IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN RE: FAMILY DIVISION (04)

J.M., a/k/a JASON MILLER CASE NO.: 17-016674 FC 17

Petitioner/Father,

and

A.J.D., a/k/a ARLENE J. DELGADO

Respondent/Mother.
__________________________________/

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ON PETITIONER FOR REFUSAL TO ADHERE TO

COURT-ORDERED DEPOSITION

1. Since early March 2018, Mother has diligently and responsibly attempted to coordinate
a date for Father’s deposition prior to mediation, so that both depositions could be taken
in a manner that would provide a fuller picture and great information, which in turn
makes for a more successful mediation.

2. Mother first reached out on March 13th, writing: “if you could also provide the dates your
client is available for his continued deposition, so that such can be scheduled prior to
mediation, that is also of the essence.” (See image below.)

1
3. Mother received no dates in response.

4. On April 11th, Mother diligently followed up again, writing: (See image below.)

5. Mother received no reply. She diligently followed up yet again (the third request) on
Monday, April 16th, writing: (See image below.)

2
6. Again, she received no reply.

7. Mother asked again on May 1st, and again received no reply. (See image below.)

3
8. For nearly two months, Mother’s attempts to receive Father’s availability dates, in
order to set the depositions, were inexplicably refused and ignored.

9. At the May 2nd Case Management Conference before this Court, Mother noted Father’s
refusal to allow his deposition or provide any dates. Father’s counsel had no answer other
than attempting to claim Father’s “work travel schedule”. Miraculously, however, once in
front of the Judge, Father was able to provide a date. (This is the same game as was
previously played by Father and his counsel, when Mother’s previous counsel, Evan
Marks, attempted to set Father’s deposition last year: no dates were provided but then,
miraculously, once before the Judge on November 21st, Father’s counsel proffered a date
of December 1st.)

10. Father stated he was available Wednesday, May 8th. Mother immediately and
cooperatively agreed and wrote the date down.

11. Father then stated that May 11th worked better. Mother again immediately and
cooperatively agreed, wrote the date down, and the Court settled on the date, ordering
both depositions to go forward on May 11th,. The Court even kindly offered premises on
site for said depositions (after confirming such was available on May 11th), with Judge

4
 Young giving the parties a quick tour of the room in which the depositions would take
place.

12. Mother was skeptical that Father would indeed sit for his deposition but was hopeful that
he would not be so brazen so as to evade a Court’s order. Her optimism would soon turn
out to be misplaced.

13. Two days later, on the evening of May 4th, Mother received an email from Father’s
counsel. Father was now claiming he was not available for his deposition. Such was
particularly egregious given that:
a) the deposition was on a date Father himself had specifically requested;
b) Father was not even providing an understandable reason for breaching a Court-ordered
deposition – merely a “work conflict”;
c) Father’s alternative date proffered was only one date: the day before mediation (an
unrealistic and completely unworkable proposal, as said date does not allow the parties to
process or digest the information learned; and both parties would be busy preparing for
the mediation); and
d) The email clearly stated the day-before-mediation was the “only” alternative date.

14. As this Court is well aware, work obligations and “work conflicts” are not suitable
reasons for backing out of a Court-ordered deposition.

15. Below is a copy of Father’s counsel’s May 4th email, with sections highlighted:

5
16. Mother, while shocked by Father’s Contempt of Court, nonetheless attempted to be
cooperative and reasonable to at least ensure that the depositions went forward by the end of the
month, even if her preference (and, more importantly, same as Judge Young had expressed) was
for the depositions to take place prior to mediation. Since Father’s counsel’s email made it clear
that the “only” date pre-mediation that worked was the day-before-mediation (which is
unrealistic and impossible), Mother replied suggesting not one but two alternate dates: May 21
and May 31st, asking Father’s counsel to have Father choose one.

17. Instead, Father’s counsel (who never misses an opportunity to file excessive and misleading
pleadings), filed a pleading the afternoon of May 8th, omitting material facts and claiming there
was no reason to schedule the deposition because mediation might be successful. But this is an
inane and bizarre argument, as depositions, and even trials, are set with mediations in between,
as necessary placeholders of said dates. The truth is, this is nothing more than yet another
delay tactic by Father and his counsel who, should the May 16th mediation be unsuccessful,
wish to then schedule the depositions a month or more later, kicking the can further down the
curb, as they have done since the commencement of this litigation. There is absolutely no
reason why a May 21 or May 31st deposition cannot be scheduled now and, should the
mediation be successful, be easily canceled.

6
18. On the evening of May 8th, when Father’s counsel unreasonably refused to provide any
documentation of Father’s alleged “work conflict,” Mother informed Father’s counsel that the
deposition was still on for May 11th, as Mother had no heard otherwise from the Court. Father’s
counsel then replied offering a ridiculous “video web-cam” option for the deposition or,
alternatively, May 14th (this, despite the fact that Father’s counsel’s email on May 4th had very
clearly stated May 14th was not an option). This level of whiplash and gamesmanship cannot and
should not be allowed. Mother, who is busy caring for her infant son, replied that this was an
inefficient use of time and asked Father’s counsel that, given that Father clearly refuses to show
for his May 11th deposition, to at least select May 21 or May 31. (See image below of Mother’s
May 8th evening reply to Father’s counsel).

19. The following morning, May 9th, she received a bizarre email from Father’s counsel, yet
again refusing to allow the Court-ordered May 11th deposition or at least schedule the mediation
for May 21 or May 31.

7
PETITIONER REFUSES TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF SAID WORK CONFLICT
20. Mother twice asked Father’s counsel to provide documentation of Father’s alleged “work
conflict” (even though a work conflict is not a valid reason for avoiding a Court-ordered
deposition). Father’s counsel stated such would not be provided.

21. This is particularly ironic, given that Father and his counsel have demanded documentary
proof of various matters from Mother, even when said matters did not involve any evasion of
Court orders. For instance, when Father made a last-minute demand to see the child during the
last few days of December, and Mother had a trip to Key West scheduled for that time, Father
and his counsel demanded proof, even going so far as to file a formal Request for Production,
that Mother indeed had booked a trip. (Mother cooperatively provided proof of her Expedia pre-
paid documentation.) This, even though Mother’s trip did not breach any Court ordered, as
Father did not have Court-ordered or even ever-agreed-to timesharing during those days. As
usual, Father and his counsel expect one set of rules for Mother, and none for Father. Even
when avoiding a Court-ordered deposition, Father, who continues to act as though he is a very
special litigant, refuses to provide proof of any reason why he should be allowed to avoid his
deposition without any consequences.

FATHER AND HIS COUNSEL HAVE ROUTINELY SOUGHT TO DELAY THIS

LITIGATION
22. Backing out of a Court-ordered deposition, even on a date Father himself had chosen, is, in
fact, the latest in Father’s deliberate delay of this litigation, in addition to:

a) it is Father who refused to ‘close the pleadings’ until February 8th (refusing to file his Answer
to Mother’s Counter-Father until February 8th, even though Mother’s pleading was filed in
October), thereby making it impossible for the case to be set for trial until at least February;
b) While Father noticed it for trial in late April, yes, it was a disingenuous play to appear as the
reasonable litigant. As this Court will no doubt recall, only days prior to setting it for trial, Father
and his counsel were, on an April 12th telephonic hearing with Judge Young, protesting Mother’s
request to set the trial, stating there was no need to do so; and (b) Father set the case for trial only
a day after a media article emerged in which Mother bemoaned that the case had not even been
set for trial and the amount the litigation was costing her and the time it was taking away from
the child.

23. Even in regards to the mediation itself, Judge Young, in a March 5th Order, ordered the
parties to mediate by May 25th. The mediation could have and should have taken place in late
March or even early April, particularly as the mediator kindly made himself available on ample
dates. Yet Father and his counsel informed Mother that they were only available for dates
starting in mid-May. As a result, the mediation was rescheduled for May 16th, over two months
after the parties were ordered to mediate.

24. Father wishes to make himself seem reasonable in pleadings when, in fact, his actions are
contrary.

8
25. Father has not only constantly delayed this litigation (e.g., refusing to even file his
financial affidavit for months, despite the law requiring so) but also constantly demands and
receives preferential treatment. In a fair and just court, this must not be allowed to continue.

26. In sum, this Court should make note that:

a) For two months, Father refused Mother’s reasonable requests to set his deposition;
b) Once it was finally set by the Court for May 11th, Father still, incredibly, backed out and
seems to think he is entitled to do so on a whim with a flimsy “work conflict” excuse; and
c) Refuses to at least reschedule the deposition for sometime later this month, so as to at
least ensure that the depositions are taken in May and so the litigation is not delayed
further.

RELIEF SOUGHT
Father is not above the law and does not merit special treatment from this Court.
Mother asks that this Court, finally and at least for once, hold Father accountable for his constant
expectation of special treatment and his constant disregard for this Court’s authority, and
appropriately sanction him for his refusal to attend the Court-ordered deposition on May 11th, as
required.
Mother asks that this Court set Father’s deposition for May 21st or May 31st, so that such is at
least already set and no further delay can occur. It is in the child’s interests to avoid Father
continuing to create unreasonable delays.

9
10