Motion to Compel in VINCENZO DEPAU VS MICHAEL STERN ET AL| Trellis.Law

On August 04, 2017 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Depau, Vincenzo, and Board Of Miami-Dade County Commissioners, College Health Ii Gp Inc, Feeney, Dwight J, Fl Dept Of Revenue, Harding Investments Llc, Harris, Layne, Miami Design Preservation League, Ocean Bank, Raijman Realty Inc, Rose, Ivor H, Starr, Rita, Stengel, Paul, Stern, Layne Harris, Stern, Michael, United States Of America Dept Of Justice, United States Of America Dept Of The Treasury, Zamyatin, Semone, for RPMF -Commercial ($250,000 or more) in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.

Preview
Filing # 116100309 E-Filed 11/03/2020 07:38:38 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 2017-018931-CA-01

VINCENZO DEPAU,

Plaintiff,
Discovery consolidated with Bank of New York
v. Mellon v. Rose, et. al., No. 2019-00245-CA-01

MICHAEL STERN, LAYNE
HARRIS STERN, IVOR H. ROSE,
RITA STARR, et. al.,

Defendants.
_________________________________/

DEFENDANT LAYNE HARRIS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF VINCENZO DEPAU TO RESPOND TO HER WRITTEN
DISCOVERY REQUESTS ANDFOR SANCTIONS AND
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Defendant Layne Harris (“Harris”), through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fla. R.

Civ. P. 1.380, hereby files her Motion to Compel Plaintiff Vincenzo DePau (“DePau”) to

Respond to her Written Discovery Requests and for Sanctions (the “Motion to Compel”), and her

Response in Opposition to DePau’s Motion to Stay Discovery, and in support thereof states as

follows:

DePau has had 10 Months to Respond to Harris’s Discovery Requests

Harris propounded her written discovery requests to DePau, comprised of her First

Request for Production, First Request for Admissions, and First Set of Interrogatories (the

1
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
“Discovery Requests”) on January 15, 2020, ten months ago. A day before his responses became

due, on February 14, 2020, DePau requested a 30-day extension. Harris agreed to the extension.1

On March 12, DePau requested a second extension to respond to the Discovery Requests.

Again, Harris agreed.2 Days later, DePau requested a third extension. Harris agreed to the third

extension. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic and Harris’s understanding that DePau lives

outside of the U.S., Harris, acting in good faith, did not insist on a firm deadline for DePau’s

response to the Discovery Requests. Instead, Harris expected that DePau would also act in good

faith and respond as soon as he was able.

Several months passed and no responses were received. Harris, acting in good faith,

waited patiently. On September 21, 2020, Harris reminded DePau of his discovery obligations,

writing:

As you know, we propounded discovery to your client earlier this year. We
agreed to an extension and have not pushed in light of the COVID -19 pandemic.
However, we do need your client to respond. Please do so within the next 30
3
days.

DePau responded the following day on September 22, 2020:

Of course, we will respond. Thank you for your courtesies in the extension. I will
calendar a response date for October 21, 2020.4

Several days later, DePau requested yet another extension beyond October 21, 2020:

I just contacted Mr. DePau and learned he is in Italy until around October 20. As
you may know, he does not speak English well and therefore he requested to meet
with me to prepare the written responses. May we have an additional 10 days for
the responses? This way I can meet with Mr. DePau when he returns, review all

1
See Emails between counsel for DePau and counsel for Harris dated 2/14/2020, attached as Exhibit A.
2
See Emails between counsel for DePau and counsel for Harris dated 3/12/2020, attached as Exhibit B.
3
See Emails between counsel for DePau and counsel for Harris dated 9/21/2020 through 9/24/2020, attached as
Exhibit C.
4
See id.
2
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
your questions and serve you with answers. He also is the person who would be
in possession of the documents you have requested.

Please let me know if this is okay with you. I know these have been pending for
some time and they delay is more a product of COVID and now Mr. DePau's
5
absence and travel restrictions, etc.

Again, Harris agreed to the extension. As such, DePau’s responses to the Discovery Requests

came due on October 31, 2020.

DePau, however, has not responded. Instead, he filed a Motion to Stay Discovery (the

“Motion to Stay”) without even the courtesy of conferring with Harris. On October 27, 2020

Harris contacted DePau in order to resolve this issue at which time DePau confirmed that he

would not respond to her Discovery Requests.

DePau’s bad faith Motion to Stay Discovery

After Harris asked DePau to provide his responses in September 2020 and after DePau

indicated that he would do so, DePau filed three separate motions in short order. On October 16,

2020, DePau filed a Motion to Compel Mediation. Harris, to be clear, does not oppose

mediation. In fact, she has advocated for mediation for the past two years and looks forward to

it. What she does oppose is being forced to mediation without responses to the Discovery

Requests, as she this would prevent her from fully evaluating her position. She would also be at

a disadvantage to DePau who received responses to his written discovery requests long ago.

On October 21, 2020, a few days after he filed his Motion to Compel Mediation, DePau

filed his Motion to Stay Discovery and a spate Motion for Entry of Final Judgment against

Harris. In his Motion to Stay, DePau argues that the resolution of Harris’s pending Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment on DePau’s Contract and Fraud Claims and his Motion for Entry of

5
See id. (emphasis added).
3
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
Final Judgment could potentially eliminate the need for Harris’s discovery. If DePau truly

believed this was cause to stay discover (it is not), he could have and should have raised it when

Harris first propounded her Discovery Requests in January 2020.

Harris’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed on May 7, 2019 before Harris

propounded her Discovery Requests. Similarly, DePau’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment is

based on an order from the Court that was issued on July 9, 2018 (the “July 2018 Order”), which

also predates Harris’s Discovery Requests.6 There is no reason why DePau would have to wait

ten months raise either as grounds for a stay. Instead of timely filing a motion to stay, as a party

acting in good faith would have done, DePau led Harris along by seeking extension after

extension with the assurance that he would respond. Once DePau could delay no longer, he then

filed his baseless Motion to Stay, which demonstrates bad faith.

Additionally, Harris’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment will not resolve any issues

because it is legally improper. The Court’s July 2018 Order granted DePau’s motion for partial

summary judgment on his negligence claim against Harris. DePau prevailed on his argument

that Harris failed to properly safeguard her notary stamp and that as a result her ex-husband,

Defendant Michael Stern, stole it and used it to falsely authenticate her forged signature and the

forged signature of Defendant Ivor Rose, on a mortgage that secured a note issued by Stern to

DePau (the “Loan Documents”). Stern used the falsely authenticated Loan Documents to obtain

monies from DePau. In its July 2018 order, the Court, found that Harris had been negligent:

[b]y failing to both keep her notary seal under her direct and exclusive control and
then failing to report the loss or theft of her stamp.7

6
See the July 2018 Order, attached as Exhibit D.
7
See id. at pg. 11.
4
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
What the Court did not determine in its order is what damages, if any, were caused by Harris’s

alleged negligence. DePau’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment is an attempt to skip past its

obligation to prove its damages. Harris’s Discovery Requests are designed to determine, among

other things, what damages DePau’s believes he incurred as a result of Harris’s alleged

negligence.

DePau also argues that Harris does not need discovery because she twice moved for

summary judgment before she propounded her Discovery Requests. Harris is unaware of and

DePau did not cite a single case for the proposition that a party loses its right to discovery by

moving for summary judgment. DePau’s proposition makes no sense. Moreover, the argument

is disingenuous to the extent it implies that Harris’s motions for summary judgment required

significant discovery.

As DePau well knows, Harris’s first motion for summary judgment, which the prior

presiding judge denied was based on the statute of limitations and the statute of repose. As such,

Harris was able to proceed her motion, which was based on the nine-year gap between when the

monies DePau loaned to Stern became due and when DePau initiated this lawsuit, with only

DePau’s complaint and the Loan Documents that were attached to it. In the Courts’ July 2018,

which denied Harris’s first motion for summary judgment, the Court expressly indicated that

further discovery on the statute of limitations issue was appropriate:

Finally, significant fact discovery remains to be had to determine whether Harris
is estopped from raising the statute of limitations defense to the fraud claims
against her.8

8
See id. at pg. 9.
5
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
Harris’s second motion for summary judgment, her Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment on Plaintiff’s Contract and Fraud Claims, also did not require much in the way of

discovery. DePau alleged two distinct theories of liability against Harris. The first, is that Harris

was negligent, as discussed above. The second, is that Harris was a knowing participant in

Stern’s fraud and used her notary stamping to authenticate Rose’s forged signature. Obviously,

the factual allegations underpinning each theory are mutually exclusive. The Court could not

have made the factual determination that Harris had been negligent if the Court believe there was

a question of act as to whether Harris acted intentionally. Harris’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment on Plaintiff’s Contract and Fraud Claims, which has not yet been heard, is based on

this simple premise.

While the Court is certainly not expected to be aware of this history given that a different

judge now presides, DePau is certainly aware of it. For these reasons, the argument that Harris

could have somehow lost her right to obtain responses to her Discovery Requests by previously

moving for summary judgment makes even less sense.

Applicable Law

The Florida Supreme Court has held that:

A primary purpose in the adoption of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is to
prevent the use of surprise, trickery, bluff and legal gymnastics. Revelation
through discovery procedures of the strength and weaknesses of each side before
trial encourages settlement of cases and avoids costly litigation. Each side can
make an intelligent evaluation of the entire case and may better anticipate the
ultimate results.

Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970). DePau’s multiple requests for

extensions to respond to Harris’s Discovery Responses and the accompanying assertions that he

would in fact respond can now clearly be seen for what they were—trickery intended to deprive
6
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
Harris of her ability to fully defend against DePau’s allegations and evaluate her case prior to

mediation. The DePau’s stale and unavailing grounds for seeking a stay of discovery reveal that

he never intended on responding to Harris’s requests. DePau’s actions are wrong and in bad

faith.

Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380, the Court has the power to compel DePau to respond to

Harris’s Discovery Requests and award Harris the costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this

Motion to Compel. Harris respectfully requests that the Court enter an order compelling DePau

to respond to the Discovery Requests within 10 calendar days and award her reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this motion. Harris also respectfully requests that the

Court find that DePau waived all objections not based on the attorney-client or work product

privileges, as he failed to timely raise them—“a party may not stop complying with its discovery

obligations when it files a motion to stay.” See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hazzan, 12-20154,

2012 WL 13014695, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2012)(holding that “Defendants waived their

objections by failing to timely respond.”); see Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So.

2d 1282, 1283–84 (Fla. 1992)(Recognizing that Florida courts “look to the federal rules and

decisions for guidance in interpreting Florida's civil procedure rules” with respect to discovery

matters”).9

Conclusion

DePau has taken advantage of Harris’s good faith efforts at cooperation and chosen to

engage in improper gamesmanship and deception in order to avoid his obligation to respond to

9
Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(c), when a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the court may order
the non-responsive party to pay the reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by the requesting party in
proving the truth of the matter. Once Harris proves the truthfulness of the admissions she sought, she will seek an
award of attorneys’ fees and other expenses she incurred in proving the truth of the matters given DePau’s failure to
admit them.
7
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
the Discovery Requests. This is not allowed under Florida law. Harris has a right to obtain and

DePau has an obligation to provide complete responses to the Discovery Requests so that Harris

is not prejudiced in her defense in this matter.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Layne Harris respectfully requests that the Court enter an

order (1) compelling Plaintiff Vincenzo DePau to respond to her Discovery Requests within 10

calendar days, (2) finding that DePau waived all objections to the Discovery Requests not based

on the attorney-client or work product privilege, (3) awarding Harris her reasonable attorneys’

fees and costs associated with this motion, and (4) granting all other relief the Court deems just

and proper.

Certificate of Good Faith Conference

Undersigned counsel certifies that he contacted opposing counsel in good faith an in

writing on October 27, 2020 in an attempt to resolve this matter and that opposing counsel did

not agree.

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102
COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 371-8809
Facsimile: (305) 448-4155

By:_ /s/ Benjamin L. Keime
Glen H. Waldman, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 618624
Benjamin L. Keime, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 118752

8
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via

Florida’s e-portal filing system on this 3rd day of November, 2020 to all counsel of record.

/s/ Benjamin L. Keime
Benjamin L. Keime, Esq.

9
WALDMAN BARNETT, P.L.
3250 MARY STREET, SUITE 102 ● COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
{00351408.DOCX }
EXHIBIT A

{00270403.DOCX }
Nancy Curiel

From: Ruben Conitzer
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 1:08 PM
To: Benjamin Keime
Subject: Re: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 132017CA018931000001
VINCENZO DEPAU vs MICHAEL STERN et al

Thanks Ben you too

Ruben Conitzer
Attorney
Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
Miami, Florida 33131
305‐356‐5458 (phone)
305‐372‐7475 (fax)
RConitzer@careyrodriguez.com
www.careyrodriguez.com

From: Benjamin Keime
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 1:06:45 PM
To: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: RE: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 132017CA018931000001 VINCENZO DEPAU vs MICHAEL
STERN et al

That’s fine. 30 days is agreed. Have a good weekend.

Benjamin L. Keime
Waldman Barnett, P.L.
3250 Mary Street Suite 102
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Phone: 305.371.8809
Direct: 786.871.2191
Fax: 305.448.4155
Email: bkeime@waldmanbarnett.com
Web: www.waldmanbarnett.com

 Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or in any attachment).
1
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission has been sent by a lawyer. It may contain information that is confidential, privileged, proprietary, or
otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message, any part of it, or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please delete this message and any attachments from
your system without reading the content and notify the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no intent on the part of the sender to waive
any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this communication. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Ruben Conitzer [mailto:RConitzer@careyrodriguez.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 12:16 PM
To: Benjamin Keime
Cc: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 132017CA018931000001 VINCENZO DEPAU vs MICHAEL
STERN et al

Ben,

Can I get a 30-day extension to respond to your below referenced discovery requests? Please let
me know if this is okay or if I should file a motion.

Thanks, Ruben

From: "eservice@myflcourtaccess.com"
Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 4:50 PM
Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 132017CA018931000001 VINCENZO DEPAU vs
MICHAEL STERN et al

Notice of Service of Court Documents

Filing Information

Filing #: 101729340

Filing Time: 01/15/2020 04:49:57 PM ET

Filer: Benjamin Lee Keime 305‐371‐8809

2
Court: Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami‐Dade County, Florida

Case #: 132017CA018931000001

Court Case #: 2017‐018931‐CA‐01

Case Style: VINCENZO DEPAU vs MICHAEL STERN et al

Documents

Title File

Request For Production 00319487.PDF

Notice Of Service Of Interrogatories 00319486.PDF

Request For Admissions 00319485.PDF

E‐service recipients selected for service:

Name Email Address

Alexandra Valdes alexandra.valdes@csklegal.com

emily.fernandez@csklegal.com

Anthony Accetta, Esq. law@anthonyaccetta.com

paralegal@anthonyaccetta.com

charles@anthonyaccetta.com

Benjamin Lee Keime bkeime@waldmanbarnett.com

litservice@waldmanbarnett.com

N/A emily.fernandez@csklegal.com

Daryl A. Greenberg daryl.greenberg@csklegal.com

magaly.triana@csklegal.com

David Sherman jrucker@miamidade.gov

yvaldes@miamidade.gov

Eric P. Stein docservice@epslaw.com

George William Allen Jr katgainey@aol.com

gwallenesq@aol.com

Glen H. Waldman litservice@waldmanbarnett.com

3
Name Email Address

gwaldman@waldmanbarnett.com

Benjamin L. Keime bkeime@waldmanbarnett.com

Jesse Dean‐Kluger jdk@jdkpa.com

megan@jdkpa.com

Layne Harris iminatlast@aol.com

Lazaro Vazquez lazaro@vazquezpa.com

lidia@vazquezpa.com

Michael R Carroll Jr mcarroll@oceanbank.com

gcruz@oceanbank.com

legalservice@oceanbank.com

Yiliam Perez yperez@oceanbank.com

Ruben Conitzer rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com

service@careyrodriguez.com

Layne Harris Stern iminatlast@aol.com

bakerylayne@gmail.com

Crystal Revilla crevilla@careyrodriguez.com

David P Milian dmilian@careyrodriguez.com

service@careyrodriguez.com

Thomas E Scott thomas.scott@csklegal.com

renee.jordan@csklegal.com

shelly.zambo@csklegal.com

Daryl A Greenberg daryl.greenberg@csklegal.com

magaly.triana@csklegal.com

E‐service recipients not selected for service:

Name Email Address

No Matching Entries

This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not
receive email.

4
Thank you,
The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal

request_id#:101729340;Audit#:342082973;UCN#:132017CA018931000001;

5
EXHIBIT B

{00270403.DOCX }
Nancy Curiel

From: Ruben Conitzer
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 1:21 PM
To: Benjamin Keime
Cc: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: Re: DePau v. Stern, Harris

Thanks. Look forward to talking tomorrow. I’m also available mostly all day.

From: Benjamin Keime
Date: Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 1:16 PM
To: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: RE: DePau v. Stern, Harris

Sure.

1
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission has been sent by a lawyer. It may contain information that is confidential, privileged, proprietary, or
otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message, any part of it, or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please delete this message and any attachments from
your system without reading the content and notify the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no intent on the part of the sender to waive
any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this communication. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Ruben Conitzer [mailto:RConitzer@careyrodriguez.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 1:07 PM
To: Benjamin Keime
Cc: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: Re: DePau v. Stern, Harris

Yeah that works. Can we agree to push my discovery responses then to Wednesday?

From: Benjamin Keime
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 12:43
To: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: RE: DePau v. Stern, Harris

Can we talk tomorrow? I am free all day tomorrow.

 Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or in any attachment).
2
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission has been sent by a lawyer. It may contain information that is confidential, privileged, proprietary, or
otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message, any part of it, or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please delete this message and any attachments from
your system without reading the content and notify the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no intent on the part of the sender to waive
any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this communication. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Ruben Conitzer [mailto:RConitzer@careyrodriguez.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 8:09 AM
To: Benjamin Keime
Cc: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: DePau v. Stern, Harris

Good morning Ben,

The inferior lien holders have been disposed of by summary judgment. Do you have a moment
to discuss this matter today?

Best, Ruben

3
EXHIBIT C

{00270403.DOCX }
Nancy Curiel

From: Ruben Conitzer
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:33 AM
To: Benjamin Keime
Subject: Re: DePau v. Stern, et al.

Thanks Ben. Let me know if you want to discuss the mediation or need me to help
coordinate.

From: Benjamin Keime
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:29 AM
To: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: RE: DePau v. Stern, et al.

Ruben,

No problem. An additional 10 days is fine.

Regards,
Ben

1
 Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or in any attachment).

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission has been sent by a lawyer. It may contain information that is confidential, privileged, proprietary, or
otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message, any part of it, or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please delete this message and any attachments from
your system without reading the content and notify the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no intent on the part of the sender to waive
any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, that may attach to this communication. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Ruben Conitzer [mailto:RConitzer@careyrodriguez.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:28 AM
To: Benjamin Keime
Subject: Re: DePau v. Stern, et al.

Ben,

I am following up on my email below. I just contacted Mr. DePau and learned he is in
Italy until around October 20. As you may know, he does not speak English well and
therefore he requested to meet with me to prepare the written responses. May we have
an additional 10 days for the responses? This way I can meet with Mr. DePau when he
returns, review all your questions and serve you with answers. He also is the person
who would be in possession of the documents you have requested.

Please let me know if this is okay with you. I know these have been pending for some
time and they delay is more a product of COVID and now Mr. DePauʹs absence and
travel restrictions, etc.

Thanks, Ruben

2
From: Ruben Conitzer
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 7:08 AM
To: Benjamin Keime
Subject: Re: DePau v. Stern, et al.

Good morning Benjamin,,

Of course, we will respond. Thank you for your courtesies in the extension. I will
calendar a response date for October 21, 2020.

As to mediation, youʹll have my cooperation. As you know, Iʹve been exploring
settlement options for some time.

Best, Ruben

From: Benjamin Keime
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 3:45 PM
To: Ruben Conitzer
Subject: DePau v. Stern, et al.

Ruben,

Good afternoon. I hope you are well. I am writing to touch base. As you know, we propounded discovery to your client
earlier this year. We agreed to an extension and have not pushed in light of the COVID ‐19 pandemic. However, we do
need your client to respond. Please do so within the next 30 days.

Over the past month or so, I spoke with counsel for Ivor Rose and counsel for BONYM. Both indicated a willingness to
mediate. I know that your client was interested in the same. I’d be happy to discuss how we can make this happen, as I
believe that all parties would stand to benefit by doing so before engaging in significant additional litigation.

Regards,
Ben

3
Benjamin L. Keime
Waldman Barnett, P.L.
3250 Mary Street Suite 102
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Phone: 305.371.8809
Direct: 786.871.2191
Fax: 305.448.4155
Email: bkeime@waldmanbarnett.com
Web: www.waldmanbarnett.com

4
EXHIBIT D

{00270403.DOCX }
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

VINCENZO DEPAU,

Plaintiff,

V.
Case N o. 2017-018931 -CA-01
MICHAEL STERN, LAYNE HARRIS
STERN, and IVOR ROSE

Defendants.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF VINCENZO DEPAU AND DEFENDANT LAYNE HARRIS
STERN'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case Info

Judge

Jacqueline Hogan Scola Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 03, 2020

Case Filing Date

August 04, 2017

County

Parties

Accetta, Anthony Attorney for the Defendant
BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Defendant
Brookland, Adam, ESQ Attorney for the Defendant
Carroll, Michael R Attorney for the Defendant
COLLEGE HEALTH II GP INC Defendant
Conitzer, Ruben Attorney for the Plaintiff
David P. Milian Attorney for the Plaintiff
Dean-Kluger, Jesse Attorney for the Defendant
DEPAU, VINCENZO Plaintiff
FEENEY, DWIGHT J Defendant
Fl Dept Of Revenue Defendant
HARDING INVESTMENTS LLC Defendant
HARRIS, LAYNE Defendant
MIAMI DESIGN PRESERVATION LEAGUE Defendant
OCEAN BANK Defendant
RAIJMAN REALTY INC Defendant
ROSE, IVOR H Defendant
Sherman, David Alan Attorney for the Defendant
STARR, RITA Defendant
Stein, Eric P. Attorney for the Defendant
STENGEL, PAUL Defendant
STERN, LAYNE HARRIS Defendant
STERN, MICHAEL Defendant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPT OF JUSTICE Defendant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPT OF THE TREASURY Defendant
Vazquez, Lazaro Attorney for the Defendant
Waldman, Glen H. Attorney for the Defendant
ZAMYATIN, SEMONE Defendant
Juan Quintana Attorney
Kirk Villalón Attorney
David Levine Attorney
Charles Hartz Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jessica Lagos Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Arlene Raijman Attorney
Scott Brown Attorney
Gordon Watt Attorney
James Moon Attorney
Roger Slade Attorney
Robert Klein Attorney
Benjamin Keime Attorneys for Defendants
Lisa Jerles Attorneys for Defendants
Brian Tackenberg Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Emily Cabrera Attorneys for Plaintiffs
George Allen Attorneys for Defendants
Aaron Rothert Attorney
Sharon Shade Attorney
Marc Goldsand Attorney
Miguel de la O Attorney
Robert Worman Attorney
Carlos Jiménez Attorney
Mark Dikeman Attorney
Mark King Attorney
Douglas Stratton Attorney
Guy Spiegelman Attorney
Daniel Wagner Attorney
James Miller Attorney
Brian Dervishi Attorney
David Haber Attorney
Roderick Coleman Attorney
Brett Bean Attorney
Daryl Wilcox Attorney
Thomas Scott Attorney
Daryl Greenberg Attorney
Mark Meland Attorney
Mark Altschul Attorney
William Allen Attorneys for Defendants
Brian Concepcion Attorney
Richard Kendle Attorney
John Crabtree Attorneys for Defendants
Charles Auslander Attorneys for Defendants
Benjamin Katz Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James Byrne Attorney
Mark Raymond Attorney
Carlos Canino Attorney
Gary Freedman Attorney
Steven Silverman Attorney
Sarah Cortvriend Attorney
Alfred LaSorte Attorney
Patrick Brugger Attorney
Mark Septimus Attorney
Joshua Manaster Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: VINCENZO DEPAU VS MICHAEL STERN ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties