Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
TINTATAY AM ATIFT mr AIM TAN nar Aen Aaatr
JUVIULIAL LIRUULL, UN AINU FUR FALIVI DDAUN
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO SNINNRCANNI1IRXYXXYMR AA
TERESA MARIA CORTINAS, M.D., P.A.,
Plaintiff,
'
,
Ss na
ADVANCED IMAGING ASSOCIATES, LLC, = 3:3
RORERTD RIIRKEF MN PI RORFRTD _— ao C2
ei il eet (its tL “tb Be Ane
BURKE, DIAGNOSTIC ANCILLARY SERVICES, = ofp
TT and MINTOAWN INMAGING DA =e
“i
Uy GILG WV EU LN LVL 1
Tafa dante
veLenaaiits,
(J,
ayo WH Ne
WATTER F WOICICKT MN PHD PA
oer e ree ter OREO RRESEUPCCTEtFeresTartee tres rtrees
Third Dart; Nafandant
2UULUTK aity WRaeiuat.
Piaintiff, Teresa Maria Cortinas, M.D., P.A. (“TCA”), and Third-Party Defendant, Waiter
E. Woicicki, M.D., Ph.D, P.A. (“WWPA”) (collectively, the “Physicians”), serve this Motion to
Comnel Answers to Interrogatories Dir
Lomnel Answers to interrogatories (ir
d to Defendants, and state:
IntpanuctTiAN
In thie hneinacs Htiwatian antinn tha Dhusinians caal ta rannuar anainot thair farmar
Le AL ULL UUDIILSS LLUZAUUL AUUULL, WIL 1 HY SIUIGLID SUUR WU LCUU YUL aga@mlioe Wen BULLINE
cena Nal dot Dab NN Deete foe
paliner, VELeNGalil KODETL LV. DUKE, LOF Cnt
we te weet Me AP Annee AO ee shat ba
ZB UNE OUL OL MON OL GOuaTs OL MICE ulat ne
diverted io himseif and the imaging cenier that ne co-owned.
In an ettort to discover key information related to Defendants’ contentions andwitnesses for the upcoming trial, the Physicians served interrogatories to Defendants.' In response,
Defendants improperly obiected or provided incomol ete resnonses to court-anproved interrogatories
and contention interrogatories directed to Defendants’ affirmative defenses?
2 Accoardinoly this Coirt chonld enter an arder that avernilec Nefandante’ ahiactiane
a DAR) UO CCG SUG MEER Cur Cater te UY RETR FRIES UOJUCUULLD
and samnale Nefandante ta the ancwar tha intarranatariag enanified halav:
@nu UOIIpeis weacituanito WO UI GHOWEL UIE UCT UgalUriCs SpeCuTd ULIOW,.
A. Defendants Asserted baseless Objections to Court-Approved interrogatories.
4, Below are three court-approved interrogatories at issue in this Motion, and the
Physicians’ arguments on why Defendants’ obiections should be overruled:
title of any person who has, or claims to have or whom you believe may have knowiedge or
in nertaining ta anv fact alleged in the nleadinac filed in thic actinn ar af anv fact
Hh Pert WO Guy LOL GUE BCU Lt UY PIVaULIgS LUCG Ul US GUUCI UE G4 ay dae
infarm
underlying the subject matter of this action.
No. 2: Please state the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that vou believe the
person(s, ) ideniined in response 10 inierrogatory No. | may nave.
No. 4: Please state each item ot damage that you ciaim, whether as an ailirmative claim or
0 cataff and inclide in var ancurer: tha anunt ar dofancea ta ushich the itam af damaaac
@ OU, GU HIeUUe Bn YUU auoWwel. ule COWL Ur Ueaeuoe WO Wile ue Ler U1 Gaagel,
relates: the category into which each item of damages falls. i.e general damages. special
me weet etid Annan feel an Vent me bed Tetons
OF COMSCYUCUaL UalLaZes (SUCH AS 1OSt Pris), MILCLESt, ana aiy Ouier rerevait Cavegories,
wet we meter
the factual basis for each item of damages and an explanation of how you calculated eachlem OF ddimages, Including 1aentirying any Mathematical rormula OF GoCuments Used.
Defendants’ Objections to Nos. 1,2 and 4: impermissibly vague, ambiguous, overly broad,
Lnrnesina jeralavant nat raneanahhy: salenlatead ta land ta the dicanuanr af admiccihla
Maladd1B, WILILVaLL, UL TeasUMaULy VarLUlalUU LU Ieau WwW oUIe UIDLUVELy UL auLssiUIE
evidence, and bevond the proper scone of discovery. Defendants also directed the Physicians
be ee A Wk Tt ed Dee et MEd EAL Cn thes nnn Leland nae
10 SEE INE WIUTESS LISt 4G EXpert VISCIOSUTES UPON 1UINg 10 We Tesponsive imormnauon.
1. ame none omnes tonne : soe
“A copy of the Physicians’ Lhird Set ot interrogatories Directed to Detendants 1s attached nereto
as Exhihit A
“A copy of the Defendants’ Response to the Physicians’ Third Set of Interrogatories is attached
ro
Tafa dantn? ALinatinns ta Tatoennnatawian Man 1 9 and A nag hanalacn hananes thace
VELENUAIS ULJTCUONS LU ALCILOZALULIeS INUS. 1, 2 AU + aL VaSTICSS UECauUse UITSe
5
a
eo alas. ac Ma re Nt ae tt ema 9
are stanaard interrogatories approved by Me U.d. VISUICT LOurt for Ine SouMeEM VISITICl O1 Fiorida.”
Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has approved similar standard interrogatories, requiring a
responding party to ident ity witnesses with knowledge of the lawsuit and the subject matter of their
knowledge." As such, Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the type of basic interrogatories that are
permitted equally in state and federal court.
ru ahiectian ta ancwerino thece interrnaatnriec ic that Nefandants’
BU) UUJOO ULE OU Gn EEE HEN Oe LEE UOC Ew By tates ae aware
Nefendante’ nri
poeeerttremn tr
on
telnl wiltnace Hat aravidas tha Dhuciniane with all af tha ralavant infarmatinn thay need Thie ic nat
Ula: WitIESS ISL PrUVIUTS UIE 1 ySIUlalis W1U1 aii UL UIE TUIe vant MILUTIGLUL LY UCU. 1119 19 Ue
Le wee Lawn ee fe dn? ne Mat dann an A Une tha mbt ant aenttae af anak eedtn nan?
UIE Case, NOWEVET, aS VELENUAMLS WIUIESS MSL UES NUL USL UIE SUVJCUL ALLEL UL CALL WILLIEDS
knowledge ~ someihing that the Physicians are ciearly entitled to know. Further, ine Physicians areentitled to discover the details of any affirmative claim of damages or setoff that Defendants are
claiming.
dinglv. the Court should overrule Defend:
ts’ ohiections Interrogat
ts’ oblections Interrogat
1 Jand 4 and eamnel Nefendante ta nravide comnlete resnancive ancwers ta said interrnoataries
ay 2 ane NG COM pes GGG 6 PEO EUS COMEp ENC, IeGpUnio TS CHIG TIRES HO Sree HERVE EU tee
B. The Physicians served a contention interrogaiory (interrogatory No. 21) that asks
Detendants to state all facts that support their affirmative defense that Defendants Burke did not
breach his fiduciary duty. The interrogatorv is as follows:
ee S.D. Fla. L.R. Appendix, a copy ot which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
te a aoa eee aoteteet 7
‘See Fla. K. Civ. P. Appendix, Form Z, Nos. 1U and 13, a copy of which 1s attached hereto
ac Evhihit 1) -
3
No. 21: Please state in detail all facts that support vour contention that “Robert D. Burke
iscthly vaone ambionans averly hraad
NUT SMptNy tIUApuN ty Veet Cevtny
Nefoendai te? Ohiectiane ta Na 71-
wresenuel weejeencus 32 SS. aa.
harassing, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
Hdanna and havand tha nennar enana nfdieanuan: Dafandante olen dirantad tha Dhusiniane
CVIGCHCEY, aia OCYCHa ule PrOper SCOpe Or GISCOVeTy. WCeGaIKS ais GHCCwWG ule 1 ysieialis
to see the parties’ operating agreements and various depositions for the responsive
lloimanoi.
moa AA plas .-£
The Fourth DCA hoids that a coniention interfogaiory is a proper form or
>interrogatory and that it is improper for a party to refuse to answer such an interrogatory. See
Grinnell Corp. v. Palms 2100 Ocean Blvd., Ltd.,924 So.2d 887, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(attirming
trial court’s order compelling party to provide complete answers to contention interrogatories
seeking the facts sunnortino the nartv’s affirmative defenses and reaniring nartv to identifv all
tig wae Aeeee ep peteiiy sete peeety So ceet
nercane unth bnawiladae af euch facte) Further the Flarida Gunreme Caurt hac annrnaved cimilar
PelounS WILE ROU WIeUg. Ur SUC 1aetoy. F ULUeE, Ue eo OUP ie UUULE ide GppiU yee suid
ataedawd Latewennataetan sao: fete 2 Anfen dant ta ntata all Fanta La has ealiad nan fre anch
StatiualU MMEOgaOries, IequIEINg @ UCichUaA W State au LaciS me aS Tenieu Upon Lor Cac
-a xr Ae Tea eat
aflirmaiive defense. See ria. K. Civ. P. Appendix, Form Z, NO.7. AS a resull, Interrogalory No. Z1
1s entirely proper in torm.
10. Indeed, the substance of Interrogatory No. 21 is relevant because it is directed to
Defendants’ affirmative defense to the Physicians’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
is and camnel
anc compe.
VW Aceardinoly the Canrt chauld avern le Defend nts”
ere eas ue Ves Sareea OVOTT
Nefandante tr neavida a namnlatea racnancive ancwar ta Intarracatary Na 71
JUCUGIILD LU PIU VIOUS @ CULIPINIG, LLOPULOLYE GUO WEE LU LLLIUBGUULY LV. 2a.
Wh. sl. DL. he Nafnn dante?
Wrieiciore, tie Physicians request that ine Cour enter aii Graer Gverrunng Derenaaits
objections to interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 21, and compelling Defendants to provide complete,
responsive answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 21.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICETHEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via fax and
U.S. Mail to David W. Snicer. Fsauire. Law Office of David W. Snicer. P.A.. 11000 Prosneritv
il. MAGI TO Uevig rs Sp SSQEite, SEW lttge OF SEMIS hs Speers 22th coe 2 TOSperhy
MeCanc Ranm DA
1601 Forum Place, Suite 301
Want Dalen Danah ET 22401
WOU Pail DCaUL, PL J24tU1
Tel: 561-659-7878
PAX! 01-242-4D457 :
4 SL
= A ftl Lo
BY AZL-
“BAark T Rakin
Fla. Bar No. 985635
Dine Den dnctnle
Vail rieaciicn,
Fla. Bar No.: 064819
onIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
IMINICTAT CIRCINT IN AND BOR PATM RRACIT
Pree Uy te cannes PEN De aaseTR az awed
CUUNLY, PLUKIDA
CASE NO, SO200RCANO2138XXXXMB AA
TODEOA MADTA CADTINAC MTN DA
LGNOA MAU CARING, Ly Eee
Plaintiff,
ADVANCED IMAGING ASSOCIATES, LLC,
RORRRT D,
DIMYE NrAANINEMIA AMIN ANY opNITlTS
DUIAD, LIAUINUO IU ANUILLAK LOE VILL,
LLC, and MIDTOWN IMAGING, B.A,
Nafanadante
LUCIE,
WATTRR BR WOICICKE MN PHN PA
Third-Parly Defendant.
Plaintiff, Teresa Maria Cortinas, M.D... P.A., and Third-Party Defendant, Walter B. Wojcicki, M.D,
tates gle Le woe et mt ee Wrenn in
PD.D., ¥.A.,, Nereby gives notice O1 service OF Ine allacnea initu Set OL IMmeFUgaUTEs LeEIeE tO
Defendants an er
wel an the helaw date
-ERTIEI VICK
tae eaeved via TTS Mail ta
PF UODPPDY ARDTIDY that a tenn and anevent anew af the Paraaning
AGING) Goku. ulate @ WUG anu COC Copy On une AUreguiig He OM eE THe wee oe
David W. Snicer, Esauire, Law Office of David W. Spicer, P.A., 11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 104,
Paim Beach Gardens, Fiorida 33410 inis_j_day of Decemier, 2010.
MrCannRanm PA1001 Fortin race, ,
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
‘Tel: 561-659-7878
ant
UG DUS
Ha, Bar No, 989039
Eyan Frederick E
Nin + MKAR10
AnD
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
TODICTAT.CIRCHYT. IN AND FOR PALM BRACH
nara vr nnine
VLUUIN YT, PLURIVA
ADL INU. DUZUUSUCAUUZLISAAAAMD AU
TMEDEOA AAADTA CADTINAG AT DA
LANGE VIAN CURLIN, WLLL ohey
Plaintiff
periyictrery
Vv
ATU ANODT TARA GINA AGeAMTAMDO TY
AU VANUG IMAULIYU AODUUIALEDS, LLL,
ROBERT D. BURKE, M.D., P.L., ROBERT D.
DIDYE NTARNACTIC ANC T ADV CHDVICRS 110
DUI, MARU LLG DI ULUNEN 2 OLR YAU) LAD
MIDTOWN IMAGING, P.A.
Detendanis,
WALTER E. WOJCICKI, M.D., PH.D., P.A.,
‘Third-Party Detendant,
PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S THIRD SET OF
Taree nan arcane Nrovernn on Nerean Aare
ANUALDAURU GA EUG AR ANS BU PAATi Third-Part Nefe
MD. PhD., PA... pursuant fo Rule 1.340 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby request
that Defendants answer the following interrogatories within 30 days.
DEFINITIONS
AT TY Neen
A, “Burke” shaii refer io Koveri D. Burke, M.D, Rovert D, Burké, M.D., F.L., NEiti0-
v in which Burke has served as an
lown Imaging. P.A.. anv ent
oO? eo
ante
GS ages, auuirys,
representatives, and employees, or any other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of Burke,
B. “Midtown imaging, LLC” shail refer to Midtown imaging, LLC, as well as any of tis
agente, atinrnaus, ranrecentatives. and emnlovers Kevin Tohnson. Dons Raderischer. or any other
Bgueney seca
persons acting or purporting iO act on benait of mdiown.
C.— “ividiown imaging, 2.A.” shali refer to Midtown Imaging, P.A., Robert D. Burke,
P) chall rafar in Daly Raaah Canital Da;
FUKUI 10 2 GL eau Capea a
acd or Richard Schianger has an ownersiip interest that owns or
or any entity in which Nathan |
owned Midtown in whole or nart
e pans
B. “AIA” shall refer to Advanced Imaging Associates, LLC, and any of AIA’s agents,
alinrsade ranracantativas and amnlauess ar anu athar narenne antinn ar aurnarting to ant an hahalf
AWOLIE YS, LUPLUOUIAUY Ua, GUY CIPO EED, Ui HY VUIVE PUIOUNIS AVENE Ui PULpULLNE Wy ave UH GUHCE
of AIA,
BF —— The words “ana” and “or” snail be consirued both conjuncitvery and aisjunciively 80
as fo make each reauest inclusive rather than exclusive. The singular form of anv word includes thewd naludine? maane inch:
ee erricerrner rivet etre etrcrts
alian(s)” shall mean any oral or written statement or exchange
H. The ward “commu
_etie a
2y 4
or Information or any type between iwo or more persons, inciuamg, but not miteu w UUCULICHILS,
electronic or other computer generated mail, telephone or face-to-face conversations, or meetings.
L The term “document” shall mean originals, drafts, and non-identical copies of any
ne nr data eamnilation — whether nrinted tuned renradaced by anv
Bur aa CUnupHenud wmwsinur puunwe, eypeey swpavauwuee wy my
writing ar other tanaible #
Wout, GL UuneL ungiene o
process, written or produced by hand, including any graphic matier however produced or reproduced,
ther presently maintained in Daner form or in electronic,
or produced by anv mechanical means —
At
MMAgneue, Chemical, meCnAnGA, OF oiner qn a data Storage Capauis a bong, tansroimea tiao,
written or oral matter, including, but not limited to, letters, e-mails, affidavits, filings, inventory data,
oe financial
10) AUTEN
ancas vannlatary
OUD) LUE MLOLY
nntinne Anrraanandanna ner
CALIUHD, CULL VOPUMUUHEL, PULE
ranasto anraamante ane:
TUPUris, agieuuieiito, Coa
records, accounting records, contracts, ielter agreements, telegrams, maiigrams, memoranda,
¢ and/ar recarde af nerennal ar telenhone. conversations dias
enmmari
iape recordings, tacsimiles, models, siaiisiicai statemenis, maps, graphs, charis, plans, drawings,
niinutes or records of conferences. revorts and/or, summaries ofinterviews, conversations, summaries
UT ICLICLS, prods 1e1caacD,
of any documents, purchase orders, invoices, receipts, original or preliminary notes, films, videos,
athay
eae Tahncatawy reculte mannatic tanae ara
Dy aRgen EA een
mminenfioha miavafiles ennch narde olides nie
BIAUHICHe, MUCIUAUY punien Callin, ortkivo, PALIuEeo, 26UUaNY 10
matter which is capable of being read, heard, or seen with or without mechanical or electronic
assistance.
aLyZe, Const
evidence, set forth, summarize, support, refute, or characterize, either directly or indirectly, in whole
avinnart I Tnlace nthanuica ctatend the Hma frama af theca interranatoriac chall ha fram Tannarir
Chin Partan, — Ullvos Valo Wise OLULWU) UY LIIY Ute G2 LOUOU HEUER MtC Lee GHEE Uy 40Uaan gente J
1, 2003, to the present,
) LOMIpLSe,
INTERROGATORIES
1, Please provide the name, address, telephone number, place 0 of employment and job title ofANTOMMUON perraming tO any Lact alleged Wl UIC PiCad NES Hed MW UIES aCtlOll, OF UL aly Lact
underlving the subiect matter of this action.
Answer:
2.
3.
Please stale the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you betieve the person(s)
lantifie, raenanee fn intorraaatary
IUMIOU BE uopunoy Ww AMuLUg@I y
Please identify and state in detail the substance of the opinions to be provided by eacn person
1
awham van may nen ac an evnert witness at f
Vrnunn you ming wae uu cae capers4. Please state each item of damage that you claim, whether as an affirmative claim ora setott,
and include in vonr aneurer: the count nr defence ta which the item of damapes relates: the
SR ROR Bt JOM ASW EE en COMIN OF GEASS ee:
category inio which each item of damages Tails, Le., generai damages, ip or
consequential damages fsuch as lost profits), interest. and any other relevant categories; the
Ln al ft. atin ban. ak me plana Ha: nF han Aste cnet naloulatad e ach tiom
TaCtiat basis LOL Gack Gin GL Uaunages, aU ait SAplaniauGl Gi uGw you Carcuavu Cate nO
of damages, including identifying any mathematical formula or documents used,
Answer:
€ Pleaca stata the tatal ealee nica and all monetary ferme af vaur cale of Mis
” Pivase Sune tne Ii Gate Pull Guns Gat HaUmeNIn) taste oa goes sate os
¥.A, to Palm Beach Capital.
Answer:6. State ail fees that you received, direcily or indirectly, irom Midiown Imaging, LLC tor
managing the radiologists in ALA from 2004 to 2007.
Answer:
7. Wii. respect io any claims or poteniial claims aiieged agatnst you by Faim Beach Capiiai
and/or Burke Ross in 2004 or 2005. state the amount of attorneys’ fees you paid to any law
and Stewart and Lash & Goldberg.
Answer:
a a8
Answer:
State cach person at Paim Beach Capital with whom you spoxe about tis dispute 1 2004 aia
State the date and substance of each communication,
ONS over onside read radinloov fe
over} oy
9 State the gross revenues that you received. directly or indirectlv. each vear from 204 through
S 2 ao yang *
DAINT fram Midteu T.
BUY Ff AIUT AICO WILL
ante TI Ms
ABUIB, LA 1H
you had a 25% or greater individual o:
int ownership interest,
jan ar nhusician nra
Oh peyesenee po
(o your nome velWween ZUU4 and ZUU7. State tne amount of revenues inal you received Irom
any such practice for each year,
10. Identify anv nh a that sent a check for anteide read rndininov feac
: yey Baste
OS sates crue oe Cxneuat ae U aUatn een AC
Answer:
Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH TINTATAY AM ATIFT mr AIM TAN nar Aen Aaatr JUVIULIAL LIRUULL, UN AINU FUR FALIVI DDAUN COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO SNINNRCANNI1IRXYXXYMR AA TERESA MARIA CORTINAS, M.D., P.A., Plaintiff, ' , Ss na ADVANCED IMAGING ASSOCIATES, LLC, = 3:3 RORERTD RIIRKEF MN PI RORFRTD _— ao C2 ei il eet (its tL “tb Be Ane BURKE, DIAGNOSTIC ANCILLARY SERVICES, = ofp TT and MINTOAWN INMAGING DA =e “i Uy GILG WV EU LN LVL 1 Tafa dante veLenaaiits, (J, ayo WH Ne WATTER F WOICICKT MN PHD PA oer e ree ter OREO RRESEUPCCTEtFeresTartee tres rtrees Third Dart; Nafandant 2UULUTK aity WRaeiuat. Piaintiff, Teresa Maria Cortinas, M.D., P.A. (“TCA”), and Third-Party Defendant, Waiter E. Woicicki, M.D., Ph.D, P.A. (“WWPA”) (collectively, the “Physicians”), serve this Motion to Comnel Answers to Interrogatories Dir Lomnel Answers to interrogatories (ir d to Defendants, and state: IntpanuctTiAN In thie hneinacs Htiwatian antinn tha Dhusinians caal ta rannuar anainot thair farmar Le AL ULL UUDIILSS LLUZAUUL AUUULL, WIL 1 HY SIUIGLID SUUR WU LCUU YUL aga@mlioe Wen BULLINE cena Nal dot Dab NN Deete foe paliner, VELeNGalil KODETL LV. DUKE, LOF Cnt we te weet Me AP Annee AO ee shat ba ZB UNE OUL OL MON OL GOuaTs OL MICE ulat ne diverted io himseif and the imaging cenier that ne co-owned. In an ettort to discover key information related to Defendants’ contentions andwitnesses for the upcoming trial, the Physicians served interrogatories to Defendants.' In response, Defendants improperly obiected or provided incomol ete resnonses to court-anproved interrogatories and contention interrogatories directed to Defendants’ affirmative defenses? 2 Accoardinoly this Coirt chonld enter an arder that avernilec Nefandante’ ahiactiane a DAR) UO CCG SUG MEER Cur Cater te UY RETR FRIES UOJUCUULLD and samnale Nefandante ta the ancwar tha intarranatariag enanified halav: @nu UOIIpeis weacituanito WO UI GHOWEL UIE UCT UgalUriCs SpeCuTd ULIOW,. A. Defendants Asserted baseless Objections to Court-Approved interrogatories. 4, Below are three court-approved interrogatories at issue in this Motion, and the Physicians’ arguments on why Defendants’ obiections should be overruled: title of any person who has, or claims to have or whom you believe may have knowiedge or in nertaining ta anv fact alleged in the nleadinac filed in thic actinn ar af anv fact Hh Pert WO Guy LOL GUE BCU Lt UY PIVaULIgS LUCG Ul US GUUCI UE G4 ay dae infarm underlying the subject matter of this action. No. 2: Please state the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that vou believe the person(s, ) ideniined in response 10 inierrogatory No. | may nave. No. 4: Please state each item ot damage that you ciaim, whether as an ailirmative claim or 0 cataff and inclide in var ancurer: tha anunt ar dofancea ta ushich the itam af damaaac @ OU, GU HIeUUe Bn YUU auoWwel. ule COWL Ur Ueaeuoe WO Wile ue Ler U1 Gaagel, relates: the category into which each item of damages falls. i.e general damages. special me weet etid Annan feel an Vent me bed Tetons OF COMSCYUCUaL UalLaZes (SUCH AS 1OSt Pris), MILCLESt, ana aiy Ouier rerevait Cavegories, wet we meter the factual basis for each item of damages and an explanation of how you calculated eachlem OF ddimages, Including 1aentirying any Mathematical rormula OF GoCuments Used. Defendants’ Objections to Nos. 1,2 and 4: impermissibly vague, ambiguous, overly broad, Lnrnesina jeralavant nat raneanahhy: salenlatead ta land ta the dicanuanr af admiccihla Maladd1B, WILILVaLL, UL TeasUMaULy VarLUlalUU LU Ieau WwW oUIe UIDLUVELy UL auLssiUIE evidence, and bevond the proper scone of discovery. Defendants also directed the Physicians be ee A Wk Tt ed Dee et MEd EAL Cn thes nnn Leland nae 10 SEE INE WIUTESS LISt 4G EXpert VISCIOSUTES UPON 1UINg 10 We Tesponsive imormnauon. 1. ame none omnes tonne : soe “A copy of the Physicians’ Lhird Set ot interrogatories Directed to Detendants 1s attached nereto as Exhihit A “A copy of the Defendants’ Response to the Physicians’ Third Set of Interrogatories is attached ro Tafa dantn? ALinatinns ta Tatoennnatawian Man 1 9 and A nag hanalacn hananes thace VELENUAIS ULJTCUONS LU ALCILOZALULIeS INUS. 1, 2 AU + aL VaSTICSS UECauUse UITSe 5 a eo alas. ac Ma re Nt ae tt ema 9 are stanaard interrogatories approved by Me U.d. VISUICT LOurt for Ine SouMeEM VISITICl O1 Fiorida.” Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has approved similar standard interrogatories, requiring a responding party to ident ity witnesses with knowledge of the lawsuit and the subject matter of their knowledge." As such, Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the type of basic interrogatories that are permitted equally in state and federal court. ru ahiectian ta ancwerino thece interrnaatnriec ic that Nefandants’ BU) UUJOO ULE OU Gn EEE HEN Oe LEE UOC Ew By tates ae aware Nefendante’ nri poeeerttremn tr on telnl wiltnace Hat aravidas tha Dhuciniane with all af tha ralavant infarmatinn thay need Thie ic nat Ula: WitIESS ISL PrUVIUTS UIE 1 ySIUlalis W1U1 aii UL UIE TUIe vant MILUTIGLUL LY UCU. 1119 19 Ue Le wee Lawn ee fe dn? ne Mat dann an A Une tha mbt ant aenttae af anak eedtn nan? UIE Case, NOWEVET, aS VELENUAMLS WIUIESS MSL UES NUL USL UIE SUVJCUL ALLEL UL CALL WILLIEDS knowledge ~ someihing that the Physicians are ciearly entitled to know. Further, ine Physicians areentitled to discover the details of any affirmative claim of damages or setoff that Defendants are claiming. dinglv. the Court should overrule Defend: ts’ ohiections Interrogat ts’ oblections Interrogat 1 Jand 4 and eamnel Nefendante ta nravide comnlete resnancive ancwers ta said interrnoataries ay 2 ane NG COM pes GGG 6 PEO EUS COMEp ENC, IeGpUnio TS CHIG TIRES HO Sree HERVE EU tee B. The Physicians served a contention interrogaiory (interrogatory No. 21) that asks Detendants to state all facts that support their affirmative defense that Defendants Burke did not breach his fiduciary duty. The interrogatorv is as follows: ee S.D. Fla. L.R. Appendix, a copy ot which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. te a aoa eee aoteteet 7 ‘See Fla. K. Civ. P. Appendix, Form Z, Nos. 1U and 13, a copy of which 1s attached hereto ac Evhihit 1) - 3 No. 21: Please state in detail all facts that support vour contention that “Robert D. Burke iscthly vaone ambionans averly hraad NUT SMptNy tIUApuN ty Veet Cevtny Nefoendai te? Ohiectiane ta Na 71- wresenuel weejeencus 32 SS. aa. harassing, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible Hdanna and havand tha nennar enana nfdieanuan: Dafandante olen dirantad tha Dhusiniane CVIGCHCEY, aia OCYCHa ule PrOper SCOpe Or GISCOVeTy. WCeGaIKS ais GHCCwWG ule 1 ysieialis to see the parties’ operating agreements and various depositions for the responsive lloimanoi. moa AA plas .-£ The Fourth DCA hoids that a coniention interfogaiory is a proper form or >interrogatory and that it is improper for a party to refuse to answer such an interrogatory. See Grinnell Corp. v. Palms 2100 Ocean Blvd., Ltd.,924 So.2d 887, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(attirming trial court’s order compelling party to provide complete answers to contention interrogatories seeking the facts sunnortino the nartv’s affirmative defenses and reaniring nartv to identifv all tig wae Aeeee ep peteiiy sete peeety So ceet nercane unth bnawiladae af euch facte) Further the Flarida Gunreme Caurt hac annrnaved cimilar PelounS WILE ROU WIeUg. Ur SUC 1aetoy. F ULUeE, Ue eo OUP ie UUULE ide GppiU yee suid ataedawd Latewennataetan sao: fete 2 Anfen dant ta ntata all Fanta La has ealiad nan fre anch StatiualU MMEOgaOries, IequIEINg @ UCichUaA W State au LaciS me aS Tenieu Upon Lor Cac -a xr Ae Tea eat aflirmaiive defense. See ria. K. Civ. P. Appendix, Form Z, NO.7. AS a resull, Interrogalory No. Z1 1s entirely proper in torm. 10. Indeed, the substance of Interrogatory No. 21 is relevant because it is directed to Defendants’ affirmative defense to the Physicians’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty. is and camnel anc compe. VW Aceardinoly the Canrt chauld avern le Defend nts” ere eas ue Ves Sareea OVOTT Nefandante tr neavida a namnlatea racnancive ancwar ta Intarracatary Na 71 JUCUGIILD LU PIU VIOUS @ CULIPINIG, LLOPULOLYE GUO WEE LU LLLIUBGUULY LV. 2a. Wh. sl. DL. he Nafnn dante? Wrieiciore, tie Physicians request that ine Cour enter aii Graer Gverrunng Derenaaits objections to interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 21, and compelling Defendants to provide complete, responsive answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 21. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICETHEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via fax and U.S. Mail to David W. Snicer. Fsauire. Law Office of David W. Snicer. P.A.. 11000 Prosneritv il. MAGI TO Uevig rs Sp SSQEite, SEW lttge OF SEMIS hs Speers 22th coe 2 TOSperhy MeCanc Ranm DA 1601 Forum Place, Suite 301 Want Dalen Danah ET 22401 WOU Pail DCaUL, PL J24tU1 Tel: 561-659-7878 PAX! 01-242-4D457 : 4 SL = A ftl Lo BY AZL- “BAark T Rakin Fla. Bar No. 985635 Dine Den dnctnle Vail rieaciicn, Fla. Bar No.: 064819 onIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH IMINICTAT CIRCINT IN AND BOR PATM RRACIT Pree Uy te cannes PEN De aaseTR az awed CUUNLY, PLUKIDA CASE NO, SO200RCANO2138XXXXMB AA TODEOA MADTA CADTINAC MTN DA LGNOA MAU CARING, Ly Eee Plaintiff, ADVANCED IMAGING ASSOCIATES, LLC, RORRRT D, DIMYE NrAANINEMIA AMIN ANY opNITlTS DUIAD, LIAUINUO IU ANUILLAK LOE VILL, LLC, and MIDTOWN IMAGING, B.A, Nafanadante LUCIE, WATTRR BR WOICICKE MN PHN PA Third-Parly Defendant. Plaintiff, Teresa Maria Cortinas, M.D... P.A., and Third-Party Defendant, Walter B. Wojcicki, M.D, tates gle Le woe et mt ee Wrenn in PD.D., ¥.A.,, Nereby gives notice O1 service OF Ine allacnea initu Set OL IMmeFUgaUTEs LeEIeE tO Defendants an er wel an the helaw date -ERTIEI VICK tae eaeved via TTS Mail ta PF UODPPDY ARDTIDY that a tenn and anevent anew af the Paraaning AGING) Goku. ulate @ WUG anu COC Copy On une AUreguiig He OM eE THe wee oe David W. Snicer, Esauire, Law Office of David W. Spicer, P.A., 11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 104, Paim Beach Gardens, Fiorida 33410 inis_j_day of Decemier, 2010. MrCannRanm PA1001 Fortin race, , West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ‘Tel: 561-659-7878 ant UG DUS Ha, Bar No, 989039 Eyan Frederick E Nin + MKAR10 AnD IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH TODICTAT.CIRCHYT. IN AND FOR PALM BRACH nara vr nnine VLUUIN YT, PLURIVA ADL INU. DUZUUSUCAUUZLISAAAAMD AU TMEDEOA AAADTA CADTINAG AT DA LANGE VIAN CURLIN, WLLL ohey Plaintiff periyictrery Vv ATU ANODT TARA GINA AGeAMTAMDO TY AU VANUG IMAULIYU AODUUIALEDS, LLL, ROBERT D. BURKE, M.D., P.L., ROBERT D. DIDYE NTARNACTIC ANC T ADV CHDVICRS 110 DUI, MARU LLG DI ULUNEN 2 OLR YAU) LAD MIDTOWN IMAGING, P.A. Detendanis, WALTER E. WOJCICKI, M.D., PH.D., P.A., ‘Third-Party Detendant, PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S THIRD SET OF Taree nan arcane Nrovernn on Nerean Aare ANUALDAURU GA EUG AR ANS BU PAATi Third-Part Nefe MD. PhD., PA... pursuant fo Rule 1.340 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby request that Defendants answer the following interrogatories within 30 days. DEFINITIONS AT TY Neen A, “Burke” shaii refer io Koveri D. Burke, M.D, Rovert D, Burké, M.D., F.L., NEiti0- v in which Burke has served as an lown Imaging. P.A.. anv ent oO? eo ante GS ages, auuirys, representatives, and employees, or any other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of Burke, B. “Midtown imaging, LLC” shail refer to Midtown imaging, LLC, as well as any of tis agente, atinrnaus, ranrecentatives. and emnlovers Kevin Tohnson. Dons Raderischer. or any other Bgueney seca persons acting or purporting iO act on benait of mdiown. C.— “ividiown imaging, 2.A.” shali refer to Midtown Imaging, P.A., Robert D. Burke, P) chall rafar in Daly Raaah Canital Da; FUKUI 10 2 GL eau Capea a acd or Richard Schianger has an ownersiip interest that owns or or any entity in which Nathan | owned Midtown in whole or nart e pans B. “AIA” shall refer to Advanced Imaging Associates, LLC, and any of AIA’s agents, alinrsade ranracantativas and amnlauess ar anu athar narenne antinn ar aurnarting to ant an hahalf AWOLIE YS, LUPLUOUIAUY Ua, GUY CIPO EED, Ui HY VUIVE PUIOUNIS AVENE Ui PULpULLNE Wy ave UH GUHCE of AIA, BF —— The words “ana” and “or” snail be consirued both conjuncitvery and aisjunciively 80 as fo make each reauest inclusive rather than exclusive. The singular form of anv word includes thewd naludine? maane inch: ee erricerrner rivet etre etrcrts alian(s)” shall mean any oral or written statement or exchange H. The ward “commu _etie a 2y 4 or Information or any type between iwo or more persons, inciuamg, but not miteu w UUCULICHILS, electronic or other computer generated mail, telephone or face-to-face conversations, or meetings. L The term “document” shall mean originals, drafts, and non-identical copies of any ne nr data eamnilation — whether nrinted tuned renradaced by anv Bur aa CUnupHenud wmwsinur puunwe, eypeey swpavauwuee wy my writing ar other tanaible # Wout, GL UuneL ungiene o process, written or produced by hand, including any graphic matier however produced or reproduced, ther presently maintained in Daner form or in electronic, or produced by anv mechanical means — At MMAgneue, Chemical, meCnAnGA, OF oiner qn a data Storage Capauis a bong, tansroimea tiao, written or oral matter, including, but not limited to, letters, e-mails, affidavits, filings, inventory data, oe financial 10) AUTEN ancas vannlatary OUD) LUE MLOLY nntinne Anrraanandanna ner CALIUHD, CULL VOPUMUUHEL, PULE ranasto anraamante ane: TUPUris, agieuuieiito, Coa records, accounting records, contracts, ielter agreements, telegrams, maiigrams, memoranda, ¢ and/ar recarde af nerennal ar telenhone. conversations dias enmmari iape recordings, tacsimiles, models, siaiisiicai statemenis, maps, graphs, charis, plans, drawings, niinutes or records of conferences. revorts and/or, summaries ofinterviews, conversations, summaries UT ICLICLS, prods 1e1caacD, of any documents, purchase orders, invoices, receipts, original or preliminary notes, films, videos, athay eae Tahncatawy reculte mannatic tanae ara Dy aRgen EA een mminenfioha miavafiles ennch narde olides nie BIAUHICHe, MUCIUAUY punien Callin, ortkivo, PALIuEeo, 26UUaNY 10 matter which is capable of being read, heard, or seen with or without mechanical or electronic assistance. aLyZe, Const evidence, set forth, summarize, support, refute, or characterize, either directly or indirectly, in whole avinnart I Tnlace nthanuica ctatend the Hma frama af theca interranatoriac chall ha fram Tannarir Chin Partan, — Ullvos Valo Wise OLULWU) UY LIIY Ute G2 LOUOU HEUER MtC Lee GHEE Uy 40Uaan gente J 1, 2003, to the present, ) LOMIpLSe, INTERROGATORIES 1, Please provide the name, address, telephone number, place 0 of employment and job title ofANTOMMUON perraming tO any Lact alleged Wl UIC PiCad NES Hed MW UIES aCtlOll, OF UL aly Lact underlving the subiect matter of this action. Answer: 2. 3. Please stale the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you betieve the person(s) lantifie, raenanee fn intorraaatary IUMIOU BE uopunoy Ww AMuLUg@I y Please identify and state in detail the substance of the opinions to be provided by eacn person 1 awham van may nen ac an evnert witness at f Vrnunn you ming wae uu cae capers4. Please state each item of damage that you claim, whether as an affirmative claim ora setott, and include in vonr aneurer: the count nr defence ta which the item of damapes relates: the SR ROR Bt JOM ASW EE en COMIN OF GEASS ee: category inio which each item of damages Tails, Le., generai damages, ip or consequential damages fsuch as lost profits), interest. and any other relevant categories; the Ln al ft. atin ban. ak me plana Ha: nF han Aste cnet naloulatad e ach tiom TaCtiat basis LOL Gack Gin GL Uaunages, aU ait SAplaniauGl Gi uGw you Carcuavu Cate nO of damages, including identifying any mathematical formula or documents used, Answer: € Pleaca stata the tatal ealee nica and all monetary ferme af vaur cale of Mis ” Pivase Sune tne Ii Gate Pull Guns Gat HaUmeNIn) taste oa goes sate os ¥.A, to Palm Beach Capital. Answer:6. State ail fees that you received, direcily or indirectly, irom Midiown Imaging, LLC tor managing the radiologists in ALA from 2004 to 2007. Answer: 7. Wii. respect io any claims or poteniial claims aiieged agatnst you by Faim Beach Capiiai and/or Burke Ross in 2004 or 2005. state the amount of attorneys’ fees you paid to any law and Stewart and Lash & Goldberg. Answer: a a8 Answer: State cach person at Paim Beach Capital with whom you spoxe about tis dispute 1 2004 aia State the date and substance of each communication, ONS over onside read radinloov fe over} oy 9 State the gross revenues that you received. directly or indirectlv. each vear from 204 through S 2 ao yang * DAINT fram Midteu T. BUY Ff AIUT AICO WILL ante TI Ms ABUIB, LA 1H you had a 25% or greater individual o: int ownership interest, jan ar nhusician nra Oh peyesenee po (o your nome velWween ZUU4 and ZUU7. State tne amount of revenues inal you received Irom any such practice for each year, 10. Identify anv nh a that sent a check for anteide read rndininov feac : yey Baste OS sates crue oe Cxneuat ae U aUatn een AC Answer: