Order: FLOOD, DONALD vs SMARDON, TERRY C

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

DONALD FLOOD,
Plaintiff,
2005 CA 7685 NC

VS. CASE NO.

TERRY C. SMARDON and
JANICE A. SMARDON,

Defendants.

RECOMMENDED ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
This cause came on for hearing before Magistrate Deborah A. Bailey, on October
17, 2006, on the Plaintiff's Objection to Discovery. The Magistrate has jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 1.490 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Being fully advised in

the premises, the Magistrate reports as follows:

1. At issue is a discovery request to the Plaintiff consisting of one interrogatory
and one request to produce. The interrogatory requests the Plaintiff to disclose the
amount of the settlement entered into between the Plaintiff and Desjarlais Title Company,
a defendant added by Amended Complaint and subsequently dropped after settlement.
The request to produce requires the Plaintiff to supply a copy of the settlement agreement

between the Plaintiff and the title company.
2. Upon consideration of the discovery requests, review of the applicable

pleadings, and upon consideration of the arguments of counsel and authorities presented,

the Magistrate finds that the amount of the settlement is not relevant to the Defendants’
The other terms of the settlement agreement, however, are

asserted set-off defense.
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are

discoverable.
3. Accordingly, the Magistrate recommends the Court sustain the Plaintiff’s

objection to the interrogatory. The Magistrate further recommends that tag2Court,
overrule the Plaintiff's objection to the request to produce and require the ae tg
emp

oO

l

produce the settlement agreement. The Plaintiff may redact the amount of the Site
rn
Boe

No
J LINg
SAY

J
ONTH

from the agreement.

- - 7 A
*

IN <3

~ gti s

6S ZI Wd LI

940934 ¥O4 G37Based upon the above-stated findings, the Magistrate submits the following

Recommended Order for approval by the Court:

Recommended Order

1. Plaintiff's Objection to Discovery is GRANTED in part.

2. The Court sustains the Plaintiff's objection to the interrogatory seeking the
amount of the settlement between Plaintiff and the title company.

3. The Court overrules the Plaintiff's objection to producing the settlement
agreement. Plaintiff shall produce the settlement agreement, with the
settlement amount redacted, within ten (10) days of the date this
Recommended Order 1s final.

Please take notice that pursuant to Rule 1.490(h), the parties to this cause

have ten (10) days from the date of service of this Recommended Order to serve

exceptions to its contents. The party filing exceptions is required to send copies of

the exceptions directly to the Judge assigned to this case, as well as to undersigned
Magistrate. The party filing exceptions will be required to provide the Court with a

record sufficient to support their exceptions or the exceptions will be denied. A
record ordinarily includes a written transcript of all relevant proceedings. The
party filing the exceptions must have the transcript prepared for the court’s review.
If exceptions are timely filed, they shall be heard on reasonable notice by either
party or the court. If no exceptions are filed within ten (10) days from the date of
service, the Court shall take appropriate action on the report.

CC.

Deborah A. Bailey
Twelfth Judicial C

Donald W. Scarlett, Jr., Esq.

JUDD ULRICH SCARLETT & DEAN, P.A.
2940 S. Tamiami Trail

Sarasota, Florida 34239

Matthew Rheingans, Esq.
355 W. Venice Avenue
Venice, Florida 34285

Sent to Clerk for filing on iy! Tb
Mailed to parties on [ jr lar