Preview
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 5/30/2013 11:06:58 AM.****
Electronically Filed 05/30/2013 11:06:58 AM ET
ENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
FY. FLORIDA
IN TRE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE S:
N AND FOR BROWARD
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.. SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO BAC HOM)
LP, FKA COUNTRYWIDE
LOANS SERVICING,
HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP Case No. CACE12003696
Plaintiff, Division: i
vs.
NICHOLAS A, DELVECCHIO, MARGARITA
DELVECCHIO A/K/A MARGUARITA
DELVECCHIO, et al.
Defendant(s).
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff's investigation of the facts relating to this case is continuing and the objections and responses to
Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories are based only upon such information and documents as are presently
available to, collectible and/or known by Plaintiff. Plaintiff anticipates that further investigation and analysis may
supply additional facts and additional meaning to the known facts, Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or
supplement, if required by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, any and all responses herein as additional facts are
ascertained. as additional documents are obtained and as additional analysis and contentions are formulated.
A.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests, contained within the interrogatories, to the extent they seek
disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or
any other applicable privilege or doctrine.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests, contained within the interrogatories, to the extent they
purport to impose obligations on plaintiff beyond those imposed by the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The present responses are based upon and reflect only plaintiff's present knowledge, information
is of
and belief. The responses may be subject to change correction, or amplification on the ba
further facts, information or circumstances that may come to plaintiff's attention,
Plaintiff objects to cach of the requests contained within the interrogatories, to the extent that they
seek information already provided to defendant or are not legitimate requests for relevant
information but require undue detail and pose an unnecessary burden and/or expense upon the
answering party in violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff objects to each of the requests contained within the interrogatories, to the extent they
purport to seek documents or information not within plaintiff's immediate control
Plaintiff does not in any way waive or intend to waive, but rather preserves and intends to preserve
(a) all objections as to competency, relevance, materiality and admissibility of any information
provided; (b) all objections as to vagueness, ambiguity, or other infirmity in the interrogatories: (¢)
all objections on any ground to the use of any identified information or documents in any other
proceeding; and (d) all objections to any further discovery requests. Any inadverient disclosure of
privileged information is not intended to and shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable
privilege.nN
wn
Plaintiff reserves the right ¢o amend, modify or supplement its answers to defendant's
tories.
neral objections shall be deemed applicable to and continue in respect to each of the
requests, contained within the interrogatories, answered below. These general objections are
incorporated into each and every one of plaintiff's responses to the interrogatories as set forth
herein. Such objections are not waived, nor in any way limited, by any response to any specific
request.
PLAINTIFF'S SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
As to Interrogatory #2, Plaintiff objects that the interrogatory request is vague and ambiguous to
the extent that the terms “legal interest" and "beneficial interest" are undefined and subject to
multiple interpretations. Without waiving Plaintiff is the designated holder and current servicer of
the subject loan on behalf of Freddie Mac. Please see copies of the note, mortgage and the
assignment of mortgage to be produced. Furthermore Plaintiff is in possession of the original note
and mortgage and will file them as procedure requires. Please refer to the documents themselves
for the clauses therein.
As to Interrogatory #6, Plaintiff objects to this request on two grounds, First, the interrogatory is
not relevant. The amount paid for the acquisition of the mortgage loan is irrelevant to Plaintiff's
right to enforce payment, AAmad v. Cobb Corner, Inc.762 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In
addition, Defendant lacks standing to challenge the value of consideration for the Assignment of
Mortgage. McCampbell v. Aloma Nat'l Bank af Winter Park, 185 So, 2d 756 (Fla. Ist DCA 1966).
As to Interrogatory #7, Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also objects to
the request as vague and ambiguous to the extent that the term "mortgage foan purchase
agreement” is undefined and subject to multiple interpretations.
As to Interrogatory #10, Plaintiff objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, and is a request for confidential third party agreements to which
the Defendant is not a party and is proprietary business information of the Plaintiff.
As to Interrogatory #12, Plaintiff objects to this request as being overbroad or unduly burdensome.
Plaintiff also objects to this request as requesting information (a} which is not relevant to the
subject matter of this action or (b) the discovery of which will not lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
As to Interrogatory #13, Plaintiff objects to providing the requested information as it contains
irrelevant information to the underlying claim and information that is privileged and/or
confidential third party communications. Furthermore it is irrelevant and overbroad.
As to Interrogatory #14, Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information neither
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
As to Interrogatory #15, Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information neither
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
As to Interrogatory #16, Plaintiff objects to this request as being vague. ambiguous and
unintelligible to the extent that it employs the term “minimum legal requirements" which is
undefined and subject to multiple interpretations. Plaintiff further objects to the request because it
seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Plaintiff also objects te this request as calling for specific information protected by
attorney-client privilege and/or as attorney work product and/or as calling for a legal conclusion
As to Interrogatory #17, Plaintiff objects to this request as being vague. ambiguous and
unintelligible to the extent that it uses the terms "indemnify" and “indemnification”, which are
undefined and subject to multiple interpretations. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it
secks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as calling for specific information protected by
attorney-client privilege and/or as attorney work product and/or as calling for a legal conclusion.
As to Interrogatory #18, Plaintiff objects because it seeks information neither relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Piaintiff further objects to
this request as calling for specific information protected by attomey-client privilege and/or as
attomey work product.
As to Interrogatory #20, Plaintiff objects because it seeks information neither relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibie evidence. Plaintiff further objects to
this request as calling for specific information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or as
attorney work product.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Objections to Interrogatories has
been furnished by U.S. mail or Email upon: NICHOL,
104, CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33073; on this 2d, day of
1122433/len
A. DELVECCHIO, 4820 N STATE ROAD 7 APT.
- 2013.
aura Noyes/ Florida Bar #65454
Lnoyes@kasslaw.com
() Paola Huembes/ Florida Bar #084274
PHuembes@kasslaw.com
( ) Jan MacAlister / Florida Bar #086105
IMacA lister@kasslaw.com
(_) Edward B. Pritchard / Florida Bar #712876
EPritcha@kasslaw.com
() Melissa R. Rinaldi / Florida Bar #050252
MRinaldi@kasslaw.com
( ) Nicholas J. Roefaro / Florida Bar #089217
NRoefaro@kasslaw.com
( ) Stacey-Ann B. Saint-Hubert / Florida Bar #0070067
SSaint-Hubert@kasslaw.com
( ) Ashley L. Simon / Florida Bar #064472
ASimon@kasslaw.com
( }Joan Wadler / Florida Bar #894737
JWadler@kasslaw.com
( ) George Zamora / Florida Bar #871605
GZamora@kasslaw.com
Kass Shuler, P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiff
P.O. Box 800, 1505 N. Florida Ave.
Tampa, FL 33601
(813) 229-0900
The Primary e-mail address for electronic service of all
pleadings in this case under Rule 2.516 is as follows:
ForeclosureService@kasslaw.com
Preview
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 5/30/2013 11:06:58 AM.**** Electronically Filed 05/30/2013 11:06:58 AM ET ENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FY. FLORIDA IN TRE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE S: N AND FOR BROWARD BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOM) LP, FKA COUNTRYWIDE LOANS SERVICING, HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP Case No. CACE12003696 Plaintiff, Division: i vs. NICHOLAS A, DELVECCHIO, MARGARITA DELVECCHIO A/K/A MARGUARITA DELVECCHIO, et al. Defendant(s). PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES GENERAL OBJECTIONS Plaintiff's investigation of the facts relating to this case is continuing and the objections and responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available to, collectible and/or known by Plaintiff. Plaintiff anticipates that further investigation and analysis may supply additional facts and additional meaning to the known facts, Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or supplement, if required by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, any and all responses herein as additional facts are ascertained. as additional documents are obtained and as additional analysis and contentions are formulated. A. Plaintiff objects to each of the requests, contained within the interrogatories, to the extent they seek disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or doctrine. Plaintiff objects to each of the requests, contained within the interrogatories, to the extent they purport to impose obligations on plaintiff beyond those imposed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The present responses are based upon and reflect only plaintiff's present knowledge, information is of and belief. The responses may be subject to change correction, or amplification on the ba further facts, information or circumstances that may come to plaintiff's attention, Plaintiff objects to cach of the requests contained within the interrogatories, to the extent that they seek information already provided to defendant or are not legitimate requests for relevant information but require undue detail and pose an unnecessary burden and/or expense upon the answering party in violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff objects to each of the requests contained within the interrogatories, to the extent they purport to seek documents or information not within plaintiff's immediate control Plaintiff does not in any way waive or intend to waive, but rather preserves and intends to preserve (a) all objections as to competency, relevance, materiality and admissibility of any information provided; (b) all objections as to vagueness, ambiguity, or other infirmity in the interrogatories: (¢) all objections on any ground to the use of any identified information or documents in any other proceeding; and (d) all objections to any further discovery requests. Any inadverient disclosure of privileged information is not intended to and shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege.nN wn Plaintiff reserves the right ¢o amend, modify or supplement its answers to defendant's tories. neral objections shall be deemed applicable to and continue in respect to each of the requests, contained within the interrogatories, answered below. These general objections are incorporated into each and every one of plaintiff's responses to the interrogatories as set forth herein. Such objections are not waived, nor in any way limited, by any response to any specific request. PLAINTIFF'S SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES As to Interrogatory #2, Plaintiff objects that the interrogatory request is vague and ambiguous to the extent that the terms “legal interest" and "beneficial interest" are undefined and subject to multiple interpretations. Without waiving Plaintiff is the designated holder and current servicer of the subject loan on behalf of Freddie Mac. Please see copies of the note, mortgage and the assignment of mortgage to be produced. Furthermore Plaintiff is in possession of the original note and mortgage and will file them as procedure requires. Please refer to the documents themselves for the clauses therein. As to Interrogatory #6, Plaintiff objects to this request on two grounds, First, the interrogatory is not relevant. The amount paid for the acquisition of the mortgage loan is irrelevant to Plaintiff's right to enforce payment, AAmad v. Cobb Corner, Inc.762 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In addition, Defendant lacks standing to challenge the value of consideration for the Assignment of Mortgage. McCampbell v. Aloma Nat'l Bank af Winter Park, 185 So, 2d 756 (Fla. Ist DCA 1966). As to Interrogatory #7, Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also objects to the request as vague and ambiguous to the extent that the term "mortgage foan purchase agreement” is undefined and subject to multiple interpretations. As to Interrogatory #10, Plaintiff objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is a request for confidential third party agreements to which the Defendant is not a party and is proprietary business information of the Plaintiff. As to Interrogatory #12, Plaintiff objects to this request as being overbroad or unduly burdensome. Plaintiff also objects to this request as requesting information (a} which is not relevant to the subject matter of this action or (b) the discovery of which will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As to Interrogatory #13, Plaintiff objects to providing the requested information as it contains irrelevant information to the underlying claim and information that is privileged and/or confidential third party communications. Furthermore it is irrelevant and overbroad. As to Interrogatory #14, Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As to Interrogatory #15, Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As to Interrogatory #16, Plaintiff objects to this request as being vague. ambiguous and unintelligible to the extent that it employs the term “minimum legal requirements" which is undefined and subject to multiple interpretations. Plaintiff further objects to the request because it seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Plaintiff also objects te this request as calling for specific information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or as attorney work product and/or as calling for a legal conclusion As to Interrogatory #17, Plaintiff objects to this request as being vague. ambiguous and unintelligible to the extent that it uses the terms "indemnify" and “indemnification”, which are undefined and subject to multiple interpretations. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it secks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as calling for specific information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or as attorney work product and/or as calling for a legal conclusion. As to Interrogatory #18, Plaintiff objects because it seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Piaintiff further objects to this request as calling for specific information protected by attomey-client privilege and/or as attomey work product. As to Interrogatory #20, Plaintiff objects because it seeks information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibie evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request as calling for specific information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or as attorney work product. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Objections to Interrogatories has been furnished by U.S. mail or Email upon: NICHOL, 104, CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33073; on this 2d, day of 1122433/len A. DELVECCHIO, 4820 N STATE ROAD 7 APT. - 2013. aura Noyes/ Florida Bar #65454 Lnoyes@kasslaw.com () Paola Huembes/ Florida Bar #084274 PHuembes@kasslaw.com ( ) Jan MacAlister / Florida Bar #086105 IMacA lister@kasslaw.com (_) Edward B. Pritchard / Florida Bar #712876 EPritcha@kasslaw.com () Melissa R. Rinaldi / Florida Bar #050252 MRinaldi@kasslaw.com ( ) Nicholas J. Roefaro / Florida Bar #089217 NRoefaro@kasslaw.com ( ) Stacey-Ann B. Saint-Hubert / Florida Bar #0070067 SSaint-Hubert@kasslaw.com ( ) Ashley L. Simon / Florida Bar #064472 ASimon@kasslaw.com ( }Joan Wadler / Florida Bar #894737 JWadler@kasslaw.com ( ) George Zamora / Florida Bar #871605 GZamora@kasslaw.com Kass Shuler, P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiff P.O. Box 800, 1505 N. Florida Ave. Tampa, FL 33601 (813) 229-0900 The Primary e-mail address for electronic service of all pleadings in this case under Rule 2.516 is as follows: ForeclosureService@kasslaw.com