with respect to the work performed by WHWD on the Subject Property, including the specifics of the complaint, the date of complaint, full name of the tenant/occupant/owner, and building and unit number involved. RESPONSE: This request appears to be an interrogatory as opposed to a request for production of documents. In any event, Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Royal Oak is also not in possession of the Project such that it will receive Complaints from tenants/owner. To the extent the request is directed to warranty work performed on the Project, pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 126697575.1 17. All contracts and agreements relating to the property management services performed from the date of issuance of the certificates of occupancy to the present for the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak is not in possession of the Project such that it is in possession of contracts and agreements relating to the property management services performed at the Project. 18. All documents that evidence or relate to any violations of building codes pertaining to WHWD’s alleged scope of work (i.e., alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors) at the Subject Property. RESPONSE: Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Plaintiffs action alleges potential deficiencies and building code violations regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at the Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiff’s claims. However, to the extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiffs operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of Plaintiff’s claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report. 19, All correspondence between You and VELHA or WBP regarding the scope of work performed by WHWD (i.e., alleged_ installation of windows and sliding glass doors) at the Subject Property. RESPONSE: 10 126697575.1 Royal Oak is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Pursuant to the CMO, and to the extent they exist, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, to the parties to this action any non-privileged job file materials arising from, related to, or in connection with the Subject Property's design, development, construction, repair or sale that are in its possession, custody, or control, which may be responsive to this request. The documents produced can be found in the Legal RealTime Repository for this matter. 20. All documentation on which you intend to rely to support your contention that WHWD was negligent or that WHWD’s scope of work (i.e., alleged installation of windows and sliding glass doors) on the Project was defective. RESPONSE: Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine or as expert witness files and materials. Royal Oak will disclose information relating to its testifying experts in accordance with deadlines set by the Court and CMO. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Royal Oak states that it is without knowledge as to the scope of work or services WHWD allegedly performed at the Project as Royal Oak did not retain WHWD as a subcontractor for the Project. Royal Oak has asserted no claims against WHWD in this action. Plaintiff’s action alleges potential deficiencies and building code violations regarding the installation of windows and glass doors at the Project. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Plaintiffs claims. However, to the extent the Plaintiff establishes grounds for recovery for the construction defects alleged to exist with the Project, the parties responsible for furnishing defective work or materials on the Project bear responsibility. WHWD is directed to Plaintiff’s operative Complaint, 558 Notice, and accompanying documents filed in support of Plaintiff’s claims with respect to alleged defects, including Plaintiff’s expert report. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robin H. Leavengood Lannie D. Hough Jr. Florida Bar No. 149470 Robin H. Leavengood Florida Bar No. 0547751 CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard Tampa, FL 33607-5780 Telephone: (813) 223-7000 11 126697575.1 Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 lhough@carltonfields.com nbonilla@carltonfields.com rleavengood@carltonfields.com ejohnson@carltonfields.com mwalls@carltonfields.com bporter@carltonfields.com Attorneys for Defendant, Royal Oak Homes, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 27, 2021, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the E-filing Portal, which will electronically serve this document to all registered counsel of record. /s/ Robin H. Leavengood Attorney 12 126697575.1