Preview
Filing # 76721265 E-Filed 08/20/2018 09:25:24 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
RAUL MEJIA, and VIRGINIA LOPEZ
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO.: 2018-12371-CA
vs. DIVISION:
PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of
Miami Dade County Florida; LEON M.
BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director of Florida
Department of Revenue; MARCUS SAIZ DE LA
MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami Dade County,
Florida
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND
RESPONSE TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff, Blue Trading, LLC., (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) by and through its undersigned
counsel, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a), 1.351(d) and 1.380(a) hereby moves this Court to
overrule the objections of the Defendants as to the Plaintiff's Request for Production and
Interrogatories states as follows:
1. The Defendants, Miami Dade County Property Appraiser and Miami Dade County Tax
Collector (hereinafter “County Defendants”) filed their joint response to the Plaintiffs Request
for Production and therein objected to legitimate requests for documents and information. See
EXHIBIT A Attached hereto. In pertinent parts the County Defendants objected
a. To the first request, stating “The Property Appraiser objects to the statement
“between County Defendants,” as vague in that Request No. 1 does not then clarify the other
party to the communications.” This is clearly a refusal to respond because the request
specifically defined the “county defendants,” to mean “Defendants PEDRO GARCIA, as
Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “Property Appraiser”), and
Page 1 of 8MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “Tax
Collector,” and collectively, the “County Defendants”)”
b.
i. This request clearly seeks all communication between these two separate
offices/entities that is related to the plaintiff and the subject property. As for the
balance of the “objection” we need not limit it to any particular period because if the
information exists within County Defendants’ records, it is discoverable, not only
because it is relevant, but because they may lead to other discoverable evidence.
To the second request, stating, “The Property Appraiser objects to the statement
“between the agents and employees each County Defendants,” as vague and confusing in that
Request No. 2 uses disjointed phrases that make the request unintelligible.”
Cc.
i. This request is neither unintelligible nor disjointed; however, the Plaintiffs
clarified this request by email since receiving the County Defendants’ objection, yet
the objection persists. For the sake of simplification, the plaintiffs are requesting all
communications between the employees and agents of each of the county defendant
that is related to the plaintiffs or the subject property. Again, while the County
Defendants suggest it must be limited in time, this cannot be done. The reason for
this is because Plaintiffs do not know the scope of the investigations conducted prior
to issuing the retroactive tax liens. Thus, the scope has been limited to records related
to the Plaintiffs or the subject property
To Request No. 4, stating, “The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “Any
and all documents obtained by the County Defendants prior to the imposition of retroactive
tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016,” as overbroad in that Request No. 2 is not
narrowly tailored to the relevant time and scope of this litigation.”
i. The County Defendants issued tax liens for tax years 2011 through
Page 2 of 82016. Whatever records they relied upon for those years are not only directly
relevant, but they may lead to other discoverable evidence. If County Defendants did
not have any basis to issue tax liens for tax years 2011 and 2012, they must so
state. Whether County Defendants retracted the liens for those 2011 and 2012 tax
years and the reasons they retracted the liens for those years are directly related to the
remaining years and will lead to discoverable evidence as to the basis for the
remaining liens. Likewise, if there was no basis for the liens, this may form the basis
for damages.
d To request No. 8 stating, “The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 8 as
duplicative of Request No. 6. Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to
Request No. 6.”
i. This is non-responsive because request No. 6 and No. 8 are not the same. While
the former requested documents evidencing a “determination of rental of homestead of
the subject property”; the latter requested “documents that formed the basis for the
County Defendants’ determination”. Certainly, this distinction is obvious and requires
no further parsing
2. Additionally, the County Defendants objected to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories with
evasive and untruthful responses. See EXHIBIT B Attached hereto. Specifically, the County
Defendants objected:
a. To Interrogatory No. 2 stating, “The Property Appraiser objects to this
interrogatory on the grounds that the statement “any and all persons” is vague, overbroad,
and not narrowly tailored.”
i. There is nothing vague or overbroad about “any and all person”, because the
Plaintiff has no knowledge of the identity of persons with the knowledge of “rental of
Page 3 of 8homestead,” and such persons would have information that is directly relevant or lead
to discoverable evidence. Additionally, the County Defendants’ objection refuses to
give information about the 2011 and 2012 tax liens on the basis that they were
cancelled. This, however, does not remove them from examination as to the persons
who provided information related to the rental of homestead for those years because it
was part of the same investigation conducted by the property appraiser in issuing their
retroactive tax liens for 2011 through 2016 as of January 5, 2017. If indeed the
property appraiser had no evidence or persons who provided information related to
2011 through 2012, then they must so state.
b. In response to Interrogatory No. 3, the County Defendants provided the names of
the undersigned counsel and the Plaintiffs as persons with whom they consulted incident to
the imposition of the retroactive tax liens for 2011 through 2016.
i. This response is clearly untruthful. The Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser
(Appraiser) issued its “intent to lien” for tax years 2011 through 2015 on December 5,
2016 and effectuated the liens on January 5, 2017. The Appraiser neither met nor
conferred with the Plaintiffs nor the Plaintiff's counsel prior to effectuating the tax liens
for 2011 through 2015. Certainly, the Appraiser must have had substantial evidence to
establish a basis for revoking the Plaintiffs’ homestead exemption for 2011 through
2015 prior to conferring with the Plaintiffs on or about June 23, 2017.
ii. Likewise, as it relates to the retroactive tax lien for tax year 2016, the Appraiser
issued a notice of intent to lien on July 3, 2017 and effectuated the lien on August 1,
2017. The County Defendants did not confer with the undersigned prior to issuing the
Notices of Intent to Lien on July 3, 2017. The undersign first contacted the Appraiser
on or about July 20, 2017. The Plaintiffs met with the County Defendants on or about
Page 4 of 8June 23, 2017; however, the lease agreement provided to the county Defendants
addressed only tax year 2013, thus, there is no basis for a retroactive tax lien based on
an alleged “rental of homestead” for tax year 2016. Notably, during the Plaintiffs’
meeting with the Appraiser, there was no discussion about an assessment for Tax Year
2016, as is clear from the fact that the Notice of Intent to Lien for Tax year 2016 was
dated July 3, 2017.
iii. It is clear that the Appraiser’s response is purely an evasive response to avoid
providing any information as to the source of the County Defendants’ evidence prior to
issuing any of the two Notices of Intent to Lien and the resulting retroactive tax liens
c. In response to Interrogatory No. 5, the County Defendants objected stating “The
Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 5 as duplicative of Request No. 3
Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request No. 3.”
i. The County Defendants are being evasive and attempting to avoid answering the
interrogatory. Interrogatory No. 3 requested the names and addresses of person with
whom the County Defendants “consulted, conferred, questioned, or obtained
information incident to the imposition of the retroactive tax liens.” This is not the same
as Interrogatory No. 5 which requested the names and addresses of persons who
“provided information on the “rental of homestead.” As outlined above, the County
Defendant did not and could not have conferred or consulted with the undersigned or
the Plaintiffs, thus their response is untruthful. As such, the County Defendants have
not answered either interrogatory No. 3 or 5
d In response to Interrogatory No. 6, the County Defendants stated that it is
duplicative of Interrogatory No. 4, however, in response to Interrogatory No. 4, the County
Defendants stated that the information can be ascertained from their response to Interrogatory
Page 5 of 8No. 5. As outlined above, the County Defendants have answered neither Interrogatory No. 3
nor 5. This is a refusal to respond.
e. In response to Interrogatory No. 7, the County Defendants provided the name of
only one person who is allegedly “the person with the most knowledge.” This was not
responsive to the Interrogatory which requested the names of all persons with knowledge.
Indeed, the two notices of intent to lien were signed by Ernesto Alonso and referred the
Plaintiffs to Mr. Julio Guas. Clearly the County Defendants are intentionally interfering with
the discovery. It is unlikely that these are the only other persons whose names are responsive
to Interrogatory No. 7
f. In response to Interrogatory No. 8, the County Defendants objected and provided
the name “Michael Postell — Senior Property Appraiser Supervisor,” and provided no other
names. As outlined in above with reference to Interrogatory No. 7, there are other names.
Moreover, the property appraiser has refused to outline the role of the sole person whose
name the provided. Clearly, it cannot be “unduly burdensome” to provide the information
with respect to a single individual.
g In response to Interrogatory No. 9, the County Defendants responded that they
obtained the initial information from an anonymous source and subsequently obtained the
evidence for the “rental of homestead” through a lease agreement provided by the plaintiffs.
This response is untruthful
i. The Appraiser issued its “intent to lien” for tax years 2011 through 2015 on
December 5, 2016 and effectuated the liens on January 5, 2016. The Appraiser did not
meet with either the Plaintiffs or the undersigned counsel prior to effectuating the tax
liens for 2011 through 2015. There is a significant gap between January 5, 2016 and
June 23, 2017, the date the Plaintiffs provided the lease agreement to the Appraiser. As
Page 6 of 8such, the Appraiser either had absolutely no evidence of the rental of a homestead or
they are refusing to provide the documentation to established the rental of a homestead
as of the date of issuing the Notices of Intent to Lien and effectuating the liens.
GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that on behalf of the Plaintiff, a good faith effort was made to
confer with the County Defendants’ counsel in an attempt to resolve the discovery issues without
court intervention. The County Defendant’s did not respond to the Plaintiff's emails which
clarified the discovery requests and requested their position as to compliance
Wherefore, the Plaintiff's respectfully requests that this Honorable Court overrule the
Defendants’ objections, and grant their attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 1.380(a)(4) and any
other relief this Court deems proper
Respectfully submitted,
ANDRE GIBSON, CHARTERED
Andre A. Gibson
Attorney for Plaintiffs, Virginia and Raul Mejia
Florida Bar Number: 0635529
45 NE 67th Street,
North Miami Beach, FL 33162
Telephone: (305) 652-4900
E-Mail: AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.com
Secondary E-Mail: Efile@Gibsontaxlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished via electronic mail
to Timothy Dennis at Timothy.Dennis@myfloridalegal.com, Jon.Annette@myfloridalegal.com,
Rebecca.Padgett@myfloridalegal.com; and Michael Mastrucci, Assistant County Attorney,
mastrucc@miamidade. gov; emily@miamidade. gov, this 20" day of August, 2018.
Page 7 of 8André A. Gibson
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Page 8 of 8EXHIBIT A
45 NE 167™ STREET, NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL 33162
TELEPHONE: 305-652-4900 || TELEFAX: 305-808-3495
AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.comFiling # 75238120 E-Filed 07/19/2018 05:11:10 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, CASE NO. 18-12371 CA 34
Plaintiff,
VS
PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of
Miami-Dade County Florida) LEON M
BIEGALSKI, as the Executive Director of the
Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS
SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of
Miami Dade County Florida,
Defendants.
/
PROPERTY APPRAISER’S RESPONSE TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Defendant, PEDRO J. GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida,
by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350, hereby responds to
Plaintiffs, RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ’s First Request for Production of Documents as
follows
1. A copy of any and all communication between County Defendants, related to
the Plaintiffs and/or the subject property.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “between County
Defendants,” as vague in that Request No. 1 does not then clarify the other
party to the communications. Further, any request of this nature would need
to be narrowly tailored to the relevant time and scope of this litigation. The
Plaintiff would have to rewrite Request No. 1 in order for the Property
Appraiser to properly respond.
2. A copy of any and all internal communication between the agents and
employees each County Defendants that is related to the Plaintiffs or the subject property.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “between the agents and
employees each County Defendants,” as vague and confusing in thatRequest No. 2 uses disjointed phrases that make the request unintelligible.
Further, any request of this nature would need to be narrowly tailored to the
relevant time and scope of this litigation. The Plaintiff would have to
rewrite Request No. 2 in order for the Property Appraiser to properly
respond.
3. A copy of any and all communication between the county defendants and any
person with knowledge of the subject property or the plaintiffs incident to or related to
imposition of retroactive tax liens on the subject property for tax years 2011 through 2016.
Response
To the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work
product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has located
and will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that
are responsive
4, Any and all documents obtained by the County Defendants prior to the
imposition of retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016, or upon which the County
Defendants rely upon to support of retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016.
Response
The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “Any and all documents
obtained by the County Defendants prior to the imposition of retroactive tax
liens for tax years 2011 through 2016,” as overbroad in that Request No. 2
is not narrowly tailored to the relevant time and scope of this litigation.
Nonetheless, to the extent that production does not violate confidentiality
statutes, work product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property
Appraiser has located and will produce any documents in its possession,
custody, and control that are responsive to the second half of the request —
ie. “Any and all documents . . . upon which the County Defendants rely
upon to support [the] retroactive tax liens for the tax years 2011 through
2016.”
5. A copy of any and all documents that is related to the subject property or
plaintiffs which are related to retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016.
Response: —_ To the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work
product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has located
and will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that
are responsive.
6. A copy of any and all documents from whatever source evidencing the County
Defendants’ determination of rental of homestead of the subject property for tax years 2011
through 2016.
Response: To the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work
product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has locatedand will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that
are responsive
7. A copy of any and all documents showing the County Defendants’ calculations
of retroactive tax penalties and interest for tax years 2011 through 2016.
Response: The Property Appraiser has located and will produce documents in its
possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request.
8. A copy of any and all documents that formed the basis for the County
Defendants’ determination that the subject property was rented for tax years 2011, 2012,
2014, 2015, 2016.
Response: — The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 8 as duplicative of Request
No. 6. Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request
No. 6.
9. A copy of any and all documents showing the application of payments and
credits toward the retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016 and accrued interest
and penalties against the subject property arising from the imposition of the retroactive tax
liens for tax years 2011 through 2016.
Response: The Property Appraiser has located and will produce documents in its
possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request.
10. A copy of any and all documents listed in response to the 9" interrogatory.
Response: _ To the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work
product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has located
and will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that
are responsive
11. A copy of any and all testamentary documents including but not limited to
affidavits, declarations, depositions, written statements from any persons on whom the
County Defendants relied in imposing their retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through
2016.
Response: The Property Appraiser does not have any documents or communications in
its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 19"
day of July, 2018 via e-mail generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to: Andre A. Gibson,
Esq., 45 NE 67th Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162, AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.com,
Efile@Gibsontaxlaw.com.
Respectfully submitted,
ABIGAIL PRICE-WILLIAMS
Miami-Dade County Attorney
Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810
111 Northwest First Street
Miami, Florida 33128-1993
By: /s/ Michael J. Mastrucci
Michael J. Mastrucci
Assistant County Attorney
Florida Bar No. 86130
Telephone: (305) 375-5151
Facsimile: (305) 375-5634
E-mail:Michael.Mastrucci@miamidade.govEXHIBIT B
45 NE 167™ STREET, NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL 33162
TELEPHONE: 305-652-4900 || TELEFAX: 305-808-3495
AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.comFiling # 75238120 E-Filed 07/19/2018 05:11:10 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, CASE NO. 18-12371 CA 34
Plaintiff,
vs.
PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of
Miami-Dade County Florida, LEON M.
BIEGALSKI, as the Executive Director of the
Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS
SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of
Miami Dade County Florida,
Defendants.
/
PROPERTY APPRAISER’S NOTICE OF SERVING ITS ANSWERS
TO PLAINTIFE’S INTERROGATORIES
In accordance with Rule 1.340, Fla. R. Civ. P., the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser, as the
Defendant in the above-captioned matter (the “Property Appraiser”) gives notice that on July 19,
2018 he served by e-mail his response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories directed to Property Appraiser.
Respectfully submitted,
ABIGAIL PRICE-WILLIAMS
Miami-Dade County Attorney
Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810
111 Northwest First Street
Miami, Florida 33128-1993
By: s/Michael J. Mastrucci
Michael J. Mastrucci
Assistant County Attorney
Florida Bar No. 86130
Email: Mastrucc@miamidade.gov
Telephone: (305) 375-5151
Facsimile: (305) 375-5634Case No. 18-12371-CA 34
Property Appraiser’s Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
PROPERTY APPRAISER’S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
1. Provide the names and address of the person or persons who is answering these
interrogatories and the relationship to the County Defendants.
Response:
Michael Postell
Senior Property Appraiser Supervisor
Miami-Dade County Office of the Property Appraiser
111 N.W. Ist Street, Suite 710
Miami, Florida 33128
2. Provide the names and addresses of any and all persons with knowledge of rental of
homestead of the subject property for the tax years 2011 through 2016.
Response:
The Property Appraiser objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the
statement “any and all persons” is vague, overbroad, and not narrowly tailored.
Notwithstanding this objection and to the extent that the request attempts to seek
all of the employees within the Office of the Property Appraiser with knowledge of
the subject property’s rental during tax years 2013-17 (as tax years 2011-12 were
cancelled and are not at issue in this case), see the response to Interrogatory No. 7
3. Provide the names and addresses of all persons with or from whom the County
defendants consulted, conferred, questioned, or obtained information related or incident
to the imposition of retroactive tax liens on the subject property for tax years 2011
through 2016.
Response:
Raul Mejia & Virginia Lopez
201 178 Drive #531
Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160
Andre A. Gibson — Attorney for Plaintiffs
45 Northeast 67 Street
North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
4. Provide a summary of the information or documents obtained from any person listed in
response to question 3.
Response:
In accordance with Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.340(c), a summary of the
information or documents obtained from any person that was related to the
imposition of retroactive tax liens on the subject property for the tax years 2011
through 2016 may be derived or ascertained from the records produced in response
to Request for Production Request No. 5Case No. 18-12371-CA 34
Property Appraiser’s Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
5. Provide the names and addresses of all persons who provided information, whether
documentary or testamentary, to the County Defendants in the course of investigating
the purported “rental of homestead” for tax years 2011 through 2016.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 5 as duplicative of Request No. 3.
Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request No. 3.
6. Provide a summary of the information or documents obtained from any person listed in
response to question 5.
Response The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 6 as duplicative of Request No. 4
Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request No. 4
7. Provide the names and addresses of all persons, including agents and employees of the
County Defendants who has knowledge of the investigation, calculation of the retroactive
tax lien amounts, and who participated in the decision to investigate or revoke the
Plaintiffs’ homestead exemption and issue the retroactive tax liens against the subject
property for tax years 2011 — 2016.
Response The decisions involved in investigating and/or revoking a taxpayer’s homestead
exemption and the subsequent lien calculations are a part of an effort by many
employees of the Property Appraiser’s Office, some of which is clerical in nature
The person most responsible is.
Michael Postell — Senior Property Appraiser Supervisor
Miami-Dade County Office of the Property Appraiser
111 N.W. Ist Street, Suite 710
Miami, Florida 33128
8. Provide a summary of the role of each of the person listed in response to question 7 in the
process of investigating, calculating, or decision to issue the retroactive tax liens on the
subject property for tax years 2011 through 2016.
Response: The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 9 as unduly burdensome in that the
process of investigating, calculating, and/or deciding to issue a retroactive tax lien
is an effort by many employees of the Property Appraiser’s Office, some of which
is clerical in nature. The person most responsible is:
Michael Postell — Senior Property Appraiser Supervisor
Miami-Dade County Office of the Property Appraiser
111 N.W. Ist Street, Suite 710
Miami, Florida 33128
9. Provide the source of all information relief upon in imposing the retroactive tax liens for
tax years 2011 through 2016, indicating, without limitation, the name and addresses ofCase No. 18-12371-CA 34
Property Appraiser’s Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
each person (entity or natural), governmental agency, publication, article, author,
relevant dates, etc., which was used.
Response:
The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 9 as confusing. Nonetheless, to the
extent that the request seeks the source of all information re/ied upon in imposing
the retroactive tax liens for the tax years 2011 through 2016, the Property Appraiser
received an anonymous complaint that the subject property had been rented. That
complaint led to an investigation in which the Plaintiffs provided a lease agreement
between the Plaintiffs and Fabiola Stuyvesant for the rental of the subject property
Any further information was obtained through the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles Information Database and the Accurint Database.
[SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE
FOREGOING ANSWERS AR® TRUE AND COMPLETE,
7 a
The foregoing instrument was pele ouledged before me this i day of
“ed y , 2018, by eh taskeHl, who is personally known to me
or has’ produced eee as identification and who did! did not
take an oath.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this J toe ay ot valy 2018,
sy,
Vorenica Ruhert
pH eawanayse “
Bonded Tie be on Now Notary Public, State of Morida
Ny My Commission expires:
Preview
Filing # 76721265 E-Filed 08/20/2018 09:25:24 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION RAUL MEJIA, and VIRGINIA LOPEZ Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: 2018-12371-CA vs. DIVISION: PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami Dade County Florida; LEON M. BIEGALSKI, as Executive Director of Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami Dade County, Florida Defendants. / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND RESPONSE TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS Plaintiff, Blue Trading, LLC., (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(a), 1.351(d) and 1.380(a) hereby moves this Court to overrule the objections of the Defendants as to the Plaintiff's Request for Production and Interrogatories states as follows: 1. The Defendants, Miami Dade County Property Appraiser and Miami Dade County Tax Collector (hereinafter “County Defendants”) filed their joint response to the Plaintiffs Request for Production and therein objected to legitimate requests for documents and information. See EXHIBIT A Attached hereto. In pertinent parts the County Defendants objected a. To the first request, stating “The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “between County Defendants,” as vague in that Request No. 1 does not then clarify the other party to the communications.” This is clearly a refusal to respond because the request specifically defined the “county defendants,” to mean “Defendants PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “Property Appraiser”), and Page 1 of 8MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “Tax Collector,” and collectively, the “County Defendants”)” b. i. This request clearly seeks all communication between these two separate offices/entities that is related to the plaintiff and the subject property. As for the balance of the “objection” we need not limit it to any particular period because if the information exists within County Defendants’ records, it is discoverable, not only because it is relevant, but because they may lead to other discoverable evidence. To the second request, stating, “The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “between the agents and employees each County Defendants,” as vague and confusing in that Request No. 2 uses disjointed phrases that make the request unintelligible.” Cc. i. This request is neither unintelligible nor disjointed; however, the Plaintiffs clarified this request by email since receiving the County Defendants’ objection, yet the objection persists. For the sake of simplification, the plaintiffs are requesting all communications between the employees and agents of each of the county defendant that is related to the plaintiffs or the subject property. Again, while the County Defendants suggest it must be limited in time, this cannot be done. The reason for this is because Plaintiffs do not know the scope of the investigations conducted prior to issuing the retroactive tax liens. Thus, the scope has been limited to records related to the Plaintiffs or the subject property To Request No. 4, stating, “The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “Any and all documents obtained by the County Defendants prior to the imposition of retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016,” as overbroad in that Request No. 2 is not narrowly tailored to the relevant time and scope of this litigation.” i. The County Defendants issued tax liens for tax years 2011 through Page 2 of 82016. Whatever records they relied upon for those years are not only directly relevant, but they may lead to other discoverable evidence. If County Defendants did not have any basis to issue tax liens for tax years 2011 and 2012, they must so state. Whether County Defendants retracted the liens for those 2011 and 2012 tax years and the reasons they retracted the liens for those years are directly related to the remaining years and will lead to discoverable evidence as to the basis for the remaining liens. Likewise, if there was no basis for the liens, this may form the basis for damages. d To request No. 8 stating, “The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 8 as duplicative of Request No. 6. Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request No. 6.” i. This is non-responsive because request No. 6 and No. 8 are not the same. While the former requested documents evidencing a “determination of rental of homestead of the subject property”; the latter requested “documents that formed the basis for the County Defendants’ determination”. Certainly, this distinction is obvious and requires no further parsing 2. Additionally, the County Defendants objected to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories with evasive and untruthful responses. See EXHIBIT B Attached hereto. Specifically, the County Defendants objected: a. To Interrogatory No. 2 stating, “The Property Appraiser objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the statement “any and all persons” is vague, overbroad, and not narrowly tailored.” i. There is nothing vague or overbroad about “any and all person”, because the Plaintiff has no knowledge of the identity of persons with the knowledge of “rental of Page 3 of 8homestead,” and such persons would have information that is directly relevant or lead to discoverable evidence. Additionally, the County Defendants’ objection refuses to give information about the 2011 and 2012 tax liens on the basis that they were cancelled. This, however, does not remove them from examination as to the persons who provided information related to the rental of homestead for those years because it was part of the same investigation conducted by the property appraiser in issuing their retroactive tax liens for 2011 through 2016 as of January 5, 2017. If indeed the property appraiser had no evidence or persons who provided information related to 2011 through 2012, then they must so state. b. In response to Interrogatory No. 3, the County Defendants provided the names of the undersigned counsel and the Plaintiffs as persons with whom they consulted incident to the imposition of the retroactive tax liens for 2011 through 2016. i. This response is clearly untruthful. The Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser (Appraiser) issued its “intent to lien” for tax years 2011 through 2015 on December 5, 2016 and effectuated the liens on January 5, 2017. The Appraiser neither met nor conferred with the Plaintiffs nor the Plaintiff's counsel prior to effectuating the tax liens for 2011 through 2015. Certainly, the Appraiser must have had substantial evidence to establish a basis for revoking the Plaintiffs’ homestead exemption for 2011 through 2015 prior to conferring with the Plaintiffs on or about June 23, 2017. ii. Likewise, as it relates to the retroactive tax lien for tax year 2016, the Appraiser issued a notice of intent to lien on July 3, 2017 and effectuated the lien on August 1, 2017. The County Defendants did not confer with the undersigned prior to issuing the Notices of Intent to Lien on July 3, 2017. The undersign first contacted the Appraiser on or about July 20, 2017. The Plaintiffs met with the County Defendants on or about Page 4 of 8June 23, 2017; however, the lease agreement provided to the county Defendants addressed only tax year 2013, thus, there is no basis for a retroactive tax lien based on an alleged “rental of homestead” for tax year 2016. Notably, during the Plaintiffs’ meeting with the Appraiser, there was no discussion about an assessment for Tax Year 2016, as is clear from the fact that the Notice of Intent to Lien for Tax year 2016 was dated July 3, 2017. iii. It is clear that the Appraiser’s response is purely an evasive response to avoid providing any information as to the source of the County Defendants’ evidence prior to issuing any of the two Notices of Intent to Lien and the resulting retroactive tax liens c. In response to Interrogatory No. 5, the County Defendants objected stating “The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 5 as duplicative of Request No. 3 Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request No. 3.” i. The County Defendants are being evasive and attempting to avoid answering the interrogatory. Interrogatory No. 3 requested the names and addresses of person with whom the County Defendants “consulted, conferred, questioned, or obtained information incident to the imposition of the retroactive tax liens.” This is not the same as Interrogatory No. 5 which requested the names and addresses of persons who “provided information on the “rental of homestead.” As outlined above, the County Defendant did not and could not have conferred or consulted with the undersigned or the Plaintiffs, thus their response is untruthful. As such, the County Defendants have not answered either interrogatory No. 3 or 5 d In response to Interrogatory No. 6, the County Defendants stated that it is duplicative of Interrogatory No. 4, however, in response to Interrogatory No. 4, the County Defendants stated that the information can be ascertained from their response to Interrogatory Page 5 of 8No. 5. As outlined above, the County Defendants have answered neither Interrogatory No. 3 nor 5. This is a refusal to respond. e. In response to Interrogatory No. 7, the County Defendants provided the name of only one person who is allegedly “the person with the most knowledge.” This was not responsive to the Interrogatory which requested the names of all persons with knowledge. Indeed, the two notices of intent to lien were signed by Ernesto Alonso and referred the Plaintiffs to Mr. Julio Guas. Clearly the County Defendants are intentionally interfering with the discovery. It is unlikely that these are the only other persons whose names are responsive to Interrogatory No. 7 f. In response to Interrogatory No. 8, the County Defendants objected and provided the name “Michael Postell — Senior Property Appraiser Supervisor,” and provided no other names. As outlined in above with reference to Interrogatory No. 7, there are other names. Moreover, the property appraiser has refused to outline the role of the sole person whose name the provided. Clearly, it cannot be “unduly burdensome” to provide the information with respect to a single individual. g In response to Interrogatory No. 9, the County Defendants responded that they obtained the initial information from an anonymous source and subsequently obtained the evidence for the “rental of homestead” through a lease agreement provided by the plaintiffs. This response is untruthful i. The Appraiser issued its “intent to lien” for tax years 2011 through 2015 on December 5, 2016 and effectuated the liens on January 5, 2016. The Appraiser did not meet with either the Plaintiffs or the undersigned counsel prior to effectuating the tax liens for 2011 through 2015. There is a significant gap between January 5, 2016 and June 23, 2017, the date the Plaintiffs provided the lease agreement to the Appraiser. As Page 6 of 8such, the Appraiser either had absolutely no evidence of the rental of a homestead or they are refusing to provide the documentation to established the rental of a homestead as of the date of issuing the Notices of Intent to Lien and effectuating the liens. GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that on behalf of the Plaintiff, a good faith effort was made to confer with the County Defendants’ counsel in an attempt to resolve the discovery issues without court intervention. The County Defendant’s did not respond to the Plaintiff's emails which clarified the discovery requests and requested their position as to compliance Wherefore, the Plaintiff's respectfully requests that this Honorable Court overrule the Defendants’ objections, and grant their attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 1.380(a)(4) and any other relief this Court deems proper Respectfully submitted, ANDRE GIBSON, CHARTERED Andre A. Gibson Attorney for Plaintiffs, Virginia and Raul Mejia Florida Bar Number: 0635529 45 NE 67th Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162 Telephone: (305) 652-4900 E-Mail: AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.com Secondary E-Mail: Efile@Gibsontaxlaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished via electronic mail to Timothy Dennis at Timothy.Dennis@myfloridalegal.com, Jon.Annette@myfloridalegal.com, Rebecca.Padgett@myfloridalegal.com; and Michael Mastrucci, Assistant County Attorney, mastrucc@miamidade. gov; emily@miamidade. gov, this 20" day of August, 2018. Page 7 of 8André A. Gibson Attorney for Plaintiffs Page 8 of 8EXHIBIT A 45 NE 167™ STREET, NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL 33162 TELEPHONE: 305-652-4900 || TELEFAX: 305-808-3495 AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.comFiling # 75238120 E-Filed 07/19/2018 05:11:10 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, CASE NO. 18-12371 CA 34 Plaintiff, VS PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County Florida) LEON M BIEGALSKI, as the Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami Dade County Florida, Defendants. / PROPERTY APPRAISER’S RESPONSE TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION Defendant, PEDRO J. GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County, Florida, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350, hereby responds to Plaintiffs, RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ’s First Request for Production of Documents as follows 1. A copy of any and all communication between County Defendants, related to the Plaintiffs and/or the subject property. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “between County Defendants,” as vague in that Request No. 1 does not then clarify the other party to the communications. Further, any request of this nature would need to be narrowly tailored to the relevant time and scope of this litigation. The Plaintiff would have to rewrite Request No. 1 in order for the Property Appraiser to properly respond. 2. A copy of any and all internal communication between the agents and employees each County Defendants that is related to the Plaintiffs or the subject property. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “between the agents and employees each County Defendants,” as vague and confusing in thatRequest No. 2 uses disjointed phrases that make the request unintelligible. Further, any request of this nature would need to be narrowly tailored to the relevant time and scope of this litigation. The Plaintiff would have to rewrite Request No. 2 in order for the Property Appraiser to properly respond. 3. A copy of any and all communication between the county defendants and any person with knowledge of the subject property or the plaintiffs incident to or related to imposition of retroactive tax liens on the subject property for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response To the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has located and will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive 4, Any and all documents obtained by the County Defendants prior to the imposition of retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016, or upon which the County Defendants rely upon to support of retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response The Property Appraiser objects to the statement “Any and all documents obtained by the County Defendants prior to the imposition of retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016,” as overbroad in that Request No. 2 is not narrowly tailored to the relevant time and scope of this litigation. Nonetheless, to the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has located and will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to the second half of the request — ie. “Any and all documents . . . upon which the County Defendants rely upon to support [the] retroactive tax liens for the tax years 2011 through 2016.” 5. A copy of any and all documents that is related to the subject property or plaintiffs which are related to retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: —_ To the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has located and will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive. 6. A copy of any and all documents from whatever source evidencing the County Defendants’ determination of rental of homestead of the subject property for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: To the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has locatedand will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive 7. A copy of any and all documents showing the County Defendants’ calculations of retroactive tax penalties and interest for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: The Property Appraiser has located and will produce documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request. 8. A copy of any and all documents that formed the basis for the County Defendants’ determination that the subject property was rented for tax years 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016. Response: — The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 8 as duplicative of Request No. 6. Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request No. 6. 9. A copy of any and all documents showing the application of payments and credits toward the retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016 and accrued interest and penalties against the subject property arising from the imposition of the retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: The Property Appraiser has located and will produce documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request. 10. A copy of any and all documents listed in response to the 9" interrogatory. Response: _ To the extent that production does not violate confidentiality statutes, work product and/or attorney client privilege, the Property Appraiser has located and will produce any documents in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive 11. A copy of any and all testamentary documents including but not limited to affidavits, declarations, depositions, written statements from any persons on whom the County Defendants relied in imposing their retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: The Property Appraiser does not have any documents or communications in its possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 19" day of July, 2018 via e-mail generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to: Andre A. Gibson, Esq., 45 NE 67th Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162, AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.com, Efile@Gibsontaxlaw.com. Respectfully submitted, ABIGAIL PRICE-WILLIAMS Miami-Dade County Attorney Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128-1993 By: /s/ Michael J. Mastrucci Michael J. Mastrucci Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 86130 Telephone: (305) 375-5151 Facsimile: (305) 375-5634 E-mail:Michael.Mastrucci@miamidade.govEXHIBIT B 45 NE 167™ STREET, NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL 33162 TELEPHONE: 305-652-4900 || TELEFAX: 305-808-3495 AAGibson@Gibsontaxlaw.comFiling # 75238120 E-Filed 07/19/2018 05:11:10 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION RAUL MEJIA and VIRGINIA LOPEZ, CASE NO. 18-12371 CA 34 Plaintiff, vs. PEDRO GARCIA, as Property Appraiser of Miami-Dade County Florida, LEON M. BIEGALSKI, as the Executive Director of the Florida Department of Revenue; MARCUS SAIZ DE LA MORA, as Tax Collector of Miami Dade County Florida, Defendants. / PROPERTY APPRAISER’S NOTICE OF SERVING ITS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFE’S INTERROGATORIES In accordance with Rule 1.340, Fla. R. Civ. P., the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser, as the Defendant in the above-captioned matter (the “Property Appraiser”) gives notice that on July 19, 2018 he served by e-mail his response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories directed to Property Appraiser. Respectfully submitted, ABIGAIL PRICE-WILLIAMS Miami-Dade County Attorney Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128-1993 By: s/Michael J. Mastrucci Michael J. Mastrucci Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No. 86130 Email: Mastrucc@miamidade.gov Telephone: (305) 375-5151 Facsimile: (305) 375-5634Case No. 18-12371-CA 34 Property Appraiser’s Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories PROPERTY APPRAISER’S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1. Provide the names and address of the person or persons who is answering these interrogatories and the relationship to the County Defendants. Response: Michael Postell Senior Property Appraiser Supervisor Miami-Dade County Office of the Property Appraiser 111 N.W. Ist Street, Suite 710 Miami, Florida 33128 2. Provide the names and addresses of any and all persons with knowledge of rental of homestead of the subject property for the tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the statement “any and all persons” is vague, overbroad, and not narrowly tailored. Notwithstanding this objection and to the extent that the request attempts to seek all of the employees within the Office of the Property Appraiser with knowledge of the subject property’s rental during tax years 2013-17 (as tax years 2011-12 were cancelled and are not at issue in this case), see the response to Interrogatory No. 7 3. Provide the names and addresses of all persons with or from whom the County defendants consulted, conferred, questioned, or obtained information related or incident to the imposition of retroactive tax liens on the subject property for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: Raul Mejia & Virginia Lopez 201 178 Drive #531 Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160 Andre A. Gibson — Attorney for Plaintiffs 45 Northeast 67 Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 4. Provide a summary of the information or documents obtained from any person listed in response to question 3. Response: In accordance with Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.340(c), a summary of the information or documents obtained from any person that was related to the imposition of retroactive tax liens on the subject property for the tax years 2011 through 2016 may be derived or ascertained from the records produced in response to Request for Production Request No. 5Case No. 18-12371-CA 34 Property Appraiser’s Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 5. Provide the names and addresses of all persons who provided information, whether documentary or testamentary, to the County Defendants in the course of investigating the purported “rental of homestead” for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 5 as duplicative of Request No. 3. Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request No. 3. 6. Provide a summary of the information or documents obtained from any person listed in response to question 5. Response The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 6 as duplicative of Request No. 4 Notwithstanding the preceding objection, see response to Request No. 4 7. Provide the names and addresses of all persons, including agents and employees of the County Defendants who has knowledge of the investigation, calculation of the retroactive tax lien amounts, and who participated in the decision to investigate or revoke the Plaintiffs’ homestead exemption and issue the retroactive tax liens against the subject property for tax years 2011 — 2016. Response The decisions involved in investigating and/or revoking a taxpayer’s homestead exemption and the subsequent lien calculations are a part of an effort by many employees of the Property Appraiser’s Office, some of which is clerical in nature The person most responsible is. Michael Postell — Senior Property Appraiser Supervisor Miami-Dade County Office of the Property Appraiser 111 N.W. Ist Street, Suite 710 Miami, Florida 33128 8. Provide a summary of the role of each of the person listed in response to question 7 in the process of investigating, calculating, or decision to issue the retroactive tax liens on the subject property for tax years 2011 through 2016. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 9 as unduly burdensome in that the process of investigating, calculating, and/or deciding to issue a retroactive tax lien is an effort by many employees of the Property Appraiser’s Office, some of which is clerical in nature. The person most responsible is: Michael Postell — Senior Property Appraiser Supervisor Miami-Dade County Office of the Property Appraiser 111 N.W. Ist Street, Suite 710 Miami, Florida 33128 9. Provide the source of all information relief upon in imposing the retroactive tax liens for tax years 2011 through 2016, indicating, without limitation, the name and addresses ofCase No. 18-12371-CA 34 Property Appraiser’s Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories each person (entity or natural), governmental agency, publication, article, author, relevant dates, etc., which was used. Response: The Property Appraiser objects to Request No. 9 as confusing. Nonetheless, to the extent that the request seeks the source of all information re/ied upon in imposing the retroactive tax liens for the tax years 2011 through 2016, the Property Appraiser received an anonymous complaint that the subject property had been rented. That complaint led to an investigation in which the Plaintiffs provided a lease agreement between the Plaintiffs and Fabiola Stuyvesant for the rental of the subject property Any further information was obtained through the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Information Database and the Accurint Database. [SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE FOREGOING ANSWERS AR® TRUE AND COMPLETE, 7 a The foregoing instrument was pele ouledged before me this i day of “ed y , 2018, by eh taskeHl, who is personally known to me or has’ produced eee as identification and who did! did not take an oath. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE WITNESS my hand and official seal, this J toe ay ot valy 2018, sy, Vorenica Ruhert pH eawanayse “ Bonded Tie be on Now Notary Public, State of Morida Ny My Commission expires: