Preview
Filing # 72983540 E-Filed 06/01/2018 04:44:10 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 01-2015-CA-4357
SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’ S EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant, SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, by and through its undersigned
attorney files this Response and Objection to Plaintiff's
Emergency Motion for Protective Order, and states the following:
1. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to produce Harald Kegelmann
for an in-person deposition in Orlando, Florida on June 6, 2018.
2. On April 10, 2018, Defendant filed a Notice of Taking
Deposition as to Mr. Kegelmann. A copy of the Notice is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A."
3. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel informed the
undersigned that Mr. Kegelmann would not be attending his agreed
to deposition as Mr. Kegelmann failed to secure a visa for entry
Page 1 of 4
"2015 CA 004357" 72983540 Filed at Alachua County Clerk 06/01/2018 04:44:16 PM EDTinto the U.S. Plaintiff's counsel demanded that the undersigned
cancel the deposition.
4. In order to accommodate the rescheduling of the
deposition and completion of mediation, the undersigned initiated,
and the Defendant's counsel agreed to, a request for a continuance
of the pretrial conference and trial. A copy of the Joint Motion
for Continuance is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
4. In a May 30, 2018 email, a copy of which is attached to
Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order as Exhibit "4", the
undersigned informed Plaintiff's counsel that due to the time
constraints of the June 26, 2018 pretrial conference and the July
9, 2018 trial date, Defendant must "proceed with the deposition
until the Court enters an order granting a continuance." A copy
of the May 30, 2018 email is attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
5. The Court has not yet ruled on the Joint Motion for
Continuance of the pretrial conference and trial dates.
6. In addition, Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order
requests the Court to order the parties to agree to a mutually
agreeable location, date and time for Mr. Kegelmann's rescheduled
deposition, or require the parties to take the deposition via
electronic means.
7. Defendant previously filed a Response and Objection to
Plaintiff's Motion for Video Conference Attendance of Mr.
Kegelmann at deposition or trial because Plaintiff failed then
Page 2 of 4(and fails now) to demonstrate sufficient good cause to outweigh
the prejudice to the Defendant and failed to comply with the legal
requirements for the taking of evidence abroad. A copy of the
Response and Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Video Conference
Attendance is fully incorporated and attached hereto as Exhibit
"Do
8. Defendant cannot agree to take Mr. Kegelmann's
deposition abroad and/or via video conference as Plaintiff has
failed to adhere to the Hague Convention requirements for the
taking of evidence abroad and has refused to pay for Defendant's
counsel's expenses related to such deposition as required by the
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
9. Therefore, in the event the Court grants the separate
Motion for Continuance of the Pretrial Conference and Trial, and
grants the Plaintiff's request for cancellation of the June 6,
2018 deposition, Defendant would request entry of an order
Partially granting the Motion for Protective Order and denying
Plaintiff's request to require the parties to agree to a
rescheduled deposition abroad and/or via videoconference.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this Court deny Plaintiff's
Motion for Protective Order, or alternatively, if the Court grants
the separate Motion for Continuance of the Pretrial Conference and
Trial, to enter an order partially granting Plaintiff's request
for cancellation of the June 6, 2018 deposition, but denying the
Page 3 of 4request for an order directing the parties to agree to anything
further regarding the rescheduled deposition; and for any further
relief this Court deems just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15t day of June, 2018, a copy
of the foregoing was furnished via email transmission only to Shawn
T. Jewell, Esquire, Orange Legal, 800 North Magnolia Ave., Suite
1500, Orlando, FL 32803, service@orlandolegal.com,
shawn@orlandolegal.com, angeline@orlandolegal.com and
dkallas@¢fisherlawfirm.com.
HARDIN & BALL, P.A.
a
BENJAMIN W. HARDIN, JR., ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 0500763
JULIE LANDRIGAN BALL, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 0768731
DANIEL A. FOX, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 94648
Post Office Box 3604
Lakeland, Florida 33802-3604
Telephone: 863-688-5200
Facsimile: 863-686-0777
Email: service@hardinpalaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant/JLB
Page 4 of 4Filing # 70507011 E-Filed 04/10/2018 03:19:43 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 01-2015-CA-4357
SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company,
Defendant.
AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure, on June 6, 2018 beginning at 10:00 a.m.
at the offices of First Choice Reporting & Video Services, Inc.,
121 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, Florida 32801, the
undersigned will take the deposition of:
Corporate Representative of
Advanced Solar Technologies Inc.
upon oral examination before First Choice Reporting & Video
Services, Inc. or some other officer duly authorized by law to take
depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination will
continue from day to day until completed. The deposition is being
taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or both of
the foregoing, or for such other purposes as are permitted under
the applicable rules of court. The deponent shall have with him at
the time of the deposition those documents listed in the attached
Exhibit "A". The matters upon which examination is requested are
listed in Exhibit "B."
Page 1 of 3
ExHipiT__A”
"2015 CA 004357" 70507011 Filed at Alachua County Clerk 04/10/2018 03:19:51 PM EDTCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this _\O4h day of April, 2018,
foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of Court via the Florida
Courts E-Filing Portal and a true and correct copy of the foregoing
has been furnished using the ECF system as indicated below to the
following:
Shawn T. Jewell, Esquire
Orlando Legal
800 North Magnolia Avenue
Suite 1500
Orlando, Florida 32803
service@orlandolegal.com
shawn@orlandolegal.com
angeline@orlandolegal.com
dkallas@fisherlawfirm.com
cc: First Choice Reporting
& Video Services, Inc.
HARDIN & BALL, P.A.
ESQUIRE
Be;
0500763
JULIE LANDRIGAN BALL, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 0768731
DANIEL A. FOX, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 94648
Thomas Daugustinis, Esquire
Florida Bar No.: 116147
Post Office Box 3604
Lakeland, Florida 33802-3604
Telephone: 863-688-5200
Facsimile: 863-686-0777
Primary Email: service@hardinpalaw. com
Attorneys for Defendant
Page 2 of 3If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to
participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision
of certain assistance. Persons with a disability who need any accommodation in
order to participate should call Jan Phillips, ADA Coordinator, Alachua County
Courthouse, 201 E. University Ave., Gainesville, FL 32601 at (352) 337-6237
within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice; if you are hearing
impaired call (800) 955-8771; if you are voice impaired, call (800) 955-8770.
Page 3 of 3EXHIBIT "A"
DOCUMENTS REQUESTED FOR DEPOSITION
1. All documents related to any and all claims and
allegations listed in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
2. All documents related to all damages alleged in
Plaintiff's complaint.
3. Any and all documents related to any license(s) issued
to Plaintiff, its owners, officers, employees, contractors
and/or any qualifying agent as to a Florida electrical
contractor license from January 2010 to present.
4. Any and all documents related to any license issued to
Plaintiff, its owners, officers, employees, contractors and/or
any qualifying agent as to a Florida solar contractor license
from January 2010 to present.
5. Any and all documents related to any real estate
brokers licensed issued to Plaintiff, its owners, officers,
employees, contractors and/or any qualifying agent from January
2010 to present.
6. Any and all documents related to any other licenses
issued and/or held by Plaintiff, its owners, officers,
employees, contractors and/or qualifying agent from January 2010
to present.
7. All emails, communication and/or documents between
Plaintiff, its owners, officers, directors, employees,
contractors, subcontractors and agents and Gainesville Regional
Utilities (GRU) from 2010 to 2013.EXHIBIT "B":
MATTERS UPON WHICH EXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
1. Knowledge of matters alleged in Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint.
2. Knowledge of Plaintiff's corporate structure,
officers, management, contractors, subcontractors, etc.
3. Knowledge of contracts secured by Plaintiff for which
Plaintiff is seeking a commission under the Amended Complaint.
4. Knowledge of all damages sought by Plaintiff in the
Amended Complaint.
5. Knowledge of all licenses issued to Plaintiff, its
owners, officers, directors, employees, contractors,
subcontractors, agents and/or qualifying agents by the State of
Florida or any local government or agency as to any electrical
contractor license, solar contractor license, real estate
broker's license and/or any other license.
6. Knowledge of Plaintiff's discussions and
correspondence with GRU regarding FIT projects as alleged in
Plaintiff's Amended Responses to Interrogatories.
7. Knowledge of Plaintiff's relationship with Michael
Fuqua, of Fuqua Electric, Inc. as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended
Response to Interrogatories.
8. Knowledge of the Naveen Project-6™ Street Solar Energy
Park of Gainesville Project as identified in Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint.
9. Knowledge of the Waldo Road Project/Waldo Solar Energy
Park of Gainesville, LLC as identified in Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint.
10. Knowledge of the UTC Project as identified in
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.Filing # 72919063 E-Filed 05/31/2018 04:37:52 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 01-2015-CA-4357
SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company,
Defendant.
/
JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE AND TRIAL
Plaintiff, ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and Defendant,
SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, by and through their undersigned attorneys, file
this Joint Motion and Stipulation for Continuance of Pretrial
Conference and Trial, and in support thereof state the following:
1. This matter is scheduled for a pretrial conference on
June 26, 2018 and a 3-day jury trial starting on July 9, 2018.
2. The parties require a continuance of the pretrial
conference and the jury trial in order to complete a second
mediation conference as directed by this Court's May 24, 2018 Order
Denying Defendant's Motion to Relieve Parties of Requirement to
Participate in Second Mediation Conference.
3. In addition, the discovery deadline set forth in this
Court's October 26, 2017 pretrial order has expired, and the
Page 1 of 2
“Yh
EXHIBIT___———Plaintiff requires additional time to make arrangements to produce
its designated corporate representative for deposition.
WHEREFORE, the parties jointly request an Order cancelling
the June 26, 2018 pretrial conference and the July 9, 2018 jury
trial, and for any further relief this Court deems just and proper.
Date:
ATTORNEY FROM PLAINTIFF
ORLANDO LEGAI
-
HAL ESOL, ESQUIRE
ar No.: 52245
800 N. Magnolia Avenue
Suite 1500
Orlando, FL 32803-3269
Telephone: 407-377-6399
Facsimile: 407-377-6699
Email:
service@oriandelegal
shawn@orl olegal.
angeline@orlardolegal.ccm
com
fife pate: _S] 31/18
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
HARDIN & BALL, P.A.
a
__ BENJAMIN W. HARDIN, JR., ESQUIRE
ee Bar No.: 0500763
JULIE LANDRIGAN BALL, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 0768731
DANIEL A. FOX, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 94648
Post Office Box 3604
Lakeland, FL 33802-3604
Telephone: 863-688-5200
Facsimile: 863-686-0777
Email: service@hardinpalaw.com
Page 2 of 2Julie Ball
From: Julie Ball
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 2:49 PM
To: “Shawn Jewell’
Ce: Brock McClane; Deborah Kallas
Subject: RE: Advanced v. Sybac
Mr. Jewell:
Your email does not serve as any confirmation for the cancellation of Mr. Kegelmann’s deposition, and/or to
the rescheduling of the deposition or any alternative means of appearance. This deposition was agreed to and
coordinated with your office. The letter you provided does not explain the basis for the denial, and clearly
permits the refiling of an application with the correct information and documents. Unless and until the Court
grants our Motion for Continuance, the trial is still scheduled for July. Therefore, | must proceed with the
deposition until the Court enters an order granting a continuance.
In order to proceed with requesting the continuance, please have your client sign and return the previously
provided Consent, and return a signed copy of the Motion to me as soon as possible. Once we have the
signed documents, we may file everything with the Court and hopefully obtain an Order and deal with the
pending deposition. However, if the PTC and Trial are not continued, we must move forward with our
previously scheduled and agreed to deposition.
Julie Landrigan Ball, Esquire
Hardin & Ball, P.A.
P.O. Box 3604
Lakeland, FL 33802
Telephone: 863-688-5200
Facsimile: 863-686-0777
jball@hardinpalaw.com
apology fer the
Nothing in this e-maif me
The sender believes that t
opening any ments, the r
for any loss or
mage arising in y from this message
\ fl
From: Shawn Jewell C
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 8:56 AM EXH | BIT.To: Julie Ball
Cc: Brock McClane ; Deborah Kallas
Subject: Re: Advanced v. Sybac
Julie -
| hope you had a enjoyable Holiday weekend and found a few moments to enjoy the start of summer between all the
rain.
| have forwarded the Motion and Consent to my client and will return copies to you as soon as possible.
Additionally, as | mentioned previously Mr. Kegelmann's Visa request was recently denied. Attached is a copy of his
denial. Accordingly, unless you advise otherwise this email will confirm that you will be cancelling the upcoming
deposition so that we may reschedule and coordinate alternative means of appearance. As before, we are more than
willing to make arrangements for electronic deposition appearance and would happily travel towards an appropriate
location near your offices. Alternatively, if you feel compelled to depose him in person, again, as before, we will certainly
work with you to coordinate a deposition in Europe.
In light of the Court's ruling and depending on your expectations for deposition length we may wish to arrange the
mediation and deposition together. Please let us know your thoughts.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
Shawn
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Julie Ball wrote:
Shawn:
Attached please find copies of the following:
1. Joint Motion and Stipulation for Continuance of Pretrial Conference and Trial;
2. Proposed Order;
3. Plaintiff's Consent to Continuance of Pretrial Conference and Trial Date.
l reviewed Judge Keim’s rules. She requires that a Motion to Continue Trial be accompanied by a client
consent. | am forwarding such a consent to my client now.
Please review the attached documents and let me know if you require any changes. If not, please sign the
Motion, and have your client sign the Consent, and return both to me for filing with the Court. | will submit
the documents to the Court and request entry of the order without a hearing.
Julie Landrigan Ball, EsquireHardin & Ball, P.A.
P.O. Box 3604
Lakeland, FL 33802
Telephone: 863-688-5200
Facsimile: 863-686-0777
jball@hardinpalaw.com
oT)
Attorneys at Lave
Shawn Jewell
Attorney at Law
800 N. Magnolia Ave. | Suite 1500 | Orlando, FL. 32803
ph 407.377.6399 | fax 407.377.6699
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for use of the individual or entity
named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution or copying
jon in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmis
sender that you have received this communication in error. Then delete it. Thank vouFiling # 68694365 E-Filed 03/02/2018 09:33:57 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES ,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 01-2015-CA-4357
SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR VIDEO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE
COMES Defendant, SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, by and through its
undersigned attorney and files this Response and Objection to
Plaintiff's Motion for Video Conference Attendance and in
support thereof states the following:
1. Plaintiff, ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., has
requested the Court enter an order "to permit video conferencing
testimony of Harald Kegelmann for at trial (sic), or
alternatively to permit his video deposition to be taken
videoconferencing in advance of trial."
2. The Court should deny Plaintiff's request as Plaintiff
fails to demonstrate sufficient good cause to outweigh the
prejudice to the Defendant, and as Plaintiff has failed to
comply with the legal requirements for the taking of evidence
abroad.
Page 1 of 9 “p”
EXHIBIT.I. SUFFICIENT GOOD CAUSE DOES NOT EXIST TO EXCUSE
KEGELMANN'S PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND/OR
TRIAL IN ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
3. When testifying at a trial, a witness must be
physically present unless otherwise provided by law or rule of
procedure. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.451(a).
4. The Court may permit a witness to testify at trial by
contemporaneous audio or video equipment by agreement of the
parties or for good cause shown. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.451(b).
5. In considering sufficient good cause, the Court must
weigh and address the reasons stated for testimony by
communication equipment against the potential for prejudice to
the objecting party. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.451(b).
6. The Committee Notes to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.451 also
suggest that the Court should consider: (a) the relative cost or
inconvenience of requiring the presence of the witness in court,
(b) the ability of counsel to use necessary exhibits and
demonstrative aids, (c) the limitations placed on the
opportunity for opposing counsel and the finder of fact to
observe the witness's demeanor, and (d) any other factors the
court reasonably deems material to weighing the justification
the requesting party has offered in support of the request to
allow a witness to testify by communication equipment against
the potential for prejudice to the objecting party.
Page 2 of 97. The purported "good cause” alleged by Plaintiff in its
Motion is the "significant time and costs which would be
incurred by the time and (sic) required for Mr. Kegelmann to
travel to Florida and stay in Florida during the estimated trial
period."
8. In a footnote of the Motion, Plaintiff alleges it will
cost over $2,000.00 for Kegelmann to travel to Alachua County,
Florida, the forum in which he filed his lawsuit, for the “at
least 6 nights to accommodate the estimated length of trial and
available trial dates.”
9. As clearly stated in the Court's October 26, 2017
Order Scheduling Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial, the jury
trial is only scheduled for 3 days; from July 9, 2018 to July
11, 2018.
10. Further, Plaintiff fails to disclose to the Court that
Kegelmann cannot comply with the requirements of providing
videotaped testimony in Germany, and therefore must travel to
"London" to either sit for a deposition to be used at trial
and/or to testify via videoconference during the trial.
11. Traveling from Germany to London includes the same
level of travel and overnight stay costs, the relative cost and
inconvenience of which is comparable to attending the trial in
July 2018 in Alachua County, Florida.
Page 3 of 912. In addition, in terms of sitting for a deposition for
the use at trial, the general rule is that a plaintiff, having
chosen the forum, must submit to oral examination within the
district he has chosen. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310 (Comments);
citing, Montgomery v. Sheldon, 16 F.R.D. 34 (1954).
13. "Nor does it appear where the plaintiffs, having
embarked upon this litigation, should not assume all the
incidents thereof which the law contemplates." Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.310 (Comments); citing, Solomon v. Teitelbaum, 9 F.R.D. 515
(1949).
14. Officers or managing agents of a corporate plaintiff
may ordinarily be required to testify on deposition in the
county of the forum. Ormond Beach First Nat'l Bank v.
Montgomery Roofing Co., 189 So. 2d 239 (Fla. ist DCA 1966).
15. Courts may permit an alternative forum, but generally
limit such to the place of the deponent's residence on condition
that the expenses of the defendant's attorney and a reasonable
counsel fee in an amount fixed by the court be paid by the
plaintiff. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310 (Comments); citing, Groll v.
Stulkin, 12 F.R.D. 262 (1951).
16. Plaintiff's counsel proposes to depose Kegelmann in
the United Kingdom, although Kegelmann resides in Germany.
Further, despite request, Plaintiff refuses to pay Defendant's
Page 4 of 9counsel's expenses and/or any reasonable counsel fee for
Defendant's counsel's attendance at such foreign deposition.
17. Further, permitting the foreign videotaped deposition
of Kegelmann for trial purposes and/or allowing Kegelmann to
appear via video conference at trial will significantly
prejudice Defendant's ability to use necessary exhibits and
demonstrative aids.
18. The documents Defendant intends to present on cross-
examination are potentially voluminous, highly technical and
often in the German language. Defendant will be required to
provide its own translator for the Court's review of these
documents, and it will be extremely difficult to show and
discuss these documents, and their translations, over a video
conferencing method.
19. Plaintiff also fails to provide any specific
Parameters of such deposition and/or video linked trial
appearance, including the specific location of the examination,
who would conduct the examination, what company will be
responsible for videotaping and transcribing the examination,
how and my whom Kegelmann will placed under oath, Kegelmann's
ability to communicate in English, whether a translator will be
provided, whether Plaintiff will pay the cost of Defendant's
chosen translator, how objections during the examination will be
handled, what forum law will govern, and all other issues which
Page 5 of 9will arise with a foreign videotaped deposition and/or video
linked appearance at trial.
II. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE 1970 HAGUE CONVENTION
IN ORDER TO TAKE EVIDENCE IN "EUROPE" VIA A VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION FOR USE AT TRIAL AND/OR VIDEO LINKED
TESTIMONY AT TRIAL.
20. Under Florida law, a corporate officer may be deposed,
or testimony taken for the purposes of trial, where he resides.
21. Kegelmann resides in Germany, but as outlined above,
Kegelmann intends to travel to the United Kingdom to either sit
for a deposition for use at trial or appear via video link at
the 3 day trial in July.
22. The Hague Convention of March 18, 1970 regarding the
Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the
"Hague Convention") governs a party's ability to take evidence
for submission in an American case from a witness and/or expert
located in a foreign country.
23. Both Germany and the United Kingdom are members of the
Hague Convention.
24. Germany does not allow for the direct taking of
evidence by judicial personnel of the requesting State (the
State in which the proceedings are pending). Instead, Germany
allows only for the indirect taking of evidence by a German
court, a diplomatic officer, a foreign consular agent or a
commissioner.
Page 6 of 925. Germany also does not allow for cross-examination of
the witness by video link by representatives located in the
requesting state, as only the German court, a diplomatic
officer, a foreign consular agent or a commissioner may illicit
testimony from the witness.
26. The United Kingdom allows for the direct taking of
evidence by judicial personnel of the requesting state, and for
the cross examination of the witness by video link by the
representatives located in the requesting state.
27. However, foreign litigants seeking to illicit the
direct testimony of. witnesses, in the absence of a voluntary
agreement, must first obtain a subpoena by order of the English
High Court. The Court ordered deposition must comply with the
applicable rules of English law and practice.
28. In order to obtain a subpoena by order of the English
High Court, a party must first apply to a US Court to issue a
Letter of Request. The Letter of Request must contain details
of the claim and identify the potential witnesses, details of
the evidence sought and any documents sought for disclosure.
29. If a U.S. Court issues and transmits a Letter of
Request to the English Court, English lawyers must then apply to
the High Court in London in order to give effect to the Letter
of Request and to appoint an examiner who will be responsible
for supervising the taking of evidence via the video link.
Page 7 of 930. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that it has, or can,
comply with Hague Convention in order to legally take direct
evidence from its own witness in either Germany and/or the
United Kingdom.
31. As Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to
conduct Kegelmann's deposition in "Europe" and permitting such
would be prejudicial to Defendant, and as Plaintiff failed to
comply with the procedures necessary to take evidence abroad
under the Hague Convention, Plaintiff's request should _ be
denied, and Kegelmann should be compelled to sit for a
deposition for use at trial in Alachua County, Florida and/or be
required to personally attend the 3 day trial scheduled for July
2018 in Alachua County, Florida.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests the Court deny Plaintiff's
Motion for Video Conference Attendance, and for any further
relief this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: March 2, 2018.
Page 8 of 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this v9? day of March, 2017, a
copy of the foregoing was furnished via email transmission only
to Shawn T. Jewell, Esquire, Orange Legal, 800 North Magnolia
Ave., Suite 1500, Orlando, FL 32803, service@orlandolegal . com,
shawn@orlandolegal.com, angeline@orlandolegal.com and
dkalls@fisherlawfirm.com.
HARDIN & BALL, P.A.
JAMIN W. HARDIN, JR., ESQUIRE
lorida Bar No.: 0500763
JULIE LANDRIGAN BALL, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 0768731
DANIEL A. FOX, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 94648
Post Office Box 3604
Lakeland, Florida 33802-3604
Telephone: 863-688-5200
Facsimile: 863-686-0777
Email: service@hardinpalaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant /JLB
Page 9 of 9
Preview
Filing # 72983540 E-Filed 06/01/2018 04:44:10 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 01-2015-CA-4357 SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant. / DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’ S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendant, SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, by and through its undersigned attorney files this Response and Objection to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Protective Order, and states the following: 1. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to produce Harald Kegelmann for an in-person deposition in Orlando, Florida on June 6, 2018. 2. On April 10, 2018, Defendant filed a Notice of Taking Deposition as to Mr. Kegelmann. A copy of the Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 3. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel informed the undersigned that Mr. Kegelmann would not be attending his agreed to deposition as Mr. Kegelmann failed to secure a visa for entry Page 1 of 4 "2015 CA 004357" 72983540 Filed at Alachua County Clerk 06/01/2018 04:44:16 PM EDTinto the U.S. Plaintiff's counsel demanded that the undersigned cancel the deposition. 4. In order to accommodate the rescheduling of the deposition and completion of mediation, the undersigned initiated, and the Defendant's counsel agreed to, a request for a continuance of the pretrial conference and trial. A copy of the Joint Motion for Continuance is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 4. In a May 30, 2018 email, a copy of which is attached to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order as Exhibit "4", the undersigned informed Plaintiff's counsel that due to the time constraints of the June 26, 2018 pretrial conference and the July 9, 2018 trial date, Defendant must "proceed with the deposition until the Court enters an order granting a continuance." A copy of the May 30, 2018 email is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 5. The Court has not yet ruled on the Joint Motion for Continuance of the pretrial conference and trial dates. 6. In addition, Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order requests the Court to order the parties to agree to a mutually agreeable location, date and time for Mr. Kegelmann's rescheduled deposition, or require the parties to take the deposition via electronic means. 7. Defendant previously filed a Response and Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Video Conference Attendance of Mr. Kegelmann at deposition or trial because Plaintiff failed then Page 2 of 4(and fails now) to demonstrate sufficient good cause to outweigh the prejudice to the Defendant and failed to comply with the legal requirements for the taking of evidence abroad. A copy of the Response and Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Video Conference Attendance is fully incorporated and attached hereto as Exhibit "Do 8. Defendant cannot agree to take Mr. Kegelmann's deposition abroad and/or via video conference as Plaintiff has failed to adhere to the Hague Convention requirements for the taking of evidence abroad and has refused to pay for Defendant's counsel's expenses related to such deposition as required by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Therefore, in the event the Court grants the separate Motion for Continuance of the Pretrial Conference and Trial, and grants the Plaintiff's request for cancellation of the June 6, 2018 deposition, Defendant would request entry of an order Partially granting the Motion for Protective Order and denying Plaintiff's request to require the parties to agree to a rescheduled deposition abroad and/or via videoconference. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, or alternatively, if the Court grants the separate Motion for Continuance of the Pretrial Conference and Trial, to enter an order partially granting Plaintiff's request for cancellation of the June 6, 2018 deposition, but denying the Page 3 of 4request for an order directing the parties to agree to anything further regarding the rescheduled deposition; and for any further relief this Court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15t day of June, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was furnished via email transmission only to Shawn T. Jewell, Esquire, Orange Legal, 800 North Magnolia Ave., Suite 1500, Orlando, FL 32803, service@orlandolegal.com, shawn@orlandolegal.com, angeline@orlandolegal.com and dkallas@¢fisherlawfirm.com. HARDIN & BALL, P.A. a BENJAMIN W. HARDIN, JR., ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 0500763 JULIE LANDRIGAN BALL, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 0768731 DANIEL A. FOX, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 94648 Post Office Box 3604 Lakeland, Florida 33802-3604 Telephone: 863-688-5200 Facsimile: 863-686-0777 Email: service@hardinpalaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/JLB Page 4 of 4Filing # 70507011 E-Filed 04/10/2018 03:19:43 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 01-2015-CA-4357 SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant. AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, on June 6, 2018 beginning at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of First Choice Reporting & Video Services, Inc., 121 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, Florida 32801, the undersigned will take the deposition of: Corporate Representative of Advanced Solar Technologies Inc. upon oral examination before First Choice Reporting & Video Services, Inc. or some other officer duly authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. The deposition is being taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or both of the foregoing, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the applicable rules of court. The deponent shall have with him at the time of the deposition those documents listed in the attached Exhibit "A". The matters upon which examination is requested are listed in Exhibit "B." Page 1 of 3 ExHipiT__A” "2015 CA 004357" 70507011 Filed at Alachua County Clerk 04/10/2018 03:19:51 PM EDTCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this _\O4h day of April, 2018, foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of Court via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished using the ECF system as indicated below to the following: Shawn T. Jewell, Esquire Orlando Legal 800 North Magnolia Avenue Suite 1500 Orlando, Florida 32803 service@orlandolegal.com shawn@orlandolegal.com angeline@orlandolegal.com dkallas@fisherlawfirm.com cc: First Choice Reporting & Video Services, Inc. HARDIN & BALL, P.A. ESQUIRE Be; 0500763 JULIE LANDRIGAN BALL, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 0768731 DANIEL A. FOX, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 94648 Thomas Daugustinis, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 116147 Post Office Box 3604 Lakeland, Florida 33802-3604 Telephone: 863-688-5200 Facsimile: 863-686-0777 Primary Email: service@hardinpalaw. com Attorneys for Defendant Page 2 of 3If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Persons with a disability who need any accommodation in order to participate should call Jan Phillips, ADA Coordinator, Alachua County Courthouse, 201 E. University Ave., Gainesville, FL 32601 at (352) 337-6237 within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice; if you are hearing impaired call (800) 955-8771; if you are voice impaired, call (800) 955-8770. Page 3 of 3EXHIBIT "A" DOCUMENTS REQUESTED FOR DEPOSITION 1. All documents related to any and all claims and allegations listed in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 2. All documents related to all damages alleged in Plaintiff's complaint. 3. Any and all documents related to any license(s) issued to Plaintiff, its owners, officers, employees, contractors and/or any qualifying agent as to a Florida electrical contractor license from January 2010 to present. 4. Any and all documents related to any license issued to Plaintiff, its owners, officers, employees, contractors and/or any qualifying agent as to a Florida solar contractor license from January 2010 to present. 5. Any and all documents related to any real estate brokers licensed issued to Plaintiff, its owners, officers, employees, contractors and/or any qualifying agent from January 2010 to present. 6. Any and all documents related to any other licenses issued and/or held by Plaintiff, its owners, officers, employees, contractors and/or qualifying agent from January 2010 to present. 7. All emails, communication and/or documents between Plaintiff, its owners, officers, directors, employees, contractors, subcontractors and agents and Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) from 2010 to 2013.EXHIBIT "B": MATTERS UPON WHICH EXAMINATION IS REQUESTED 1. Knowledge of matters alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 2. Knowledge of Plaintiff's corporate structure, officers, management, contractors, subcontractors, etc. 3. Knowledge of contracts secured by Plaintiff for which Plaintiff is seeking a commission under the Amended Complaint. 4. Knowledge of all damages sought by Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint. 5. Knowledge of all licenses issued to Plaintiff, its owners, officers, directors, employees, contractors, subcontractors, agents and/or qualifying agents by the State of Florida or any local government or agency as to any electrical contractor license, solar contractor license, real estate broker's license and/or any other license. 6. Knowledge of Plaintiff's discussions and correspondence with GRU regarding FIT projects as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Responses to Interrogatories. 7. Knowledge of Plaintiff's relationship with Michael Fuqua, of Fuqua Electric, Inc. as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Response to Interrogatories. 8. Knowledge of the Naveen Project-6™ Street Solar Energy Park of Gainesville Project as identified in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 9. Knowledge of the Waldo Road Project/Waldo Solar Energy Park of Gainesville, LLC as identified in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 10. Knowledge of the UTC Project as identified in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.Filing # 72919063 E-Filed 05/31/2018 04:37:52 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 01-2015-CA-4357 SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant. / JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL Plaintiff, ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and Defendant, SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, by and through their undersigned attorneys, file this Joint Motion and Stipulation for Continuance of Pretrial Conference and Trial, and in support thereof state the following: 1. This matter is scheduled for a pretrial conference on June 26, 2018 and a 3-day jury trial starting on July 9, 2018. 2. The parties require a continuance of the pretrial conference and the jury trial in order to complete a second mediation conference as directed by this Court's May 24, 2018 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Relieve Parties of Requirement to Participate in Second Mediation Conference. 3. In addition, the discovery deadline set forth in this Court's October 26, 2017 pretrial order has expired, and the Page 1 of 2 “Yh EXHIBIT___———Plaintiff requires additional time to make arrangements to produce its designated corporate representative for deposition. WHEREFORE, the parties jointly request an Order cancelling the June 26, 2018 pretrial conference and the July 9, 2018 jury trial, and for any further relief this Court deems just and proper. Date: ATTORNEY FROM PLAINTIFF ORLANDO LEGAI - HAL ESOL, ESQUIRE ar No.: 52245 800 N. Magnolia Avenue Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32803-3269 Telephone: 407-377-6399 Facsimile: 407-377-6699 Email: service@oriandelegal shawn@orl olegal. angeline@orlardolegal.ccm com fife pate: _S] 31/18 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HARDIN & BALL, P.A. a __ BENJAMIN W. HARDIN, JR., ESQUIRE ee Bar No.: 0500763 JULIE LANDRIGAN BALL, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 0768731 DANIEL A. FOX, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 94648 Post Office Box 3604 Lakeland, FL 33802-3604 Telephone: 863-688-5200 Facsimile: 863-686-0777 Email: service@hardinpalaw.com Page 2 of 2Julie Ball From: Julie Ball Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 2:49 PM To: “Shawn Jewell’ Ce: Brock McClane; Deborah Kallas Subject: RE: Advanced v. Sybac Mr. Jewell: Your email does not serve as any confirmation for the cancellation of Mr. Kegelmann’s deposition, and/or to the rescheduling of the deposition or any alternative means of appearance. This deposition was agreed to and coordinated with your office. The letter you provided does not explain the basis for the denial, and clearly permits the refiling of an application with the correct information and documents. Unless and until the Court grants our Motion for Continuance, the trial is still scheduled for July. Therefore, | must proceed with the deposition until the Court enters an order granting a continuance. In order to proceed with requesting the continuance, please have your client sign and return the previously provided Consent, and return a signed copy of the Motion to me as soon as possible. Once we have the signed documents, we may file everything with the Court and hopefully obtain an Order and deal with the pending deposition. However, if the PTC and Trial are not continued, we must move forward with our previously scheduled and agreed to deposition. Julie Landrigan Ball, Esquire Hardin & Ball, P.A. P.O. Box 3604 Lakeland, FL 33802 Telephone: 863-688-5200 Facsimile: 863-686-0777 jball@hardinpalaw.com apology fer the Nothing in this e-maif me The sender believes that t opening any ments, the r for any loss or mage arising in y from this message \ fl From: Shawn Jewell C Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 8:56 AM EXH | BIT.To: Julie Ball Cc: Brock McClane ; Deborah Kallas Subject: Re: Advanced v. Sybac Julie - | hope you had a enjoyable Holiday weekend and found a few moments to enjoy the start of summer between all the rain. | have forwarded the Motion and Consent to my client and will return copies to you as soon as possible. Additionally, as | mentioned previously Mr. Kegelmann's Visa request was recently denied. Attached is a copy of his denial. Accordingly, unless you advise otherwise this email will confirm that you will be cancelling the upcoming deposition so that we may reschedule and coordinate alternative means of appearance. As before, we are more than willing to make arrangements for electronic deposition appearance and would happily travel towards an appropriate location near your offices. Alternatively, if you feel compelled to depose him in person, again, as before, we will certainly work with you to coordinate a deposition in Europe. In light of the Court's ruling and depending on your expectations for deposition length we may wish to arrange the mediation and deposition together. Please let us know your thoughts. Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Shawn On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Julie Ball wrote: Shawn: Attached please find copies of the following: 1. Joint Motion and Stipulation for Continuance of Pretrial Conference and Trial; 2. Proposed Order; 3. Plaintiff's Consent to Continuance of Pretrial Conference and Trial Date. l reviewed Judge Keim’s rules. She requires that a Motion to Continue Trial be accompanied by a client consent. | am forwarding such a consent to my client now. Please review the attached documents and let me know if you require any changes. If not, please sign the Motion, and have your client sign the Consent, and return both to me for filing with the Court. | will submit the documents to the Court and request entry of the order without a hearing. Julie Landrigan Ball, EsquireHardin & Ball, P.A. P.O. Box 3604 Lakeland, FL 33802 Telephone: 863-688-5200 Facsimile: 863-686-0777 jball@hardinpalaw.com oT) Attorneys at Lave Shawn Jewell Attorney at Law 800 N. Magnolia Ave. | Suite 1500 | Orlando, FL. 32803 ph 407.377.6399 | fax 407.377.6699 The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution or copying jon in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmis sender that you have received this communication in error. Then delete it. Thank vouFiling # 68694365 E-Filed 03/02/2018 09:33:57 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES , INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 01-2015-CA-4357 SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant. / DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR VIDEO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE COMES Defendant, SYBAC SOLAR, LLC, by and through its undersigned attorney and files this Response and Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Video Conference Attendance and in support thereof states the following: 1. Plaintiff, ADVANCED SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., has requested the Court enter an order "to permit video conferencing testimony of Harald Kegelmann for at trial (sic), or alternatively to permit his video deposition to be taken videoconferencing in advance of trial." 2. The Court should deny Plaintiff's request as Plaintiff fails to demonstrate sufficient good cause to outweigh the prejudice to the Defendant, and as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the legal requirements for the taking of evidence abroad. Page 1 of 9 “p” EXHIBIT.I. SUFFICIENT GOOD CAUSE DOES NOT EXIST TO EXCUSE KEGELMANN'S PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND/OR TRIAL IN ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA 3. When testifying at a trial, a witness must be physically present unless otherwise provided by law or rule of procedure. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.451(a). 4. The Court may permit a witness to testify at trial by contemporaneous audio or video equipment by agreement of the parties or for good cause shown. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.451(b). 5. In considering sufficient good cause, the Court must weigh and address the reasons stated for testimony by communication equipment against the potential for prejudice to the objecting party. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.451(b). 6. The Committee Notes to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.451 also suggest that the Court should consider: (a) the relative cost or inconvenience of requiring the presence of the witness in court, (b) the ability of counsel to use necessary exhibits and demonstrative aids, (c) the limitations placed on the opportunity for opposing counsel and the finder of fact to observe the witness's demeanor, and (d) any other factors the court reasonably deems material to weighing the justification the requesting party has offered in support of the request to allow a witness to testify by communication equipment against the potential for prejudice to the objecting party. Page 2 of 97. The purported "good cause” alleged by Plaintiff in its Motion is the "significant time and costs which would be incurred by the time and (sic) required for Mr. Kegelmann to travel to Florida and stay in Florida during the estimated trial period." 8. In a footnote of the Motion, Plaintiff alleges it will cost over $2,000.00 for Kegelmann to travel to Alachua County, Florida, the forum in which he filed his lawsuit, for the “at least 6 nights to accommodate the estimated length of trial and available trial dates.” 9. As clearly stated in the Court's October 26, 2017 Order Scheduling Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial, the jury trial is only scheduled for 3 days; from July 9, 2018 to July 11, 2018. 10. Further, Plaintiff fails to disclose to the Court that Kegelmann cannot comply with the requirements of providing videotaped testimony in Germany, and therefore must travel to "London" to either sit for a deposition to be used at trial and/or to testify via videoconference during the trial. 11. Traveling from Germany to London includes the same level of travel and overnight stay costs, the relative cost and inconvenience of which is comparable to attending the trial in July 2018 in Alachua County, Florida. Page 3 of 912. In addition, in terms of sitting for a deposition for the use at trial, the general rule is that a plaintiff, having chosen the forum, must submit to oral examination within the district he has chosen. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310 (Comments); citing, Montgomery v. Sheldon, 16 F.R.D. 34 (1954). 13. "Nor does it appear where the plaintiffs, having embarked upon this litigation, should not assume all the incidents thereof which the law contemplates." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310 (Comments); citing, Solomon v. Teitelbaum, 9 F.R.D. 515 (1949). 14. Officers or managing agents of a corporate plaintiff may ordinarily be required to testify on deposition in the county of the forum. Ormond Beach First Nat'l Bank v. Montgomery Roofing Co., 189 So. 2d 239 (Fla. ist DCA 1966). 15. Courts may permit an alternative forum, but generally limit such to the place of the deponent's residence on condition that the expenses of the defendant's attorney and a reasonable counsel fee in an amount fixed by the court be paid by the plaintiff. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310 (Comments); citing, Groll v. Stulkin, 12 F.R.D. 262 (1951). 16. Plaintiff's counsel proposes to depose Kegelmann in the United Kingdom, although Kegelmann resides in Germany. Further, despite request, Plaintiff refuses to pay Defendant's Page 4 of 9counsel's expenses and/or any reasonable counsel fee for Defendant's counsel's attendance at such foreign deposition. 17. Further, permitting the foreign videotaped deposition of Kegelmann for trial purposes and/or allowing Kegelmann to appear via video conference at trial will significantly prejudice Defendant's ability to use necessary exhibits and demonstrative aids. 18. The documents Defendant intends to present on cross- examination are potentially voluminous, highly technical and often in the German language. Defendant will be required to provide its own translator for the Court's review of these documents, and it will be extremely difficult to show and discuss these documents, and their translations, over a video conferencing method. 19. Plaintiff also fails to provide any specific Parameters of such deposition and/or video linked trial appearance, including the specific location of the examination, who would conduct the examination, what company will be responsible for videotaping and transcribing the examination, how and my whom Kegelmann will placed under oath, Kegelmann's ability to communicate in English, whether a translator will be provided, whether Plaintiff will pay the cost of Defendant's chosen translator, how objections during the examination will be handled, what forum law will govern, and all other issues which Page 5 of 9will arise with a foreign videotaped deposition and/or video linked appearance at trial. II. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE 1970 HAGUE CONVENTION IN ORDER TO TAKE EVIDENCE IN "EUROPE" VIA A VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION FOR USE AT TRIAL AND/OR VIDEO LINKED TESTIMONY AT TRIAL. 20. Under Florida law, a corporate officer may be deposed, or testimony taken for the purposes of trial, where he resides. 21. Kegelmann resides in Germany, but as outlined above, Kegelmann intends to travel to the United Kingdom to either sit for a deposition for use at trial or appear via video link at the 3 day trial in July. 22. The Hague Convention of March 18, 1970 regarding the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "Hague Convention") governs a party's ability to take evidence for submission in an American case from a witness and/or expert located in a foreign country. 23. Both Germany and the United Kingdom are members of the Hague Convention. 24. Germany does not allow for the direct taking of evidence by judicial personnel of the requesting State (the State in which the proceedings are pending). Instead, Germany allows only for the indirect taking of evidence by a German court, a diplomatic officer, a foreign consular agent or a commissioner. Page 6 of 925. Germany also does not allow for cross-examination of the witness by video link by representatives located in the requesting state, as only the German court, a diplomatic officer, a foreign consular agent or a commissioner may illicit testimony from the witness. 26. The United Kingdom allows for the direct taking of evidence by judicial personnel of the requesting state, and for the cross examination of the witness by video link by the representatives located in the requesting state. 27. However, foreign litigants seeking to illicit the direct testimony of. witnesses, in the absence of a voluntary agreement, must first obtain a subpoena by order of the English High Court. The Court ordered deposition must comply with the applicable rules of English law and practice. 28. In order to obtain a subpoena by order of the English High Court, a party must first apply to a US Court to issue a Letter of Request. The Letter of Request must contain details of the claim and identify the potential witnesses, details of the evidence sought and any documents sought for disclosure. 29. If a U.S. Court issues and transmits a Letter of Request to the English Court, English lawyers must then apply to the High Court in London in order to give effect to the Letter of Request and to appoint an examiner who will be responsible for supervising the taking of evidence via the video link. Page 7 of 930. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that it has, or can, comply with Hague Convention in order to legally take direct evidence from its own witness in either Germany and/or the United Kingdom. 31. As Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to conduct Kegelmann's deposition in "Europe" and permitting such would be prejudicial to Defendant, and as Plaintiff failed to comply with the procedures necessary to take evidence abroad under the Hague Convention, Plaintiff's request should _ be denied, and Kegelmann should be compelled to sit for a deposition for use at trial in Alachua County, Florida and/or be required to personally attend the 3 day trial scheduled for July 2018 in Alachua County, Florida. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Video Conference Attendance, and for any further relief this Court deems just and proper. Dated: March 2, 2018. Page 8 of 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this v9? day of March, 2017, a copy of the foregoing was furnished via email transmission only to Shawn T. Jewell, Esquire, Orange Legal, 800 North Magnolia Ave., Suite 1500, Orlando, FL 32803, service@orlandolegal . com, shawn@orlandolegal.com, angeline@orlandolegal.com and dkalls@fisherlawfirm.com. HARDIN & BALL, P.A. JAMIN W. HARDIN, JR., ESQUIRE lorida Bar No.: 0500763 JULIE LANDRIGAN BALL, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 0768731 DANIEL A. FOX, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 94648 Post Office Box 3604 Lakeland, Florida 33802-3604 Telephone: 863-688-5200 Facsimile: 863-686-0777 Email: service@hardinpalaw.com Attorneys for Defendant /JLB Page 9 of 9