Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8



COMES NOW Plaintiff John Carroll (Carroll), pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves for an Order of Contempt or Sanctions and other relief against Defendants Joule, Lilienthal, WaterSound, Matteson, Watercolor and Voelker for violating the Order of this Court to meet and prepare a list of Exhibits for use at trial, along with a list of documents that have been objected to. Plaintiff, states: 1. On June 2, 2011 this Court held its pre-trial conference wherein

the Court instructed the parties to meet and exchange each and every Exhibit appearing on their Exhibit lists to determine in advance which documents the parties would agree to enter as Exhibits at trial. The transcript is attached herein

for clarity:
THE COURT: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You would need to meet with

John Humphrey as soon as possible to take care of any of that now. It sounds to me like we And

have some fairly voluminous exhibits. Mr. Carroll, I understand you're not an

attorney, but the way that it's done in these cases where we have a lot of documents is normally we'll have a notebook that will be presented. And the parties will agree on the

documents that aren't disputed and will introduce them as a group and won't go through each document showing it to the jury because it will take needless time, and they won't have time to consider them as they're shown on the screen anyway. So I would expect the parties Do

to meet and agree on all exhibits possible. we think there are any -- do we know of any

exhibits that will be in dispute at this point as far as the admissibility on either side? MR. CARROLL: I don't know of any other

than what these gentlemen might bring up. THE COURT: It's pretty much mostly (850) 897-2864


46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 y'all's records, isn't it? MR. SHIPMAN: I believe so. I think it

would be best if we all sat down and went through one set. And I also have a concern

when we're doing all of this, it's a separate claim against WaterColor. I don't want any

misunderstanding of for example when we're talking about this tower, it has nothing to do with WaterColor. MR. CARROLL: That we separate out. Are we talking about two

different notebooks then? MR. SHIPMAN: Well, I assume you're going

to present evidence as to each of your cases because they are distinct. THE COURT: We can do it with two

notebooks if there is a danger of prejudice if we combine the two. MR. GEORGE: The only other thing I would

add about exhibits is I know on his exhibit list, he has identified a lot of materials that have to do with underground debris on Lot 24. That was a subject of a separate dispute that he had with St. Joe that was settled. So there

is going to be some dispute about whether those are relevant or admissible for this litigation. KATHRYN B. PEACOCK, COURT REPORTER (850) 897-2864

47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So there may be a significant group of documents or exhibits he's identified that are problematic. But, I mean, we're certainly

willing to sit down and go over them with him and try to resolve what we can. THE COURT: Okay. Within two weeks from

today y'all will arrange a time to meet, have all your documents with you that you plan to introduce at trial and prepare an agreed list of exhibits and a list of any exhibits to which there are objections so that we can schedule that for a hearing if we need to. MR. CARROLL: Can we set one now just to

save time if we'll meet at the south Walton annex or at someone's office? MR. SHIPMAN: Why don't we meet at my

office since, Chris, you're over in Mobile. And, Mark, do you have any problem coming to my office? You're down there near my office. You

want to try and agree on a date now? MR. GEORGE: calendar up. We can. I need to get my


On June 17, 2011 this Court held an additional hearing on a separate

matter, and Carroll introduced (2) binders complete with Exhibits which appeared on his exhibit list as a sample of what he intended to offer as the final jurys exhibit notebook.


The parties then confirmed that they would meet at Mr. Shipmans office

per the Courts Order to consider all of the parties Exhibits. 4. When Carroll appeared, Mr. George handed Mr. Carroll his Exhibits in

(2) binders and Mr. Carroll handed (2) binders to the other Counsel of Record. 5. Mr. Carroll then began turning over additional Exhibits numbered per his

Exhibit List at a rate of (3) Exhibits per minute. 6. Before any of the opposing Counsel offered a single Objection to any of

the (200) Exhibits they were presented with, Mr. George and Mr. Davis left the room to confer. 7. Mr. Carroll continued to present the Jr. Attorneys with separate and

numbered exhibits at a rate of (3) per minute. 8. Mr. George and Mr. Davis returned to the conference room whereby they

immediately proffered that they would take the (2) complete binders of Mr. Carrolls Exhibits, the additional separately numbered exhibits and a stack of (200) additional Exhibits which were in order, but in process of being numbered, and take them with them to save time. 9. Carroll reminded each and every attorney present that he was separating

and numbering documents faster than they could review them, and that he was prepared to complete the review no matter how long it took. 10. Despite this, Mr. George said it would be no problem to number the

documents himself and that hed meet with Mr. Carroll by Wednesday June 22, 2011 to complete the review and offer any objections. Mr. Carroll implored Mr. George to stay, but Mr. George would not oblige the continued review. This was less than 30 minutes after the parties commenced the review. 11. Mr. Carroll conducted the deposition of Witness Amy Norsworthy on

Monday June 20, 2011 at Mr. Shipmans office. Mr. George, Mr. Davis and Mr. Shipman,

made no appearance. Mr. Shipman did provide alternate Counsel who made no objections during the entire deposition. 12. On Tuesday June 21, 2011, Carroll travelled to Tallahassee to depose the

witness Drew Roberston at Mr. Shipmans office. Again, Mr. Shipman made no appearance, but did provide alternate Counsel who made no objections. Mr. Davis made no appearance. Mr. George appeared telephonically. 13. per Judge Greens Order, Nevertheless, you only arrived with organized, labeled copies of the last exhibit on your amended exhibit list an exhibit which, as it turns out, consists of 111 separate exhibits. I am working on our objections to these 111 exhibits. As for the other 457 exhibits on your list, you failed to provide us with organized, labeled copies of these exhibits. We have been diligently trying to pull and copy each of these other 457 exhibits on your list. However, this has become a very time-consuming and, to some degree, impossible task given the large number of exhibits involved 14. Mr. George concluded his belated argument with, At 5:53 pm, Tallahassee time, Mr. George wrote Mr. Carroll an email stating that

Al that being said, please be advised that if you fail to provide us with organized, labeled copies of the first 457 exhibits on your exhibit list prior to the hearing on Friday, we ask the court to not allow you to introduce any of these exhibits at trial. Chris George Scott, Sullivan, Streetman & Fox, P.C. 15. By June 22, 2011 Mr. George indicated that in fact, he delegated the

review of Carrolls Exhibits to some unnamed party, I also understand there is a great deal of confusion as to precisely which DRB meeting minutes or portions of DRB meeting minutes you are referring to in your exhibits 394-456. This is precisely the type of confusion and unnecessary waste of time the court was trying to avoid by ordering all of us to produce copies of our exhibits to one another by last Friday, as we did.


All of Mr. Georges supposed confusions have been caused by the

fact that he simply wanted to get back to Mobile on the Friday the parties were ordered to perform their review and state their objections. It was approximately 2:30 on Friday afternoon when Mr. George asked to break up the meeting. 17. It is now 3:30 on June 22, 2011 and no Counsel of Record has

made a single objection to any of the Plaintiffs Exhibits. That notwithstanding Mr. Carroll put Mr. George on Notice that he expected, and demanded Mr. George to complete the review by the end of business Wednesday. Your belated argument that I somehow violated Judge Green's Order is unfounded. You all clearly wanted to avoid staying put in Mr. Shipman's conference room and completing Judge Green's Order. You were to get back to me today with your objections to the documents you took. You have not done so. I am ready, able and strongly desire to continue the document review today like you agreed on Friday. If you will not recommence today, as agreed on Friday, I will make my Motion for Contempt against your clients. There is absolutely no reason for you to not complete the Order of the Court. I'll await your immediate reply, John Carroll 18. Mr. George responded in bad faith,

You failed to appear with an organized, labeled set of your over 500 exhibits and, based on your response, aren't willing to give me one now. At this point, we will simply have to take the issue up with the court. Chris George Sent from my iPhone 19. Chris, This is your last opportunity to meet with me to reconvene as we agreed last Friday. I am ready to meet at Gary Shipman's office to complete our meeting per the Order of Judge Green. Mr. Carroll responded accordingly,

John Carroll 20. Mr. Davis has not turned in an Exhibit List in this case. Mr. Shipman has

not turned an Exhibit List in this case. It is only the Plaintiff, John Carroll who will suffer because of the contemptuous acts of the Defendants. thumbing his nose at the Order of the Court. Wherefore Plaintiff CARROLL moves for an Order from this Court hereby accepting his Exhibits for the jurys notebook, and denying the Defendants the right to introduce any Exhibits at trial. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Christopher L. George, Esq., PO Box 1034, Mobile, AL 36633 and to Mark D. Davis, Esq., 694 Baldwin Ave. Suite 1, PO Box 705, DeFuniak Springs, FL 32435 and to Gary Shipman, Esq., 1414 Co. Hwy. 283, Suite B, Santa Rosa Beach, FL by fax and regular mail this 22nd day of June, 2011. _____________________________ John P. Carroll The Defendants Counsel is clearly