Preview
Filing # 39514222 E-Filed 03/28/2016 01:01:38 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
ISRAEL PEREZ and ESTHER PEREZ CASE NO.: CACE 12-031701-05
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant,
/
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL BETTERS ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Israel and Esther Perez, hereinafter (“Plaintiff”) by and through their
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, serves this
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Better Answers to Request for Production from Defendant,
Federated National Insurance Company and its counsel, Matthew Watkins, Esq., c/o Kirwan,
Spellacy & Danner, P.A., (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Defendant's counsel") and
states the flowing:
1. Plaintiff asserted for production of documents on or about July 14, 2015. (See
exhibit A. Plaintiffs Request for Production)
2. Defendant responded with an answer on or about August 25, 2015. (See exhibit
B. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Request for Production)
3. Plaintiffs have a fee hearing on or about May 12, 2016.
4. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court held in Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.,
“When a party files for attorney's fees against an insurance company pursuant to sections
624.155 and 627.428, Florida Statutes, as occurred here, the billing records of the defendant
insurance company are relevant. The hours expended by the attorneys for the insurance company
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 3/28/2016 1:01:38 PM.****will demonstrate the complexity of the case along with the time expended, and may belie a claim
that the number of hours spent by the plaintiff was unreasonable, or that the plaintiff is not
entitled to a full lodestar computation, including a multiplying factor.” Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins.
Co., SC14-282, 2016 WL 1163372, at *5 (Fla. 2016). Thus, the objections Defendant raised to
the Request for Production have clearly been overruled.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court overrule the objections listed by the
Defendant and compel the Defendant to provide better Answers within 10 days of this Court’s
order.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via
Electronic Mail on this a day of March, 2016, to: Matthew Watkins, Esq., Kirwan, Spellacy &
Danner, P.A., at pleadings@kirwanspellacy.com and mwatkins@kirwanspellacy.com, Brian
Costa, Esq., Alvarez, Carbonell, Feltman & DaSilva, PL, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff at
beosta@acfdlaw.com, dperez@acfdlaw.com, plopez@acfdlaw.com, service@acfdlaw.com and
aorduz@acfdlaw.com.
Respectfully submitted,
CUDLIPP & CUDLIPP, P.A.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
12555 Biscayne Blvd., #785
Miami, FL 33181
T: 305-759-7704
F: 305-892-8055
By: /s/ Michael P._ Cudlipp
Michael P. Cudlipp, Esq.
Primary: eservice@cudlipplaw.net
Secondary: a.s.cudlipp@gmail.com
FBN: 334420
Page 2 of 2IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1774
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.
ISRAEL PEREZ and ESTHER PEREZ CASE NO.: CACE 12-031701-05
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant,
/
PLAINTIFFS ISRAEL PEREZ AND ESTHER PEREZ’S AMENDED REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY REGARDING
ATTORNEY’S FEES ENTITLEMENT HEARING
Plaintiff, Israel and Esther Perez, by and through their undersigned counsel and pursuant
to Rule 1.350 of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, serves this Request for Production of
Documents from Defendant, Federated National Insurance Company and its counsel, Matthew
Watkins, Esq., c/o Kirwan, Spellacy & Danner, P.A., ( hereinafter collectively referred to as the
“Defendant’s counsel”) regarding attorney’s fees and costs, and request that Defendant’s counsel
produce for inspection and/or photo copying within the time frame set forth by said rule, at the
law offices specified below, the following documents:
1. Copies of any and all expert reports pertaining to any attorney’s fee hearing in the above
captioned law suit.
2. Any and all copies and documents pertaining to specific billable events or occurrences
the Defendant is billed for, yet plans to challenge the Plaintiff on as unnecessary or a non-event.
Any personal information or rate of pay may be redacted. The Plaintiff is seeking the amount of
time expended on a billable event and what purpose the billable event served, no thoughts or
mental impressions, privileged information, or other work-product is sought.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via
Electronic Mail on this day of October, 2015, to: Matthew Watkins, Esq., Kirwan, Spellacy
& Danner, P.A., at pleadings@kirwanspellacy.com and mwatkins@kirwanspellacy.com, Brian
Costa, Esq., Alvarez, Carbonell, Feltman & DaSilva, PL, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff at
beosta@acfdlaw.com, dperez@acfdlaw.com, plopez@acfdlaw.com, service@acfdlaw.com and
aorduz@acfdlaw.com.
Respectfully submitted,
THE CUDLIPP LAW FIRM, P.A.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
12555 Biscayne Blvd., #785
Miami, FL 33h
Page 2 of 2Filing # 31309063 E-Filed 08/25/2015 05:53:17 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 12-31701 CACE 05
ISRAEL PEREZ AND ESTHER PEREZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant,
/
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY REGARDING ATTORNEY’S
FEES ENTITLEMENT HEARING
COMES NOW, the Defendant, FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, by and through the undersigned attorney and hereby files this Response to
Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, and states as follows:
1. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product
and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and
private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
2. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product
and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and
private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
3. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product
and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and
private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product
and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and
private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and
GEICO Gen, Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product
and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and
private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product
and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and
private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product
and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and
private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). However, without
waiving any and all objections, none at this time.
. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product
and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and
private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), However, without
waiving any and all objections, none at this time.
{Certificate of Service on next page}CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by E-Mail on
August 25, 2015 to: Brian C. Costa, Esq., Alvarez, Carbonell, Feltman, & Da Silva, P-L., 75
Valencia Avenue 8th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33145, BCosta@acfdlaw.com;
service@acfdlaw.com; Michael P. Cudlipp, Esq., The Cudlipp Law Firm P.A., 12555 Biscayne
Blvd. Suite 785, Miami, FL 33181, eservice@cudlipplaw.net; acudlipp@cudlipplaw.net; Pedro
A. Lopez, Esq., ALVAREZ, CARBONELL, FELTMAN & DASILVA, P.L., 75 Valencia
Avenue, 8th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134, plopez@acfdlaw.com; service@acfdlaw.com;
Daniel H. Perez, Esq., ALVAREZ, CARBONELL, FELTMAN & DASILVA, P.L., 75 Valencia
Avenue, 8th Floor, Coconut Grove, FL 33134, dperez@acfdlaw.com; service@acfdlaw.com.
KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
200 South Andrews Avenue
8th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
t: (954) 463-3008
f: (954) 463-3010
Pleadings: pleadings@kirwanspellacy.com
ee a
BY: Too
MATTHEW F. WATKINS
FLORIDA BAR NO. 57879
MF W/mfw
12-8820
Preview
Filing # 39514222 E-Filed 03/28/2016 01:01:38 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA ISRAEL PEREZ and ESTHER PEREZ CASE NO.: CACE 12-031701-05 Plaintiffs, vs. FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, / PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL BETTERS ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Israel and Esther Perez, hereinafter (“Plaintiff”) by and through their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, serves this Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Better Answers to Request for Production from Defendant, Federated National Insurance Company and its counsel, Matthew Watkins, Esq., c/o Kirwan, Spellacy & Danner, P.A., (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Defendant's counsel") and states the flowing: 1. Plaintiff asserted for production of documents on or about July 14, 2015. (See exhibit A. Plaintiffs Request for Production) 2. Defendant responded with an answer on or about August 25, 2015. (See exhibit B. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Request for Production) 3. Plaintiffs have a fee hearing on or about May 12, 2016. 4. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court held in Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., “When a party files for attorney's fees against an insurance company pursuant to sections 624.155 and 627.428, Florida Statutes, as occurred here, the billing records of the defendant insurance company are relevant. The hours expended by the attorneys for the insurance company *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 3/28/2016 1:01:38 PM.****will demonstrate the complexity of the case along with the time expended, and may belie a claim that the number of hours spent by the plaintiff was unreasonable, or that the plaintiff is not entitled to a full lodestar computation, including a multiplying factor.” Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., SC14-282, 2016 WL 1163372, at *5 (Fla. 2016). Thus, the objections Defendant raised to the Request for Production have clearly been overruled. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court overrule the objections listed by the Defendant and compel the Defendant to provide better Answers within 10 days of this Court’s order. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via Electronic Mail on this a day of March, 2016, to: Matthew Watkins, Esq., Kirwan, Spellacy & Danner, P.A., at pleadings@kirwanspellacy.com and mwatkins@kirwanspellacy.com, Brian Costa, Esq., Alvarez, Carbonell, Feltman & DaSilva, PL, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff at beosta@acfdlaw.com, dperez@acfdlaw.com, plopez@acfdlaw.com, service@acfdlaw.com and aorduz@acfdlaw.com. Respectfully submitted, CUDLIPP & CUDLIPP, P.A. Attorney for Plaintiffs 12555 Biscayne Blvd., #785 Miami, FL 33181 T: 305-759-7704 F: 305-892-8055 By: /s/ Michael P._ Cudlipp Michael P. Cudlipp, Esq. Primary: eservice@cudlipplaw.net Secondary: a.s.cudlipp@gmail.com FBN: 334420 Page 2 of 2IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1774 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. ISRAEL PEREZ and ESTHER PEREZ CASE NO.: CACE 12-031701-05 Plaintiffs, vs. FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, / PLAINTIFFS ISRAEL PEREZ AND ESTHER PEREZ’S AMENDED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES ENTITLEMENT HEARING Plaintiff, Israel and Esther Perez, by and through their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, serves this Request for Production of Documents from Defendant, Federated National Insurance Company and its counsel, Matthew Watkins, Esq., c/o Kirwan, Spellacy & Danner, P.A., ( hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendant’s counsel”) regarding attorney’s fees and costs, and request that Defendant’s counsel produce for inspection and/or photo copying within the time frame set forth by said rule, at the law offices specified below, the following documents: 1. Copies of any and all expert reports pertaining to any attorney’s fee hearing in the above captioned law suit. 2. Any and all copies and documents pertaining to specific billable events or occurrences the Defendant is billed for, yet plans to challenge the Plaintiff on as unnecessary or a non-event. Any personal information or rate of pay may be redacted. The Plaintiff is seeking the amount of time expended on a billable event and what purpose the billable event served, no thoughts or mental impressions, privileged information, or other work-product is sought.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via Electronic Mail on this day of October, 2015, to: Matthew Watkins, Esq., Kirwan, Spellacy & Danner, P.A., at pleadings@kirwanspellacy.com and mwatkins@kirwanspellacy.com, Brian Costa, Esq., Alvarez, Carbonell, Feltman & DaSilva, PL, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff at beosta@acfdlaw.com, dperez@acfdlaw.com, plopez@acfdlaw.com, service@acfdlaw.com and aorduz@acfdlaw.com. Respectfully submitted, THE CUDLIPP LAW FIRM, P.A. Attorney for Plaintiffs 12555 Biscayne Blvd., #785 Miami, FL 33h Page 2 of 2Filing # 31309063 E-Filed 08/25/2015 05:53:17 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 12-31701 CACE 05 ISRAEL PEREZ AND ESTHER PEREZ, Plaintiffs, vs. FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, / DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES ENTITLEMENT HEARING COMES NOW, the Defendant, FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through the undersigned attorney and hereby files this Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, and states as follows: 1. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). 2. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). 3. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).. Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and GEICO Gen, Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). . Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). . Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). However, without waiving any and all objections, none at this time. . Objection; vague, ambiguous, overbroad, seeks to invade the Defendant’s work-product and attorney-client privileges, seeks production of protected, trade secret, proprietary and private information, irrelevant, immaterial and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Estilien v. Dyda, 93 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) and GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 133 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), However, without waiving any and all objections, none at this time. {Certificate of Service on next page}CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by E-Mail on August 25, 2015 to: Brian C. Costa, Esq., Alvarez, Carbonell, Feltman, & Da Silva, P-L., 75 Valencia Avenue 8th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33145, BCosta@acfdlaw.com; service@acfdlaw.com; Michael P. Cudlipp, Esq., The Cudlipp Law Firm P.A., 12555 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 785, Miami, FL 33181, eservice@cudlipplaw.net; acudlipp@cudlipplaw.net; Pedro A. Lopez, Esq., ALVAREZ, CARBONELL, FELTMAN & DASILVA, P.L., 75 Valencia Avenue, 8th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134, plopez@acfdlaw.com; service@acfdlaw.com; Daniel H. Perez, Esq., ALVAREZ, CARBONELL, FELTMAN & DASILVA, P.L., 75 Valencia Avenue, 8th Floor, Coconut Grove, FL 33134, dperez@acfdlaw.com; service@acfdlaw.com. KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 200 South Andrews Avenue 8th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 t: (954) 463-3008 f: (954) 463-3010 Pleadings: pleadings@kirwanspellacy.com ee a BY: Too MATTHEW F. WATKINS FLORIDA BAR NO. 57879 MF W/mfw 12-8820