Preview
Filing # 73619024 E-Filed 06/15/2018 10:50:55 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17'4 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE-14-001087 (04)
PLANET T UNIFORMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FLORIDA CHARTER FOUNDATION, INC.
D/B/A FRANKLIN ACADEMY CHARTER
SCHOOL, DISCOVERY SCHOOLS, INC.,
iUNIFORMS, INC., RICHARD SHELLOW, JON
THOMAS ROGERS, AND SCOTT SZNITKEN,
Defendants.
=o ey
FLORIDA CHARTER FOUNDATION, INC.,
D/B/A FRANKLIN ACADEMY CHARTER
SCHOOL,
Counter-Plaintiff,
v.
PLANET T UNIFORMS, INC.,
Counter-Defendant.
SSeS,
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA
TO NON-PARTY SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO ANNE E. SZNITKEN
Defendant, Scott Sznitken, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.351, hereby objects to Plaintiff's June 7, 2018 Notice of Intent to Serve
Non-Party Subpoena/ Notice of Production from Non-Party to Anne S. Sznitken and
states as follows:
FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH
1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 + T: 305.350.5690 + F: 305.371.8989
*4* FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 6/15/2018 10:50:55 AM.****1. Scott Sznitken is a Defendant is in this action. The discovery in this case
reveals that Scott Sznitken was named as an individual defendant in bad faith in that
there is no dispute that the conduct of Mr. Sznitken alleged by the Plaintiff was solely in
the course and scope of Mr. Sznitken’s employment and that he derived absolutely no
personal benefit from the baseless and unfounded allegations being asserted against
him.
Zt In a shocking bit of gamesmanship which lays bare and exposes the bad
faith of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff seeks to subpoena the personal financial information of
Mr. Sznitken’s Wife related to a part-time job where Mrs. Sznitken worked for iUniforms
(a co-defendant) distributing school uniforms to the students of Defendant Florida
Charter Foundation, Inc.
3. There are no allegations in any of the many iterations of the complaint
which even refer to Mrs. Sznitken much less implicate her activities during her limited
part-time job. Totally absent from the Complaint is any contention, no matter how
baseless, that would implicate Mrs. Sznitken’s finances. The Subpoena is an improper
and bad faith effort to harass, annoy and embarrass Mr. and Mrs. Sznitken and has no
proper purpose in this litigation. It should not issue.
4, Personal finances are among those private matters kept secret by most
people. Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So.2d 1027, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Winfield v.
Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla.1985)). The right of privacy set forth in
article 1, section 23, of the Florida Constitution “undoubtedly expresses a policy that
2
FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH
1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 * T: 305.350.5690 * F: 305.371.8989 © \WwWALERSELAW.COMcompelled disclosure through discovery be limited to that which is necessary for a court
to determine contested issues.” Id. at 1036. It follows “that the disclosure of personal
financial information may cause irreparable harm to a person forced to disclose it, in a
case in which the information is not relevant.” Straub v. Matte, 805 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2002); Rappaport v. Mercantile Bank, 17 So.3d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (The circuit
court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law because the order requires
Mrs. Rappaport, a nonparty, to disclose personal financial information that is neither
relevant to the Bank’s claims nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. To the extent that the circuit court’s order requires Mrs. Rappaport
to disclose her personal financial information, it undeniably violates her right to
privacy. The disclosure of Mrs. Rappaport’s personal financial information may cause
irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on appeal. Accordingly, we quash the
circuit court’s order to the extent that it requires Mrs. Rappaport to provide information
about her personal finances and to produce her personal financial records.). Diaz-Verson
v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 24 DCA 2010) (Because the information
sought is private financial information that is irrelevant to the allegations against Diaz-
Verson contained in Walbridge’s second amended complaint, we hold that the trial
court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying Diaz-Verson’s
motion for protective order.).
5. The material sought has no connection to any issue in this case and cannot
lead to the discovery of any relevant information. Indeed, Mr. Sznitken already testified
3
FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH
1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 * T: 305.350.5690 * F: 305.371.8989 © \WwWALERSELAW.COMto the fact that his wife worked part-time for iUniforms handing out school uniforms to
for students at Florida Charter Foundation and that the work was for a limited period of
time. Mr. Sznitken also testified that Mrs. Sznitken was compensated for her labor.
Assuming that Plaintiff could tether these facts to a matter in issue, the amount of
money earned by Mrs. Sznitken for her labor would still be irrelevant to any matter at
issue.
6. It is clear that the Plaintiff is attempting to abuse the discovery process in
a bad faith manner by threatening to issue compulsory court process against the wife of a
defendant to obtain information that counsel knows they are not entitled to obtain. As
such, in the event this issue is brought before the Court, the Defendants request that the
Court use its inherent authority to sanction Plaintiff and its counsel for the attorney's
fees, costs and expenses incurred by the Defendants in preparing this objection and
attending any hearing on the same.
FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH
1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 3112
Miami, Florida 33131
Phone: (305) 350-5690
Fax: (305) 371-8989
Attorneys for Florida Charter Foundation, Inc.
d/b/a Franklin Academy Charter School
By: /s/Christopher M. David
CHRISTOPHER M. DAVID
Florida Bar No. 985163
cdavid@fuerstlaw.com
4
FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH
1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 * T: 305.350.5690 * F: 305.371.8989 © \WwWALERSELAW.COMCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 15, 2018, the foregoing was e-filed using
Florida’s e-Filing Portal, and was served on counsel of record via the E-Service list
associated with this action, and served via electronic mail to Plaintiff's counsel, Di
Pietro Partners, LLP, David Di Pietro, Esq. (david@ddpalaw.com;
service@ddpalaw.com; paralegal@ddpalaw.com); Lisandra Estevez, Esq.
(lisandra@ddpalaw.com); Nicole Martell, Esq. (nicole@ddpalaw.com); Rodolfo Mayor,
Esq. (rudy@ddpalaw.com); and to Co-Defendants’ counsel, Greenberg Traurig, P.A.,
Kenneth A. Horky, Esq., John L. McManus, Esq. (flservice@gtlaw.com;
horkyk@gtlaw.com; brownc@gtlaw.com; mcmanusj@gtlaw.com; yeargina@gtlaw.com),.
By: /s/ Christopher M. David
CHRISTOPHER M. DAVID
Florida Bar No. 985163
5
FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH
1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 * T: 305.350.5690 * F: 305.371.8989 © \WwWALERSELAW.COM
Preview
Filing # 73619024 E-Filed 06/15/2018 10:50:55 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17'4 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE-14-001087 (04) PLANET T UNIFORMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA CHARTER FOUNDATION, INC. D/B/A FRANKLIN ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, DISCOVERY SCHOOLS, INC., iUNIFORMS, INC., RICHARD SHELLOW, JON THOMAS ROGERS, AND SCOTT SZNITKEN, Defendants. =o ey FLORIDA CHARTER FOUNDATION, INC., D/B/A FRANKLIN ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, Counter-Plaintiff, v. PLANET T UNIFORMS, INC., Counter-Defendant. SSeS, DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO NON-PARTY SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO ANNE E. SZNITKEN Defendant, Scott Sznitken, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.351, hereby objects to Plaintiff's June 7, 2018 Notice of Intent to Serve Non-Party Subpoena/ Notice of Production from Non-Party to Anne S. Sznitken and states as follows: FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH 1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 + T: 305.350.5690 + F: 305.371.8989 *4* FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 6/15/2018 10:50:55 AM.****1. Scott Sznitken is a Defendant is in this action. The discovery in this case reveals that Scott Sznitken was named as an individual defendant in bad faith in that there is no dispute that the conduct of Mr. Sznitken alleged by the Plaintiff was solely in the course and scope of Mr. Sznitken’s employment and that he derived absolutely no personal benefit from the baseless and unfounded allegations being asserted against him. Zt In a shocking bit of gamesmanship which lays bare and exposes the bad faith of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff seeks to subpoena the personal financial information of Mr. Sznitken’s Wife related to a part-time job where Mrs. Sznitken worked for iUniforms (a co-defendant) distributing school uniforms to the students of Defendant Florida Charter Foundation, Inc. 3. There are no allegations in any of the many iterations of the complaint which even refer to Mrs. Sznitken much less implicate her activities during her limited part-time job. Totally absent from the Complaint is any contention, no matter how baseless, that would implicate Mrs. Sznitken’s finances. The Subpoena is an improper and bad faith effort to harass, annoy and embarrass Mr. and Mrs. Sznitken and has no proper purpose in this litigation. It should not issue. 4, Personal finances are among those private matters kept secret by most people. Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So.2d 1027, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla.1985)). The right of privacy set forth in article 1, section 23, of the Florida Constitution “undoubtedly expresses a policy that 2 FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH 1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 * T: 305.350.5690 * F: 305.371.8989 © \WwWALERSELAW.COMcompelled disclosure through discovery be limited to that which is necessary for a court to determine contested issues.” Id. at 1036. It follows “that the disclosure of personal financial information may cause irreparable harm to a person forced to disclose it, in a case in which the information is not relevant.” Straub v. Matte, 805 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Rappaport v. Mercantile Bank, 17 So.3d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (The circuit court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law because the order requires Mrs. Rappaport, a nonparty, to disclose personal financial information that is neither relevant to the Bank’s claims nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that the circuit court’s order requires Mrs. Rappaport to disclose her personal financial information, it undeniably violates her right to privacy. The disclosure of Mrs. Rappaport’s personal financial information may cause irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on appeal. Accordingly, we quash the circuit court’s order to the extent that it requires Mrs. Rappaport to provide information about her personal finances and to produce her personal financial records.). Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 24 DCA 2010) (Because the information sought is private financial information that is irrelevant to the allegations against Diaz- Verson contained in Walbridge’s second amended complaint, we hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying Diaz-Verson’s motion for protective order.). 5. The material sought has no connection to any issue in this case and cannot lead to the discovery of any relevant information. Indeed, Mr. Sznitken already testified 3 FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH 1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 * T: 305.350.5690 * F: 305.371.8989 © \WwWALERSELAW.COMto the fact that his wife worked part-time for iUniforms handing out school uniforms to for students at Florida Charter Foundation and that the work was for a limited period of time. Mr. Sznitken also testified that Mrs. Sznitken was compensated for her labor. Assuming that Plaintiff could tether these facts to a matter in issue, the amount of money earned by Mrs. Sznitken for her labor would still be irrelevant to any matter at issue. 6. It is clear that the Plaintiff is attempting to abuse the discovery process in a bad faith manner by threatening to issue compulsory court process against the wife of a defendant to obtain information that counsel knows they are not entitled to obtain. As such, in the event this issue is brought before the Court, the Defendants request that the Court use its inherent authority to sanction Plaintiff and its counsel for the attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred by the Defendants in preparing this objection and attending any hearing on the same. FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH 1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 3112 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: (305) 350-5690 Fax: (305) 371-8989 Attorneys for Florida Charter Foundation, Inc. d/b/a Franklin Academy Charter School By: /s/Christopher M. David CHRISTOPHER M. DAVID Florida Bar No. 985163 cdavid@fuerstlaw.com 4 FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH 1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 * T: 305.350.5690 * F: 305.371.8989 © \WwWALERSELAW.COMCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 15, 2018, the foregoing was e-filed using Florida’s e-Filing Portal, and was served on counsel of record via the E-Service list associated with this action, and served via electronic mail to Plaintiff's counsel, Di Pietro Partners, LLP, David Di Pietro, Esq. (david@ddpalaw.com; service@ddpalaw.com; paralegal@ddpalaw.com); Lisandra Estevez, Esq. (lisandra@ddpalaw.com); Nicole Martell, Esq. (nicole@ddpalaw.com); Rodolfo Mayor, Esq. (rudy@ddpalaw.com); and to Co-Defendants’ counsel, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Kenneth A. Horky, Esq., John L. McManus, Esq. (flservice@gtlaw.com; horkyk@gtlaw.com; brownc@gtlaw.com; mcmanusj@gtlaw.com; yeargina@gtlaw.com),. By: /s/ Christopher M. David CHRISTOPHER M. DAVID Florida Bar No. 985163 5 FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH 1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, SUITE 3112, MIAMI, FL 33131 * T: 305.350.5690 * F: 305.371.8989 © \WwWALERSELAW.COM