Preview
Filing # 47966806 E-Filed 10/24/2016 12:20:32 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No: 15-CA-11630
DR. CHRISTINA PAYLAN
Plaintiff,
V.
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD,ESQ.
An individual, and FARMER &
FITZGERALD, PA, a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
ANSWERS
INTERROGATORIES
TO FIRST
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.380, Plaintiff, DR. CHRISTINA
PAYLAN, by and through undersigned counsel, moves this honorable court to compel the
Defendants, Timothy Fitzgerald, Esq. ,“Defendant Fitzgerald”, and Farmer & Fitzgerald, PA,
“Defendant Corporation” to answer interrogatory questions that have not been answered, and
would state in support thereof:
BACKGROUND FACTS
1. Plaintiff served the Defendant’s with First Interrogatories on April 15, 2016.
2. The Defendants Served Plaintiff with responses on May 16, 2016. The Defendants’
responses are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3 The Defendants refused to answer questions numbered 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18 based on the ground that the interrogatories were not relevant to discovery in
this action.
4. Defendants also refused to answer interrogatories 19 and 20 based on the premise that
they exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories allowable pursuant to Rules of Civil
Page 1 of4
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 1
Procedure.
4. Plaintiff's unanswered interrogatory questions were relevant and reasonably
calculated to lead to information that is relevant to Plaintiff's case.
LEGAL STAN
5. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
the subject matter of the pending action.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1). If a party fails to appropriately
respond to a discovery request, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer
in accordance with the discovery requests. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(2). Evasive or incomplete
answers are treated as a failure to respond. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(3).
“If the motion [to compel] is granted and after opportunity for hearing, the court shall require
the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or counsel advising the
conduct to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order that may
include attorneys’ fees.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(4).
“The interrogatories shall not exceed 30, including all subparts, unless the court permits a
larger number on motion and notice and for good cause.” Jd. Subparts do not constitute separate
interrogatories when they are “‘logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the
primary question.” Powell v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., 2008 WL 2473748, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June
16, 2008) (quoting Oliver v. City of Orlando, 2007 WL 3232227, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007)).!
Stated another way, “an interrogatory containing subparts directed at eliciting details concerning a
“common theme’ should generally be considered a single question.” Border Collie Rescue, Inc. v.
Ryan, 2005 WL 662724, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar.15, 2005). By way of example, the following types
of interrogatories have been deemed to be not discrete and, hence, constitute one interrogatory:
qa) questions about persons with knowledge and the subject area of their knowledge;
Page 2 of4
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 2
2) questions about prior lawsuits, the nature of the cause of action, the parties, the
court in which the lawsuit was filed, and the dates filed;
(3) questions about witness statements, by and to whom made, when made, and the
substance and context of the statements;
(4) questions about persons with documentary evidence in their possession, custody,
and control, what documents they have, the location of the documents, and when
the documents were prepared;
(5) questions about expert witnesses, their addresses, qualifications, subject matter of
their testimony, and grounds for their opinions;
(6) questions about damages, when the damages occurred, to whom expenses were
paid; and
(7) questions about lost income, benefits, or earning capacity, the nature of each loss,
and how the loss was computed.
Calderon v. Reederei Claus-Peter Offen GmbH & Co., 2008 WL 4194810, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept.
11, 2008).
6. Based on the foregoing, Defendants are required to answer to Interrogatories 19 and
20, with having waived their objections to respond based on the failure to respond.
7 Based on the foregoing, given the direct relevancy of interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 7,
8,9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Defendants are required to submit full and responsive answers
to these interrogatories.
8 Plaintiff has sent this Motion to Counsel for the Defendants in a good faith effort to
obtain the relief sought without the need of a hearing. That letter to Matthew Farmer Esquire is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
9 Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.380(a)(4), Plaintiff requests
reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees and costs for obtaining an order on this Motion to
Compel Answers to Interrogatories.
Page 3 of4
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 3
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHRISTINA PAYLAN, MD, respectfully requests that this
Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to First Interrogatories, grant sanctions for
failure to respond by opposing counsel, and grant any other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a true and correct copy of this Motion was served by
electronic mail to counsel for defendants, Matthew Farmer, Esq. at mattfarmerl@aol.com. on this
24'" day of October, 2016.
4s/ Christina Paylan, M.D.
CHRISTINA PAYLAN, MD
P.O. BOX 66442
St. Pete Beach, Florida 33736
Tel: (813) 877-8183
Email: drpaylan@bodytuck.com
Page 4 of4
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
DR. CHRISTINA PAYLAN,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 15-CA-011630
v.
TIMOTHY FITZGERALD, ESQ., an
Individual, and FARMER & FITZGERALD,
P.A., a Florida Corporation, DIVISION: G
Defendants.
a -
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, hereby serve their responses to plaintiffs
interrogatories served April 15, 2016.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2016.
(s/ Matthew Farmer
Matthew Farmer, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 0793469
102 W. Whiting St., Suite 501
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 228-0095
FAX (813) 224-0269
Mattfarmer1 @aol.com
EXHIBIT A
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF $ ice
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was served electronically this 16"
day of May, 2016 on: Matthew Leibert, Esq., 200 S.Orange Ave., Suite 2000, Orlando, FL
32801 at leibert@urbanthier.com.
s/ Matthew farme
isMatthew Farmer
Counsel for Defendants
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 6
INTERROGATORIES
1. Please identify the name and address of each individual answering these
interrogatories and the person’s official position or relationship with the
party to whom these Interrogatories are directed. To the extent more than
one individual is participated in answering these Interrogatories, please
provide which interrogatory and subparts thereof that each individual
assisted in answering.
Timothy J. Fitzgerald
102 West Whiting St. Suite 501
Tampa, FL 33602
Matthew P. Farmer
102 West Whiting St. Suite 501
Tampa, FL 33602
State the date when the State Attorney’s Office offered Pre-Trial Intervention
as a resolution for Dr. Paylan’s criminal case in case number 2011-CF-10038.
How was the offer of Pre-Trial Intervention offered by the State? Was it in
writing? On what date did you convey the State's offer to Dr. Paylan? How did
you convey the State’s offer to Dr. Paylan?
a. The State Attorney's Office did not “offer” Pre-trial Intervention as a
resolution for Dr. Paylan’s criminal cases 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-
CF-15977. In or about the summer of 2012 an Assistant State
Attorney indicated Dr. Paylan was eligible for the Pre-Trial
Intervention program and asked me to inquire if Dr. Paylan would be
“interested” in the Pre-Trial Intervention program for case numbers
2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977. The State had not officially
approved the Pre-Trial Intervention program as a resolution for Dr.
Paylan’s criminal cases 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977. The
Assistant State Attorney inquired as to whether Dr. Paylan would be
interested in resolving her cases by entering the program. If Dr.
Paylan were interested, the Assistant State Attorney would seek
approval for Dr. Paylan to enter the Pre-Trial Intervention Program
as a resolution to Dr. Paylan’s criminal cases, 2011-CF-10038 and
2011-CF-15977.
Orally.
No.
In or about summer of 2012.
Orally.
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 7
3. State the case number for every criminal case in which you represented a
medical doctor who has a DEA Registration number prior to assuming
representation of Plaintiff's case.
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. This question is protected by attorney client privilege.
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
4. Based on what factors did you decide to charge Dr. Paylan $150,000.00 to
represent her for her criminal charges? State all other criminal cases in
which you charged a client over $100,000.00 to represent them. State why
$150,000.00 was not an excessive fee for Dr. Paylan’s charges?
a. Noone decided to charge Dr. Paylan $150,000.00. Dr. Paylan was
charged $350.00 an hour for the legal work performed on her behalf.
b. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. This question is protected by attorney client privilege.
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
c. Dr. Paylan was not charged a $150,000.00 fee.
5. State all motions that you filed on behalf of Dr. Paylan in case number 2011-
CF-10038.
Objection. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were
provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this
information.
See Docket sheets for case nos. 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977.
6. State each witness for whom you set depositions in Case 11-CF-10038 and
the reason you set them for deposition.
a. Objection. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were
provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this
information.
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 8
b. All depositions were set to conduct comprehensive discovery in cases
2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977.
7. State why you did not set Joseph Abdo, Michael Quill or any of their family
members for Deposition?
Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous.
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
State why you did not argue to the Circuit Court that Count One of the State’s
January 6, 2012 Information was not part of the same criminal conduct of the
June 9, 2011 arrest of Dr. Paylan? During your representation of Dr. Paylan,
were you aware that the May 31, 2011 prescription for Lorraine Barkett was
mentioned in Detective Bishop's Affidavit for Search Warrant for the June 9,
2011 search of Dr. Paylan’s home?
a. Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous.
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in a better position to have this
information.
b. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in a better position to have this information.
9. For the price of $150,000.00, what did you do in your representation of Dr.
Paylan that an average lawyer would and/or could not do?
Objection. This question is vague, ambiguous and argumentative.
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
10. State what discovery you engaged in regarding whether Dr. Paylan was
falsely arrested for fleeing the country on July 1, 2011.
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 9
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
ed to
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provid
tion.
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this informa
Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous.
Bishop knew
11. State the anerey: if any, you took to determine if Detective
about the June 6, 2011 prescription for Patient LB. before June 9, 2011 arrest
of Dr. Paylan?
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
or
Defendants no longer Dr. Paylan’s files they were provided to success
ounsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information.
and nor
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense
e.
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidenc
three-way
12. During your representation of Dr. Paylan, were you aware of the
and Detective
recorded conversation among Joseph M. Abdo, Michael Quill
call?
Bishop on June 7, 2011? Did you obtain a transcript of the phone
some.
a. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burden
ed to
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provid
this informa tion.
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have
and nor
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense
e.
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidenc
some.
b. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burden
to
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided
this informa tion.
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have
recorded
13. During your representation of Dr. Payian, were you aware of the
June 7, 2011?
conversation between Detective Bishop and John Gonzalez on
Did you obtain a transcript of the phone call?
a. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome.
to
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided
tion.
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this informa
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 10
b. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information.
14. Is it your position that for the price of $150,000.00, you should have argued
every argument that could have been argued in support of Dr. Paylan’s
defense? Did you argue every argument that could have been argued in
support of Dr. Paylan’s defense?
a. Objection. This question is vague, ambiguous and argumentative.
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
b. Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous.
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information.
15. During your presentation of Dr. Paylan, did you file a motion arguing that Dr.
Paylan should not be charged under Section 893.13(7)(a)9, Florida Statutes?
If not, state why not?
a. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this
information. See Docket sheets for case no. 2011-CF-10038 and
2011-CF-15977.
Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to
suecessor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this
information.
16. Why did you not hire an expert witness to testify that Dr. Paylan acted
legally in writing the May 31, 2011 and June 6, 2011 prescriptions? Why did
you not proceed to trial with an expert witness?
a. Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous.
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 11
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this
information.
b. Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous.
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
17. During your representation of Dr. Paylan, what did you do that was a benefit
to Dr. Paylan?
Objection. Plaintiff has exceeded the limit for the number of
interrogatories.
Objection. This question is vague, ambiguous and argumentative.
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to
successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information.
18. List all the case numbers in which you have picked a jury and tried a case
from January 1, 2006 to the present day. When was the date and case
number of your last jury trial?
Objection. Plaintiff has exceeded the limit for the number of interrogatories
permitted by the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a).
Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
19. State any and all legal malpractice insurance which you carry, and/or have
carried since your admission to the Florida Bar, provide the amount of the
premium on such malpractice insurance, the data issues, the date terminated,
if applicable, and Identify the document outlining insurance coverage, limits
and conditions.
Objection. Plaintiff has exceeded the limit for the number of interrogatories
permitted by the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a).
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 12
20. Please state if you have ever been a party, either plaintiff or defendant, in a
lawsuit other that the present matter, and, if so, state whether you were
plaintiff or defendant, the nature of the action, the case number, the
presiding judge(s), and the date and court in which such suit was filed.
Objection. Plaintiff has exceeded the limit for the number of interrogatories
permitted by the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a).
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 13
5 Se
x 4?
\ ¢
Signature a ML
/ /
/
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH
BEFORE ME, the ut authority, personall
ow iT A< eal produced _¥\oVi \ on 1;Liceagh
identification, who is personally known to me, and is known to be the person to
execute the foregoing statement, who took an oath and swore that the foregoing is
true.
aN
DATED this__/ day of , 2016.
fr
~—
NOTARY PU! ~ STATE
OF FLORIDA
WICOLE SANTIAGO
Notary Public - State of Florida
3 My Comm. Expires May 24. 2016
Commission # EE 201678 Printed Name,
el¢ \Aan
qc
oeAs 4 19 vy
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 14
From: Matt Leibert
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016
3:22 Pm
To: 'Matt Farmer'
Subject: RE: Paylan v. Farmer & Fitz
gerald
Mr. Farmer:
Attached is a proposed Motion
to Com pel Answers to Interrogatories. Please consid
attempt to obtain the requested ler this to be my good faith effort
reli ief from you without a hear
ing. to
to file the requested answers | will file the M lotion in 10 days unless you
to the interrogatories. are willing
Sincerely,
Matt Leibert, Esquire
EXHIBIT B
10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13} th Judicial Circuit Page 15
Preview
Filing # 47966806 E-Filed 10/24/2016 12:20:32 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: 15-CA-11630 DR. CHRISTINA PAYLAN Plaintiff, V. TIMOTHY FITZGERALD,ESQ. An individual, and FARMER & FITZGERALD, PA, a Florida Corporation, Defendants. / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS INTERROGATORIES TO FIRST Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.380, Plaintiff, DR. CHRISTINA PAYLAN, by and through undersigned counsel, moves this honorable court to compel the Defendants, Timothy Fitzgerald, Esq. ,“Defendant Fitzgerald”, and Farmer & Fitzgerald, PA, “Defendant Corporation” to answer interrogatory questions that have not been answered, and would state in support thereof: BACKGROUND FACTS 1. Plaintiff served the Defendant’s with First Interrogatories on April 15, 2016. 2. The Defendants Served Plaintiff with responses on May 16, 2016. The Defendants’ responses are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 The Defendants refused to answer questions numbered 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 based on the ground that the interrogatories were not relevant to discovery in this action. 4. Defendants also refused to answer interrogatories 19 and 20 based on the premise that they exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories allowable pursuant to Rules of Civil Page 1 of4 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 1 Procedure. 4. Plaintiff's unanswered interrogatory questions were relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to information that is relevant to Plaintiff's case. LEGAL STAN 5. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1). If a party fails to appropriately respond to a discovery request, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer in accordance with the discovery requests. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(2). Evasive or incomplete answers are treated as a failure to respond. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(3). “If the motion [to compel] is granted and after opportunity for hearing, the court shall require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or counsel advising the conduct to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order that may include attorneys’ fees.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(4). “The interrogatories shall not exceed 30, including all subparts, unless the court permits a larger number on motion and notice and for good cause.” Jd. Subparts do not constitute separate interrogatories when they are “‘logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.” Powell v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., 2008 WL 2473748, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2008) (quoting Oliver v. City of Orlando, 2007 WL 3232227, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007)).! Stated another way, “an interrogatory containing subparts directed at eliciting details concerning a “common theme’ should generally be considered a single question.” Border Collie Rescue, Inc. v. Ryan, 2005 WL 662724, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar.15, 2005). By way of example, the following types of interrogatories have been deemed to be not discrete and, hence, constitute one interrogatory: qa) questions about persons with knowledge and the subject area of their knowledge; Page 2 of4 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 2 2) questions about prior lawsuits, the nature of the cause of action, the parties, the court in which the lawsuit was filed, and the dates filed; (3) questions about witness statements, by and to whom made, when made, and the substance and context of the statements; (4) questions about persons with documentary evidence in their possession, custody, and control, what documents they have, the location of the documents, and when the documents were prepared; (5) questions about expert witnesses, their addresses, qualifications, subject matter of their testimony, and grounds for their opinions; (6) questions about damages, when the damages occurred, to whom expenses were paid; and (7) questions about lost income, benefits, or earning capacity, the nature of each loss, and how the loss was computed. Calderon v. Reederei Claus-Peter Offen GmbH & Co., 2008 WL 4194810, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2008). 6. Based on the foregoing, Defendants are required to answer to Interrogatories 19 and 20, with having waived their objections to respond based on the failure to respond. 7 Based on the foregoing, given the direct relevancy of interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Defendants are required to submit full and responsive answers to these interrogatories. 8 Plaintiff has sent this Motion to Counsel for the Defendants in a good faith effort to obtain the relief sought without the need of a hearing. That letter to Matthew Farmer Esquire is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 9 Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.380(a)(4), Plaintiff requests reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees and costs for obtaining an order on this Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. Page 3 of4 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHRISTINA PAYLAN, MD, respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to First Interrogatories, grant sanctions for failure to respond by opposing counsel, and grant any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a true and correct copy of this Motion was served by electronic mail to counsel for defendants, Matthew Farmer, Esq. at mattfarmerl@aol.com. on this 24'" day of October, 2016. 4s/ Christina Paylan, M.D. CHRISTINA PAYLAN, MD P.O. BOX 66442 St. Pete Beach, Florida 33736 Tel: (813) 877-8183 Email: drpaylan@bodytuck.com Page 4 of4 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION DR. CHRISTINA PAYLAN, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 15-CA-011630 v. TIMOTHY FITZGERALD, ESQ., an Individual, and FARMER & FITZGERALD, P.A., a Florida Corporation, DIVISION: G Defendants. a - DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, hereby serve their responses to plaintiffs interrogatories served April 15, 2016. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2016. (s/ Matthew Farmer Matthew Farmer, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 0793469 102 W. Whiting St., Suite 501 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 228-0095 FAX (813) 224-0269 Mattfarmer1 @aol.com EXHIBIT A 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 5 CERTIFICATE OF $ ice 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was served electronically this 16" day of May, 2016 on: Matthew Leibert, Esq., 200 S.Orange Ave., Suite 2000, Orlando, FL 32801 at leibert@urbanthier.com. s/ Matthew farme isMatthew Farmer Counsel for Defendants 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 6 INTERROGATORIES 1. Please identify the name and address of each individual answering these interrogatories and the person’s official position or relationship with the party to whom these Interrogatories are directed. To the extent more than one individual is participated in answering these Interrogatories, please provide which interrogatory and subparts thereof that each individual assisted in answering. Timothy J. Fitzgerald 102 West Whiting St. Suite 501 Tampa, FL 33602 Matthew P. Farmer 102 West Whiting St. Suite 501 Tampa, FL 33602 State the date when the State Attorney’s Office offered Pre-Trial Intervention as a resolution for Dr. Paylan’s criminal case in case number 2011-CF-10038. How was the offer of Pre-Trial Intervention offered by the State? Was it in writing? On what date did you convey the State's offer to Dr. Paylan? How did you convey the State’s offer to Dr. Paylan? a. The State Attorney's Office did not “offer” Pre-trial Intervention as a resolution for Dr. Paylan’s criminal cases 2011-CF-10038 and 2011- CF-15977. In or about the summer of 2012 an Assistant State Attorney indicated Dr. Paylan was eligible for the Pre-Trial Intervention program and asked me to inquire if Dr. Paylan would be “interested” in the Pre-Trial Intervention program for case numbers 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977. The State had not officially approved the Pre-Trial Intervention program as a resolution for Dr. Paylan’s criminal cases 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977. The Assistant State Attorney inquired as to whether Dr. Paylan would be interested in resolving her cases by entering the program. If Dr. Paylan were interested, the Assistant State Attorney would seek approval for Dr. Paylan to enter the Pre-Trial Intervention Program as a resolution to Dr. Paylan’s criminal cases, 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977. Orally. No. In or about summer of 2012. Orally. 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 7 3. State the case number for every criminal case in which you represented a medical doctor who has a DEA Registration number prior to assuming representation of Plaintiff's case. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. This question is protected by attorney client privilege. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. 4. Based on what factors did you decide to charge Dr. Paylan $150,000.00 to represent her for her criminal charges? State all other criminal cases in which you charged a client over $100,000.00 to represent them. State why $150,000.00 was not an excessive fee for Dr. Paylan’s charges? a. Noone decided to charge Dr. Paylan $150,000.00. Dr. Paylan was charged $350.00 an hour for the legal work performed on her behalf. b. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. This question is protected by attorney client privilege. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. c. Dr. Paylan was not charged a $150,000.00 fee. 5. State all motions that you filed on behalf of Dr. Paylan in case number 2011- CF-10038. Objection. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. See Docket sheets for case nos. 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977. 6. State each witness for whom you set depositions in Case 11-CF-10038 and the reason you set them for deposition. a. Objection. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 8 b. All depositions were set to conduct comprehensive discovery in cases 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977. 7. State why you did not set Joseph Abdo, Michael Quill or any of their family members for Deposition? Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. State why you did not argue to the Circuit Court that Count One of the State’s January 6, 2012 Information was not part of the same criminal conduct of the June 9, 2011 arrest of Dr. Paylan? During your representation of Dr. Paylan, were you aware that the May 31, 2011 prescription for Lorraine Barkett was mentioned in Detective Bishop's Affidavit for Search Warrant for the June 9, 2011 search of Dr. Paylan’s home? a. Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in a better position to have this information. b. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in a better position to have this information. 9. For the price of $150,000.00, what did you do in your representation of Dr. Paylan that an average lawyer would and/or could not do? Objection. This question is vague, ambiguous and argumentative. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. 10. State what discovery you engaged in regarding whether Dr. Paylan was falsely arrested for fleeing the country on July 1, 2011. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 9 Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. ed to Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provid tion. successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this informa Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous. Bishop knew 11. State the anerey: if any, you took to determine if Detective about the June 6, 2011 prescription for Patient LB. before June 9, 2011 arrest of Dr. Paylan? Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. or Defendants no longer Dr. Paylan’s files they were provided to success ounsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. and nor Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense e. reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidenc three-way 12. During your representation of Dr. Paylan, were you aware of the and Detective recorded conversation among Joseph M. Abdo, Michael Quill call? Bishop on June 7, 2011? Did you obtain a transcript of the phone some. a. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burden ed to Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provid this informa tion. successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have and nor Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense e. reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidenc some. b. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burden to Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided this informa tion. successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have recorded 13. During your representation of Dr. Payian, were you aware of the June 7, 2011? conversation between Detective Bishop and John Gonzalez on Did you obtain a transcript of the phone call? a. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome. to Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided tion. successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this informa 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 10 b. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. 14. Is it your position that for the price of $150,000.00, you should have argued every argument that could have been argued in support of Dr. Paylan’s defense? Did you argue every argument that could have been argued in support of Dr. Paylan’s defense? a. Objection. This question is vague, ambiguous and argumentative. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. b. Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. 15. During your presentation of Dr. Paylan, did you file a motion arguing that Dr. Paylan should not be charged under Section 893.13(7)(a)9, Florida Statutes? If not, state why not? a. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. See Docket sheets for case no. 2011-CF-10038 and 2011-CF-15977. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to suecessor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. 16. Why did you not hire an expert witness to testify that Dr. Paylan acted legally in writing the May 31, 2011 and June 6, 2011 prescriptions? Why did you not proceed to trial with an expert witness? a. Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous. 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 11 Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. b. Objection. This question is vague and ambiguous. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. 17. During your representation of Dr. Paylan, what did you do that was a benefit to Dr. Paylan? Objection. Plaintiff has exceeded the limit for the number of interrogatories. Objection. This question is vague, ambiguous and argumentative. Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. This question in overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants no longer have Dr. Paylan’s files as they were provided to successor counsel. Plaintiff is in better position to have this information. 18. List all the case numbers in which you have picked a jury and tried a case from January 1, 2006 to the present day. When was the date and case number of your last jury trial? Objection. Plaintiff has exceeded the limit for the number of interrogatories permitted by the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a). Objection. This question is irrelevant to any claim or defense and nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objection. This question is overly broad and unduly burdensome. 19. State any and all legal malpractice insurance which you carry, and/or have carried since your admission to the Florida Bar, provide the amount of the premium on such malpractice insurance, the data issues, the date terminated, if applicable, and Identify the document outlining insurance coverage, limits and conditions. Objection. Plaintiff has exceeded the limit for the number of interrogatories permitted by the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a). 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 12 20. Please state if you have ever been a party, either plaintiff or defendant, in a lawsuit other that the present matter, and, if so, state whether you were plaintiff or defendant, the nature of the action, the case number, the presiding judge(s), and the date and court in which such suit was filed. Objection. Plaintiff has exceeded the limit for the number of interrogatories permitted by the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(a). 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 13 5 Se x 4? \ ¢ Signature a ML / / / STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH BEFORE ME, the ut authority, personall ow iT A< eal produced _¥\oVi \ on 1;Liceagh identification, who is personally known to me, and is known to be the person to execute the foregoing statement, who took an oath and swore that the foregoing is true. aN DATED this__/ day of , 2016. fr ~— NOTARY PU! ~ STATE OF FLORIDA WICOLE SANTIAGO Notary Public - State of Florida 3 My Comm. Expires May 24. 2016 Commission # EE 201678 Printed Name, el¢ \Aan qc oeAs 4 19 vy 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 14 From: Matt Leibert Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 3:22 Pm To: 'Matt Farmer' Subject: RE: Paylan v. Farmer & Fitz gerald Mr. Farmer: Attached is a proposed Motion to Com pel Answers to Interrogatories. Please consid attempt to obtain the requested ler this to be my good faith effort reli ief from you without a hear ing. to to file the requested answers | will file the M lotion in 10 days unless you to the interrogatories. are willing Sincerely, Matt Leibert, Esquire EXHIBIT B 10/24/2016 12:20 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13} th Judicial Circuit Page 15