Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION

DIVISION CASE NO. 11 20527 CA 21


LTA LOGISTICS, INC. A Florida corporation, and LESTER TRIMINO, <*/.,
Plamtlff

ORIGINAL

>

FILED ON:

vs.
,7 Enrique Varona, Defendant,
p

DEC 07 2012
IN THE OFFICE OF
CJRCU|T CQURT DADE co FL

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL AND PROVIDE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST OF PRODUCTION.

INTRODUCTION 1. The controlling law for this motion is Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.380 (a). 2. Plaintiff LTA LOGISTICS, INC, a corporation who is a fiction of law, its

officers, (from hereon, the plaintiffs) and their counsel Mr. Scott Egleston P.A. have filed a frivolous lawsuit against the defendant Enrique Varona, a live human being (from hereon, the defendant) who is Sui Juris and proceeding Pro se in this matter, for tortuous interference with business relationships, damages in excess of $15,000.00 dollars allegedly due to loss of existing business and loss of future business because defendant exercised his first amendment right to communicate with the public at large his opinions while not engaged in commerce; of certain unfair trade practices and other racketeering activities pertaining to the plaintiffs

operation of a DOT (Department of Transportation) licensed surface cargo transportation corporation operating in a broker capacity. Defendant answered the complaint with various denials, affirmative and special defenses, and has filed a counterclaim alleging inter allia, that plaintiff breached certain duties to the

defendant, engaged in a smear campaign against defendant which cost him his agency and employment, produced contracts through fraud by forging the

defendants signature, engaged in unconscionable business practices which resulted in tortuous interference, civil conspiracy and fraud.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THIS MOTION

3. On August 18, 2011 and on November 16, 2011 defendant requested from plaintiff by motion under authority of F.R.C.P. rule 1.350 to produce certain documents. The interrogatories sought (see attachment "A"), among other things, seek to discover the factual basis for the allegations in the plaintiff complaint, and requested that the plaintiff detail the damages it claims to have incurred as a result of each of defendants alleged improper acts. The request for production sought some documents that support the plaintiff allegations for tortuous interference including their claim of loss of profit as alleged by them in their complaint. See:

"[i]n any civil action ...a party may obtain ... discovery of information or disclosure, production and inspection of papers, books or documents material to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... whether the discovery or disclosure relates to the claim or defense ... Discovery shall be permitted if the

disclosure sought would be of assistance in the prosecution or defense of the action ... Interrogatories requesting a calculation of damages and how these damages were calculated are permissible". Churchill Linen Service v. Miso Inc., 2006 WL 224038 (January 4, 2006).

4.

On November 18, 2012 defendant again sought such documents from the

plaintiff. As set forth herein, the plaintiff has failed to provide any meaningful responses to the defendant's legitimate and reasonable requests. 5. This case is set for trial by jury and plaintiff by refusing to provide these documents has engaged in pattern of obstructing the course of justice, see:

"The discovery rules are designed to facilitate trial proceedings and to make a trial less a game ofblindman's [bluff] and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent." Chief of Police v. Freedom of Information Commission, 52 Conn.App. 12, 16, 724 A.2d 554 (1999), affd, 252 Conn. 377, 746 A.2d 1264 (2000).

FAILURE TO STATE FACTS ON WHICH THE ALLEGATIONS FOR TORTOUS INTERFERENCE ARE BASED

6. The defendant incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 5. 7. Interrogatories no. 1, no. 3 and no. 4 seek to establish who are the alleged plaintiffs customers the defendant interfered with and how and when this

interference took place that are the nature of the plaintiffs claim of tortuous interference with a business relationship.

8. The Court should compel the plaintiff to provide substantive responses to these interrogatories as they are relevant.

DISCOVERY OF FACTS THAT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIM 9. The defendant incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 8. 10. Interrogatories no. 1, no. 2, and no. 6 seek to identify witnesses that are essential for the defendants case as they have first hand knowledge of the plaintiffs business practices and may support the defendants allegations in the counterclaim. 11. The Court should compel the plaintiff to provide substantive responses to these interrogatories.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES RELATED TO DAMAGES

12. The defendant incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 11. 13. Interrogatories no. 1, no. 3, no. 4, no. 5, no. 6 and no. 7 seek to establish how, when, and by what amount and corroborating witness testimony on how the plaintiff suffered the alleged money damages and loss of business as a result of the

defendants actions. 14. The Court should compel the plaintiff to provide substantive responses to these interrogatories.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE and for the foregoing reasons, Defendant, Enrique Varona Sui Juris in this matter respectfully requests that the Court compel as required by the rules of evidence and civil procedure Rule 1.380(a) that the plaintiff provide substantive responses to defendant's EIGHT interrogatories as outlined in previous motions to produce and as described in Attachment "A" see attached. Ssphctfully submitted,

nrique\Varona, sui juris acting pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was mailed on December 10, 2012 to Scott Egleston P.A., 12000 Biscayne Blvd Suite 220, Miami, Florida 33181.

^\ Respectfully submitted,

( J

rigufe Varona sui juris acting pro se

ATTACHMENT "A" TO MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS All "production instructions" for this request are to be found on the defendants motion to request production filed on November 18, 2011. 1. Any and all documents including emails, contracts, agreements, payroll records which you now have in your possession or control and which you believe you will rely upon should this matter be tried. 2. Address and contact information for the accounting ex employee "Vicky". 3. Name and addresses and other contact information of all the alleged existing customers, vendors, future customers, that you claim defendant interfered with which are the subject of your tortuous interference claim. 4. All the signed contracts between LTA LOGISTICS, INC., that you have with these customers (if they exist) that state that they had an exclusive commercial relationship with the plaintiff, which make the basis for your claim of tortuous interference. 5. Since you allege a claim of injury in the form of lost revenues and/or profits as a result of defendants alleged actions please provide all LTA LOGISTICS, INC corporate tax returns for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and their supporting financial statements as proof of the lost revenue claim. 6. Copies of any truck leases, trailer leases, titles, registration, insurance policies, or other documentation which proves that you are an equally situated competitor of LANDSTAR LOGISTICS, INC. which are the nature of your claim of tortuous interference. 7. Copy of all agreements/contracts or retainers between Mr. Trimino, any other corporate officer and their attorney Mr. Scott Egleston P.A., that provide for fees paid and copies of all cancelled checks paid to the attorney. 8. Any and all Copyright certificates or any other supporting document that a copyright license over any substantiate your claims of the ownership of

advertising material, company logo or brand recognition art or devise.