13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 828a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Financial records — Where owner of medical provider gave evasive and non-responsive answers in deposition, and grand jury indictment has been filed against owner and provider’s records custodian, unusual and compelling circumstances warrant production of 1099s and subsequent deposition of owner
ALL CARE MEDICAL & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., a/a/o CAROLE BATICHON, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 03-7518 SP 26 (04), General Jurisdiction Division. May 15, 2006. Nuria Saenz, Judge. Counsel: Charles L. Vaccaro, Hialeah. Christopher L. Kirwan, Kirwan & Spellacy, P.A., Fort Lauderdale.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on May 15, 2006, upon Defendant’s Motion to Compel Follow up Deposition for Better Responses and Motion for Sanctions. The Court having heard argument of counsel, reviewed all pertinent portions of the court file, considered applicable statutes and controlling case law, the Court finds as follows:
1. The Defendant set the deposition duces tecum of Mr. Boris Royzen, Owner, All Care Medical and Rehabilitation Center. The deposition took place on June 28, 2005. The transcript was filed with the Court on July 27, 2005. The Court has carefully reviewed said transcript. Most of the responses by Mr. Royzen were evasive and non-responsive.
2. The Court has reviewed the Grand Jury Indictment filed in the U.S. District Court against Mr. Royzen, Myriam Martinez, Records Custodian/Officer Manager for the Plaintiff, among others named.
3. The Court is aware of Judge Bronwyn Miller’s Order on the issue of Defendant’s Second Request for Production and agrees that the least burdensome route of discovery, through oral or written deposition, must be followed and that 1099s should be ordered produced only upon unusual or compelling circumstances. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517, 521 (Fla. 1996).
4. After reading the transcript of the deposition, the Grand Jury Indictment and being informed of the relationship between the parties, doctors, personnel involved in this litigation, there are unusual and compelling circumstances for the production of documents requested by the Defendant in its Second Supplemental Request for Production, as well as, its request to depose Mr. Royzen again.
5. The Defendant may set a subsequent deposition duces tecum of Mr. Royzen. Mr. Royzen shall comply by appearing, providing documents requested and responding to all questions, as best able to, unless a proper objection is made by his attorney.
6. The Plaintiff shall respond to the Defendant’s Second Supplemental Request for Production at least two (2) days prior to the deposition of Mr. Royzen.
7. The Court reserves on the issue of costs and attorney’s fees requested by the Defendant in its Motion.
* * *
