Case 5:12-cv-00007-TJC-TBS Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 200
www.ratemyhorsepro.com
TINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
Case
No.
5:12-CY
-l -OC-32TBS
O
LOUISE PRTVITERA,
Plaintiff
PR
V.
ELTZABETH MANDARINO AND AMBER HILL
FARM, LLC,
e
Defendants.
or
s
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY
Comes now, Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, files
Plaintiffs Opposition to
1.
H
Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery, for the following reasons:
By Defendants own admission, they have had the discovery since being served December
Answers to said discovery were due February 13,2012.
M
2.
y
28,201r.
3. As a procedural
note, the parties are pending a decision on Defendants Motion for
Counsel for Defendant sought an extension via email to said discovery at 3z42pm on
at
4.
e
Change of Venue to New Jersey and the opposition asserted by Plaintiff.
tr'ebruary 13. 2012, the due date. Counsel requested an additional six weeks to comply
R
with discovery. Counsel for the undersigned was unavailable when said request
made.
was
Case 5:12-cv-00007-TJC-TBS Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID 201
www.ratemyhorsepro.com
5.
It is well known that an email at the end of the day is not deemed suffrcient for the sake
of conferring with opposing counsel. Counsel made no effort to call the undersigned
despite having her office and cell numbers.
Counsel's reasoning for the extension atthat time was the fact her client was extremely
O
6.
busy with the Winter Circuit and could not dedicate time to attend to compiling such
A
separate motion
to compel will follow regarding objections levied
PR
discovery.
Defendants.
7.
by
Counsel did not provide a copy of her Motion for Extension of Time wherein she claims
e
at fl5 and !f6 that certain documents in the litigation were posted on the Internet by
or
s
Plaintiff and her counsel and that absent a confidentiality agreement, they would not
provide said discovery responses. Defendants claim that information has been posted on
H
the Internet that would only be known to the parties of this litigation. fl5. This is woefully
untrue.
The Motion for Extension was filed in the late evening of February 13,2012.
9.
The Defendants, nor their counsel, have one shred of evidence to provide to this Court,
M
y
8.
that Plaintiff or her counsel posted any such documents or postings of Defendants on the
e
Internet and counsel for the Defendant has been duly advised on many occasions.
if
any such documents exist on the Internet, they would have been obtained
at
Moreover,
through the PACER Federal Docketing System which is open to the public at large.
R
10. The undersigned counsel has seen such litigation
filings on Ratemyhorsepro.com under
"Equine Court", an entity unrelated in any way to Plaintiff or her counsel. Each document
clearly has the Federal Docketing System numbers on the top, and handwritten clerk
notes, fuither confirming those documents could have only been obtained through
Case 5:12-cv-00007-TJC-TBS Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID 202
www.ratemyhorsepro.com
PACER. There is no blog or ability to post
to said site or to reference the court
documents.
11.
Moreover,
if
Defendants' counsel made
any
reasonable
effort to
contact
O
Ratemyhorsepro.com she would have discovered herselt as the undersigned has done,
that there is no relationship between that site and the Plaintiff or Plaintiff counsel and that
PR
entity has documentary proof of their purchases from the PACER System.
12. Any pleadings or documents placed in the PACER Docketing System cany a litigation
privilege.
14.
or
s
counsel in a negative light before this Court.
e
i3. As such, to allege such a position is in bad faith and only done to hold Plaintiff and her
It is important to note that the discovery requests are not onerous
and in fact include 9
15. Despite these
H
Interrogatories and l0 items in the Request for Production.
frivolous assertions, and in the spirit of obtaining the discovery responses,
y
the undersigned counsel contacted Defense counsel on February 14,2012 by voicemail
M
and email seeking a copy of the proposed Confidentiality Agreement. No response was
provided. On February 15,2012, again counsel for Plaintiff left a voicemail and email for
e
Defense counsel for a copy of said proposed Confidentiality Agreement, but none was
at
provided. Late February 15,2012 at approximately 4:38pm, Defendants counsel sent an
email advising she would listen to the messages and respond February 16,2012. No such
R
response, nor proposed agreement has been forthcoming.
16.It is the position of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are doing no more than delaying the
proceedings in an attempt to utilize the use of the equines in question; profiting from the
delay by continuously billing the Plaintiff for services rendered to the equines without her
Case 5:12-cv-00007-TJC-TBS Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID 203
www.ratemyhorsepro.com
approval and consent,
to wit
entering the horses
in
competitions that are grossly
expensive (in fact, in direct opposition of PlaintifPs desire); and effectively running up
the charges in an attempt to profit from the delay. The Defendants are failing to allow the
O
Plaintiff the use of the equines or the documents necessary to bring this matter to
conclusion.
fl
10 that
Plaintiff is traveling so this request would not be
PR
17. Counsel for Defendant cites at
a delay. Counsel has failed to mention that Plaintiff made herself available for deposition
February 20,2012 or thereafter,
in Florida, and the documents sought are extremely
e
pertinent to the subsequent filing on the injunction sought in the Amended Complaint.
or
s
18. To delay discovery even one more day is placing the Plaintiff in an untenable position
of
proceeding forward in prosecuting her case or the movement on the injunction.
in this case as Defendants continue to
H
19. Moreover, the discovery goes to the direct issues
invoice Plaintiff for services attendant to the horses, that are subject to this suit, most
y
recently approximately $30,000 invoiced February I0, 2012, but fails to provide the
M
backup documents to support those charges. Defendants want it both ways, to charge for
unauthorized services but yet fail to provide supporting documentation.
e
20. The Request for Production, 10 items, was served December 28,2011 with the complaint
at
because the documents go to the very heart of this matter. Despite being apartner in these
horses, the Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of any documentation for her horses since
R
the inception of the partnership such that she had to use litigation to secure same.
21. Defendants claim the need for a confidentiality agreement, however, they are fully aware
that discovery nor the responses are filed in the Federal Court Docketing System and the
only way such documents would find their way to the docketing system is if they are used
Case 5:12-cv-00007-TJC-TBS Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID 204
www.ratemyhorsepro.com
in support of, or in defense of, a motion filed. Certainly Defendants could bate
stamp
their discovery indicating where the discovery documents originated.
22.11is the position of Plaintiff that the extension requested by Defendants is nothing more
O
than an attempt to delay the discovery process and their need to address this litigation.
23. While Plaintiffs do not believe a confidentiality order is necessary, they have agreed to
PR
consider same to move this litigation forward, however, counsel for the Defendants have
failed to provide same. Moreover, when they do, there may well be dispute over the
requested terms
if they in anyway mention allegations of Plaintiff or her counsel posting
e
on the internet.
or
s
Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks an Order requiring Defendants to respond to the outstanding
discovery within five (5) days without the need for a confidentiality agreement.
/s Bonita Herrmann Navin
R
at
e
M
y
H
BONITA HERRMANN NAVIN
Florida Bar No. 487759
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone : (9 54) 462-9 500
Facsimile: (9 54) 462-9 567
bnavin@stearnsweaver. com
Case 5:12-cv-00007-TJC-TBS Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID 205
www.ratemyhorsepro.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 16,2012,I electronically filed a true and correct copy
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CMÆCF system on all counsel parties or
PR
/s Bonita Herrmann Navin
O
parties of record on the attached Service List in the manner specified.
R
at
e
M
y
H
or
s
e
Bonita Herrmann Navin
Case 5:12-cv-00007-TJC-TBS Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID 206
www.ratemyhorsepro.com
LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTzuCT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
Case
No.
5:12-CY -7 -OC-32TBS
O
SERVICE LIST
R
at
e
M
e
y
H
Andrew Maxwell Hinkes, Esq.
Florida Bar No.17848
Berger Singerman LLP
1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
Miami, Florida 33131-3453
Telephone: (305) 755-9500
Facsimile: (305) 7 14-4340
Attomey for Defendants
Served via C\¡IECF
or
s
And
PR
Elaine Johnson James, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 791709
Berger Singerman LLP
2650 North Military Trail, Suite 240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 241 -9500
Facsimile: (561) 998-0028
Attorney for Defendants
Served via CIWECF
#1531935
vl