[CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

[RPPTL CLC-Discussion]

This result is how I would expect most circuit judges to respond to such a motion.  This section of the statute as originally conceived was arguably a legislative intrusion into the judicial process.  I can't think of any other situation where a judge would be asked to sanction a party for pre-litigation discovery non-compliance, especially where the contractor is not obliged under the statute to even make an offer.  What if the production response was late or merely incomplete?  What if there were objections to the discovery?  This brings about a whole layer of dispute which I can understand judges not being inclined to deal with.

Alan E. Tannenbaum
Board Certified Construction Lawyer
TANNENBAUM SCRO LEMOLE & KLEINBERG
1990 Main Street, Suite 725
Sarasota, Florida 34236
atannenbaum at tannenbaumscro.com<mailto:atannenbaum at tannenbaumscro.com>
www.tannenbaumscro.com<http://www.tannenbaumscro.com/>
Direct Phone #: (941) 308-3157
Department Fax: (941) 316-0515
[cid:image002.png at 01D6A6F8.9DD96A60]
========== Privacy Disclosure ==========
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message or any attachments to the message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you.

From: clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion-bounces at lists.flabarrpptl.org> On Behalf Of RPPTL CLC-Discussion
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:12 PM
To: clc-discussion at lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] MTC 558.004(15) document request denied

Good morning all,
We are representing a homeowner in a defect case. I just received an unexpected result on a Motion to Compel Documents requested under Section 558.004(15), Florida Statutes and for the cost of the motion..

At hearing there was no argument that the contractor was in violation of the section. The judge read to him the part of the motion that said :
"Section 558.004 provides that "any party who failed to provide the requested materials shall be subject to such sanctions as the court may impose for a discovery violation." Fla. Stat. § 558.004(15)."

He asked him why he shouldn't award sanctions. Opposing counsel agreed that was the law but argued that now that litigation had begun the request should have been re-submitted under the rules of civil procedure.  I argued against that obviously because the wording and the intent of the statute are clear and the contractor had admitted non-compliance. ,  The judge reserved ruling and came back with a denial with the order stating :  "The Plaintiff may seek discovery using the Rules of Civil Procedure. "

This was in Orange County. Any thoughts?

Thank you,
Jack
Jack Taylor, Esq.
Associate Attorney

Williams Law Firm
212 W. Bay Ave
Longwood, FL 32750
Telephone: 407-926-4100

Jack at WCLfirm.com<mailto:gtwlaw at ymail.com>
www.WCLFirm.com<http://www.wclfirm.com/>
[cid:image003.jpg at 01D6A6F8.9DD96A60]

In some circumstances this firm may be deemed a "debt collector" as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable law. In such a case, this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any communication obtained may be used for that purpose.


Important - Williams Law Firm utilizes spam and junk email filtration applications in its email information systems. These systems may prevent or delay delivery of certain email communications. If you do not receive a response to an email communication within two business days, please contact the intended recipient via phone.
This email message including attachments, if any, is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain attorney-client confidential and/or privileged information.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message including attachments.  Thank you.
Pursuant to federal regulations imposed on practitioners who render tax advice ("Circular 230"), we are required to advise you that any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.  If this advice is or is intended to be used or referred to in promoting, marketing or recommending a partnership or other entity, investment plan or arrangement, the regulations under Circular 230 require that we advise you as follows: (1) this writing is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on a taxpayer; (2) the advice was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by the written advice; and (3) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20201020/e525d822/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19642 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20201020/e525d822/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2865 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20201020/e525d822/image003-0001.jpg>