Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 877 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2010 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case Number: 08-1 0084-CIV-BROWN

PETER HALMOS, INTERNATIONAL

YACHTING CHARTERS, INC., and HIGH
PLAINS CAPITAL,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH

AMERICA and STRICKLAND MARINE
INSURANCE, INC., (f/k/a STRICKLAND
MARINE AGENCY, INC.),

Defendants.
1

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter is before this Court on defendant Insurance Company of North America's

Motion for Protective Order ...(D.E. 812). The Court has considered the motion, the response, and

all pertinent materials in the file. The Court notes that although this motion was addressed to

plaintiffs, the subpoenas were issued by IYC, and only IYC has responded to same.

The beat goes on - but rises to new heights. This attempt at "discovery", which has

absolutely nothing to do with any claim in this lawsuit, relates back to plaintiffs' own motion filed

November 6,2009, which raised a collateral issue having nothing to do with the claims in this case.

A review of the current complaint, now reduced to some 43 pages (but even going back to the prior

complaints much longer than this) reveals it has no claims related to the matters to which this

"discovery" relates.
Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 877 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2010 Page 2 of 4

In addition, this Court indicated that the original request for an evidentiary hearing would be

"DENIED, without prejudice. To be kind, it is premature at this time. There is at best some hearsay

from another case that supports this extraordinary request" (D.E. 4 14,v 1). That statement was made

in the order ofNovember 17,2009. Despite that statement, and despite the fact that the response was

filed "along with hundreds of pages of exhibits, including declarations and depositions (sic)

transcripts" (see D.E. 667), no reply was ever filed. This Court made the previous statement in its

Order Re: Ex-Parte Emergency Motion for Protective Order on April 21,201 0.

Plaintiff IYC argues in its response to this motion that it was precluded from taking

depositions as of May 24,2010 per the Order re: Joint Motion for Abatement (D.E. 706) (see Resp.

p. 4), but never addresses why these depositions - if needed at all - were not taken in the months

preceding said order. It never addresses why they weren't taken during the period of April 21 - May

24,20 10 (see D.E. 667). Apparently, according to the response, the depositions were not set earlier

because "NA's Show Cause Reply was not served until June 1,2010" (Resp. p. 4). Apparently

plaintiff thinks it can wait until after the matter was fully briefed to - without leave of Court - set

discovery on the matter already briefed, and which it knows would result in more filings by both

parties addressing same.

The motion states that "None of these witnesses...have any knowledge regarding any issue

in this case. These depositions have absolutely no relevance to the allegations made in the Fourth

Amended Complaint" (Mot. p. 7). These arguments are not addressed, at all, in the response. The

motion further alleges that several of these proposed deponents have already been deposed regarding

the very same issues in the state (Europa Roofing) case (see Mot. pp. 5-6). That also is not addressed

in the response.

Even the law cited in support of the taking of the depositions is quite telling. Plaintiff starts
Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 877 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2010 Page 3 of 4

by quoting the case ofRosenbaum v. Becker & Poliakoff. P.A., No 08-CV-8 1004,2010 WL 623699

at * 1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23,2010), and a string of other cases, as follows: "The Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure strongly favor a full and broad scope of discovery whenever possible, allowing a party to

obtain discovery of 'any matter, not privileged, that is relevant..."'. Conspicuously missing is the

remainder of the quote, which are the words that follow relevant, ... "to the claim or defense of any

party". As noted, supra, the relevance of these depositions "to the claim or defense of any party"

is never even addressed in the response, much less supported.

The Court has no choice but to conclude that this is the latest in a lengthy string of actions

by plaintiff ~Yc'which,among other things, "multiplies the proceedings ...unreasonably and

vexatiously" (see 28 U.S.C. $1927). This Court has cajoled, warned, and pleaded with plaintiff to

act professionally, ethically, and appropriately, but it seems that even significant sanctions and a

finding of civil contempt2have not deferred it fkom proceeding down a path of obfuscation, delay,

and improper and inappropriate activity.

Plaintiff "waives the flag" and argues the "catastrophic" effect on the right of Plaintiffs to

a fair trial, but apparently it wasn't "catastrophic" enough in November, 2009 to require all this

discovery back then. This is, purely and simply, just another of plaintiffs smokescreens ...
heightened, if that were possible, by seeking sanctions against INA for their alleged (and totally

unspecified) misconduct (see Resp. p. 19) ... unless opposing depositions that have already been

taken in another case and could easily be used herein constitutes bad faith ... or opposing last minute

depositions that could have been taken months ago constitutes bad faith ... or unless opposing

'There is nothing in the record to show that either plaintiff HPC or plaintiff Peter Halmos,
individually, were involved in the issuance of these subpoenas or the scheduling of these
depositions.

'See D.E. 685.

Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 877 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2010 Page 4 of 4

depositions on a matter totally irrelevant to the issues in this case - and without even seeking leave

-
of court to go there constitutes bad faith ... or unless opposing depositions set after a matter is fully

briefed constitutes bad faith.

The Court being otherwise hlly advised in the premises it is hereby ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The motion for protective order be and the same is hereby GRANTED.

2, The Court finds that the depositions set, as noted, supra are in clear violation of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1927.

3. Sanctions shall be imposed consisting of all reasonable expenses3 incurred by INA

pertaining to this motion and the attendant circumstances of same.

4. The Court finds that this is "the last straw". PLAINTIFF IYC IS PLACED ON

NOTICE THAT THE COURT MUST CONCLUDE, IF FURTHER TRANSGRESSIONS

OCCUR, THAT MONETARY SANCTIONS DO NOT SUFFICE, AND THAT DISMISSAL

WILL BE THE ONLY REMEDY LEFT.

5. The sanction of dismissal sought by INA is DENIED, without prejudice and may be

renewed if the circumstances in paragraph 4, supra, surface.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Mi

cc: Counsel of record

31ncludingbut not limited to attorneys' fees.

-4-