Preview
Filing # 17476604 Electronically Filed 08/25/2014 02:43:08 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 08-10460 CACE (19)
CARRIAGE HILLS CONDOMINIUM,
INC., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation,
Plaintiff/Appellant,
vs.
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant/Appellee.
/
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL BETTER RESPONSES TO POST-TRIAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
ON DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
COMES NOW, the Defendant, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
(“U.S. Fire”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and responds to Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel Better Responses to Post-Trial Request for Production on Defendant’s
Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs as follows:
This action was tried before a jury for two weeks in October 2011. U.S. Fire
prevailed both at trial and on appeal. This Court and the appellate court both awarded
U.S. Fire entitlement to its fees and costs, but the amount of these fees and costs still
remains at issue. Plaintiff filed this motion in what is its first effort to dispute the amount
of fees and costs that U.S. Fire pursues. As a preliminary point, U.S. Fire respectfully
reminds this Court of its August 16, 2012 Order granting U.S. Fire its fees and costs that
included the following language:
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 8/25/2014 2:43:08 PM.****The Court is compelled to address several issues raised in the Plaintiff's motion
for Rehearing. It is apparent to the Court the Plaintiffs seem to think they
won the jury trial of this matter. They spent almost three weeks trying to
convince a jury of hurricane related damages to their condominium complex.
The jury soundly rejected all of the property claims and if the Court's memory is
correct deliberated for just over an hour in reaching their decision. (Emphasis in
the original.)
As the Court may recall, the Plaintiff in this matter lost the jury trial but then filed an
affidavit claiming its fees and costs as if it had prevailed. This Affidavit of Keith J.
Lambdin, dated April 13, 2012, claimed attorney's fees of $1,313,765.75 and costs of
$572,620.64, and these amounts pre-dated Plaintiff's unsuccessful appeal. The amount
of attorney's fees pursued by U.S. Fire, inclusive of all appellate fees and costs, is
currently $1,100,047.00 in fees and $474,652.49 in costs. Additionally, Plaintiff required
the use of three attorneys at trial when U.S. Fire employed two trial attorneys. This is
the context of this dispute wherein Plaintiffs motion takes several swipes at the
undersigned counsel's billing practices and the amount U.S. Fire pursues.
Plaintiff filed this motion seeking the Court to compel several categories of
documents, some of which U.S. Fire believes are no longer at issue. In regards to
“Request #3” seeking “Copies of all documents evidencing payments made by
Defendant to defense counsel . . .”, U.S. Fire recently produced a document titled
“Butler Pappas Billing and Adjustment History by Matter” that shows each payment
made by U.S. Fire to Butler Pappas. Also, in response to “Request #10” that requested
“Copies of all court orders awarding attorneys fees to all relevant time keepers .. .”,
U.S. Fire recently provided copies of the Dictiomatic matter whereupon the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida awarded Mr. Pappas fees and
costs. There are no other court orders to be provided. U.S. Fire asserts that thesedocuments fulfill any need to compel further production in regards to “Request #3” and
“Request #10.”
Plaintiff then pursues documents relating to “Request #7” that seeks “A copy of
the Butler Pappas et al. law firm billing guidelines from 2006 through and including the
present day (2013).” U.S. Fire and the undersigned strenuously maintain numerous
objections to the production of Butler Pappas’ internal billing guidelines. Such a
document is extremely proprietary and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, and the request of such is simply harassment.
Plaintiff's request is nothing more than a fishing expedition into Butler Pappas’
proprietary business dealings with the insurance industry. Plaintiff itself confirms this
proposed fishing expedition by proclaiming that “such guidelines may provide clear
evidence of counsel’s overbilling and/or requirements for billing for non-compensable
items such as travel time heavily charged in this case. . . [sjhould the evidence show
defense counsel’s violation of its own billing guidelines the Court would have ample
evidence in which to reduce or deny the requested fee/costs in part or in full.” Of
course, there is no evidence in this case of over-billing or anything of the like as, for
example, U.S. Fire’s requested total fees and costs, inclusive of the appeal, are dwarfed
by Plaintiff's requested fees and costs pre-appeal.
Plaintiff next complains that U.S. Fire did not adequately respond to its “Request
#8” that seeks “The Curriculum Vitae or resume of all relevant employees who
participated in the claim and lawsuit, including all attorneys and paralegals for whom
Butler Pappas is seeking compensation in this matter.” U.S. Fire responded by pointing
to the Butler Pappas website that contains all current biographies and curriculum vitaefor all relevant attorneys including that of Mr. Pappas (trial counsel), Mr. Ramey (trial
counsel), Mr. Russo (appellate counsel), Mr. Lugo (appellate counsel), Mr. Krukar
(appellate counsel), Mr. Seitz, and Mr. Maldoff. U.S. Fire maintains its objection that the
curriculum vitae or resumes of Butler Pappas paralegals, to the extent such exist, are
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As can be
seen within the documents produced by U.S. Fire, each paralegal billed time at less
than $100 per hour and delving into the personal information and background of each
paralegal is a complete waste of time and again constitutes an improper fishing
expedition. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff wishes to depose any Butler Pappas
paralegal in this matter, as Plaintiff suggests within its motion, U.S. Fire would object to
same.
The final issue Plaintiff raises is in regards to “Request #9” that sought “All
correspondence, in any form, between US Fire and Butler Pappas regarding attorney's
fees including but not limited to, any fee disputes, questions of bills presented, cover
letters submitted along with firm bills, etc.” It is obvious that this request violates the
attorney/client privilege and any consideration of producing responsive documents to
this request should end there. The request is also not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence as any issue relating to potential “over-billing” or
the reasonableness of Butler Pappas’ fee bills can be resolved by the Court without
consideration of this information.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion to compel and any other relief
deemed equitable under the circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
BUTLER PAPPAS WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP
/s/Christopher M. Ramey, Esq.
JOHN J. PAPPAS, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 0355941
jpappas@butlerpappas.com
CHRISTOPHER M. RAMEY, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 0044808
cramey@butlerpappas.com
Secondary: eservice@butlerpappas.com
777 S. Harbour Island Boulevard
Suite 500
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 281-1900
Facsimile: (813) 281-0900
Attorneys For Defendant, United States Fire
Insurance Company
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to:
Keith J. Lambdin, Esq.
Mitchell B. Haller, Esq.
Katzman Garfinkel & Berger
300 North Maitland Avenue
Maitland, FL 32751
Email: klambdin@likeyourlawyer.com; mhaller@likeyourlawyer.com
Secondary: dmurphy@likeyourlawyer.com
Steven M. Katzman, Esq.
Katzman, Wasserman, Bennardini & Rubinstein, P.A.
7900 Glades Road, Suite 140
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Email: smk@kwblaw.com
Secondary: mrm@kwblaw.com
by ePortal and E-mail on August 25, 2014.
/s/ Christopher M. Ramey, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER M. RAMEY, ESQ.
Preview
Filing # 17476604 Electronically Filed 08/25/2014 02:43:08 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 08-10460 CACE (19) CARRIAGE HILLS CONDOMINIUM, INC., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee. / DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER RESPONSES TO POST-TRIAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ON DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS COMES NOW, the Defendant, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (“U.S. Fire”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and responds to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Better Responses to Post-Trial Request for Production on Defendant’s Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and Costs as follows: This action was tried before a jury for two weeks in October 2011. U.S. Fire prevailed both at trial and on appeal. This Court and the appellate court both awarded U.S. Fire entitlement to its fees and costs, but the amount of these fees and costs still remains at issue. Plaintiff filed this motion in what is its first effort to dispute the amount of fees and costs that U.S. Fire pursues. As a preliminary point, U.S. Fire respectfully reminds this Court of its August 16, 2012 Order granting U.S. Fire its fees and costs that included the following language: *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 8/25/2014 2:43:08 PM.****The Court is compelled to address several issues raised in the Plaintiff's motion for Rehearing. It is apparent to the Court the Plaintiffs seem to think they won the jury trial of this matter. They spent almost three weeks trying to convince a jury of hurricane related damages to their condominium complex. The jury soundly rejected all of the property claims and if the Court's memory is correct deliberated for just over an hour in reaching their decision. (Emphasis in the original.) As the Court may recall, the Plaintiff in this matter lost the jury trial but then filed an affidavit claiming its fees and costs as if it had prevailed. This Affidavit of Keith J. Lambdin, dated April 13, 2012, claimed attorney's fees of $1,313,765.75 and costs of $572,620.64, and these amounts pre-dated Plaintiff's unsuccessful appeal. The amount of attorney's fees pursued by U.S. Fire, inclusive of all appellate fees and costs, is currently $1,100,047.00 in fees and $474,652.49 in costs. Additionally, Plaintiff required the use of three attorneys at trial when U.S. Fire employed two trial attorneys. This is the context of this dispute wherein Plaintiffs motion takes several swipes at the undersigned counsel's billing practices and the amount U.S. Fire pursues. Plaintiff filed this motion seeking the Court to compel several categories of documents, some of which U.S. Fire believes are no longer at issue. In regards to “Request #3” seeking “Copies of all documents evidencing payments made by Defendant to defense counsel . . .”, U.S. Fire recently produced a document titled “Butler Pappas Billing and Adjustment History by Matter” that shows each payment made by U.S. Fire to Butler Pappas. Also, in response to “Request #10” that requested “Copies of all court orders awarding attorneys fees to all relevant time keepers .. .”, U.S. Fire recently provided copies of the Dictiomatic matter whereupon the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida awarded Mr. Pappas fees and costs. There are no other court orders to be provided. U.S. Fire asserts that thesedocuments fulfill any need to compel further production in regards to “Request #3” and “Request #10.” Plaintiff then pursues documents relating to “Request #7” that seeks “A copy of the Butler Pappas et al. law firm billing guidelines from 2006 through and including the present day (2013).” U.S. Fire and the undersigned strenuously maintain numerous objections to the production of Butler Pappas’ internal billing guidelines. Such a document is extremely proprietary and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the request of such is simply harassment. Plaintiff's request is nothing more than a fishing expedition into Butler Pappas’ proprietary business dealings with the insurance industry. Plaintiff itself confirms this proposed fishing expedition by proclaiming that “such guidelines may provide clear evidence of counsel’s overbilling and/or requirements for billing for non-compensable items such as travel time heavily charged in this case. . . [sjhould the evidence show defense counsel’s violation of its own billing guidelines the Court would have ample evidence in which to reduce or deny the requested fee/costs in part or in full.” Of course, there is no evidence in this case of over-billing or anything of the like as, for example, U.S. Fire’s requested total fees and costs, inclusive of the appeal, are dwarfed by Plaintiff's requested fees and costs pre-appeal. Plaintiff next complains that U.S. Fire did not adequately respond to its “Request #8” that seeks “The Curriculum Vitae or resume of all relevant employees who participated in the claim and lawsuit, including all attorneys and paralegals for whom Butler Pappas is seeking compensation in this matter.” U.S. Fire responded by pointing to the Butler Pappas website that contains all current biographies and curriculum vitaefor all relevant attorneys including that of Mr. Pappas (trial counsel), Mr. Ramey (trial counsel), Mr. Russo (appellate counsel), Mr. Lugo (appellate counsel), Mr. Krukar (appellate counsel), Mr. Seitz, and Mr. Maldoff. U.S. Fire maintains its objection that the curriculum vitae or resumes of Butler Pappas paralegals, to the extent such exist, are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As can be seen within the documents produced by U.S. Fire, each paralegal billed time at less than $100 per hour and delving into the personal information and background of each paralegal is a complete waste of time and again constitutes an improper fishing expedition. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff wishes to depose any Butler Pappas paralegal in this matter, as Plaintiff suggests within its motion, U.S. Fire would object to same. The final issue Plaintiff raises is in regards to “Request #9” that sought “All correspondence, in any form, between US Fire and Butler Pappas regarding attorney's fees including but not limited to, any fee disputes, questions of bills presented, cover letters submitted along with firm bills, etc.” It is obvious that this request violates the attorney/client privilege and any consideration of producing responsive documents to this request should end there. The request is also not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as any issue relating to potential “over-billing” or the reasonableness of Butler Pappas’ fee bills can be resolved by the Court without consideration of this information. WHEREFORE, Defendant, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion to compel and any other relief deemed equitable under the circumstances.Respectfully submitted, BUTLER PAPPAS WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP /s/Christopher M. Ramey, Esq. JOHN J. PAPPAS, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0355941 jpappas@butlerpappas.com CHRISTOPHER M. RAMEY, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0044808 cramey@butlerpappas.com Secondary: eservice@butlerpappas.com 777 S. Harbour Island Boulevard Suite 500 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 281-1900 Facsimile: (813) 281-0900 Attorneys For Defendant, United States Fire Insurance Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to: Keith J. Lambdin, Esq. Mitchell B. Haller, Esq. Katzman Garfinkel & Berger 300 North Maitland Avenue Maitland, FL 32751 Email: klambdin@likeyourlawyer.com; mhaller@likeyourlawyer.com Secondary: dmurphy@likeyourlawyer.com Steven M. Katzman, Esq. Katzman, Wasserman, Bennardini & Rubinstein, P.A. 7900 Glades Road, Suite 140 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Email: smk@kwblaw.com Secondary: mrm@kwblaw.com by ePortal and E-mail on August 25, 2014. /s/ Christopher M. Ramey, Esq. CHRISTOPHER M. RAMEY, ESQ.