Legal Document: Ronald Vohs Plaintiff vs. Josimars Cleaning Services Corp, et al Defendant

On April 21, 2017 a Response to Request for Production was filed involving a dispute between Vohs, Ronald, and Comcast Corporation, Industrial Cable Communications Services Inc, Josimars Cleaning Services Corp, Usa Br General Services Corp, for Neg - Premises Liability Residential in the District Court of Broward County.

Preview
Filing # 68066433 E-Filed 02/16/2018 11:13:12 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
17° JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: CACE 17-007673 (05)
RONALD VOHS

Plaintiffs,
vs.

JOSIMAR’S CLEANING SERVICES
CORP., USA BR GENERAL SERVICES

CORP., INDUSTRIAL CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, AND
COMCAST CORPORATION,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT, USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Defendant, USA BR GENERAL SERVICES CORP (“USA BR’), by and through

its undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby
gives notice of serving its responses to Plaintiffs, Request for Production served with
the Complaint.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT & GENERAL OBJECTIONS

USA BR’s investigation into all of the facts and circumstances regarding this
matter continues. Defendant's responses to these Request for Production (“Requests”)
are without prejudice to, and are not a waiver of, the right to rely on other documents or
information at trial.

A response to these Requests should not be deemed or construed as a

representation that USA BR performed any of the acts described in the Requests.

*4* FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 2/16/2018 11:13:12 AM.****CASE NO.: CACE 17-007673 (05)

USA BR reserves the right to supplement, amend, or correct its responses hereto
if it discovers additional responsive, non-privileged information that warrant such
supplementation, amendment, or correction.

Many of the requests propounded by Plaintiff on this Defendant have common
infirmities. Rather than repeating the same objections, USA BR asserts the following
General Objections, which are hereby incorporated in the responses below.

1.) | USABR objects to the requests below to the extent they seek information,
documents, and/or materials which are unrelated to the allegations at issue in this
action as framed by the Plaintiff's Complaint on the grounds that such requests are
overly broad and seek information which is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

2.) | USA BR objects to these discovery requests to the extent they seek
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege, or
the attorney/work product doctrine, and to the extent they would require the review of
litigation or claims files by USA BR’s counsel. To the extent these requests seek
materials and/or information which fall within the ambit of attorney work product, this
material meets the principal elements of both “fact” and “opinion” work-product. Any
material pertaining to the litigation at hand, that was prepared by USA BR’s counsel, or
gathered during the course of litigation by USA BR’s counsel, and necessarily involves
the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or theories of USA BR’s counsel
concerning the litigation, is not discoverable. USA BR responds to these requests on
the assumption that they do not seek or call for the production of any such privileged

information and/or materials. Accordingly, without more specificity from Plaintiff, USA

BR is prevented from stating the full grounds for such privilege objections, or otherwise
setting forth a privilege log.

3.) Defendant, USA BR, objects on the grounds that certain records
requested may contain confidential and proprietary information supplied to it by Co-
Defendants, which it is not authorized to release or produce.

4.) Defendant, USA BR, has not completed its discovery and provides the
following responses based upon information available to it at the time these responses
were prepared and served. USA BR reserves the right to use during litigation and up
through trial any information developed by USA BR through discovery, trial preparation,
and/or otherwise, which was not located when these responses were served.

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST:

1. Any and all policies of insurance, including any and all primary, umbrella
and excess policies, which cover or may cover the Defendant or Plaintiff for any or all of
the allegations set forth in the Complaint filed in this case.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and overbroad. Without waiving these objections, USA BR refers Plaintiff to
declarations pages bate stamped Voh v. USA BR, et al., 00001 — 00002.

REQUEST:

2. All insurance policies in full force and effect on the date of the accident,

incident or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit under which the Plaintiff(s) is

or might be eligible to receive, medical, health, hospital, accident, disability, sickness,

social security, worker's compensation, income disability, wage continuation and/or
other similar benefits.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 1, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

3. Any and all writings, recordings, tapes, videos, records, memoranda,
notes, or other material in the care, custody, possession or control of the Defendant or
the Defendant's attorneys, investigators, agents, representatives, servants or
employees reflecting statements, including but not limited to those described in Fla. R.
Civ. P 1.280, made by the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs employees or agents regarding any of
the issues in this case.

RESPONSE:

None, other than the video previously produced by Plaintiff.
REQUEST:

4. Any and all writings, records, memoranda, notes, or other material in the
care, custody, possession or control of the Defendant or the Defendant's attorneys,
investigators, agents, representatives, servants or employees reflecting statements,
including but not limited to those described in Fla. R. Civ. P 1.280, made by any and all
witnesses regarding any of the issues in this case.

RESPONSE:
USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad. USA BR further objects to this discovery request as it seeks information

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege, or the
attorney/work product doctrine. To the extent the request seeks materials and/or
information that falls within the ambit of attorney work product, this material meets the
principal elements of both “fact” and “opinion” work-product. Any material pertaining to
the litigation at hand, that was prepared by USA BR’s counsel, or gathered during the
course of litigation by USA BR’s counsel, and necessarily involves the mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions or theories of USA BR’s counsel concerning the
litigation, is not discoverable. USA BR responds to this request on the assumption that
they do not seek or call for the production of any such privileged information and/or
materials. Accordingly, without more specificity from Plaintiff, USA BR is prevented from
stating the full grounds for such privilege objections, or otherwise setting forth a
privilege log.

Without waiving these objections, USA BR directs Plaintiff to the affidavit of
Josimar Olivera bates labeled Voh v. USA BR, et al., 00003 - 00004.

REQUEST:

5. Any and all photographs taken by or on behalf of the Defendant or the
Defendant's attorneys, investigators, agents, representatives, servants or employees
which are in any manner related to the subject matter of this lawsuit. This request
includes, but is not limited to, any and all photographs depicting the scene of the
incident or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit, and photographs taken of the
Plaintiff. If the original was taken digitally, then a copy of the actual digital file(s) is
requested on compact disc or DVD. If the original was taken on film, both a

photographic quality print and the negatives are requested to be produced. If the

original source was a non-digital tape, then a copy of the tape is requested. If the
original source was lost, damaged or destroyed, please state same and provide a color
laser copy of whatever remains in your possession.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad. USA BR further objects to this discovery request as it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege, or the
attorney/work product doctrine. To the extent the request seeks materials and/or
information that falls within the ambit of attorney work product, this material meets the
principal elements of both “fact” and “opinion” work-product. Any material pertaining to
the litigation at hand, that was prepared by USA BR’s counsel, or gathered during the
course of litigation by USA BR’s counsel, and necessarily involves the mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions or theories of USA BR’s counsel concerning the
litigation, is not discoverable. USA BR responds to this request on the assumption that
they do not seek or call for the production of any such privileged information and/or
materials. Accordingly, without more specificity from Plaintiff, USA BR is prevented from
stating the full grounds for such privilege objections, or otherwise setting forth a
privilege log.

Without waiving these objections, none other than those produced by the
Plaintiff. Investigation continues.

REQUEST:
6. Any and all movies, motion pictures, videotapes, or reproductions of the

accident, incident or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit taken by or on behalf

of the Defendant or the Defendant's attorneys, investigators, agents, representatives,
servants or employees which are in any manner related to the subject matter of this
lawsuit. If the original was taken digitally, then a copy of the actual digital file(s) is
requested on compact disc or DVD. If the original was taken on film, both a
photographic quality print and the negatives are requested to be produced. If the
original source was a non-digital tape, then a copy of the tape is requested. If the
original source was lost, damaged or destroyed, please state same and provide a color
laser copy of whatever remains in your possession.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 5, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

7. Any and all movies, motion pictures, videotapes or reproductions taken at,
on, near, from, or around the location where the subject incident took place and which
relates in any way to the accident, incident or event that is the subject matter of this
lawsuit. If the original was taken digitally, then a copy of the actual digital file(s) is
requested on compact disc or DVD. If the original was taken on film, both a
photographic quality print and the negatives are requested to be produced. If the
original source was a non-digital tape, then a copy of the tape is requested. If the
original source was lost, damaged or destroyed, please state same and provide a color
laser copy of whatever remains in your possession.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 5, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

8. Any and all photographs, movies, motion pictures, slides, films,
videotapes, audiotapes, records, reports and other writings or recorded representations
relating in any way to any surveillance conducted on the Plaintiff by the Defendant or
the Defendant's attorneys, investigators, agents, representatives, servants or
employees. If the original was taken digitally, then a copy of the actual digital file(s) is
requested on compact disc or DVD. If the original was taken on film, both a
photographic quality print and the negatives are requested to be produced. If the
original source was a non-digital tape, then a copy of the tape is requested. If the
original source was lost, damaged or destroyed, please state same and provide a color
laser copy of whatever remains in your possession.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 5, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

9. Any charts, drawings, graphs, diagrams or other documentary evidence
involving the subject matter of this lawsuit which are expected to be offered as evidence
at the time of trial.

RESPONSE:
USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and

overbroad. USA BR further objects to this discovery request as it seeks information

Without waiving these objections unknown at this time, investigation continues.
REQUEST:

10. Any and all medical records, reports, opinions, or other writings in the
care, custody, possession or control of the Defendant or the Defendant's attorneys,
investigators, agents, representatives, servants or employees, received from doctors,
physicians, nurses, other health care providers or anyone else who saw, examined, or
rendered care or treatment to the Plaintiff or from any hospitals where the Plaintiff
was/were seen, examined or treated for injuries or conditions that were or may have
been sustained as a result of the subject accident. This request does not include any
records provided directly from Plaintiff.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague and ambiguous and
further, to the extent it seeks the improper disclosure of information and/or materials
protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Without waving
said objections, any USA BR will comply with appropriately filed Requests for Copies.
REQUEST:

11. Any and all other medical reports, opinions, or other writings in the care,
custody, possession or control of the Defendant or the Defendant's attorneys,
investigators, agents, representatives, servants or employees, from doctors, physicians,
nurses, other health care providers or anyone else who saw, examined, or rendered
care or treatment to the Plaintiff or from any hospitals where the Plaintiff was/were seen,
examined or treated for injuries or conditions not related to the subject accident. This
request does not include any records provided directly from Plaintiff.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 10, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

12. Any and all documents pertaining to the subject cable work performed by
Defendant, its employees, agents, and/or contractors at or near the subject location
involving the incident, accident, or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad. As such, the request as phrased seeks information that its irrelevant and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. USA BR further

objects to this discovery request as it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, the consulting expert privilege, or the attorney/work product doctrine. To the
extent the request seeks materials and/or information that falls within the ambit of
attorney work product, this material meets the principal elements of both “fact” and
“opinion” work-product. Any material pertaining to the litigation at hand, that was
prepared by USA BR’s counsel, or gathered during the course of litigation by USA BR’s
counsel, and necessarily involves the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or
theories of USA BR's counsel concerning the litigation, is not discoverable. USA BR
responds to this request on the assumption that they do not seek or call for the
production of any such privileged information and/or materials. Accordingly, without
more specificity from Plaintiff, USA BR is prevented from stating the full grounds for
such privilege objections, or otherwise setting forth a privilege log.

Without waiving these objections, USA BR states that it was not directed to bury
a cable at the address noted in the Complaint. To the extent the request refers to the
subject cable for 11663 SW 11 Place, USA BR, directs Plaintiff to non-privileged
records bates labeled Voh v. USA BR, et al., 00013 — 00034. To the extent the request
calls for confidential or proprietary information belonging to Co-Defendants, USA BR
directs the Plaintiff to its privilege log.
REQUEST:

13. Any and all documents pertaining to cable work performed by Defendant,
it's employees, agents, and/or contractors, at or near the subject location involving the
incident, accident, or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit within the one (1)

year preceding the subject accident through three (3) months after the subject accident.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 12, above, as fully
restated herein. Without waiving the foregoing objections, USA BR performed work at
11700 SW 11" Street, on or about January 29, 2016.

REQUEST:

14. Any and all work orders, purchase orders, statements of work, written
requests, and tickets pertaining to the subject cable work performed by Defendant, it's
employees, agents, and/or contractors, at or near the subject location involving the
incident, accident, or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request Nos. 12 and 13,
above, as fully restated herein.
REQUEST:

15. Any and all invoices, receipts, and records of payment for the subject
cable work performed by Defendant, it's employees, agents, and/or contractors at or
near the subject location involving the incident, accident, or event that is the subject
matter of this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 12, above, as fully

restated herein.
REQUEST:
16. Any and all documents, whether maintained in written form, electronically,

or digitally, concerning the dispatch, records of received calls, requests for service,

and/or the details of the request and dispatch for the subject cable work performed at or
near the subject location involving the incident, accident, or event that is the subject
matter of this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 12, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

17. Any and all documents, including but not limited to tickets, requests,
records of received calls, records of dispatch, and notes, whether maintained in written
form, electronically, or digitally, requesting the subject cable wire to be buried.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 12, above, as fully
restated herein.

REQUEST:

18. Any and all documents, whether maintained in written form, electronically,
or digitally, memorializing that the subject cable line needed to be buried.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 12, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

19. Any and all documents pertaining to inspections made of the subject
location involving the incident, accident or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit,

including inspections made subsequent to the subject incident.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST:

20. Any and all results of background checks performed on you, your
directors, directors, officers, employees, and/or agents by COMCAST CORPORATION,
AND/OR INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC.

RESPONSE:
Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad,

unduly burdensome, not properly limited as to scope and not reasonably calculated to

lead to admissible evidence. Further, this request is inapplicable to this Defendant. The
request seeks items outside of the control of Defendant, USA BR.

Without waving these objections, none.

REQUEST:

21. Any and all results of background checks you performed on JOSIMAR
OLIVEIRA AND/OR JOSIMAR'S CLEANING SERVICES CORP.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST:

22. Any and all certificates, licenses, and any and all documents pertaining to
JOSIMAR OLIVERA'S qualifications to perform cable installation, repair and/or
maintenance work.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad. Specifically, as the request assumes that certificates and/or licenses were
required to perform the subject work.

REQUEST:

23. — Any and all accident reports and/or incident reports relating in any way to

the accident, incident or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad. USA BR further objects to this discovery request as it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege, or the
attorney/work product doctrine. To the extent the request seeks materials and/or
information that falls within the ambit of attorney work product, this material meets the
principal elements of both “fact” and “opinion” work-product. Any material pertaining to
the litigation at hand, that was prepared by USA BR's counsel, or gathered during the
course of litigation by USA BR’s counsel, and necessarily involves the mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions or theories of USA BR’s counsel concerning the
litigation, is not discoverable. USA BR responds to this request on the assumption that
they do not seek or call for the production of any such privileged information and/or
materials. Accordingly, without more specificity from Plaintiff, USA BR is prevented from
stating the full grounds for such privilege objections, or otherwise setting forth a
privilege log.

REQUEST:

24. — Any citations and other reports or evidence of charges of any violation of
law or code violations, etc., the Defendant received as a result of the subject incident.
RESPONSE:

None.

REQUEST:

25. All records, reports, forms, or other written evidence of the disposition of

any citations or charges of any violation of law or any code violation the Defendant

received as a result of the subject incident.

RESPONSE:

None.
REQUEST:

26. Any and all claims indexes or similar documents relating to Plaintiffs
accident and claims history.
RESPONSE:

privilege log. Further, Defendant, USA BR, does not maintain such records.

REQUEST:

27. All written notices or correspondence of any alleged, similar fall-down, trip,
or fall incidents involving the Defendant, or any of its employees, agents and/or
contractors, for the four (4) years prior to this incident at issue.

RESPONSE:

Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant, USA BR, states that it has not had any
other similar fall-down, trip, or fall incidents involved a fall-down, trip, or fall incidents in

the four (4) years prior to the date of the incident alleged in the Complaint.

REQUEST:

28. ~All incident reports or other documentation of any alleged, similar fall-
down, trip or fall incidents involving the Defendant, or any of its employees, agents
and/or contractors, for the four (4) years prior to this incident at issue.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 27, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

29. All written notices or correspondence of any alleged, similar fall-down, trip,
or fall incidents involving the Defendant, or any of its employees, agents and/or
contractors since the incident at issue.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR incorporates its response to Request No. 27, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

30. All incident reports or other documentation of any alleged, similar fall-
down, trip, or fall incidents involving the Defendant, or any of its employees, agents
and/or contractors since the incident at issue.

RESPONSE:
Defendant, USA BR incorporates its response to Request No. 27, above, as fully

restated herein.

REQUEST:

31. All documents describing or related to any other similar fall-down, trip, or
fall incidents involving the Defendant, or any of its employees, agents and/or contractors
within three (3) years before the date of the incident alleged in the Complaint to present.
RESPONSE:

Without waiving these objections, Defendant, USA BR, states that it has not had
any other similar fall-down, trip, or fall incidents involved a fall-down, trip, or fall
incidents within three (3) years before the date of the incident alleged in the Complaint

to the present.

REQUEST:

32. Any charts, drawings, graphs, blueprints, sketches, schematics, diagrams,
planograms, or other documentary evidence involving the layout of the subject location
where the incident alleged in the Complaint took place.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad. USA BR further objects to this discovery request as it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege, or the
attorney/work product doctrine. To the extent the request seeks materials and/or
information that falls within the ambit of attorney work product, this material meets the
principal elements of both “fact” and “opinion” work-product. Any material pertaining to
the litigation at hand, that was prepared by USA BR’s counsel, or gathered during the
course of litigation by USA BR's counsel, and necessarily involves the mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions or theories of USA BR’s counsel concerning the
litigation, is not discoverable. USA BR responds to this request on the assumption that
they do not seek or call for the production of any such privileged information and/or
materials. Accordingly, without more specificity from Plaintiff, USA BR is prevented from
stating the full grounds for such privilege objections, or otherwise setting forth a
privilege log.

REQUEST:

33. Any and all COMCAST identification cards for issued to JOSIMAR

OLIVEIRA and/or employees, agents, and/or contractors of JOSIMAR'S CLEANING

SERVICES CORP.

RESPONSE:

This request is inapplicable to this Defendant. The request seeks items outside of
the control of Defendant, USA BR.
REQUEST:

34. Any and all agreements the Defendant has made with anyone that would
limit that party's liability to anyone for any of the damages in this case.
RESPONSE:

None.

REQUEST:

35. All documents to any third party regarding or putting any third party on
notice of any claims made by Plaintiff, whether indemnity or defense is sought or not.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

Without waiving these objections, none.

REQUEST:

36. Any and all documents pertaining to audit(s) performed on you by
COMCAST CORPORATION, AND/OR INDUSTRIAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES INC.

RESPONSE:
Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad,

unduly burdensome, not properly limited as to scope and not reasonably calculated to

lead to admissible evidence. Further, this request is inapplicable to this Defendant and
seeks items outside of the control of Defendant, USA BR.
REQUEST:

37. Any and all documents pertaining to audit(s) you performed on JOSIMAR
OLIVEIRA, JOSIMAR'S CLEANING SERVICES CORP., AND/OR INDUSTRIAL CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and not properly limited as to scope and not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, none.

REQUEST:

38. Documents illustrating any and all safety devices available to employees,
agents or contractors of JOSIMAR'S CLEANING SERVICES CORP. for use on-site
while performing or supervising cable installation, repair and/or maintenance work.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and not properly limited as to scope and not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence.

Without waiving these objections, USA BR objects to this request on the grounds
that it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Specifically, as this case pertains to the

burying of a cable, not installation, repair, or maintenance.

REQUEST:

39. | Any documents identifying or specifying any information whatsoever about
the subject cable/wire that Plaintiff alleges he tripped and fell over at the subject
location.

RESPONSE:

USA BR incorporates its response to Request No. 19, above, as fully restated
herein.
REQUEST:

40. Any and all pleadings and discovery from any other lawsuit where you
have been a defendant other than the present matter and which involved allegation(s) of
a fall-down, trip, or fall incident over exposed cable wire within the past five (5) years.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, states that it has not been named as a defendant in any
matter which involved a fall-down, trip, or fall incident over an exposed cable wire within
the past five (5) years.

REQUEST:

41. All internal memos, studies, testing, suitability, reports, standards, and
other documentation of or regarding the safe practices for cable installation, repair
and/or maintenance work.

RESPONSE:
Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 22, above, as fully

restated herein.

REQUEST:

42. All external, industry association and competitor memos, studies,
commentary, monitoring, reports, standards, and other documentation of or regarding
the safe practices for cable installation, repair and/or maintenance work.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, and duly burdensome. Additionally, the request appears to
request materials that are equally available to the Plaintiff as they are to USA BR.
REQUEST:

43. Bureau of Labor Statistics Log and Summary of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses for the past three (3) years.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, over broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Further, to the extent said records are a matter of public record,
USA BR states that they are equally available to the Plaintiff.

REQUEST:

44. Safety Hotline documentation with respect to the issues set forth in the

Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 43, above, as fully

restated herein.

Page | 25

REQUEST:

45. Documentation of the members of any safety, risk control or loss
prevention committee of the Defendant for the last three (3) years.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, over broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.

Without waiving these objections, none. Investigation continues.

REQUEST:

46. Documentation of any safety, risk control or loss prevention committee of
the Defendant for the last three (3) years.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 45, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

47. Documentation of any safety, risk control or loss prevention surveys for
the last three (3) years.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 45, above, as fully
restated herein.

REQUEST:
48. Documentation of any accident reduction programs or plans within three

(3) years before the subject incident.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 45, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

49. All company and associate manuals, handbooks, videos, scripts and
transcripts of video and audio recordings, books, binders, charts, policies, procedures,
rules, modules, computer training programs, regulations, laws, suggestions, guidelines
or similar direction relating to:

a) Employee and/or Contractor Training

b) Safety

c) Incident Investigation

d) Cable installation, maintenance or repair

e) Inspections of job sites

f) Supervision of employees and/or contractors
RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad. Further, the request us repetitive of other similar requests.

Without waiving these objections, see records bates labeled Voh v. USA BR, et
al., 00005 — 00012, for records responsive to this request.

REQUEST:

50. Documentation of the proper legal name for the Defendant's entity alleged

in the Complaint, if not properly alleged.

RESPONSE:

Inapplicable, name is correct.
REQUEST:

51. Any document you rely upon to support your denial of any Request for
Admissions.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 26, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

52. Any and all accident reports, photographs, repair bills, estimates, medical
bills and/or records, hospital bills and/or records, ambulance/fire department bills and/or
records, CME/IME reports, recorded statements, and correspondence that relate or
refer to any incident other than the subject incident, in which you contend that the
Plaintiff, was or might possibly have sustained personal injuries and/or property
damage.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 10, above, as fully
restated herein.
REQUEST:

53. Personnel, employee or contractor files of each and every employee,
agent or contractor with knowledge of the subject incident.

RESPONSE:
Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad,

unduly burdensome, not properly limited as to scope and not reasonably calculated to

lead to admissible evidence. Moreover, this request contains information that is
confidential and privileged, in particular, the requested information may contain medical
and health information. Further, USA BR, objects to the extent it seeks the improper
disclosure of information and/or materials protected by the attorney-client privilege
and/or work product doctrine

Without waiving these objections, USA BR states that it has requested non-
privileged records and will produce then upon receipt.

REQUEST:

54. Personnel, employee or contractor files of each and every employee,
agent or contractor who worked, inspected, or supervised at or on subject location
involving the incident, accident or event that is the subject matter of this lawsuit for the
three (3) months prior to the subject incident and one (1) month subsequent to the
subject incident.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad,
unduly burdensome, not properly limited as to scope and not reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence. Moreover, this request contains information that is
confidential and privileged, in particular, the requested information may contain medical
and health information.

Without waiving these objections, no contractors worked at the address noted in

the Complaint.

REQUEST:

55. Personnel, employee or contractor files of each and every employee,
agent or contractor who worked on the day of the subject incident and who had any
responsibility for the inspection of the job site/location where Plaintiff was allegedly
injured.

RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this
request contains information that is confidential and privileged, in particular, the
requested information may contain medical and health information.

Without waiving these objections, USA BR states that it was not directed to
perform work at the address noted in the Complaint on the date of the incident.
REQUEST:

56. Time slips, punch cards and any other document pertaining to the hours
worked by employees, agents or contractors responsible for the work performed at the
subject location/job site during the one (1) month before and after the subject incident.
This should include the employees’, agents’ or contractors’ names and departments or
job codes.

RESPONSE:
Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 19, above, as fully

restated herein. Without waiving these objections, none. Investigation continues.

REQUEST:

57. Any and all contracts or written agreements by and between any of the
Defendants which was in effect at the time of the subject accident.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and
overbroad. Without waiving the foregoing, see contract between USA BR and Josimar,
bates labeled Voh v. USA BR, et al., 00005 — 00012.

REQUEST:

58. Any and all contracts or written agreements between the Defendant and
any non-party responsible for cable installation, repair, maintenance, and/or burying
cable lines for the geographic area where the subject incident took place, which was in
effect at the time of the subject accident.

RESPONSE:

continues.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed this 16 day of February, 2018

with the Clerk of Broward County using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal and serving

eFilling Portal Electronic Service List to:

Name/ID

Donna Jo Fudge

Connolly Mc. McArthur

Michael P. Rudd

Yeemee Chan

Eservice@fudgemcarthur.com

Apopp@fudgemearthur.com

Enicholson@fudgemcarthur.com

Eservice@fudgemcarthur.com

Cmearthur@fudaemcarthur.com

enicholson@fudgemcarthur.com

service@rudddiamond.com
smasonbrink@rudddiamond.com

aramirez@rudddiamond.com
ychan@injurylawyers.com

sgarcia@injurylawyers.com

FIELDS HOWELL LLP

Attorneys for Defendant, USA BR
GENERAL SERVICES CORP

9155 So. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1012
Miami, FL 33156

Tel: (786) 870-5600

Fax: (855) 802-5821

By:/s/ Armando P. Rubio, Esq.
Armando P. Rubio, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 478539
arubio@fieldshowell.com

service@fieldshowell.com
Steven A. Swartz, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 117976
sswartz@fieldshowell.com

Page | 32

Case Info

Judge

Bidwill, Martin J. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 16, 2018

Case Filing Date

April 21, 2017

County

Parties

Chan, Yeemee Attorney for the Plaintiff
Comcast Corporation Defendant
Industrial Cable Communications Services Inc Defendant
Josimars Cleaning Services Corp Defendant
McArthur, Connolly C, ESQ. Attorney for the Defendant
Rubio, Armando P Attorney for the Defendant
USA BR General Services Corp Defendant
Vohs, Ronald Plaintiff
Keith Hoffman Attorneys for Defendants
Andrew Popp Attorneys for Defendants
Kevin Pardiñas Attorneys for Defendants
Peter Diamond Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Rudd Attorneys for Defendants
Donna Fudge Attorneys for Defendants
Dale St. Elmo Clarke Attorneys for Defendants
Armando Pardillo Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Erin Cowan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Rodney Romano Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Ronald Vohs Plaintiff vs. Josimars Cleaning Services Corp, et al Defendant

Preview

Case Info

Parties