Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
ANGELA DEBOSE,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 17-CA-001652
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA DIVISION: C
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Plaintiff Angela DeBose hereby files her Response to the Motion to Quash Subpoena and
states:
THE MOTION TO QUASH MUST BE DENIED:
1. The motion to quash has no basis in law and was not made in good faith. Accurate
Paper Recycling is a material witness and the mere fact that Defendant does not want the
requested documents to be produced by this nonparty witness is ridiculous and baseless.
2. Rule 1.280(c) authorizes protective orders and make a cross reference to Rule 1.380
(a)(4). Rule 1.280(c) contains a list of legal reasons why a protective order should be granted,
i.e., “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense”. None of the
“grounds” apply or are alleged by Defendant as legal reasons to grant a protective order.
Nowhere in the motion to quash does it actually give a valid reason for suppressing documents
from this witness. Additionally, the party moving for the protective order has the burden to show
good cause. See Sabol v. Bennett, 672 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). USFBOT has not alleged
in the motion a valid reason for granting the motion to quash because USFBOT is not the
1
7/18/2018 10:32 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 1
proper party to object to the subpoena; only the nonparty, Accurate Paper Recycling can
object.
3. Rule 1.351 provides that a party may seek any documents within the scope of rule
1.350(a) from a person who is not a party by issuance of a subpoena when the requesting party
does not seek to depose the custodian or other person in possession of the documents.
4. Plaintiff is seeking documents from this NonParty, as USFBOT has declined to
produce the documents or the parties (i.e. Lois Palmer, Suzanne McCoskey-Bishop, and Victoria
Johnson) for deposition that claim knowledge about the mass shredding of public records in the
USF Office of the Registrar, with litigation underway in 15-CA-005663, Angela DeBose v.
University of South Florida Board of Trustees. Additionally, Plaintiff made a May 19, 2015
Public Records Request to Kofi Glover, Provost’s Office, and Mike Beedy, Human Resources, to
inspect/copy her personnel records maintained in the department and obtain her electronic files,
following a meeting with them in which she was given notice of her separation and termination.
5. USFBOT’s motion should be denied because (a) Plaintiff has good cause for issuing
the subpoena; (b) USFBOT is not the proper party to challenge the subpoena; and (c) USFBOT
has not raised a claim that the public records sought between USFBOT and Accurate Paper
Recycling, Inc. are privileged, proprietary, or personal in its objection to the production.
6. It does not matter that USFBOT timely filed and served its objection. USFBOT cites
to Patrowicz v. Wolff, 110 So.3d 973 (2d DCA 2013) in arguing that under Rule 1.351, an
objection to a notice of production from a non-party is self-executing and once an objection is
filed, Rule 1.351 ceases to be available to subpoena documents. Id. However, Patrowicz does
not apply to the instant facts because USFBOT cannot stand in the place of Accurate Paper
Shredding, Inc.; a proper objection must come from it.
2
7/18/2018 10:32 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 2
7. USFBOT contends DeBose has continued to attempt to enforce her “unlawful”
subpoena. Plaintiff’s rebuttal is that the court-issued subpoena to this NonParty is necessary
because USFBOT, a state agency, mandated by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, to allow
inspection/copying of public records has unlawfully declined to do so. Plaintiff’s effort to
obtain documents through discovery has not succeeded with this Defendant. Her request for a
UMC hearing on her resultant Motion to Compel is scheduled for [DATE]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
subpoena is again for good cause—the records sought are not ones that either USFBOT or
Accurate Paper Recycling, Inc. may withhold.
8. With regard to Accurate Paper Recycling, Inc., Plaintiff has several options available
at law, including to cure any service of process defects in reissuing the subpoena, as discussed
with Accurate’s counsel. If this fails, Plaintiff will pursue other options to ensure USFBOT
and/or Accurate Paper Recycling, Inc. comply with Florida law.
9. Notwithstanding the above and foregoing, USFBOT lacks standing to challenge a
subpoena issued to a third party absent a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal
interest in the subpoenaed matter. USFBOT has failed to establish any of the three. Therefore,
USFBOT lacks standing to object or to assert the interests of a non-party.
10. Finally, Plaintiff contends there is no legally valid reason for allowing these
documents to be hidden from public view. The Florida Supreme Court has expressed the
principle that “all trials, civil and criminal, are public events and there is a strong presumption of
public access to these proceedings and their records.” Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc.,
531 So. 2d 113, 114 (Fla. 1988). This presumption is even more evident here because the
documents at issue are again public records. Simply stated, the motion to quash is frivolous.
3
7/18/2018 10:32 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 3
Knight v. Alachua County, 396 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 467
(Fla.1982).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to Deny defendant’s motion to quash.
Submitted: July 18th, 2018 __/s/ Angela DeBose_______
Angela DeBose, Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 18th, 2018, a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing was sent via email: Richard C. McCrea, Jr. (mccrear@gtlaw.com),
and Cayla Page (pagec@gtlaw.com), GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A., 101 E. Kennedy
Boulevard, Suite 1900, Tampa, FL 33602; Mark Neuberger (MNeuberger@foley.com),
Foley & Lardner LLP, One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900,
Miami, FL 33131.
__/s/ Angela DeBose_______
Angela DeBose, Plaintiff
1107 W. Kirby St.
Tampa, FL 33604
(813) 932-6959
awdebose@aol.com
4
7/18/2018 10:32 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 4
Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION ANGELA DEBOSE, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 17-CA-001652 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA DIVISION: C BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendant. ___________________________________/ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Plaintiff Angela DeBose hereby files her Response to the Motion to Quash Subpoena and states: THE MOTION TO QUASH MUST BE DENIED: 1. The motion to quash has no basis in law and was not made in good faith. Accurate Paper Recycling is a material witness and the mere fact that Defendant does not want the requested documents to be produced by this nonparty witness is ridiculous and baseless. 2. Rule 1.280(c) authorizes protective orders and make a cross reference to Rule 1.380 (a)(4). Rule 1.280(c) contains a list of legal reasons why a protective order should be granted, i.e., “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense”. None of the “grounds” apply or are alleged by Defendant as legal reasons to grant a protective order. Nowhere in the motion to quash does it actually give a valid reason for suppressing documents from this witness. Additionally, the party moving for the protective order has the burden to show good cause. See Sabol v. Bennett, 672 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). USFBOT has not alleged in the motion a valid reason for granting the motion to quash because USFBOT is not the 1 7/18/2018 10:32 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 1 proper party to object to the subpoena; only the nonparty, Accurate Paper Recycling can object. 3. Rule 1.351 provides that a party may seek any documents within the scope of rule 1.350(a) from a person who is not a party by issuance of a subpoena when the requesting party does not seek to depose the custodian or other person in possession of the documents. 4. Plaintiff is seeking documents from this NonParty, as USFBOT has declined to produce the documents or the parties (i.e. Lois Palmer, Suzanne McCoskey-Bishop, and Victoria Johnson) for deposition that claim knowledge about the mass shredding of public records in the USF Office of the Registrar, with litigation underway in 15-CA-005663, Angela DeBose v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees. Additionally, Plaintiff made a May 19, 2015 Public Records Request to Kofi Glover, Provost’s Office, and Mike Beedy, Human Resources, to inspect/copy her personnel records maintained in the department and obtain her electronic files, following a meeting with them in which she was given notice of her separation and termination. 5. USFBOT’s motion should be denied because (a) Plaintiff has good cause for issuing the subpoena; (b) USFBOT is not the proper party to challenge the subpoena; and (c) USFBOT has not raised a claim that the public records sought between USFBOT and Accurate Paper Recycling, Inc. are privileged, proprietary, or personal in its objection to the production. 6. It does not matter that USFBOT timely filed and served its objection. USFBOT cites to Patrowicz v. Wolff, 110 So.3d 973 (2d DCA 2013) in arguing that under Rule 1.351, an objection to a notice of production from a non-party is self-executing and once an objection is filed, Rule 1.351 ceases to be available to subpoena documents. Id. However, Patrowicz does not apply to the instant facts because USFBOT cannot stand in the place of Accurate Paper Shredding, Inc.; a proper objection must come from it. 2 7/18/2018 10:32 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 2 7. USFBOT contends DeBose has continued to attempt to enforce her “unlawful” subpoena. Plaintiff’s rebuttal is that the court-issued subpoena to this NonParty is necessary because USFBOT, a state agency, mandated by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, to allow inspection/copying of public records has unlawfully declined to do so. Plaintiff’s effort to obtain documents through discovery has not succeeded with this Defendant. Her request for a UMC hearing on her resultant Motion to Compel is scheduled for [DATE]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s subpoena is again for good cause—the records sought are not ones that either USFBOT or Accurate Paper Recycling, Inc. may withhold. 8. With regard to Accurate Paper Recycling, Inc., Plaintiff has several options available at law, including to cure any service of process defects in reissuing the subpoena, as discussed with Accurate’s counsel. If this fails, Plaintiff will pursue other options to ensure USFBOT and/or Accurate Paper Recycling, Inc. comply with Florida law. 9. Notwithstanding the above and foregoing, USFBOT lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third party absent a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest in the subpoenaed matter. USFBOT has failed to establish any of the three. Therefore, USFBOT lacks standing to object or to assert the interests of a non-party. 10. Finally, Plaintiff contends there is no legally valid reason for allowing these documents to be hidden from public view. The Florida Supreme Court has expressed the principle that “all trials, civil and criminal, are public events and there is a strong presumption of public access to these proceedings and their records.” Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 114 (Fla. 1988). This presumption is even more evident here because the documents at issue are again public records. Simply stated, the motion to quash is frivolous. 3 7/18/2018 10:32 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 3 Knight v. Alachua County, 396 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 467 (Fla.1982). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to Deny defendant’s motion to quash. Submitted: July 18th, 2018 __/s/ Angela DeBose_______ Angela DeBose, Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 18th, 2018, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was sent via email: Richard C. McCrea, Jr. (mccrear@gtlaw.com), and Cayla Page (pagec@gtlaw.com), GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A., 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900, Tampa, FL 33602; Mark Neuberger (MNeuberger@foley.com), Foley & Lardner LLP, One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900, Miami, FL 33131. __/s/ Angela DeBose_______ Angela DeBose, Plaintiff 1107 W. Kirby St. Tampa, FL 33604 (813) 932-6959 awdebose@aol.com 4 7/18/2018 10:32 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 4