15. LTA LOGISTICS vs Enrique Varona (Varona Motion to Compel Production)

7/29/2019 15. LTA LOGISTICS vs Enrique Varona (Varona Motion to Compel Production)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/15-lta-logistics-vs-enrique-varona-varona-motion-to-compel-production 1/6

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR M IAMI DADE COUN TY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 11 20527 CA 21

LTA LOGISTICS, INC.

A Florida corporation, and

LESTER TRIMINO, <*«/. , ORIGINAL

Plamtlff> F I L E D O N :

vs. D E C 0 7 2012

p ,7 I N T H E O F F I C E O FEnrique Varona, CJRCU|T CQURT DADEcoF L

Defendant,

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL AND PROVIDE ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST OF PRODUCTION.

INTRODUCTION

1. The controlling law for this motion is Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.380 (a).

2. Plaintiff L T A LOGISTICS, INC, a corporation who is a fiction of law, its

officers, (from hereon, the plaintiffs) an d their counsel M r. Scott Egleston P.A.

have filed a frivolous lawsuit against th e defendant Enrique Varona, a live human

being (from hereon, the defendant) who is Sui Juris and proceeding Pro se in this

ma tter, for tortuous interference with business relationship s, damages in excess of

$15,000.00 dollars allegedly due to loss of existing business an d loss of future

business because defe ndan t exercised his first amendment right to communicate

with the public at large his opinions wh ile not engaged in comm erce; of certain

unfair trade practices and other racketeerin g activities pertaining to the plaintiffs



operation of a DOT (Department of Transportation) licensed surface cargo

transportation corporation operating in a broker capacity. D efenda nt answered the

complaint with various denials, affirmative an d special defenses, and has filed a

counterclaim alleging inter allia, that plaintiff breached certain duties to the

defendant, engaged in a smear campaign against defendant which cost him his

agency and employm ent, produced contracts through fraud by forging the

defendants signature, engaged in unconscionable business practices which resulted

in tortuous interference, civil conspiracy and fraud.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THIS MOTION

3. On August 18 , 2011 and on November 16, 2011 defendant requested from

plaintiff by mo tion under authority of F.R .C.P. rule 1.350 to produce certain

documents. T he interrogatories sought (see attachment "A"), among other things,

seek to discover the factual basis for the allegations in the plaintiff complaint, an d

requested that th e plaintiff detail th e damages it claims to have incurred as a result of

each of defendants alleged improper acts. T he request for production sought some

documents that support the plaintiff allegations for tortuous interference including

their claim of loss of profit as alleged by them in their comp laint. See:

"[i]n any civil action ...a party may obtain ... discovery of information or

disclosure, production an d inspection of papers, books or docum ents ma terial

to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... whether th e discovery or

disclosure relates to the claim or defense .. . Discovery shall be permitted if the



disclosure sought would be of assistance in the prosecution or defense of the

action ... Interrogatories requesting a calculation of damages and how these

damages were calculated are permissible". Churchill Linen Service v. Miso

Inc., 2006 W L 224038 (January 4, 2006).

4. On November 18, 2012 defendant again sought such documents from the

plaintiff. As set forth herein, the plaintiff has failed to provide any meaningful

responses to the defendant 's legitimate and reasonable requests.

5. This case is set for trial by jury and plaintiff by refusing to provide these

documents has engaged in pattern of obstructing the course of justice, see:

"The discovery rules are designed to facilitate trial proceed ings and to make a

trial less a game ofblindman's [ b l u f f ] and more a fair contest with the basic

issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent." Chief of Police v.

Freedom of Information Commission, 52 Conn.App. 12, 16, 724 A.2d 554

(1999), affd, 252 Conn. 377, 74 6 A.2d 1264 (2000).

F A IL U R E TO STATE FACTS O N WH ICH TH E ALLEGATIO N S FO R

TORTOUS IN TERFEREN CE AR E BASED

6. The defendant incorporates by reference all the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 5.

7. Interrogatories no. 1, no. 3 and no. 4 seek to establish who are the alleged

plain tiffs customers the defendant interfered with and how and when this

interference took place that are the nature of the plaintiffs claim of tortuous

interference with a business relationship.



8. The Court should compel the plaintiff to provide substantive responses to these

interrogatories as they are relevant.

DISCOVERY OF FACTS TH AT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS

OF THE DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIM



10. Interrogatories no. 1, no. 2, and no. 6 seek to identify witnesses that are

essential for the defendants case as they have first hand knowledge of the plaintiffs

business practices and may support the defendants allegations in the counterclaim.

11. T he Cou rt should compel the plaintiff to provide substantive responses to these

interrogatories.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES RELATED TO DAMAGES



13 . Interrogatories no. 1, no. 3, no. 4, no. 5, no. 6 and no. 7 seek to establish how,

when, and by what amount and corroborating witness testimony on how the plaintiff

suffered the alleged mo ney damages and loss of business as a result of the

defendants actions.

14 . The Court should compel the plaintiff to provide substantive responses to these

interrogatories.



CONCLUSION

W H E R E F O R E and for the foregoing reasons, Defendant , Enrique Varona Sui Juris in this

matter resp ectfully requests tha t the Cou rt com pel as required by the rules of evidence an d civil

procedure Ru le 1.380(a) that the plaintiff provide substantive responses to defen dant's E IGH T

interrogatories as outlined in previous motions to produce and as described in Attachment "A"

see attached.

Ssphctfully submitted,

nrique\Varona, sui uris acting pro se

CERTIFICATE O F SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was mailed on

D ecember 10, 2012 to Scott Egleston P.A., 12000 Biscayne Blvd Suite 220, M iami,

Florida 33181.

\̂

Respectfully submitted,

7 ( Jrigufe Varona su i juris acting pro se



AT T ACHME NT "A" T O M OT ION T O COMPE L DOCUME NT S

A ll "production instructions" for this request are to be found on the defendants

motion to request production filed on November 18, 2011.

1. Any and all documents including emails, contracts, agreements, payroll recordswhich you now have in your possession or control and which you believe you will

rely upon should this matter be tried.

2. Address and contact inform ation for the accounting ex employee "Vicky".

3. Name and addresses and other contact information of all the alleged existing

customers, vendors, future customers, that you claim defendant interfered with

which are the subject of your tortuous interference claim.

4. All the signed contracts between LT A LO GIST ICS, INC., that you have with

these customers (if they exist) that state that they had an exclusive commercial

relationship with th e plaintiff, which make the basis for your claim of tortuous

interference.

5. Since you allege a claim of injury in the form of lost revenues and/or profits as

a result of defendants alleged actions please provide al l LTA LOGISTICS, IN C

corporate tax returns for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and their supporting

financial statements as proof of the lost revenue claim.

6. Copies of any truck leases, trailer leases, titles, registration, insura nce policies, orother documentation which proves that you are an equally situated competitor of

LANDSTAR LOGISTICS, INC. which are the nature of your claim of tortuous

interference.

7. Copy of all agreements/contracts or retainers between M r. Trimino, any other

corporate officer an d their attorney M r. Scott E gleston P.A., that provide fo r fees

paid an d copies of all cancelled checks paid to the attorney.

8. Any and all Copyright certificates or any other supporting docum ent that

substantiate your claims of the ownership of a copyright license over any

advertising m aterial, com pany logo or brand recognition art or devise.

Documents

15. LTA LOGISTICS vs Enrique Varona (Varona Motion to Compel Production)