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

On April 21, 2017 a Answer to Interrogs 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 # 60518598 E-Filed 08/16/2017 10:06:40 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
1774 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
NOTICE OF FILING RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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 answers to Plaintiff's, Interrogatories served with the
Complaint.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed this _16__ day of August, 2017

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

eFilling Portal Electronic Service List to:

Name/ID Email
Connolly C Mcarthur Eservice@fudgemcarthur.com

Cmearthur@fudgemcarthur.com

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 8/16/2017 10:06:40 PM.****CASE NO.: 2017-004545 CA

Name/ID Email
enicholson@fudgemcarthur.com
Yeemee Chan ychan@iniurylawyers.com

ganselmo@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/_ Kevin D. Pardifias.
Armando P. Rubio, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 478539
arubio@fieldshowell.com
service@fieldshowell.com
Kevin D. Pardifias, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 89570
mgonzalez@fieldshowell.com (paralegal)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT & GENERAL OBJECTIONS

USA BR’s investigation into all of the facts and circumstances regarding this
matter continues. Defendant's responses to these Interrogatories (“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.

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 Plaintiffs 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, 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.

ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY:

1. What is your name, address and if you are answering for someone else,
your official position?
RESPONSE:

These Reponses constitute corporate responses and were prepared with the
assistance of counsel and are verified by Marciel Da Silva, Principal of USA BR General

Services, Corp.

INTERROGATORY:

2. Describe any and all policies of insurance which you contend cover or
may cover or provide a defense to you for the allegations set forth in plaintiffs complaint
or inure to the benefit of Plaintiff (for example medical payments), detailing as to such
policies the name of the insurer, the number of the policy, the effective dates of the
policy, the available limits of liability and other applicable coverage, the name and
address of the custodian of the policy, and any policy defenses known or asserted.
RESPONSE:

USA BR refers Plaintiff to declarations pages bate stamped Voh v. USA BR, et
al., 00001 — 00002.

INTERROGATORY:

3. Describe in detail how the incident described in the Complaint happened,
including all actions taken by you, your agents or employees to prevent the incident.
This specifically includes, but is not limited to, a concise statement of the facts as to
how you contend the Plaintiff's incident took place, including why you think the Plaintiff
fell.

RESPONSE:

Unknown at this time as no employee or agent of USA BR witnessed the
Plaintiffs alleged incident which forms the subject matter of this lawsuit.
INTERROGATORY:

4. Describe in detail each act or omission on the part of any party to this
lawsuit that you contend constituted negligence that was a contributing legal cause of
the incident in question.

RESPONSE:

USA BR incorporates its response to Interrogatory No. 3, above, as fully restated
herein.
INTERROGATORY:

5. State the facts upon which you rely for each affirmative defense in your
answer.
RESPONSE:

USA BR has raised various affirmative defenses commensurate with the claims
made by the Plaintiffs. Further, many of these defenses are legal in nature, as such,
the basis for the same are readily ascertainable to counsel. USA BR reserves the right
to supplement this answer as discovery continues
INTERROGATORY:

6. Do you contend any person or entity other than you is, or may be, liable in
whole or part for the claims asserted against you in this lawsuit? If so, state the full
name and address of each such person or entity, the legal basis for your contention, the
facts or evidence upon which your contention is based, and whether or not you have
notified each such person or entity of your contention.

RESPONSE:

Unknown at this time as no employee or agent of USA BR witnessed the
Plaintiffs alleged incident which forms the subject matter of this lawsuit, and only
learned of the same after the alleged incident occurred. Upon information and belief the
following parties may be liable, in whole or in part, for the Plaintiff's alleged claims:

e The Plaintiff;

e¢ Comcast Corporation;
¢ Industrial Cable Communications Services;
e Owner of the residence that had the alleged cable installed; and
e Josimar’s Cleaning Services Corp.
INTERROGATORY:

7. List the names and addresses of all persons believed or known by you,
your agents or attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues raised by
the pleadings and specify the subject matter about which of the witnesses has
knowledge. For each, please also state their job description or relationship to you, if
any.

RESPONSE:

USA BR believes the following persons may have knowledge concerning the
issues raised by the pleadings:
Marciel Da Silva
c/o Fields Howell
9155 S. Dadeland Blvd.

Suite 1012

Miami, FL 33156
Subject Matter — Liability

Ronald & Dianna Vohs

c/o Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A.
2400 E. Commercial Blvd

Suite 900

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308

Subject Matter — Liability and Damages

Elizeu Silva

c/o Fudge & McArthur, P.A.
650 16th Street North

St. Petersburg, FL 33705
Subject Matter — Liability

Josimar Olivera

22563 SW 66" Ave
Suite 109

Boca Raton, FL

Subject Matter — Liability
INTERROGATORY:

8. Have you heard or do you know about any statement or remark made by
or on behalf of any party to this lawsuit, other than yourself, concerning any issue in this
lawsuit? If so, state the name and address of each person who made the statement or
statements, the name and address of each person who heard it, and the date, time,
place, and substance of each statement.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous and, further, to the
extent it seeks improper disclosure of information and/or materials protected by the
attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.

Without waiving said objections, please see affidavit of Josimar Oliveira bate
stamped Voh v. USA BR, et al., 00003 — 00004.

INTERROGATORY:

9. State the name and address of every person known to you, your agents,
or attorney who has knowledge about it, or possession, custody, or control of any
model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, video tape, or photograph pertaining to any
fact or issue involved in this controversy; and describe as to each, what such person

has, the name and address of the person who took or prepared it, and the date it was

taken or prepared.

RESPONSE:

None, investigation continues.
INTERROGATORY:

10. Do you intend to call any expert witnesses at the trial of this case? If so,
state as to each such witness, the name and business address of the witnesses, the
witness' qualifications as an expert, the subject matter upon which the witness is
expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is
expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

RESPONSE:

Unknown at this time, investigation continues.
INTERROGATORY:

11. Have you made an agreement with anyone that would limit a party’s
liability to anyone for any of the damages sued upon in this case? If so, state the terms
of the agreement and the parties to it.

RESPONSE:

None other than the subcontract agreement with Josimar.
INTERROGATORY:

12. Identify sufficiently to enable discovery, the date, method and substance
of any written or oral notice defendant received of the incident which is the subject
matter of this action. Attach a copy of any incident report form made in the normal

course of business.

RESPONSE:

Sometime after Plaintiff filed suit, Mr. Silva, from ICCS, contacted USA BR to
advise it of the suit.
INTERROGATORY:

13. Identify the name, address and telephone number of the entity who owned
the subject cable.
RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad; specifically, the request is not limited in time or scope.

Without waiving these objections, USA BR states that it was not directed to bury
a cable at the address noted in the Complaint. As a result, USA BR does not know who
owned the subject cable.
INTERROGATORY:

14. Identify the tag number on the subject cable wire.
RESPONSE:

Defendant, USA BR, incorporates its response to Request No. 13, above, as fully
restated herein.
INTERROGATORY:

15. State the date and nature of any complaint, warning or other notice that
the defendant or defendant’s agents received concerning a dangerous condition at the
location of the subject incident and prior thereto. Attach a copy of any written complaint,

warning or other notice.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, specifically, as
the request is not limited in time or scope.

Without waiving these objections, USA BR states that it was not directed to bury
a cable at the address noted in the Complaint. As a result, USA BR is not know who
owned the subject cable.

INTERROGATORY:

16. Identify the date, name, address, phone number and employer of any
person who inspected the subject location prior to the incident.
RESPONSE:

Without waiving these objections, USA BR states that it was not directed to bury
a cable at the address noted in the Complaint. As a result, USA BR does not know if the
subject cable was inspected, prior to the alleged incident.

INTERROGATORY:

17. Identify the date, name, address and employer of any person who
inspected the subject location after the incident, and the findings of any such
inspections made of the subject location where Plaintiff fell, subsequent to the incident.

This specifically includes but is not limited to a description of any exposed cable wire

located near where Plaintiff fell or any other possible cause of Plaintiff's fall as alleged in
the complaint.
RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad, and unduly burdensome; specifically, as it is not limited in time or scope.
Further, the terms “any employer’, “inspected”, and “subject location” are not defined.
Further, as phrased, the request seeks the improper disclosure of information and/or
materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
INTERROGATORY:

18. Describe any markings of warnings in the subject area and any warnings
to the plaintiff including the date, nature and persons who made them.

RESPONSE:

USA BR refers Plaintiff to its Preliminary Statement & General Objections, above.
Further, USA BR objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague,
and ambiguous.

Without waiving these objections, USA BR states that it was not directed to bury
a cable at the address noted in the Complaint; and therefore, is not familiar with the
subject area alleged in the Complaint.

INTERROGATORY:

19. For each safety device in use at the time of the incident at or near the area
where the subject incident occurred, including but not limited to cones, signs, flags,
tape, and barriers, state its descriptions, location and purpose. Please include when
such device(s) were installed and who installed them.

RESPONSE:

USA BR incorporates its response to Interrogatory No. 18, above, as fully
restated herein.
INTERROGATORY:

20. Describe all procedures for burying cable wires and identify the contractor
or inhouse supervisor responsible at the time of the subject accident for ensuring
exposed cable wires are buried.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad, specifically, the request is not limited in scope to USA BR.

Without waiving these objections, USA BR was retained by Elizeu Silva, from
ICCS (c/o Fudge & McArthur, P.A.). It also directs Plaintiff to a Comcast document
bates labeled Voh v. USA BR, et al., 00012.

INTERROGATORY:

21. For each repair, replacement, alteration, or safety precaution made
subsequent to and in the area of the alleged incident, state the date, description,
reasons and name, current address, employer, and occupation of the person who made
it.

RESPONSE:
USA BR objects to this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, overbroad, irrelevant

and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

INTERROGATORY:

22. Please state the name and address of the person or persons with the
most knowledge of the subject cable work performed at the location where the accident,
incident or event described in the Complaint occurred prior to the date of loss.
RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, overbroad. Without
waiving these objections, Comcast Corporation.

INTERROGATORY:

23. For each prior accident which occurred, or has been alleged to have
occurred in a similar manner to the subject incident (trip and fall, fall-down incidents),
state information sufficient to identify it, such as date, name and last known address of
persons involved, description of incident, and identify any related lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, not
properly limited as to scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.

Without waiving said objections, none.

INTERROGATORY:

25. Is the Defendant properly named in the Complaint? If your answer is no,

please state the exact name of the Defendant as it should appear in the Complaint?

(This question is being asked simply to name the Defendant properly in the Complaint
and is no way asking the Defendant to admit negligence or imply that the Defendant is
negligent).
RESPONSE:

Yes.
INTERROGATORY:

26. For each matter in Plaintiffs Request for Admissions served concurrently
herewith, except those to which you responded with an unequivocal admission, please
state each and every fact upon which you base said response, identify each and every
writing, document, recording, photograph or other tangible thing, that you contend
supports said response, and identify each and every person that you contend has
knowledge of any fact on which you contend supports said response and set forth each
person's last known address and telephone number.

RESPONSE:

USA BR refers Plaintiff to its Preliminary Statement & General Objections, above,
and states that its discovery into the subject incident is in its infancy. Further, USA BR
responds that the basis for its responses are readily ascertainable to counsel.
INTERROGATORY:

27. Are you aware of any incident other than the accident that is the subject of
this litigation in which the plaintiff was or might have been injured? If yes. Please state
the nature, date(s) and place(s) of all such incidents, the injuries allegedly sustained

therein, the names and address of all witnesses with any knowledge concerning each

such incident, and describe with particularity any and all records, documents or things in
your possession or control that relate or refer to each such incident.
RESPONSE:

none.

USA BR GENRAL SERVICES CORP.

such incident, and describe with particularity any and all records, documents or things in
your possession or control that relate or refer to each such incident.
RESPONSE:

USA BR objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous and. further, to the
extent it seeks improper disclosure of information and/or materials protected by the
attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Without waiving these objections.

none.

USA BR GENRAL SERVICES CORP.

Page | 16
PIELDS HOWELL LEP) 9155 SO, DADELAND BLVD. | SUITE 1012; MIAMI, PL 34156 1 °P: 786.870.5600 955.802.5821CASE NO.: 2017-004545 CA

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF BrewenA
| HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly qualified to take

acknowledgments, personally appeared Won S ted Yio is personally known to me

or who has produced Auus Guu as identification and who did not take an oath,

and acknowledged that he/she has read the answers to the foregoing interrogatories

and that they are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief

WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this

AE day of Maas 2017.

Page | 17

HIELDS HOW ELL LLP 9155 SO. DADELAND BLD, | SUFPE 1012] MIAME, FE, 38156 "TS 786.870.5000 [S5-802.5-71

Case Info

Judge

Bidwill, Martin J. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 16, 2017

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