Preview
Filing # 69351525 E-Filed 03/15/2018 08:40:31 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE-14-001087(04)
PLANET T UNIFORMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
VS.
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.
/
Defendants iUniforms Inc. and Richard Shellow’s Objections to
Plaintiff’s Non-Party Subpoena to Broder Bros., Corp.
Defendants iUniforms, Inc. and Richard Shellow, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.351(b), object to Plaintiff's proposed subpoena to non-party Broder Bros., Corp., as
follows.
Specific Objections to Subpoena Requests
1. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and iUNIFORMS, INC. relating to any
orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any
correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of
payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit, from December 1, 2012
through present.
Objection:
iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and
overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship
from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school
uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order
iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents
between the two companies extending to every facet of their years-long business
1
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 3/15/2018 8:40:31 PM.****relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms,
and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more a year after the
alleged conduct in Plaintiffs Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor
relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. §
53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything
conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances,
the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.!
iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.” Given the
broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder
Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in collecting and producing
responsive documents.’ Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and the
' Heinrich Gordon Batchelder Hargrove Weihe & Gent v. Kapner, 605 So. 2d 1319, 1319 (Fla.
4th DCA 1992) (quashing discovery order permitting inspection of records pertaining to other
clients); Kobi Karp Architecture & Interior Design, Inc. v. Charms 63 Nobe, LLC, 166 So. 3d
916, 920-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (quashing discovery order permitting discovery for records of
defendant’s other customers on other projects, even where plaintiff asserted that the documents
from the other customers would be probative of services to be provided under contract between
plaintiff and defendant); Richard Mulholland & Assoc. y. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla.
2d DCA 1997) (quashing discovery order permitting discovery of retention contracts with other
clients in negligence case, finding “the representation agreements between petitioners and their
other clients are not related to any pending claim or defense, nor was the information shown to
be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”); Nationwide Mut. Fire
Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. Sth DCA 2002) (interrogatory seeking “names and
addresses of other PIP claimants who were advised that a healthcare provider must arbitrate
directly with Nationwide” was “overbroad and a fishing expedition” where other PIP claimants
were not parties and “Nationwide’s handling of their claims is not relevant to the limited
question in this lawsuit as to whether Nationwide acted in bad faith in handling Hess’s claim”);
Inrecon v. Vill. Homes at Country Walk, 644 So. 2d 103, 104-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (quashing
discovery order permitting discovery on three other unrelated projects, finding that “there is no
basis for ordering production of its confidential financial data... regarding work which it
performed for other customers wholly independent of Country Walk,” and stating ‘The rule that
allows a party to request production of its opponent’s records ‘is in no sense designed to afford a
litigant an avenue to pry into his adversary’s business or go on a fishing expedition to uncover
business methods, confidential relations, or other facts pertaining to the business.’”) (quoting
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Balkany, 564 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)).
> Worley v. Central Fla. Young Men’s Christian Ass'n, Inc., Case No. SC15-1086, -- So. 3d --,
2017 WL 1366126, at *5 (Fla. Apr. 13, 2017) (discovery request was unduly burdensome where
it would require 200 hours and over $90,000 in costs on a “collateral issue”).
> Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2) (“In determining any motion involving
discovery of electronically stored information, the court must limit the frequency or extent of
discovery otherwise allowed by these rules if it determines that (i) the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source or in another
manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or (ii) the burden or expense
2burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being forced to
respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this
non-party.*
iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other
purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair
competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between
iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business
terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has
no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.
Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that
to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends
the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify
the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the
ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part.
Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or
any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.°
of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues”).
4 First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Services, Inc., 127 So, 3d 691, 693 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2013) (quashing order denying protective order where production of documents would
require non-party “employee time” and trial court “made no provision for the payment of [non-
party’s] costs, holding “[t]he failure to make provision for the cost to a non-party to produce
subpoenaed documents constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law”); Allstate
Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 855 So. 2d 636, 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“It is appropriate for a court to
require a party to post a bond to indemnify the producing party against the costs of discovery
when the cost is unreasonable and unduly burdensome), rev. den., 870 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2004);
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1) (“The court may specify conditions of the discovery, including
ordering that some or all of the expenses incurred by the person from whom discovery is sought
be paid by the party seeking the discovery”).
5 Ferrandino v. Riley, -- So. 3d --, 2018 WL 493214, at *1 (Fla. Ist DCA Jan. 22, 2018)
(affirming order quashing non-party subpoena where subpoena subjected non-party to oppressive
burden and was harassing); Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So. 2d 652, 654
(Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing discovery order permitting discovery of defendant’s other
contracts with third parties, thereby “exposing all of the financial arrangements he has made with
customers”); Sugarmill Woods Civic Ass’n v. Southern States Utilities, 687 So. 2d 1346, 1349
(Fla. Ist DCA 1997) (affirming order quashing subpoenas, stating that the trial court has
discretion “to prevent discovery which it believes is a mere fishing expedition calculated for
harassment”).
° AAR Mfg., Inc. v. Matrix Composites, Inc., 98 So. 3d 186, 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“{iJn trade
secret misappropriation cases, a plaintiff is required to identify with reasonable particularity the
32. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and RICHARD SHELLOW relating to
any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any
correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of
payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit etc. from December 1,
2012 through present.
Objection:
iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and
overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship
from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school
uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order
iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents
between Broder Bros. and Richard Shellow extending to every facet of a years-long
business relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school
uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a
year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiffs own allegations, its
vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am.
Compit. 4 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything
conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances,
the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.”
iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.* Given the
broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder
Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing
any responsive documents.’ Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and
the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being forced to
respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this
non-party.
trade secrets at issue before proceeding with discovery”), rev. den., 130 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 2013)
(citing Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 148 F. Supp.2d 1322 (S.D. Fla.
May 21, 2000) (plaintiff required to identify trade secrets at issue with particularity prior to
defendant responding to discovery)); Revello Medical Mgmt., Inc. v. Med-Data Infotech USA,
Inc., 50 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“before proceeding with discovery in this kind of
suit [for misappropriation of trade secrets], the plaintiff must identify with reasonable
particularity the nature of the trade secret involved”), clarified in AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188.
7 Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland,
698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05.
* Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5.
° Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2).
° First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1).
4iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other
purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair
competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between
iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business
terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has
no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.''
Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that
to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends
the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify
the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the
ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part.
Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or
any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.'*
3. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and FLORIDA CHARTER
FOUNDATION, INC. D/B/A FRANKLIN ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL relating to any
orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any
correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of
payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit etc. from December 1,
2012 through present.
Objection:
iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and
overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship
from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school
uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order
iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents
between Broder Bros. and Franklin extending to every facet of a years-long business
relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms,
and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after
the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor
relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. §
53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything
conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these (circumstances,
the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.!
/ Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So.
2d at 1349.
2 AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680.
'3 Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland,
698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Imrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05.
5iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.'* Given the
broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder
Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing
any responsive documents.'* Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested,
and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being
forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the
costs to this non-party.!
iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other
purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair
competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between
iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business
terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has
no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.'”
Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that
to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends
the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify
the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the
ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part.
Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or
any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.'*
4, All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and DISCOVERY SCHOOLS, INC.
relating to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not
limited to any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists,
proof of payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit etc. from
December 1, 2012 through present.
Objection:
iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and
overbreadth, Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship
from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school
uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order
iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents
between Broder Bros. and Discovery Schools extending to every facet of a years-long
'4 Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5.
'S Pla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2).
'© First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1).
'” Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So.
2d at 1349.
'§ 44R, 98 So, 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680.
6business relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school
uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a
year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiffs own allegations, its
vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am.
Compit. § 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything
conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances,
the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.'?
iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.” Given the
broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder
Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing
any responsive documents.”’ Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested,
and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being
forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the
costs to this non-party.””
iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other
purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair
competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between
iUniforms and Broder Bros—two private companies—which contracts and business
terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has
no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.”?
Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that
to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends
the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify
the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the
ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part.
Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or
any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.™*
'° Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland,
698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05.
” Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5.
21 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2).
First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1).
23 Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So.
2d at 1349.
>4 AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680.
75. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and SCOTT SZNITKEN relating to
any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any
correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of
payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit etc. from December 1,
2012 through present.
Objection:
iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and
overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship
from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school
uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order
iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents
between Broder Bros. and Sznitken extending to every facet of a years-long business
relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms,
and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after
the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor
relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. §
53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything
conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances,
the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.”
iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.”° Given the
broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder
Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing
any responsive documents.”” Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested,
and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being
forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the
costs to this non-party.”
iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other
purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair
competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between
iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business
terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has
no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.”°
°5 Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland,
698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05.
6 Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5.
27 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2).
*8 First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1).
? Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So.
2d at 1349.Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that
to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends
the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify
the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the
ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part.
Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or
any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.”
6. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and JON THOMAS ROGERS relating
to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to
any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of
payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit, etc. from December 1,
2012 through present.
Objection:
iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and
overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship
from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school
uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order
iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents
between Broder Bros. and Rogers extending to every facet of a years-long business
relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms,
and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after
the alleged conduct in Plaintiffs Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor
relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. §
53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything
conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances,
the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.*!
iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.” Given the
broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder
Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing
any responsive documents.’ Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested,
and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being
*° AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680.
3! Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland,
698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05.
*» Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5.
3 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2).
9forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the
costs to this non-party.>
iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other
purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair
competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between
iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business
terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has
no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.”
Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that
to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends
the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify
the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the
ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part.
Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or
any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.*°
7. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and ELSA RODRIGUEZ relating to
any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any
correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of
payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit, etc. from December 1,
2012 through present.
Objection:
iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and
overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship
from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school
uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order
iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents
between Broder Bros. and Elsa Rodriguiez (iUniforms’ former manager) extending to
every facet of a years-long business relationship—which (1) in part does not even
concern the provision of school uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not
even begin until more than a year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By
Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at
the latest. See Third Am. Complt. 4 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well
outside the range of anything conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this
* First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1).
3 Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So.
2d at 1349.
> AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680.
10action. Under these circumstances, the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing
expedition, and is improper.*”
iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.** Given the
broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder
Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing
any responsive documents.” Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested,
and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being
forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the
costs to this non-party.*”
iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other
purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair
competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between
iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business
terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has
no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.*!
Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that
to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends
the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify
the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the
ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part.
Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or
any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.”
Respectfully Submitted,
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendants iUniforms, Inc.
and Richard Shellow
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 2000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
37 Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland,
698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05.
8 Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5.
*° Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2).
* First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1).
4! Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So.
2d at 1349.
* 4AR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680.
11Telephone: (954) 765-0500
Telefax: (954) 765-1477
By: __/s/Richard Rosengarten
KENNETH A. HORKY
Florida Bar Number 691194
HorkyK@gtlaw.com
muchlfeldern@ gtlaw.com
RICHARD ROSENGARTEN
Llorida Bar Number 0106169
Roser tenRich@gtlaw.com
rosr@gtlaw.com
FLServic tlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically
filed in this action on March 15, 2018, through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, and that the
Portal was used as a means to serve the e-filed document upon all counsel and parties on the e-
service list associated with this action.
By: __/s/Richard Rosengarten
RICHARD ROSENGARTEN
12
Preview
Filing # 69351525 E-Filed 03/15/2018 08:40:31 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE-14-001087(04) PLANET T UNIFORMS, INC., Plaintiff, VS. 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. / Defendants iUniforms Inc. and Richard Shellow’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Non-Party Subpoena to Broder Bros., Corp. Defendants iUniforms, Inc. and Richard Shellow, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(b), object to Plaintiff's proposed subpoena to non-party Broder Bros., Corp., as follows. Specific Objections to Subpoena Requests 1. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and iUNIFORMS, INC. relating to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit, from December 1, 2012 through present. Objection: iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents between the two companies extending to every facet of their years-long business 1 *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 3/15/2018 8:40:31 PM.****relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more a year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiffs Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. § 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances, the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.! iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.” Given the broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in collecting and producing responsive documents.’ Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and the ' Heinrich Gordon Batchelder Hargrove Weihe & Gent v. Kapner, 605 So. 2d 1319, 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (quashing discovery order permitting inspection of records pertaining to other clients); Kobi Karp Architecture & Interior Design, Inc. v. Charms 63 Nobe, LLC, 166 So. 3d 916, 920-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (quashing discovery order permitting discovery for records of defendant’s other customers on other projects, even where plaintiff asserted that the documents from the other customers would be probative of services to be provided under contract between plaintiff and defendant); Richard Mulholland & Assoc. y. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (quashing discovery order permitting discovery of retention contracts with other clients in negligence case, finding “the representation agreements between petitioners and their other clients are not related to any pending claim or defense, nor was the information shown to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. Sth DCA 2002) (interrogatory seeking “names and addresses of other PIP claimants who were advised that a healthcare provider must arbitrate directly with Nationwide” was “overbroad and a fishing expedition” where other PIP claimants were not parties and “Nationwide’s handling of their claims is not relevant to the limited question in this lawsuit as to whether Nationwide acted in bad faith in handling Hess’s claim”); Inrecon v. Vill. Homes at Country Walk, 644 So. 2d 103, 104-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (quashing discovery order permitting discovery on three other unrelated projects, finding that “there is no basis for ordering production of its confidential financial data... regarding work which it performed for other customers wholly independent of Country Walk,” and stating ‘The rule that allows a party to request production of its opponent’s records ‘is in no sense designed to afford a litigant an avenue to pry into his adversary’s business or go on a fishing expedition to uncover business methods, confidential relations, or other facts pertaining to the business.’”) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Balkany, 564 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)). > Worley v. Central Fla. Young Men’s Christian Ass'n, Inc., Case No. SC15-1086, -- So. 3d --, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5 (Fla. Apr. 13, 2017) (discovery request was unduly burdensome where it would require 200 hours and over $90,000 in costs on a “collateral issue”). > Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2) (“In determining any motion involving discovery of electronically stored information, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules if it determines that (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source or in another manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or (ii) the burden or expense 2burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this non-party.* iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action. Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part. Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.° of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues”). 4 First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Services, Inc., 127 So, 3d 691, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quashing order denying protective order where production of documents would require non-party “employee time” and trial court “made no provision for the payment of [non- party’s] costs, holding “[t]he failure to make provision for the cost to a non-party to produce subpoenaed documents constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hodges, 855 So. 2d 636, 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“It is appropriate for a court to require a party to post a bond to indemnify the producing party against the costs of discovery when the cost is unreasonable and unduly burdensome), rev. den., 870 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2004); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1) (“The court may specify conditions of the discovery, including ordering that some or all of the expenses incurred by the person from whom discovery is sought be paid by the party seeking the discovery”). 5 Ferrandino v. Riley, -- So. 3d --, 2018 WL 493214, at *1 (Fla. Ist DCA Jan. 22, 2018) (affirming order quashing non-party subpoena where subpoena subjected non-party to oppressive burden and was harassing); Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quashing discovery order permitting discovery of defendant’s other contracts with third parties, thereby “exposing all of the financial arrangements he has made with customers”); Sugarmill Woods Civic Ass’n v. Southern States Utilities, 687 So. 2d 1346, 1349 (Fla. Ist DCA 1997) (affirming order quashing subpoenas, stating that the trial court has discretion “to prevent discovery which it believes is a mere fishing expedition calculated for harassment”). ° AAR Mfg., Inc. v. Matrix Composites, Inc., 98 So. 3d 186, 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“{iJn trade secret misappropriation cases, a plaintiff is required to identify with reasonable particularity the 32. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and RICHARD SHELLOW relating to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit etc. from December 1, 2012 through present. Objection: iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents between Broder Bros. and Richard Shellow extending to every facet of a years-long business relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiffs own allegations, its vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Compit. 4 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances, the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.” iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.* Given the broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing any responsive documents.’ Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this non-party. trade secrets at issue before proceeding with discovery”), rev. den., 130 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 2013) (citing Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 148 F. Supp.2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2000) (plaintiff required to identify trade secrets at issue with particularity prior to defendant responding to discovery)); Revello Medical Mgmt., Inc. v. Med-Data Infotech USA, Inc., 50 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“before proceeding with discovery in this kind of suit [for misappropriation of trade secrets], the plaintiff must identify with reasonable particularity the nature of the trade secret involved”), clarified in AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188. 7 Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland, 698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05. * Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5. ° Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2). ° First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1). 4iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.'' Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part. Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.'* 3. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and FLORIDA CHARTER FOUNDATION, INC. D/B/A FRANKLIN ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL relating to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit etc. from December 1, 2012 through present. Objection: iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents between Broder Bros. and Franklin extending to every facet of a years-long business relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. § 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these (circumstances, the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.! / Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So. 2d at 1349. 2 AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680. '3 Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland, 698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Imrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05. 5iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.'* Given the broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing any responsive documents.'* Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this non-party.! iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.'” Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part. Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.'* 4, All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and DISCOVERY SCHOOLS, INC. relating to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit etc. from December 1, 2012 through present. Objection: iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and overbreadth, Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents between Broder Bros. and Discovery Schools extending to every facet of a years-long '4 Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5. 'S Pla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2). '© First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1). '” Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So. 2d at 1349. '§ 44R, 98 So, 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680. 6business relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiffs own allegations, its vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Compit. § 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances, the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.'? iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.” Given the broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing any responsive documents.”’ Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this non-party.”” iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between iUniforms and Broder Bros—two private companies—which contracts and business terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.”? Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part. Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.™* '° Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland, 698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05. ” Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5. 21 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2). First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1). 23 Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So. 2d at 1349. >4 AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680. 75. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and SCOTT SZNITKEN relating to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit etc. from December 1, 2012 through present. Objection: iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents between Broder Bros. and Sznitken extending to every facet of a years-long business relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. § 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances, the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.” iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.”° Given the broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing any responsive documents.”” Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this non-party.” iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.”° °5 Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland, 698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05. 6 Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5. 27 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2). *8 First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1). ? Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So. 2d at 1349.Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part. Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.” 6. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and JON THOMAS ROGERS relating to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit, etc. from December 1, 2012 through present. Objection: iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents between Broder Bros. and Rogers extending to every facet of a years-long business relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiffs Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. § 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Under these circumstances, the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.*! iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.” Given the broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing any responsive documents.’ Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being *° AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680. 3! Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland, 698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05. *» Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5. 3 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2). 9forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this non-party.> iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.” Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part. Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.*° 7. All documents between Broder Bros., Co. and ELSA RODRIGUEZ relating to any orders placed with your company for uniforms of any kind including but not limited to any correspondence, e-mails, work orders, specifications, contracts, inventory lists, proof of payment, payment information, credit application, extensions of credit, etc. from December 1, 2012 through present. Objection: iUniforms and Shellow object to this Request on the basis of relevancy and overbreadth. Broder Bros. and iUniforms have a supplier-vendor business relationship from December 2014 concerning school uniforms as well as items that are not school uniforms. This Request seeks no less than every document showing every order iUniforms has ever placed with Broder Bros., plus a broad sweep of all other documents between Broder Bros. and Elsa Rodriguiez (iUniforms’ former manager) extending to every facet of a years-long business relationship—which (1) in part does not even concern the provision of school uniforms, and (2) with respect to school uniforms, did not even begin until more than a year after the alleged conduct in Plaintiff's Complaint. (By Plaintiff's own allegations, its vendor relationship with Franklin ended by March 2013 at the latest. See Third Am. Complt. 4 53-54). The Request thus seeks documents well outside the range of anything conceivably relevant to the claims and defenses in this * First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1). 3 Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So. 2d at 1349. > AAR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680. 10action. Under these circumstances, the subpoena appears to be a bad-faith fishing expedition, and is improper.*” iUniforms and Shellow object to the Request as unduly burdensome.** Given the broad scope of the Request, it would undoubtedly place an undue burden upon Broder Bros., requiring an unwarranted and unjustified expense in searching for and producing any responsive documents.” Given the sheer irrelevancy of the documents requested, and the burden and expense that would surely be placed upon Broder Bros. in being forced to respond, the production cannot be ordered without making provision for the costs to this non-party.*” iUniforms and Shellow object that the Request is designed to accomplish no other purpose than to harass iUniforms and its business partner, and to attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage by discovering the contracts and business terms between iUniforms and Broder Bros.—two private companies—which contracts and business terms Plaintiff would not be entitled to be informed of absent this Subpoena, which has no reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses of this action.*! Making Planet T’s behavior in issuing this subpoena all the more troubling is that to date Planet T has failed or refused to identify its alleged trade secrets that it contends the defendants misappropriated. Planet T should, at a minimum, be required to identify the trade secrets it contends the defendants misappropriated in order to justify the ostensible relevancy of such an all-encompassing request, in whole or in part. Accordingly, iUniforms and Shellow request a stay of all discovery from Defendants or any non-party until Plaintiff identifies the purported trade secrets.” Respectfully Submitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. Attorneys for Defendants iUniforms, Inc. and Richard Shellow 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 37 Heinrich Gordon, 605 So. 2d at 1319; Kobi Karp, 166 So. 3d at 920-21; Richard Mulholland, 698 So. 2d at 1270; Nationwide, 814 So. 2d at 1243; Inrecon, 644 So. 2d at 104-05. 8 Worley, 2017 WL 1366126, at *5. *° Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2). * First Call, 127 So. 3d at 693; Allstate, 855 So. 2d at 642; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1). 4! Ferrandino, 2018 WL 493214, at *1; Grooms, 846 So. 2d at 654; Sugarmill Woods, 687 So. 2d at 1349. * 4AR, 98 So. 3d at 188; Del Monte, 148 F. Supp.2d at 1322; Revello, 50 So. 3d at 680. 11Telephone: (954) 765-0500 Telefax: (954) 765-1477 By: __/s/Richard Rosengarten KENNETH A. HORKY Florida Bar Number 691194 HorkyK@gtlaw.com muchlfeldern@ gtlaw.com RICHARD ROSENGARTEN Llorida Bar Number 0106169 Roser tenRich@gtlaw.com rosr@gtlaw.com FLServic tlaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed in this action on March 15, 2018, through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, and that the Portal was used as a means to serve the e-filed document upon all counsel and parties on the e- service list associated with this action. By: __/s/Richard Rosengarten RICHARD ROSENGARTEN 12