Preview
Filing # 140740488 E-Filed 12/21/2021 10:23:41 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2021-022397-CA-01
PHU TROUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION, A FLORIDA
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO PRODUCE
COMES NOW, the Defendant, CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
A FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant
to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350, and hereby serves its Responses and Objections to
Plaintiff’s Request to Produce.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to create obligations beyond those
imposed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Defendant objects to the phrasing in the Requests of “any and all” documents to the extent that
Plaintiff may seek to impose on Defendant a duty to exercise more than reasonable diligence to locate
documents other than to examine its files that may reasonably be expected to yield such documents, or to
produce documents or records that may not be substantially related to the issues in the litigation; on the
grounds that such requests are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, vexatious, and seek the
production of non-relevant materials and documents.
3. Defendant generally objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek information protected
by various privileges of confidentiality, including the attorney-client privilege and the work product
doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity provided under Florida law.
4. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent they seek production of documents or records
contained within the insurer’s claim file, and are not relevant to the particular issues in the litigation.
Defendant asserts that documents pertaining to handling of first party insurance claims, and documents
addressing claims handling procedures, are not relevant to any issue in litigation over disputed property
insurance coverage. Kujawa v Manhattan National Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 1980); State
Farm v Valido, 662 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995).
5. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek production of any record that is, or
may contain, trade secret, exclusive, and/or proprietary information, pursuant to Florida Statute § 90.506.
6. These General Objections shall be deemed applicable to and continuing as to all Requests for
Production being responded to; and incorporated into Defendant’s Responses set forth herein. The
individual Responses may reiterate, repeat, or further elaborate on these General Objections for emphasis
or for some other reason. Such General Objections are not waived, nor in any way limited, by the individual
Responses to the Requests from Plaintiff.
7. A party is required to file a privilege log only if the information is otherwise
discoverable. State Farm Fla. Ins Co. v. Coburn, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
RESPONSES
1. A true and correct certified copy of the applicable insurance policy issued by Defendant to
Plaintiff, including any and all endorsements in effect at the time of the subject loss.
RESPONSE: Attached.
2. Any and all time sheets, logs and/or other documents reflecting the time spent by
Defendant and/or its agents at the Plaintiff’s property after notification of the subject loss.
RESPONSE: See General Objections Nos. 2, 3, and 4.
3. Any and all statements, whether written, oral or recorded, taken of the Plaintiff(s) and/or
their agents, servants, employees, etc., in regards to the subject matter of this litigation.
RESPONSE: No audio recorded statements or examinations under oath of the Plaintiff
and/or his representatives in the subject claim were obtained.
4. Any and all statements, whether written, oral or recorded, taken of non-parties in regards
to the subject matter of this litigation.
RESPONSE: See Defendant’s response to Request for Production No. 3.
5. Any and all invoices and bills reflecting payments made by the Plaintiff with regards to
premiums for the subject policy issued by Defendant.
RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above.
6. Any and all correspondence or other written communication from Defendant to Plaintiff or
Plaintiff’s representatives, relating in any manner to the subject loss.
RESPONSE: See General Objections Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Notwithstanding and without waiver
of said objections, all correspondence between Citizens and/or its representatives and the
Plaintiff and/or his representatives regarding the loss that is the subject of this lawsuit has
been attached.
7. Any and all correspondence or other written communication from Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s
representatives, relating in any manner to the subject loss prior to the institution of this litigation.
RESPONSE: See post-loss correspondence provided in response to Request No. 6.
8. Any and all photographs, videos and/or drawings made by Defendant or its agents and/or
representatives of the Plaintiff’s property which is the subject matter of this litigation.
RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. Notwithstanding and without waiver
of said objection, see attached photographs taken by Defendant’s field adjuster with the
adjuster’s comments redacted as those comments constitute work product.
9. A copy of the entire underwriting file for the subject policy of insurance.
RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. Such a request is improper on its face
and should be withdrawn.
10. A copy of the entire claim file, including any table of contents, computer notations,
summaries, for the subject loss, excluding any documents to which a privilege claim may exist.
Please provide a ‘Privilege Log’ detailing any such documents that are being withheld and the
basis for the privilege.
RESPONSE: As an initial matter, Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s demand that a privilege
log be produced at this time as all documents withheld from production fall within the claim
file and therefore, as a category, are not relevant or are protected work protect as discussed
below. Accordingly, no privilege log is required. See, e.g., Cruz-Govin v. Torres, 29 So. 3d
393, 394 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Because petitioners’ objection is ‘category,’ not
‘document,’ specific, they were not required to file a privilege log.”).
11. Any and all policies, rules, regulations, memorandums, guidelines and/or procedure
manuals regarding Defendant’s process for investigating, evaluating and/or settling of homeowner
claims.
RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above.
12. Any and all manuals, instructions and/or other materials relied upon by Defendant in the
training of adjusters and/or appraisers regarding homeowner claims.
RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above.
13. Any and all estimates prepared by Defendant and/or its agents and/or representatives
regarding the subject claim of the Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above.
14. Any and all reports and/or other documents prepared by experts retained in this matter on
behalf of the Defendant.
RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. Citizens further objects as this request
is premature. Citizens has identified any experts or documents it intends to utilize for the
purposes of trial and will disclose its expert documents in accordance with the Court’s Trial
Order.
15. A copy of any and all reports by any general contractor, engineer, roofer, electrician or
other construction personnel hired by Defendant to examine and/or evaluate any aspect of the
Plaintiff’s subject claim.
RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above.
16. Copies of any and all drafts issued by Defendant to the Plaintiff for payment of any aspect
of the Plaintiff’s subject claim.
RESPONSE: None.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
to Daniel D. Castro, Esq. using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, to
dcastro@morganlawgroup.net; and mlg.eservice@morganlawgroup.net; this 21st day of
December, 2021.
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
1601 Belvedere Road, Suite 403-S
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
P: 561-588-3000 / F: 561-963-2265
Primary Email: gswcourtdocs@gspalaw.com
Email: cmitchell@gspalaw.com
By: /s/ Cynthia K. Mitchell_______________
CYNTHIA K. MITCHELL, ESQUIRE
Fla. Bar No.: 571563
Preview
Filing # 140740488 E-Filed 12/21/2021 10:23:41 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2021-022397-CA-01 PHU TROUNG, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, Defendant. ___________________________________/ DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE COMES NOW, the Defendant, CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350, and hereby serves its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s Request to Produce. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to create obligations beyond those imposed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Defendant objects to the phrasing in the Requests of “any and all” documents to the extent that Plaintiff may seek to impose on Defendant a duty to exercise more than reasonable diligence to locate documents other than to examine its files that may reasonably be expected to yield such documents, or to produce documents or records that may not be substantially related to the issues in the litigation; on the grounds that such requests are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, vexatious, and seek the production of non-relevant materials and documents. 3. Defendant generally objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek information protected by various privileges of confidentiality, including the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity provided under Florida law. 4. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent they seek production of documents or records contained within the insurer’s claim file, and are not relevant to the particular issues in the litigation. Defendant asserts that documents pertaining to handling of first party insurance claims, and documents addressing claims handling procedures, are not relevant to any issue in litigation over disputed property insurance coverage. Kujawa v Manhattan National Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 1980); State Farm v Valido, 662 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995). 5. Defendant objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek production of any record that is, or may contain, trade secret, exclusive, and/or proprietary information, pursuant to Florida Statute § 90.506. 6. These General Objections shall be deemed applicable to and continuing as to all Requests for Production being responded to; and incorporated into Defendant’s Responses set forth herein. The individual Responses may reiterate, repeat, or further elaborate on these General Objections for emphasis or for some other reason. Such General Objections are not waived, nor in any way limited, by the individual Responses to the Requests from Plaintiff. 7. A party is required to file a privilege log only if the information is otherwise discoverable. State Farm Fla. Ins Co. v. Coburn, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). RESPONSES 1. A true and correct certified copy of the applicable insurance policy issued by Defendant to Plaintiff, including any and all endorsements in effect at the time of the subject loss. RESPONSE: Attached. 2. Any and all time sheets, logs and/or other documents reflecting the time spent by Defendant and/or its agents at the Plaintiff’s property after notification of the subject loss. RESPONSE: See General Objections Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 3. Any and all statements, whether written, oral or recorded, taken of the Plaintiff(s) and/or their agents, servants, employees, etc., in regards to the subject matter of this litigation. RESPONSE: No audio recorded statements or examinations under oath of the Plaintiff and/or his representatives in the subject claim were obtained. 4. Any and all statements, whether written, oral or recorded, taken of non-parties in regards to the subject matter of this litigation. RESPONSE: See Defendant’s response to Request for Production No. 3. 5. Any and all invoices and bills reflecting payments made by the Plaintiff with regards to premiums for the subject policy issued by Defendant. RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. 6. Any and all correspondence or other written communication from Defendant to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s representatives, relating in any manner to the subject loss. RESPONSE: See General Objections Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Notwithstanding and without waiver of said objections, all correspondence between Citizens and/or its representatives and the Plaintiff and/or his representatives regarding the loss that is the subject of this lawsuit has been attached. 7. Any and all correspondence or other written communication from Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s representatives, relating in any manner to the subject loss prior to the institution of this litigation. RESPONSE: See post-loss correspondence provided in response to Request No. 6. 8. Any and all photographs, videos and/or drawings made by Defendant or its agents and/or representatives of the Plaintiff’s property which is the subject matter of this litigation. RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. Notwithstanding and without waiver of said objection, see attached photographs taken by Defendant’s field adjuster with the adjuster’s comments redacted as those comments constitute work product. 9. A copy of the entire underwriting file for the subject policy of insurance. RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. Such a request is improper on its face and should be withdrawn. 10. A copy of the entire claim file, including any table of contents, computer notations, summaries, for the subject loss, excluding any documents to which a privilege claim may exist. Please provide a ‘Privilege Log’ detailing any such documents that are being withheld and the basis for the privilege. RESPONSE: As an initial matter, Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s demand that a privilege log be produced at this time as all documents withheld from production fall within the claim file and therefore, as a category, are not relevant or are protected work protect as discussed below. Accordingly, no privilege log is required. See, e.g., Cruz-Govin v. Torres, 29 So. 3d 393, 394 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Because petitioners’ objection is ‘category,’ not ‘document,’ specific, they were not required to file a privilege log.”). 11. Any and all policies, rules, regulations, memorandums, guidelines and/or procedure manuals regarding Defendant’s process for investigating, evaluating and/or settling of homeowner claims. RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. 12. Any and all manuals, instructions and/or other materials relied upon by Defendant in the training of adjusters and/or appraisers regarding homeowner claims. RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. 13. Any and all estimates prepared by Defendant and/or its agents and/or representatives regarding the subject claim of the Plaintiff. RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. 14. Any and all reports and/or other documents prepared by experts retained in this matter on behalf of the Defendant. RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. Citizens further objects as this request is premature. Citizens has identified any experts or documents it intends to utilize for the purposes of trial and will disclose its expert documents in accordance with the Court’s Trial Order. 15. A copy of any and all reports by any general contractor, engineer, roofer, electrician or other construction personnel hired by Defendant to examine and/or evaluate any aspect of the Plaintiff’s subject claim. RESPONSE: See General Objections asserted above. 16. Copies of any and all drafts issued by Defendant to the Plaintiff for payment of any aspect of the Plaintiff’s subject claim. RESPONSE: None. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Daniel D. Castro, Esq. using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, to dcastro@morganlawgroup.net; and mlg.eservice@morganlawgroup.net; this 21st day of December, 2021. GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 1601 Belvedere Road, Suite 403-S West Palm Beach, FL 33406 P: 561-588-3000 / F: 561-963-2265 Primary Email: gswcourtdocs@gspalaw.com Email: cmitchell@gspalaw.com By: /s/ Cynthia K. Mitchell_______________ CYNTHIA K. MITCHELL, ESQUIRE Fla. Bar No.: 571563