Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, Plaintiff, vs. DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA Defendants. _________________________________________/ DEFENDANTS DISMAS CHARTIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS AND ADAMS LESHOTAS BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota (collectively Defendants) by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Brief in Response to Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanus (Plaintiff) Motion to Strike Defendants Response Brief in Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement Motion to Compel Responses to Second Request for Production and Interrogatories and state as follows: 1. Plaintiff, a former Federal Inmate, has filed a vague and confusing lawsuit against

his Community Correction Center/Half Way House, Dismas, and three of its employees, Gispert, Thomas and Lashanda Adams. The Complaint contains 50 paragraphs of factual allegations filed by a laundry list of four alleged Federal Theories of Recovery and six alleged state law theories of recovery. However, the Plaintiff cannot maintain any State or Federal cause of action

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 2 of 6

CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON against any defendant. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which has been briefed and pending ruling since June 5, 2011. Defendants believe that the disposition of that Motion will bring and end to this lawsuit and the need for discovery and ruling on the Plaintiffs discovery motions. 2. Despite the fact that the Defendants timely and properly responded to all

discovery, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Docket number 58). Defendants timely responded to the Motion to Compel. (Docket number 59) 3. In response to the Defendants response brief, instead of replying, the Plaintiff

filed a Motion to Strike Defendants Response Brief to his Motion to Compel. (Docket number 60). 4. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion must be denied. ARGUMENT AND CITIATION TO AUTHORITY The Defendants have properly responded to the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Requests for Production and Interrogatories. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs Second Requests for Production and Second Set of Interrogatories against the Defendants. (Docket number 58). As the Defendants have responded to all interrogatories and agreed to produce and produced the requested documents at their counsels office as they are kept in the course of business, the Defendants have complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (2)(E). Accordingly, the Motions must be denied. Rather than be repetitive, the Defendants adopt their response brief (Docket Number 59) as though it is fully set forth herein, in response to this Motion.

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 3 of 6

CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON Despite the facts that the Defendants, timely responded to the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, the Plaintiff has moved to strike the Defendants Response Brief. However, the

Plaintiff has not provided any legal or factual basis to strike the Defendants Response Brief. Under the local rules, the Defendants have the right to file a response brief. The Plaintiffs five page brief is devoid of any discussion or reason why the Response Brief should be stricken. It appears that the only reason the Plaintiff wants to strike the response brief is because he disagrees with the Defendants position stated in the response brief. The fact that the Plaintiff does not like the content of the response brief is not a reason to strike the brief. Since the Plaintiff has not provided any legal basis to strike Defendants Brief, the Plaintiffs Motion must be denied. The Plaintiffs motion is nothing more than an attempt to argue the merits of his case rather than the propriety of the Defendants discovery responses. (See docket number 60, paragraphs 1-18, pages 2-4 of the Motion). For example, the Plaintiff makes baseless allegations that Defendant Gispert is a racist and that Defendant Thomas has people fronting for him. (Docket number 60, paragraphs 17-18) Clearly, these issues have nothing to do with the

Defendants Response Brief. The Plaintiffs Motion to Strike is not only improper as a whole but is also an improper forum to argue the alleged merits of his case. The Plaintiff has moved to strike Defendants Response Brief to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. The Plaintiff, pro se, apparently fails to understand that the purpose of a Motion to Compel is to compel responses to discovery when the other side does not respond. In this case, the Defendants have clearly responded to all discovery. However, the Plaintiff does not like the

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 4 of 6

CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON Defendants answers to the questions as they are in contravention to his position and harm his case. The Plaintiff is confusing a Motion to Strike a Response Brief with a Motion to Strike a Response Brief That He Does Not Like. The Plaintiff is apparently trying to force the Defendants to answer discovery with the answers that are satisfactory to him. However, the Plaintiff cannot force and compel the Defendants to change their answers and respond in a manner acceptable to the Plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff cannot strike a response brief simply because he does not agree with or like the arguments raised in the response brief. As the Plaintiffs Motion has no basis in law or fact, it should be stricken. Plaintiff should be sanctioned for forcing the Defendants to respond to his baseless Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota respectfully request that Plaintiffs Motion be denied and that the Court grant any further relief it deems appropriate, including sanctions against the Plaintiff. EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL, & CHAIET, P.A. Attorneys for Defendants 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 265-South Hollywood, FL 33021 (954) 894-8000 (954) 894-8015 Fax BY: /S/ David S. Chaiet____________ DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE FBN: 963798

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 5 of 6

CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th day of October, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. __/s/ David S. Chaiet_______________ DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 963798

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 6 of 6

CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON

SERVICE LIST Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc., et al. Case No..: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Traian Bujduveanu Pro Se Plaintiff 5601 W. Broward Blvd. Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 316-3828 Email: orionav@msn.com