13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 904a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Failure to attend — Sanctions — Evidentiary hearing will be held on issue of insurer’s failure to produce corporate representative for deposition — Speaking objections and inflammatory comments made by insurer’s counsel during deposition were impediment to taking deposition and unprofessional
NAIROVYS BELL, Plaintiff, vs. AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 05-09596, Division I. June 28, 2006. Charlotte Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Timothy A. Patrick, Nicholas, Lipscomb & Patrick, P.A., Tampa, for Plaintiff. David Lucey, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS & MOTION TO STRIKE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on June 15, 2006 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Strike. Plaintiff’s counsel, Timothy A. Patrick, and Defendant’s counsel, David Lucey, were present. The court after hearing argument of counsel and having reviewed the record,
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
(1). As to the issue of the Defendant’s failure to produce its Corporate Representative for deposition on May 16, 2006 at 4:00 PM, the court will require sworn testimony from the involved participants in an evidentiary hearing before the court.
(2) The court will require testimony from Defendant’s attorney, Alicia Laufer, and Plaintiff’s attorney, Timothy Patrick, as to the issue of Plaintiff’s request for deposition dates of the Defendant’s corporate representative and the setting of the deposition. The parties will present the evidence utilized in the setting of the deposition.
(3) The court finds that Plaintiff served its Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum via a certificate of service dated April 28, 2006 and that Defendant filed its Motion for Protective Order on May 22, 2006. The court will require an explanation from the Defendant why the Defendant could not file a Motion for Protective Order in a more timely fashion.
(4) As to the issue of Defendant’s counsel, Jeffrey Rubinton’s speaking objections and other inflammatory comments during the deposition of John DePompeo, the court finds counsel’s comments and objections beginning on page ten to be an impediment to the taking of the deposition. Further, the court finds the behavior of Mr. Rubinton to be totally unprofessional and objectionable. Said conduct made it extremely difficult for Plaintiff’s counsel, Dwayne Perser, to conduct the deposition.
(5) Both sides will have all people involved before the court to testify at the evidentiary hearing.
(6) The court finds that the Defendant must become more amenable to being cooperative in the discovery process, where the purpose is to obtain information, not thwart the process.
(7) The Plaintiff’s motion is continued for the purpose of the evidentiary hearing.
