Empathy List Archives

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Mon, Oct 19, 2020 4:11 PM

Good morning all,

We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an
unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section
558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion..

At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the
section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said :

Section 558.004 provides that any party who failed to provide the
requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may
impose for a discovery violation. Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15).

He asked him why he shouldnt award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that
was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should
have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against
that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear
and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling
and came back with a denial with the order stating : The Plaintiff may
seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This was in Orange County. Any thoughts?

Thank you,

Jack

Jack Taylor, Esq.
Associate Attorney

Williams Law Firm
212 W. Bay Ave

Longwood, FL 32750
Telephone: 407-926-4100

mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com Jack@WCLfirm.com

http://www.wclfirm.com/ www.WCLFirm.com

In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a debt collector as defined
by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such
a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may
be used for that purpose.

Important Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration
applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or
delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a
response to an email communication within two business days, please contact
the intended recipient via phone.

This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of
the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client
confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use,
disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments.
Thank you.

Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax
advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice
contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of
avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.
If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting,
marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or
arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you
as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it
cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be
imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion
or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written
advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's
particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

Good morning all, We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion.. At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said : Section 558.004 provides that any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation. Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15). He asked him why he shouldnt award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. This was in Orange County. Any thoughts? Thank you, Jack Jack Taylor, Esq. Associate Attorney Williams Law Firm 212 W. Bay Ave Longwood, FL 32750 Telephone: 407-926-4100 <mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com> Jack@WCLfirm.com <http://www.wclfirm.com/> www.WCLFirm.com In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a debt collector as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose. Important Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you. Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Tue, Oct 20, 2020 7:57 PM

This result is how I would expect most circuit judges to respond to such a motion. This section of the statute as originally conceived was arguably a legislative intrusion into the judicial process. I can't think of any other situation where a judge would be asked to sanction a party for pre-litigation discovery non-compliance, especially where the contractor is not obliged under the statute to even make an offer. What if the production response was late or merely incomplete? What if there were objections to the discovery? This brings about a whole layer of dispute which I can understand judges not being inclined to deal with.

Alan E. Tannenbaum
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
TANNENBAUM SCRO LEMOLE & KLEINBERG
1990 Main Street, Suite 725
Sarasota, Florida 34236
atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com mailto:atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com
www.tannenbaumscro.com http://www.tannenbaumscro.com/
Direct Phone #: (941) 308-3157
Department Fax: (941) 316-0515
[cid:image002.png@01D6A6F8.9DD96A60]
========== Privacy Disclosure ==========
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message or any attachments to the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

Good morning all,
We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion..

At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said :
"Section 558.004 provides that "any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation." Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15)."

He asked him why he shouldn't award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : "The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. "

This was in Orange County. Any thoughts?

Thank you,
Jack
Jack Taylor, Esq.
Associate Attorney

Williams Law Firm
212 W. Bay Ave
Longwood, FL 32750
Telephone: 407-926-4100

Jack@WCLfirm.com mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
www.WCLFirm.com http://www.wclfirm.com/
[cid:image003.jpg@01D6A6F8.9DD96A60]

In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a "debt collector" as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose.

Important - Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone.
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

This result is how I would expect most circuit judges to respond to such a motion. This section of the statute as originally conceived was arguably a legislative intrusion into the judicial process. I can't think of any other situation where a judge would be asked to sanction a party for pre-litigation discovery non-compliance, especially where the contractor is not obliged under the statute to even make an offer. What if the production response was late or merely incomplete? What if there were objections to the discovery? This brings about a whole layer of dispute which I can understand judges not being inclined to deal with. Alan E. Tannenbaum Board Certified Construction Lawyer TANNENBAUM SCRO LEMOLE & KLEINBERG 1990 Main Street, Suite 725 Sarasota, Florida 34236 atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com<mailto:atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com> www.tannenbaumscro.com<http://www.tannenbaumscro.com/> Direct Phone #: (941) 308-3157 Department Fax: (941) 316-0515 [cid:image002.png@01D6A6F8.9DD96A60] ========== Privacy Disclosure ========== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message or any attachments to the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied Good morning all, We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion.. At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said : "Section 558.004 provides that "any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation." Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15)." He asked him why he shouldn't award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : "The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. " This was in Orange County. Any thoughts? Thank you, Jack Jack Taylor, Esq. Associate Attorney Williams Law Firm 212 W. Bay Ave Longwood, FL 32750 Telephone: 407-926-4100 Jack@WCLfirm.com<mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com> www.WCLFirm.com<http://www.wclfirm.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D6A6F8.9DD96A60] In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a "debt collector" as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose. Important - Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you. Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Tue, Oct 20, 2020 8:16 PM

COVID-19 Notice:

Our commitment to our clients is to provide unstoppable service. We are continuing our business operations but are taking preventative measures consistent with CDC, federal and state government recommendations/orders. We continue to work diligently to respond to our clients’ needs seamlessly via telephone, e-mail and video-conference. You can count on us.

All the best to you and yours.

Disclaimer

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

COVID-19 Notice: Our commitment to our clients is to provide unstoppable service. We are continuing our business operations but are taking preventative measures consistent with CDC, federal and state government recommendations/orders. We continue to work diligently to respond to our clients’ needs seamlessly via telephone, e-mail and video-conference. You can count on us. All the best to you and yours. Disclaimer Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Tue, Oct 20, 2020 8:46 PM

Another reminder of how 558 is a real beauty.

Frederick C. Barnes, Esq.

Board Certified Construction Lawyer

500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 305

Maitland, FL 32751

(407) 865-9200

http://www.fcbarneslaw.com/ www.fcbarneslaw.com

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:17 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org; Jack@WCLfirm.com
Cc: Brian Tannenbaum btannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com; Salvatore Scro sscro@tannenbaumscro.com
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

Agreed and with the 30 day time limit it imposes an obligation and undue burden on contractors to essentially produce their file regardless of whether the 558 has merit or not and most times prior to a response even being due.

http://www.kubickidraper.com/

Michelle M. Krone http://www.kubickidraper.com/staff_detail11.php?MemberID=33

Shareholder

Board Certified Construction Lawyer

Direct (239) 461-8103

Fax (239) 939-0700

mmk@kubickidraper.com mailto:mmk@kubickidraper.com

13350 Metro Parkway Suite 401 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20401+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966

Fort Myers, Florida 33966 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20401+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966

                                             <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>   <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper>

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:57 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org ; Jack@WCLfirm.com mailto:Jack@WCLfirm.com
Cc: Brian Tannenbaum; Salvatore Scro
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

This result is how I would expect most circuit judges to respond to such a motion. This section of the statute as originally conceived was arguably a legislative intrusion into the judicial process. I can’t think of any other situation where a judge would be asked to sanction a party for pre-litigation discovery non-compliance, especially where the contractor is not obliged under the statute to even make an offer. What if the production response was late or merely incomplete? What if there were objections to the discovery? This brings about a whole layer of dispute which I can understand judges not being inclined to deal with.

Alan E. Tannenbaum

Board Certified Construction Lawyer

TANNENBAUM SCRO LEMOLE & KLEINBERG

1990 Main Street, Suite 725

Sarasota, Florida 34236

mailto:atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com

http://www.tannenbaumscro.com/ www.tannenbaumscro.com

Direct Phone #: (941) 308-3157

Department Fax: (941) 316-0515

========== Privacy Disclosure ==========

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message or any attachments to the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org > On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

Good morning all,

We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion..

At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said :

“Section 558.004 provides that “any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation.” Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15).”

He asked him why he shouldn’t award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : “The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. “

This was in Orange County. Any thoughts?

Thank you,

Jack

Jack Taylor, Esq.
Associate Attorney

Williams Law Firm
212 W. Bay Ave

Longwood, FL 32750
Telephone: 407-926-4100

mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com Jack@WCLfirm.com

http://www.wclfirm.com/ www.WCLFirm.com

In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a “debt collector” as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose.

Important – Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone.

This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.

Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

COVID-19 Notice:

Our commitment to our clients is to provide unstoppable service. We are continuing our business operations but are taking preventative measures consistent with CDC, federal and state government recommendations/orders. We continue to work diligently to respond to our clients’ needs seamlessly via telephone, e-mail and video-conference. You can count on us.

All the best to you and yours.

Disclaimer

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

Another reminder of how 558 is a real beauty. Frederick C. Barnes, Esq. Board Certified Construction Lawyer 500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 305 Maitland, FL 32751 (407) 865-9200 <http://www.fcbarneslaw.com/> www.fcbarneslaw.com From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:17 PM To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>; Jack@WCLfirm.com Cc: Brian Tannenbaum <btannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com>; Salvatore Scro <sscro@tannenbaumscro.com> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied Agreed and with the 30 day time limit it imposes an obligation and undue burden on contractors to essentially produce their file regardless of whether the 558 has merit or not and most times prior to a response even being due. <http://www.kubickidraper.com/> Michelle M. Krone <http://www.kubickidraper.com/staff_detail11.php?MemberID=33> Shareholder Board Certified Construction Lawyer Direct (239) 461-8103 Fax (239) 939-0700 mmk@kubickidraper.com <mailto:mmk@kubickidraper.com> 13350 Metro Parkway Suite 401 <http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20401+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966> Fort Myers, Florida 33966 <http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20401+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/> <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper> From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:57 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> ; Jack@WCLfirm.com <mailto:Jack@WCLfirm.com> Cc: Brian Tannenbaum; Salvatore Scro Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied This result is how I would expect most circuit judges to respond to such a motion. This section of the statute as originally conceived was arguably a legislative intrusion into the judicial process. I can’t think of any other situation where a judge would be asked to sanction a party for pre-litigation discovery non-compliance, especially where the contractor is not obliged under the statute to even make an offer. What if the production response was late or merely incomplete? What if there were objections to the discovery? This brings about a whole layer of dispute which I can understand judges not being inclined to deal with. Alan E. Tannenbaum Board Certified Construction Lawyer TANNENBAUM SCRO LEMOLE & KLEINBERG 1990 Main Street, Suite 725 Sarasota, Florida 34236 <mailto:atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com> atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com <http://www.tannenbaumscro.com/> www.tannenbaumscro.com Direct Phone #: (941) 308-3157 Department Fax: (941) 316-0515 ========== Privacy Disclosure ========== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message or any attachments to the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> > On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied Good morning all, We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion.. At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said : “Section 558.004 provides that “any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation.” Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15).” He asked him why he shouldn’t award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : “The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. “ This was in Orange County. Any thoughts? Thank you, Jack Jack Taylor, Esq. Associate Attorney Williams Law Firm 212 W. Bay Ave Longwood, FL 32750 Telephone: 407-926-4100 <mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com> Jack@WCLfirm.com <http://www.wclfirm.com/> www.WCLFirm.com In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a “debt collector” as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose. Important – Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you. Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. _____ COVID-19 Notice: Our commitment to our clients is to provide unstoppable service. We are continuing our business operations but are taking preventative measures consistent with CDC, federal and state government recommendations/orders. We continue to work diligently to respond to our clients’ needs seamlessly via telephone, e-mail and video-conference. You can count on us. All the best to you and yours. _____ Disclaimer Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Tue, Oct 20, 2020 9:08 PM

Three thoughts:

Civil Procedure seems to be more of a general/broad use for discovery, as opposed to this particular statute that specifically calls for discovery under certain conditions, so it seems like the statute should control
The wording of the judge’s order seems to only address that discovery can be made through civil procedure, but the statute calls for sanctions. 558 should function to avoid (excessive) litigation and making a request for discovery per 558 fits this objective
Perhaps a 57.105 motion should have been made specifically citing non-compliance with 558

Paul J. Kelly
Paul J. Kelly, P.A.
2959 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

[Board Certified Construction Logo]

Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:46 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org; Jack@WCLfirm.com
Cc: 'Brian Tannenbaum' btannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com; 'Salvatore Scro' sscro@tannenbaumscro.com
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

Another reminder of how 558 is a real beauty.

Frederick C. Barnes, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 305
Maitland, FL 32751
(407) 865-9200
www.fcbarneslaw.com http://www.fcbarneslaw.com/
[rsz_1fcb_lrg_logo]

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:17 PM
To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>; Jack@WCLfirm.com mailto:Jack@WCLfirm.com
Cc: Brian Tannenbaum <btannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com mailto:btannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com>; Salvatore Scro <sscro@tannenbaumscro.com mailto:sscro@tannenbaumscro.com>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

Agreed and with the 30 day time limit it imposes an obligation and undue burden on contractors to essentially produce their file regardless of whether the 558 has merit or not and most times prior to a response even being due.

[cid:image005.jpg@01D6A703.3F8416D0]http://www.kubickidraper.com/
Michelle M. Kronehttp://www.kubickidraper.com/staff_detail11.php?MemberID=33
Shareholder
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
Direct (239) 461-8103
Fax (239) 939-0700
mmk@kubickidraper.com mailto:mmk@kubickidraper.com
13350 Metro Parkway Suite 401http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20401+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966
Fort Myers, Florida 33966http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20401+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966

                                            [cid:image006.png@01D6A703.3F8416D0] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/>  [cid:image007.png@01D6A703.3F8416D0] <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper>

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:57 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org; Jack@WCLfirm.com mailto:Jack@WCLfirm.com
Cc: Brian Tannenbaum; Salvatore Scro
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

This result is how I would expect most circuit judges to respond to such a motion. This section of the statute as originally conceived was arguably a legislative intrusion into the judicial process. I can’t think of any other situation where a judge would be asked to sanction a party for pre-litigation discovery non-compliance, especially where the contractor is not obliged under the statute to even make an offer. What if the production response was late or merely incomplete? What if there were objections to the discovery? This brings about a whole layer of dispute which I can understand judges not being inclined to deal with.

Alan E. Tannenbaum
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
TANNENBAUM SCRO LEMOLE & KLEINBERG
1990 Main Street, Suite 725
Sarasota, Florida 34236
atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com mailto:atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com
www.tannenbaumscro.com http://www.tannenbaumscro.com/
Direct Phone #: (941) 308-3157
Department Fax: (941) 316-0515
[cid:image008.png@01D6A703.3F8416D0]
========== Privacy Disclosure ==========
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message or any attachments to the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

Good morning all,
We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion..

At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said :
“Section 558.004 provides that “any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation.” Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15).”

He asked him why he shouldn’t award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : “The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. “

This was in Orange County. Any thoughts?

Thank you,
Jack
Jack Taylor, Esq.
Associate Attorney

Williams Law Firm
212 W. Bay Ave
Longwood, FL 32750
Telephone: 407-926-4100

Jack@WCLfirm.com mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
www.WCLFirm.com http://www.wclfirm.com/
[cid:image009.jpg@01D6A703.3F8416D0]

In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a “debt collector” as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose.

Important – Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone.
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

COVID-19 Notice:

Our commitment to our clients is to provide unstoppable service. We are continuing our business operations but are taking preventative measures consistent with CDC, federal and state government recommendations/orders. We continue to work diligently to respond to our clients’ needs seamlessly via telephone, e-mail and video-conference. You can count on us.

All the best to you and yours.

Disclaimer

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

Three thoughts: 1. Civil Procedure seems to be more of a general/broad use for discovery, as opposed to this particular statute that specifically calls for discovery under certain conditions, so it seems like the statute should control 2. The wording of the judge’s order seems to only address that discovery can be made through civil procedure, but the statute calls for sanctions. 558 should function to avoid (excessive) litigation and making a request for discovery per 558 fits this objective 3. Perhaps a 57.105 motion should have been made specifically citing non-compliance with 558 Paul J. Kelly Paul J. Kelly, P.A. 2959 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 [Board Certified Construction Logo] Confidentiality Notice: A law firm is sending this message. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, destroy all copies of the original message, and do not disseminate further. This message may not be reviewed, printed, displayed, or re-transmitted, without the sender's consent. All rights protected. There may be no further distribution or publication of this communication or its contents without the express consent of this law firm. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:46 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org; Jack@WCLfirm.com Cc: 'Brian Tannenbaum' <btannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com>; 'Salvatore Scro' <sscro@tannenbaumscro.com> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied Another reminder of how 558 is a real beauty. Frederick C. Barnes, Esq. Board Certified Construction Lawyer 500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 305 Maitland, FL 32751 (407) 865-9200 www.fcbarneslaw.com<http://www.fcbarneslaw.com/> [rsz_1fcb_lrg_logo] From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:17 PM To: 'clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org' <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>>; Jack@WCLfirm.com<mailto:Jack@WCLfirm.com> Cc: Brian Tannenbaum <btannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com<mailto:btannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com>>; Salvatore Scro <sscro@tannenbaumscro.com<mailto:sscro@tannenbaumscro.com>> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied Agreed and with the 30 day time limit it imposes an obligation and undue burden on contractors to essentially produce their file regardless of whether the 558 has merit or not and most times prior to a response even being due. [cid:image005.jpg@01D6A703.3F8416D0]<http://www.kubickidraper.com/> Michelle M. Krone<http://www.kubickidraper.com/staff_detail11.php?MemberID=33> Shareholder Board Certified Construction Lawyer Direct (239) 461-8103 Fax (239) 939-0700 mmk@kubickidraper.com<mailto:mmk@kubickidraper.com> 13350 Metro Parkway Suite 401<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20401+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966> Fort Myers, Florida 33966<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13350%20Metro%20Parkway%20Suite%20401+Fort%20Myers,+Florida+33966> [cid:image006.png@01D6A703.3F8416D0] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/kubicki-draper/> [cid:image007.png@01D6A703.3F8416D0] <https://twitter.com/KubickiDraper> From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:57 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>; Jack@WCLfirm.com<mailto:Jack@WCLfirm.com> Cc: Brian Tannenbaum; Salvatore Scro Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied This result is how I would expect most circuit judges to respond to such a motion. This section of the statute as originally conceived was arguably a legislative intrusion into the judicial process. I can’t think of any other situation where a judge would be asked to sanction a party for pre-litigation discovery non-compliance, especially where the contractor is not obliged under the statute to even make an offer. What if the production response was late or merely incomplete? What if there were objections to the discovery? This brings about a whole layer of dispute which I can understand judges not being inclined to deal with. Alan E. Tannenbaum Board Certified Construction Lawyer TANNENBAUM SCRO LEMOLE & KLEINBERG 1990 Main Street, Suite 725 Sarasota, Florida 34236 atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com<mailto:atannenbaum@tannenbaumscro.com> www.tannenbaumscro.com<http://www.tannenbaumscro.com/> Direct Phone #: (941) 308-3157 Department Fax: (941) 316-0515 [cid:image008.png@01D6A703.3F8416D0] ========== Privacy Disclosure ========== This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message or any attachments to the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you. From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org<mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied Good morning all, We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion.. At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said : “Section 558.004 provides that “any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation.” Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15).” He asked him why he shouldn’t award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : “The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. “ This was in Orange County. Any thoughts? Thank you, Jack Jack Taylor, Esq. Associate Attorney Williams Law Firm 212 W. Bay Ave Longwood, FL 32750 Telephone: 407-926-4100 Jack@WCLfirm.com<mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com> www.WCLFirm.com<http://www.wclfirm.com/> [cid:image009.jpg@01D6A703.3F8416D0] In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a “debt collector” as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose. Important – Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you. Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. ________________________________ COVID-19 Notice: Our commitment to our clients is to provide unstoppable service. We are continuing our business operations but are taking preventative measures consistent with CDC, federal and state government recommendations/orders. We continue to work diligently to respond to our clients’ needs seamlessly via telephone, e-mail and video-conference. You can count on us. All the best to you and yours. ________________________________ Disclaimer Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, printing, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.

RC

RPPTL CLC-Discussion

Wed, Oct 21, 2020 2:02 PM

I know the statute isn't specifically worded this way, but I generally have felt that the way to get this sanction is to make the request pursuant to 558.004. Get some documents (or none). Then in litigation, make a regular discovery request. Get more documents. Seek sanctions for the other party failing to produce documents that existed when the 558.004 notice was given. To me, that's in keeping with the alleged purpose behind the statute of keeping disputes from getting to litigation. If you fail to provide a certain class of documents upfront, and later it becomes clear you had them but just didn't provide them, then you get sanctioned for it.

[Dinsmore]
Jason S. Lambert
Partner

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP * Legal Counsel
Tampa City Center
201 North Franklin Street
Suite 3050
Tampa, FL 33602
T (813) 543-9823 * F (813) 543-9849
E jason.lambert@dinsmore.com mailto:jason.lambert@dinsmore.com * dinsmore.comhttp://www.dinsmore.com
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

Good morning all,
We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion..

At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said :
"Section 558.004 provides that "any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation." Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15)."

He asked him why he shouldn't award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : "The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. "

This was in Orange County. Any thoughts?

Thank you,
Jack
Jack Taylor, Esq.
Associate Attorney

Williams Law Firm
212 W. Bay Ave
Longwood, FL 32750
Telephone: 407-926-4100

Jack@WCLfirm.com mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com
www.WCLFirm.com http://www.wclfirm.com/

[cid:image003.jpg@01D6A791.37D99070]

In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a "debt collector" as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose.

Important - Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone.
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.

NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission from the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl may constitute an attorney-client communication that is privileged at law. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be corrected.

I know the statute isn't specifically worded this way, but I generally have felt that the way to get this sanction is to make the request pursuant to 558.004. Get some documents (or none). Then in litigation, make a regular discovery request. Get more documents. Seek sanctions for the other party failing to produce documents that existed when the 558.004 notice was given. To me, that's in keeping with the alleged purpose behind the statute of keeping disputes from getting to litigation. If you fail to provide a certain class of documents upfront, and later it becomes clear you had them but just didn't provide them, then you get sanctioned for it. [Dinsmore] Jason S. Lambert Partner Dinsmore & Shohl LLP * Legal Counsel Tampa City Center 201 North Franklin Street Suite 3050 Tampa, FL 33602 T (813) 543-9823 * F (813) 543-9849 E jason.lambert@dinsmore.com<mailto:jason.lambert@dinsmore.com> * dinsmore.com<http://www.dinsmore.com> From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied Good morning all, We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion.. At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said : "Section 558.004 provides that "any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation." Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15)." He asked him why he shouldn't award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure. I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. , The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating : "The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. " This was in Orange County. Any thoughts? Thank you, Jack Jack Taylor, Esq. Associate Attorney Williams Law Firm 212 W. Bay Ave Longwood, FL 32750 Telephone: 407-926-4100 Jack@WCLfirm.com<mailto:gtwlaw@ymail.com> www.WCLFirm.com<http://www.wclfirm.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D6A791.37D99070] In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a "debt collector" as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose. Important - Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone. This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments. Thank you. Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. ________________________________ NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission from the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl may constitute an attorney-client communication that is privileged at law. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be corrected.