Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rosh Hashanah Reconsideration Motion
Rosh Hashanah Reconsideration Motion
Rosh Hashanah Reconsideration Motion
Plaintiff
V.
UC NORTH DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, DUPONT PROPERTY HOLDING, INC., a Florida corporation, DP PROPERTY HOLDING,LLC, a Florida limited liability company, EPIC WEST CONDO,LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and CMC CONSTRUCTION, [NC., a Florida corporation,
Defendants.
Defendant Dupont's Motion for Protective Order Postponing Deposition Scheduled for Rosh
Hashanah that awards Dupont attorneys' fees against Plaintiffs counsel. The grounds for this
1.
27
,2011, omits
Plaintiff
29,2011, upon the agreement of counsel for all parties after two separate conference calls on
SeptemberT and8,2011. Onthoseconferencecalls,allcounselagreedtoaschedulethatprovided for Plaintiff to take the depositions of two third-party witnesses from BB&T before the depositions
2.
The parties initially agreed to Friday, September 23,2011 for the depositions of
BB&T's representatives. However, the BB&T witnesses and their counsel were not available on that
date.
3.
a
During one ofthe scheduling conference calls, Mr. Kaplan indicated that he may have
conflict with one ofthe dates discussed for depositions, but that if so, he would send someone from
his office to attend in his place. Plaintiff relied on that statement in agreeing to make its witnesses
dates for the depositions of its witnesses from Spain. By first agreeing to the dates, and then later asserting a conflict that was never mentioned on either conference call, the Defendants prejudiced
Plaintiff.
4.
undersigned advised
all
for
10
a.m. and
p.m., respectively. There was no objection from any of the Defendants' attorneys.
Plaintiff sent the Notices of Deposition for BB&T's witnesses on September 19, 201I.
5.
On September 21, 2011, Mr. Kaplan called Kelly R. Melchiondo to advise that
September 29,2011 was Rosh Hashanah, and to request that the deposition be moved. Ms.
Melchiondo asked if there was anyone else at Coffey Burlington who could attend the deposition in
Mr. Kaplan's place. Mr. Kaplan advised that no one from his firm could attend.
6.
the attorney for
Plaintiffls counsel made every effort to reschedule the deposition. Counsel spoke to BB&T about moving the depositions to Wednesday, September2,2}ll, but BB&T
Mr. Kaplan, and BB&T's attorney, advised that they were not available.
On September26,20lI,Kelly R. Melchiondo called Mr. Kaplan again to advise that
Plaintiff was having extreme difficulty in rescheduling the depositions according to the schedule to which the parties had all agreed, whereby the BB&T depositions would take place before the
depositions of Plaintiffs officers from Spain. Ms. Melchiondo again asked
if
anyone at Coffey
Burlington could attend instead of Mr. Kaplan, and again, Mr. Kaplan refused. Only then did Mr.
Kaplan mention that his clients were also unable to attend because of Rosh Hashanah.
8.
There are four defendants, each ofwhom has been represented by counsel at all
depositions so far. Counsel's request that Mr. Kaplan send another attorney from his firm was not
unreasonable, given the difficulties Plaintiff has encountered in scheduling these depositions. As
it
Therefore, Plaintiff
will not have the opportunity to adhere to the schedule to which the parties
originally agreed.
9.
The Court should reconsider and vacate the portion of its September27,201
Order
Granting Dupont's Motion for Protective Order, to the extent that it awards attomeys' fees against
Plaintiffs' counsel, without permitting Plaintiffls counsel to explain the circumstances that led to its position. In his entire career, Plaintiffls counsel has never been sanctioned. A finding of sanctions
here, without even hearing
Plaintiff s explanation
law.
10.
Moreover, Plaintiff did not arbitrarily select the September 29,2011 date, nor did it
refuse Mr. Kaplan's request out of disrespect for Mr. Kaplan's or his clients' religious beliefs.
Rather, Plaintiff was merely trying to enforce the dates to which the parties agreed, after two
scheduling conference calls, to avoid the great difficulty Plaintiffhas now encountered in scheduling the depositions according to the availability of the two BB&T witnesses, their attorney, and all of the attorneys on Defendants' side.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Ponte Gadea Dupont, LLC, derivatively
on behalf of DP Property Holding,LLC, respectfully requests that this (i) Court grant this Motion,
(ii) reconsider and vacate its attomeys' fee award against Plaintiffls counsel, and (iii) award all other
such reliefas
Respectfully Submitted, STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff Ponte Gadea Dupont, LLC, derivatively on behalf of DP Property Holding, LLC Suite 2200, Museum Tower 150 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
Telephone :
Facsirn ile ;,3
305 05
-7 89
-3200
9
-7 89 -33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that
a
true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 27th
day of September,20ll, via e-mail and U.S. Mail, upon all counsel on the service list below.
Thomas K. Equels, Esq. teq uel slAeq uel s law. com Equels Law Firm 2601 S. Bayshore Drive Suite 600 Miami, Florida 33133 Attorney for DP Property Holding, LLC nd Epic l/est Condo, LLC Thomas Manick, Esq. tm@manicklaw.com Law Offices of Thomas Manick, P.A. 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33133 Attorneyfor UC North Development, LLC and CMC Construction, Inc.
Robert Burlington, Esq. rburlin gton@ coffeyburlington. com Kevin C. Kaplan, Esq. kkaplan@coffeyburlin gton. com