Preview
Filing # 138302888 E-Filed 11/10/2021 03:23:42 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SEVENTS PROPERTIES LLC, and
ELLI VENTOURAS, et al, Case No. 2020-014167-CA-01
Case No. 2020-019687-CA-01
Plaintiffs, Case No. 2020-024507-CA-01
vs. Case No. 2020-022831-CA-01
TROSS ONE LLC, and
ARGENTUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC,
and SAGEWOOD CONSTRUCTION
DEVELOPMENT CORP., and SAGEWOOD
INC., and OSCAR ONO MIAMI, INC.,
and ONE BAY HARBOR CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., and DAWNUS LLC,
d/b/a PMI Top Florida Properties, and
DOUGLAS FERRARINI STRABELLI, and
OSVALDO MACEDO NETO, and
DANIEL DUARTE JEVAUX,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CLARIFY, MODIFY OR VACATE ORDER
Plaintiffs respectfully file this Motion to Clarify, Modify or Vacate the
Court’s October 26, 2021 Order [D.E.239] due to the continuing obstruction of
discovery by Defendants and their counsel Ryan Charlson.
1. The Court has ordered Defendant/developer Tross One LLC (“Tross”)
multiple times to serve supplemental discovery responses. Two days ago, Tross
served extremely defective and non-compliant papers instead of substantive
discovery responses, in willful violation of the Court’s orders.
2. Today, Plaintiffs filed the accompanying Notice of Defendant Tross’s
Continuing Willful Violations of Multiple Court Orders Compelling a Discovery
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
Supplement and Notice of Intent to Request Entry of Default Judgment,
Evidentiary Sanctions and Attorneys’ Fees.
3. Because of the continuing non-compliance, in violation of several
Court orders, Plaintiffs have to make a written record of the specific aspects of
the continuing discovery violations and disregard for the Court’s orders.
4. However, each time Plaintiffs’ counsel attempts to communicate in
writing, Tross’s attorney Ryan Charlson, who represents multiple parties who
have served no discovery responses at all, refuses to respond in substance.
5. Filibustering and attempting to thwart Plaintiffs’ efforts to document
the non-compliance, Mr. Charlson has asserted in boilerplate auto-responses
that he subjectively believes that meeting and conferring by email is in violation
of one of the Court’s orders. Plaintiffs strongly disagree.
6. On October 18, 2021, the Court ordered the non-Tross Defendants
to serve discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ still-pending August 30, 2021 discovery
requests—these responses still have not been received—pursuant to
Administrative Order 06-09 given the total non-compliance and absence of any
responses or objections by these non-Tross Defendants. D.E. 212, 213.
7. After the Court entered the order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel [D.E. 213], Mr. Charlson on behalf of the non-Tross Defendants, filed a
motion containing what Plaintiffs contend are inaccurate statements [D.E. 221].
Mr. Charlson did not set this motion for a hearing. Without setting the motion
for a hearing, Mr. Charlson submitted a lengthy proposed order on CourtMap
which Plaintiffs had not seen and to which Plaintiffs did not consent. Plaintiffs
2
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
object and ask that the improperly-submitted ex parte proposed order by Mr.
Charlson sans hearing be vacated and that the matter be set for a hearing.
8. On a recent telephone call with Mr. Charlson, which Mr. Charlson
insisted upon because he essentially refuses to email except for sending
boilerplate auto-responses, Mr. Charlson used profanity and expletives, he
raised his voice, he hung up the telephone, he denied that he hung up the
telephone and Mr. Charlson made threats on the telephone call.
9. Mr. Charlson has engaged in other serious conduct which is not the
subject of this motion. When dealing with an attorney acting in this manner,
particularly given the Defendants’ continuing violations of the Court’s orders and
discovery non-compliance, written communications are the standard protocol.
10. The problem is that Mr. Charlson keeps refusing to respond to
emails under the auspices of his subjective opinion about the order entered by
the Court [D.E. 239]. Plaintiffs do not agree with Mr. Charlson’s position. To put
this issue to rest, Plaintiffs file the instant motion and submit the accompanying
proposed order, which should restore normalcy to a substantial degree.
11. Plaintiffs respectfully submit a proposed order herewith.
3
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Kenneth E. Chase
Kenneth E. Chase
Chase Law & Associates, P.A.
1141 71st Street
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Tel: (305) 402-9800
Fax: (305) 402-2725
Email 1: kchase@chaselaw.com
Email 2: efile@chaselawnational.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kenneth E. Chase, hereby certify that I served the foregoing via Florida’s
E-Portal, which serves all counsel of record and parties of interest, on November
10, 2021.
By: /s/ Kenneth E. Chase
Kenneth E. Chase
4
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
EXHIBIT 1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SEVENTS PROPERTIES LLC, and CONSOLIDATED CASES
ELLI VENTOURAS, et al,
Case No. 2020-014167-CA-01
Plaintiffs, Case No. 2020-19687-CA-01
vs. Case No. 2020-22831-CA-01
Case No. 2020-24507-CA-01
TROSS ONE LLC, and
ARGENTUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC,
and SAGEWOOD CONSTRUCTION
DEVELOPMENT CORP., and SAGEWOOD
INC., and OSCAR ONO MIAMI, INC.,
and ONE BAY HARBOR CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., and DAWNUS LLC,
d/b/a PMI Top Florida Properties, and
DOUGLAS FERRARINI STRABELLI, and
OSVALDO MACEDO NETO, and
DANIEL DUARTE JEVAUX,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court pursuant to the Court’s inherent
authority to manage its docket, as well as in consideration of the Court’s orders
dated March 15, 2021 [D.E. 69], March 15, 2021 [D.E. 71], October 4, 2021 [D.E.
188], October 11, 2021 [D.E. 201] October 18, 2021 [D.E. 213], October 26, 2021
[D.E. 239], as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, for Adverse Evidentiary
Inference, for Default on Issue of Liability, for Attorneys’ Fees and for Order to
Show Cause why Defendant Tross One LLC and its Counsel Ryan Charlson
Should not be Held in Contempt of Court for Willful Violations of Multiple Court
Orders Compelling Supplemental Discovery Responses [D.E. 186] and Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants Argentum Capital
Partners LLC, Sagewood Construction Development Corp., Sagewood Inc., Oscar
Ono Miami, Inc., Douglas Strabelli Ferrarini, Neto Osvaldo Macedo and Daniel
Duarte Jevaux due to a Total Failure to Respond [D.E. 189]. The Court being
duly advised in the premises, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The order reflected at D.E. 239, which vacated the Court’s order
reflected at D.E. 213, is hereby vacated.
2. Given that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests were served on August 30,
2021 and no discovery responses have been served by these parties, Defendants
Argentum Capital Partners LLC, Sagewood Construction Development Corp.,
Sagewood Inc., Oscar Ono Miami, Inc., Douglas Strabelli Ferrarini, Neto Osvaldo
Macedo and Daniel Duarte Jevaux shall serve responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery
requests within 20 days of November 23, 2021.
3. The parties and their counsel can meet and confer in any manner
agreed-upon or permitted under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, including
by written communications.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami-Dade County, Florida on
____________________.
____________________________________
THE HONORABLE CARLOS LOPEZ
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
cc: Counsel and parties of record
2
EXHIBIT 2
Filing # 138269665 E-Filed 11/10/2021 11:42:03 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SEVENTS PROPERTIES LLC, and
ELLI VENTOURAS, et al, Case No. 2020-014167-CA-01
Case No. 2020-019687-CA-01
Plaintiffs, Case No. 2020-024507-CA-01
vs. Case No. 2020-022831-CA-01
TROSS ONE LLC, and
ARGENTUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC,
and SAGEWOOD CONSTRUCTION
DEVELOPMENT CORP., and SAGEWOOD
INC., and OSCAR ONO MIAMI, INC.,
and ONE BAY HARBOR CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., and DAWNUS LLC,
d/b/a PMI Top Florida Properties, and
DOUGLAS FERRARINI STRABELLI, and
OSVALDO MACEDO NETO, and
DANIEL DUARTE JEVAUX,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEFENDANT
TROSS ONE’S CONTINUING WILLFUL VIOLATIONS
OF MULTIPLE COURT ORDERS COMPELLING DISCOVERY
SUPPLEMENT AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST ENTRY OF
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Plaintiffs respectfully file this Notice of Defendant Tross One LLC (“Tross”)’s
Continuing Willful Violations of Multiple Court Orders Compelling a Discovery
Supplement and Notice of Intent to Request Entry of Default Judgment,
Evidentiary Sanctions and Attorneys’ Fees.
1. Plaintiff served discovery requests 448 days ago on August 19, 2020.
D.E. 11, 12. On October 27, 2021, the Court ordered Tross for the seventh (7th)
time to serve a discovery supplement. The transcript of the October 27, 2021
hearing reflects the following rulings by the Court:
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
The Court is “not going to sit here and allow these
unit owners to suffer.”
The Court is not going to “allow for the unit owners
to be miserable…I’m telling you now, I’m really
concerned about these peoples’ rights. I really am.”
2. On October 27, 2021, the Court expressly ordered Tross as follows:
“Mr. Charlson, give them [the] supplement to
discovery. Send it to Mr. Chase…It will not be
deemed a waiver…”
“We went through that already, we already talked
about it. I told Mr. Charlson to give you [Plaintiffs]
the discovery. [Plaintiffs are] ahead of the game.
[Plaintiffs are] going to get the discovery in the next
10 days. We’re clear on that.”
“[Defendants are] not going to get out of discovery.
We’re going to hear both motions from the plaintiff,
and [Defendants] can supplement from the Court’s
order.”
Defendant Tross is “going to supplement now within
10 days.”
Plaintiffs will “get the discovery [from the non-Tross
Defendants] in 20 days, it’s the same thing as the
23rd [of November].”
3. The Court previously entered the following four orders compelling
Defendant Tross to serve supplemental discovery responses dated March 15,
2021 [D.E. 69], March 15, 2021 [D.E. 71], October 4, 2021 [D.E. 188] and
October 11, 2021 [D.E. 201]:
Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel are GRANTED. Tross
One, LLC shall have sixty (60) days to supplement
its discovery response.
D.E. 69 dated March 15, 2021
2
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
The Motion to Compel is Granted. Defendant is
ordered to supplement its discovery responses
within 60 days of March 10, 2021.
D.E. 71 dated March 15, 2021
Defendants’ request for a stay is DENIED. Defendant
Tross One LLC is ORDERED to supplement its
discovery responses within twenty (20) days of
October 1, 2021.
D.E. 188 dated October 4, 2021
The Order entered by this Court on October 4, 2021
on Defendants’ prior emergency motion, dated
October 1, 2021, was accurate and is reaffirmed.
D.E. 201 dated October 11, 2021
4. The following two additional orders were entered by Judge Diaz and
Judge Echarte in now-consolidated cases against Tross, et al:
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for a hearing on
March 18, 2021 on Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion to
Compel Discovery filed on February 26, 2021. The
Motion to Compel is Granted. Defendant is ordered
to supplement its discovery responses with 60 days
of March 18, 2021.
Maia v. Tross, et al, 2020-24507-CA-01. D.E. 59
dated March 18, 2021 by Judge Reemberto Diaz
As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed on February
26, 2021, the parties have agreed to adopt the Hon.
Carlos Lopez’s ruling on a related matter in 2020-
014167-CA-01. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel
is Granted. Defendant is ordered to supplement its
discovery responses within 60 days.
Piafsky v. Tross, et al, 2020-22831-CA-01. D.E.
56 dated March 19, 2021 by Judge Pedro Echarte
3
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
5. Flouting the Court orders, Tross willfully and completely violated the
Court’s two orders dated March 15, 2021, which required Tross to serve a
discovery supplement by May 17, 2021, a deadline which Plaintiffs extended to
September 27, 2021 [D.E. 69, 71].
6. Flouting the Court orders, Tross willfully and completely violated the
Court’s order dated March 18, 2021 [D.E. 59 in Maia v. Tross, et al, 2020-24507-
CA-01, entered by Judge Diaz] and the Court’s order dated March 19, 2021 [D.E.
56 in Piafsky v. Tross, et al, 2020-22831-CA-01, entered by Judge Echarte], both
of which also which required Tross to serve a discovery supplement by May 17,
2021, a deadline which Plaintiffs extended to September 27, 2021 [D.E. 69, 71].
7. Flouting the Court orders, Tross willfully and completely violated the
Court’s orders dated October 4, 2021 [D.E. 188] and October 11, 2021 [D.E.
201], both of which required Tross to serve the same discovery supplement
previously ordered on March 15, 2021 which was originally due on May 17, 2021.
8. On October 21, 2021, Tross filed a deceptive and misleading
document titled “Notice of Compliance with the Court’s Order Dated October 4,
2021, Commanding Tross One to Supplement its Responses to Plaintiffs’
Discovery Requests.” [D.E. 229]. The title of this document contained a false
statement signed by Tross’s attorney Ryan Charlson, which provided “Which
Subsumed All Other Orders Related to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel and
Subsequent Extensions to the Same, Both Formal and Informal.” Id.
9. The Court’s October 4, 2021 order did not “subsume all other
orders” related to Plaintiffs’ motions to compel. Tross and Charlson’s
4
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
representation is blatantly false. The October 4, 2021 order provided as follows
in its entirety:
D.E. 188.
5
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
10. Absolutely nowhere in the Court’s October 4, 2021 order is any
ruling that the Court’s October 4, 2021 order “Subsumed All Other Orders
Related to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel and Subsequent Extensions to the Same,
Both Formal and Informal.”
11. Moreover, in its October 11, 2021 order, in denying a challenge by
Tross, the Court expressly reaffirmed the scope of its October 4, 2021 order:
6
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
D.E. 201.
12. Moreover, despite falsely representing to the Court on October 21,
2021 in the purported “notice of compliance” that Tross “has served
supplemental discovery responses,” Tross served no discovery responses
whatsoever on Plaintiffs on October 21, 2021.
13. On literally the eve before its October 21, 2021 deadline pursuant to
the sixth Court order compelling the discovery supplement, on October 19/20,
2021, Tross filed a purported “motion to disqualify” Plaintiffs’ counsel—which is
frivolous and blatantly filed for an improper purpose—as the express and
admitted basis of Tross’s continuing non-compliance with the Court’s orders !
14. After October 27, 2021, when the Court again ordered Tross to serve
its discovery supplement, Tross filed papers on November 8, 2021 which purport
to be a discovery supplement.
7
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
15. These November 8, 2021 papers are extremely deficient, non-
substantive, served in bad faith, and the Court should impose strong sanctions.
16. The November 8, 2021 papers are loaded with obstruction,
objections, and even outright false statements about this Court’s rulings in
Tross’s effort to continue to evade providing substantive responses to discovery
requests.1 The attached exhibits show Tross’s discovery responses. Ex. A-C are
Tross’s February 11, 2021 late-served discovery responses, which were served
176 days after receipt of the discovery requests. Ex. D-F are Tross’s documents
which were served on November 8, 2021, 446 days after service of the discovery
requests.
17. The deficiencies in these discovery responses are patent on the face
of the documents and Plaintiffs are seeking enhanced sanctions for these
continuing willful violations of the Court’s orders.
18. On November 8, 2021, Tross again filed a deceptive and misleading
document with the Court entitled “notice of compliance.”
19. Tross also served a purported document supplement or a
(“document-dump”) on November 8, 2021. The document-dump is blatantly
1 Despite the absence of any justification under the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure for the scale of this non-compliance and repeated violations of Court
orders, Tross’s attorney essentially told the Court that “this is how things are
done in construction cases.” The non-complying party’s counsel even (improperly
and repeatedly) proclaimed that he is “board certified” in construction law. But
this just shows willfulness. In Mercer v. Raine, the defendant “knew what was
going on” and had a “total disregard for the consequences.” Mercer v. Raine, 443
So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983). In Mercer, “the defendant failed to timely comply
with the requirements of the trial court's order.” Id. at 945. Here, Defendant
Tross continues to show a lack of respect for the Court in its continuing failure
to comply with at least six Court orders compelling its discovery supplement.
8
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
deficient and non-responsive. In addition to the fact that numerous categories of
documents are missing or incomplete, the “go fish” response contains no
indication of what documents are responsive to what requests, if any.
20. In a March 18, 2021 hearing with Judge Miller in Maia v. Tross, et
al, 2020-19687-CA-01, which Tross is prone to misquoting, Judge Miller
expressly informed Mr. Charlson that Tross’s discovery responses were deficient
and “sanctionable.”
Mar. 18, 2021 Tr. at 13:19-25.
21. Tross and Charlson have done it again, and this discovery
obstruction must stop. Tross already played games with the Court in consenting
to, and then objecting to, a resolution to discovery matters by the general
magistrate. Since Tross will not consent to the magistrate, Plaintiffs ask the
Court to impose sanctions. Clearly Tross does not respect the Court’s authority
as it continues to play games.
22. Furthermore, in an effort to obscure and minimize the written
record, Mr. Charlson has taken to demanding telephonic meet and confer calls
and he objects to written meet and confer emails.
9
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
23. However, on the most recent telephone call with Mr. Charlson, on
October 4, 2021, Mr. Charlson acted in an unprofessional manner, he raised his
voice, used profanity and expletives, hung up the telephone, apparently lied
about hanging up the telephone, and Mr. Charlson made numerous false
statements and threats on the telephone call. Ex. G.
24. Written communications are better so that the record will be clean
and clear. Plaintiffs will submit a proposed order directing Mr. Charlson to
refrain from raising his voice and using profanity and expletives and making
threats on telephone calls. Also, the meet and confer regarding written discovery
must be memorialized in writing for obvious reasons.
25. On November 22, 2021, Plaintiffs intend to ask the Court to impose
strong sanctions pursuant to Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Sanctions, for Adverse
Evidentiary Inference, for Default on Issue of Liability, for Attorneys’ Fees and for
Order to Show Cause why Defendant Tross One LLC and its Counsel Ryan
Charlson Should not be Held in Contempt of Court for Willful Violations of Multiple
Court Orders Compelling Supplemental Discovery Responses. D.E. 186.
26. Defendant Tross remains in willful violation of at least six Court
orders compelling substantive discovery responses. The attached papers served
by Tross—238 days after being ordered to serve them—on November 8, 2021 are
obstructive, non-compliant and sanctionable.
10
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Kenneth E. Chase
Kenneth E. Chase
Chase Law & Associates, P.A.
1141 71st Street
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Tel: (305) 402-9800
Fax: (305) 402-2725
Email 1: kchase@chaselaw.com
Email 2: efile@chaselawnational.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kenneth E. Chase, hereby certify that I served the foregoing via Florida’s
E-Portal, which serves all counsel of record and parties of interest, on November
10, 2021.
By: /s/ Kenneth E. Chase
Kenneth E. Chase
11
CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141
EXHIBIT A
Filing # 121263760 E-Filed 02/11/2021 04:14:02 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SEVENTS PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01
a limited liability company, and
ELLI VENTOURAS, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TROSS ONE, LLC
a limited liability company,
Defendants
________________________________/
DEFENDANT, TROSS ONE, LLC’S NOTICE OF SERVING RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF, SEVENT PROPERTIES, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant, TROSS ONE, LLC, pursuant to Rule 1.340 of the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure and other applicable law, gives notice of serving responses to Plaintiff,
SEVENT PROPERTIES, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 11, 2021, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail through the Florida Courts E-Filing
Portal to all counsel of record.
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Lakeside Office Center, Suite 500
600 North Pine Island Road
Plantation, Florida 33324
T: (954) 473-1112
F: (954) 474-7979
ryan.charlson@csklegal.com
yazen.alami@csklegal.com
/s/ Ryan M. Charlson
RYAN M. CHARLSON
Florida Bar No.: 95033
Cole, Scott & Kissane
Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West
Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01
Tross One’s Notice of Serving Response to Plaintiffs’ 1st Set of Interrogatories
YAZEN ALAMI
Florida Bar No.: 110319
-2-
Cole, Scott & Kissane
Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SEVENTS PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01
a limited liability company, and
ELLI VENTOURAS, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TROSS ONE, LLC
a limited liability company,
Defendants
________________________________/
TROSS ONE’S RESPONSES TO SEVENT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify by name, address and telephone number each person or entity who
has knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint and summarize your understanding of
the knowledge of each person.
RESPONSE: Tross One states that the answer to this interrogatory can be
discerned from documents in the possession, custody, and control of Tross One, Sevents,
Elli Ventouras, the authority having jurisdiction, other parties, and non-parties. Pursuant
to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Tross One directs Sevents to those
documents, including those produced by Tross One pursuant to Sevents’ First Request
for Production to Tross One.
2. If you deny liability to Plaintiffs for the damages alleged in the Complaint,
state all reasons for your denial.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as a
violation of the attorney-client because it seeks information related to attorney-client
communications. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as a
violation of the work product privileges because it seeks information related to the mental
impressions of counsel and trial strategy. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this
interrogatory because it calls for the production of Tross One’s trial witness and trial
exhibit list before the deadlines imposed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and/or
this Court. For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as improper
and a violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandate certain procedures
and deadlines for challenging the legal sufficiency of affirmative defenses. For its fifth
objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it improperly encroaches on
the role of the finder of fact and seeks to substitute Tross One’s determination regarding
Cole, Scott & Kissane
Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West
Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01
Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories
liability for the finder of fact’s determination. For its sixth objection, Tross One objects to
this interrogatory because it calls for a legal conclusion.
3. Identify by name, address and telephone number each person or entity from
whom You sought or obtained financing, funding or capital for the Building from its
inception to the present time.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in a reasonable
time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the
information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or
disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request
as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the
information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this
matter.
4. State all reasons why you were not prepared to close on October 31, 2017.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because
it lacks foundation and/or factual predicate; specifically, that Tross One was not prepared
to close on October 31, 2017. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this
interrogatory because it lacks foundation and/or factual predicate; specifically, that a
closing was mandated or otherwise supposed to take place on October 31, 2017. For its
third objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as contrary to the provisions of the
contract governing the relationship of the parties; specifically, Article 8 of the applicable
purchase and sale agreement (PSA), entitled “Completion Date,” states that Tross One
“estimates that it will substantially complete construction of the Unit . . . by October 31,
2017.” PSA Art. 8 (emphasis added). For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this
interrogatory as a violation of the attorney-client because it seeks information related to
attorney-client communications. For its fifth objection, Tross One objects to this
interrogatory as a violation of the work product privileges because it seeks information
related to the mental impressions of counsel and trial strategy. For its sixth objection,
Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it calls for the production of Tross One’s
trial witness and trial exhibit list before the deadlines imposed by the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure and/or this Court. For its seventh objection, Tross One objects to this
interrogatory as improper and a violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which
mandate certain procedures and deadlines for challenging the legal sufficiency of
affirmative defenses.
5. For each recorded mechanics lien, as reflected in the Miami-Dade Official
Records and reproduced on p. 4-5 of the Complaint, state all reasons why a mechanics
lien was recorded.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in reasonable time
and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the
-2-
Cole, Scott & Kissane
Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West
Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01
Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories
information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or
disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request
as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the
information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this
matter. For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it seeks
information, on its face, that is not in the corporate knowledge of Tross One but the
individuals or entities that recorded the referenced mechanics liens. For its fifth objection,
Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing because
the referenced machanics liens speak for themselves.
6. Identify the name of the owner for each unit in the Building.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope.
For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information
sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material
fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought
is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth
objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing
because the information sought is publicly available information, and it would be less
burdensome for Sevents to reference this publicly available information.
7. Identify all transactions and/or changes in title for each unit in the Building.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope.
For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information
sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material
fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought
is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth
objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing
because the information sought is publicly available information, and it would be less
burdensome for Sevents to reference this publicly available information.
8. As to each unit in the Building, state whether said unit is complete/finished
or not complete/not finished. These terms are given their common and usual meanings.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope.
For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information
sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material
fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought
is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth
-3-
Cole, Scott & Kissane
Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West
Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01
Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories
objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing
because the information sought is publicly available information, and it would be less
burdensome for Sevents to reference this publicly available information.
9. Identify all documents reflecting ownership, control, capitalization and
management responsibilities of Tross One LLC.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope.
For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information
sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material
fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought
is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth
objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing
because the information sought is publicly available information, and it would be less
burdensome for Sevents to reference this publicly available information. For its fifth
objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information protected
by the attorney-client privilege.
10. Identify which features of the Building were promised to Plaintiffs and
identify all promises made to Plaintiffs.
RESPONSE: Tross One states that the answer to this interrogatory can be
discerned from documents in the possession, custody, and control of Tross One, Sevents,
Elli Ventouras, the authority having jurisdiction, other parties, and non-parties. Pursuant
to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Tross One directs Sevents to those
documents, including those produced by Tross One pursuant to Sevents’ First Request
for Production to Tross One. Specifically, Tross One directs Sevents to Article 26 of the
applicable Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA):
11. State the name, address and telephone number of each person or entity
with whom You contracted for as it relates in any way to the Building.
-4-
Cole, Scott & Kissane
Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West
Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01
Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories
RESPONSE: Tross One objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and harassing because it seeks information related to “each person or entity
with whom [Tross One] contracted for as it relates in any way to the Building,” instead of
being focused on those individuals and entities related to the issues to be decided in this
lawsuit. Regarding those portions of this interrogatory for which Tross One does not
object, Tross One states that the answer to this interrogatory can be discerned from
documents in the possession, custody, and control of Tross One, Sevents, Elli Ventouras,
the authority having jurisdiction, other parties, and non-parties. Pursuant to the applicable
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Tross One directs Sevents to those documents,
including those produced by Tross One pursuant to Sevents’ First Request for Production
to Tross One.
12. State whether you contend that the Building is completed.
RESPONSE: Tross One objects to this request as vague and confusing because
whether the Building is completed is based upon an objective, rather than a subjective,
analysis, and this interrogatory seeks a subjective analysis. For its second objection,
Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it seeks documents that are protected by
the work product privilege because the subjective analysis that must be performed in
order to respond to this interrogatory would be based on the mental impressions of
counsel and would be performed in preparation for litigation.
13. Identify by bank name, account name and account number all bank
accounts in your name and/or in any name that are or were associated with the Building.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope.
For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information
sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material
fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought
is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter.
14. For each unit that has not been sold, identify all reasons explaining why the
unit has not been sold at this time.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad,
unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope.
For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information
sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material
fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought
is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth
objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information protected
by the attorney-client privilege. For its fifth objection, Tross One objects to this
-5-
Cole, Scott & Kissane
Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West
Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01
Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories
interrogatory based on the work product privilege because it seeks information produced
in anticipation of litigation.
15. For each payment or transfer of money of any kind made by the Building to
Argentum Capital Partners LLC, or any member of Argentum Capital Partners LLC, state
the date, amount and reason for the payment or transfer.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time
and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the
information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or
disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request
as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the
information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this
matter.
16. State whether you entered into any contract with a prospective owner who
did not close on the purchase of any unit.
RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing
Preview
Filing # 138302888 E-Filed 11/10/2021 03:23:42 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SEVENTS PROPERTIES LLC, and ELLI VENTOURAS, et al, Case No. 2020-014167-CA-01 Case No. 2020-019687-CA-01 Plaintiffs, Case No. 2020-024507-CA-01 vs. Case No. 2020-022831-CA-01 TROSS ONE LLC, and ARGENTUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, and SAGEWOOD CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORP., and SAGEWOOD INC., and OSCAR ONO MIAMI, INC., and ONE BAY HARBOR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and DAWNUS LLC, d/b/a PMI Top Florida Properties, and DOUGLAS FERRARINI STRABELLI, and OSVALDO MACEDO NETO, and DANIEL DUARTE JEVAUX, Defendants. ________________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CLARIFY, MODIFY OR VACATE ORDER Plaintiffs respectfully file this Motion to Clarify, Modify or Vacate the Court’s October 26, 2021 Order [D.E.239] due to the continuing obstruction of discovery by Defendants and their counsel Ryan Charlson. 1. The Court has ordered Defendant/developer Tross One LLC (“Tross”) multiple times to serve supplemental discovery responses. Two days ago, Tross served extremely defective and non-compliant papers instead of substantive discovery responses, in willful violation of the Court’s orders. 2. Today, Plaintiffs filed the accompanying Notice of Defendant Tross’s Continuing Willful Violations of Multiple Court Orders Compelling a Discovery CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 Supplement and Notice of Intent to Request Entry of Default Judgment, Evidentiary Sanctions and Attorneys’ Fees. 3. Because of the continuing non-compliance, in violation of several Court orders, Plaintiffs have to make a written record of the specific aspects of the continuing discovery violations and disregard for the Court’s orders. 4. However, each time Plaintiffs’ counsel attempts to communicate in writing, Tross’s attorney Ryan Charlson, who represents multiple parties who have served no discovery responses at all, refuses to respond in substance. 5. Filibustering and attempting to thwart Plaintiffs’ efforts to document the non-compliance, Mr. Charlson has asserted in boilerplate auto-responses that he subjectively believes that meeting and conferring by email is in violation of one of the Court’s orders. Plaintiffs strongly disagree. 6. On October 18, 2021, the Court ordered the non-Tross Defendants to serve discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ still-pending August 30, 2021 discovery requests—these responses still have not been received—pursuant to Administrative Order 06-09 given the total non-compliance and absence of any responses or objections by these non-Tross Defendants. D.E. 212, 213. 7. After the Court entered the order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel [D.E. 213], Mr. Charlson on behalf of the non-Tross Defendants, filed a motion containing what Plaintiffs contend are inaccurate statements [D.E. 221]. Mr. Charlson did not set this motion for a hearing. Without setting the motion for a hearing, Mr. Charlson submitted a lengthy proposed order on CourtMap which Plaintiffs had not seen and to which Plaintiffs did not consent. Plaintiffs 2 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 object and ask that the improperly-submitted ex parte proposed order by Mr. Charlson sans hearing be vacated and that the matter be set for a hearing. 8. On a recent telephone call with Mr. Charlson, which Mr. Charlson insisted upon because he essentially refuses to email except for sending boilerplate auto-responses, Mr. Charlson used profanity and expletives, he raised his voice, he hung up the telephone, he denied that he hung up the telephone and Mr. Charlson made threats on the telephone call. 9. Mr. Charlson has engaged in other serious conduct which is not the subject of this motion. When dealing with an attorney acting in this manner, particularly given the Defendants’ continuing violations of the Court’s orders and discovery non-compliance, written communications are the standard protocol. 10. The problem is that Mr. Charlson keeps refusing to respond to emails under the auspices of his subjective opinion about the order entered by the Court [D.E. 239]. Plaintiffs do not agree with Mr. Charlson’s position. To put this issue to rest, Plaintiffs file the instant motion and submit the accompanying proposed order, which should restore normalcy to a substantial degree. 11. Plaintiffs respectfully submit a proposed order herewith. 3 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Kenneth E. Chase Kenneth E. Chase Chase Law & Associates, P.A. 1141 71st Street Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 402-9800 Fax: (305) 402-2725 Email 1: kchase@chaselaw.com Email 2: efile@chaselawnational.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kenneth E. Chase, hereby certify that I served the foregoing via Florida’s E-Portal, which serves all counsel of record and parties of interest, on November 10, 2021. By: /s/ Kenneth E. Chase Kenneth E. Chase 4 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 EXHIBIT 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SEVENTS PROPERTIES LLC, and CONSOLIDATED CASES ELLI VENTOURAS, et al, Case No. 2020-014167-CA-01 Plaintiffs, Case No. 2020-19687-CA-01 vs. Case No. 2020-22831-CA-01 Case No. 2020-24507-CA-01 TROSS ONE LLC, and ARGENTUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, and SAGEWOOD CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORP., and SAGEWOOD INC., and OSCAR ONO MIAMI, INC., and ONE BAY HARBOR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and DAWNUS LLC, d/b/a PMI Top Florida Properties, and DOUGLAS FERRARINI STRABELLI, and OSVALDO MACEDO NETO, and DANIEL DUARTE JEVAUX, Defendants. ________________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket, as well as in consideration of the Court’s orders dated March 15, 2021 [D.E. 69], March 15, 2021 [D.E. 71], October 4, 2021 [D.E. 188], October 11, 2021 [D.E. 201] October 18, 2021 [D.E. 213], October 26, 2021 [D.E. 239], as well as Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, for Adverse Evidentiary Inference, for Default on Issue of Liability, for Attorneys’ Fees and for Order to Show Cause why Defendant Tross One LLC and its Counsel Ryan Charlson Should not be Held in Contempt of Court for Willful Violations of Multiple Court Orders Compelling Supplemental Discovery Responses [D.E. 186] and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants Argentum Capital Partners LLC, Sagewood Construction Development Corp., Sagewood Inc., Oscar Ono Miami, Inc., Douglas Strabelli Ferrarini, Neto Osvaldo Macedo and Daniel Duarte Jevaux due to a Total Failure to Respond [D.E. 189]. The Court being duly advised in the premises, it is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The order reflected at D.E. 239, which vacated the Court’s order reflected at D.E. 213, is hereby vacated. 2. Given that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests were served on August 30, 2021 and no discovery responses have been served by these parties, Defendants Argentum Capital Partners LLC, Sagewood Construction Development Corp., Sagewood Inc., Oscar Ono Miami, Inc., Douglas Strabelli Ferrarini, Neto Osvaldo Macedo and Daniel Duarte Jevaux shall serve responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests within 20 days of November 23, 2021. 3. The parties and their counsel can meet and confer in any manner agreed-upon or permitted under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, including by written communications. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami-Dade County, Florida on ____________________. ____________________________________ THE HONORABLE CARLOS LOPEZ CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE cc: Counsel and parties of record 2 EXHIBIT 2 Filing # 138269665 E-Filed 11/10/2021 11:42:03 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SEVENTS PROPERTIES LLC, and ELLI VENTOURAS, et al, Case No. 2020-014167-CA-01 Case No. 2020-019687-CA-01 Plaintiffs, Case No. 2020-024507-CA-01 vs. Case No. 2020-022831-CA-01 TROSS ONE LLC, and ARGENTUM CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, and SAGEWOOD CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORP., and SAGEWOOD INC., and OSCAR ONO MIAMI, INC., and ONE BAY HARBOR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and DAWNUS LLC, d/b/a PMI Top Florida Properties, and DOUGLAS FERRARINI STRABELLI, and OSVALDO MACEDO NETO, and DANIEL DUARTE JEVAUX, Defendants. ________________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEFENDANT TROSS ONE’S CONTINUING WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF MULTIPLE COURT ORDERS COMPELLING DISCOVERY SUPPLEMENT AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT, EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES Plaintiffs respectfully file this Notice of Defendant Tross One LLC (“Tross”)’s Continuing Willful Violations of Multiple Court Orders Compelling a Discovery Supplement and Notice of Intent to Request Entry of Default Judgment, Evidentiary Sanctions and Attorneys’ Fees. 1. Plaintiff served discovery requests 448 days ago on August 19, 2020. D.E. 11, 12. On October 27, 2021, the Court ordered Tross for the seventh (7th) time to serve a discovery supplement. The transcript of the October 27, 2021 hearing reflects the following rulings by the Court: CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 The Court is “not going to sit here and allow these unit owners to suffer.” The Court is not going to “allow for the unit owners to be miserable…I’m telling you now, I’m really concerned about these peoples’ rights. I really am.” 2. On October 27, 2021, the Court expressly ordered Tross as follows: “Mr. Charlson, give them [the] supplement to discovery. Send it to Mr. Chase…It will not be deemed a waiver…” “We went through that already, we already talked about it. I told Mr. Charlson to give you [Plaintiffs] the discovery. [Plaintiffs are] ahead of the game. [Plaintiffs are] going to get the discovery in the next 10 days. We’re clear on that.” “[Defendants are] not going to get out of discovery. We’re going to hear both motions from the plaintiff, and [Defendants] can supplement from the Court’s order.” Defendant Tross is “going to supplement now within 10 days.” Plaintiffs will “get the discovery [from the non-Tross Defendants] in 20 days, it’s the same thing as the 23rd [of November].” 3. The Court previously entered the following four orders compelling Defendant Tross to serve supplemental discovery responses dated March 15, 2021 [D.E. 69], March 15, 2021 [D.E. 71], October 4, 2021 [D.E. 188] and October 11, 2021 [D.E. 201]: Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel are GRANTED. Tross One, LLC shall have sixty (60) days to supplement its discovery response. D.E. 69 dated March 15, 2021 2 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 The Motion to Compel is Granted. Defendant is ordered to supplement its discovery responses within 60 days of March 10, 2021. D.E. 71 dated March 15, 2021 Defendants’ request for a stay is DENIED. Defendant Tross One LLC is ORDERED to supplement its discovery responses within twenty (20) days of October 1, 2021. D.E. 188 dated October 4, 2021 The Order entered by this Court on October 4, 2021 on Defendants’ prior emergency motion, dated October 1, 2021, was accurate and is reaffirmed. D.E. 201 dated October 11, 2021 4. The following two additional orders were entered by Judge Diaz and Judge Echarte in now-consolidated cases against Tross, et al: THIS CAUSE came before the Court for a hearing on March 18, 2021 on Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery filed on February 26, 2021. The Motion to Compel is Granted. Defendant is ordered to supplement its discovery responses with 60 days of March 18, 2021. Maia v. Tross, et al, 2020-24507-CA-01. D.E. 59 dated March 18, 2021 by Judge Reemberto Diaz As to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed on February 26, 2021, the parties have agreed to adopt the Hon. Carlos Lopez’s ruling on a related matter in 2020- 014167-CA-01. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is Granted. Defendant is ordered to supplement its discovery responses within 60 days. Piafsky v. Tross, et al, 2020-22831-CA-01. D.E. 56 dated March 19, 2021 by Judge Pedro Echarte 3 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 5. Flouting the Court orders, Tross willfully and completely violated the Court’s two orders dated March 15, 2021, which required Tross to serve a discovery supplement by May 17, 2021, a deadline which Plaintiffs extended to September 27, 2021 [D.E. 69, 71]. 6. Flouting the Court orders, Tross willfully and completely violated the Court’s order dated March 18, 2021 [D.E. 59 in Maia v. Tross, et al, 2020-24507- CA-01, entered by Judge Diaz] and the Court’s order dated March 19, 2021 [D.E. 56 in Piafsky v. Tross, et al, 2020-22831-CA-01, entered by Judge Echarte], both of which also which required Tross to serve a discovery supplement by May 17, 2021, a deadline which Plaintiffs extended to September 27, 2021 [D.E. 69, 71]. 7. Flouting the Court orders, Tross willfully and completely violated the Court’s orders dated October 4, 2021 [D.E. 188] and October 11, 2021 [D.E. 201], both of which required Tross to serve the same discovery supplement previously ordered on March 15, 2021 which was originally due on May 17, 2021. 8. On October 21, 2021, Tross filed a deceptive and misleading document titled “Notice of Compliance with the Court’s Order Dated October 4, 2021, Commanding Tross One to Supplement its Responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.” [D.E. 229]. The title of this document contained a false statement signed by Tross’s attorney Ryan Charlson, which provided “Which Subsumed All Other Orders Related to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel and Subsequent Extensions to the Same, Both Formal and Informal.” Id. 9. The Court’s October 4, 2021 order did not “subsume all other orders” related to Plaintiffs’ motions to compel. Tross and Charlson’s 4 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 representation is blatantly false. The October 4, 2021 order provided as follows in its entirety: D.E. 188. 5 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 10. Absolutely nowhere in the Court’s October 4, 2021 order is any ruling that the Court’s October 4, 2021 order “Subsumed All Other Orders Related to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel and Subsequent Extensions to the Same, Both Formal and Informal.” 11. Moreover, in its October 11, 2021 order, in denying a challenge by Tross, the Court expressly reaffirmed the scope of its October 4, 2021 order: 6 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 D.E. 201. 12. Moreover, despite falsely representing to the Court on October 21, 2021 in the purported “notice of compliance” that Tross “has served supplemental discovery responses,” Tross served no discovery responses whatsoever on Plaintiffs on October 21, 2021. 13. On literally the eve before its October 21, 2021 deadline pursuant to the sixth Court order compelling the discovery supplement, on October 19/20, 2021, Tross filed a purported “motion to disqualify” Plaintiffs’ counsel—which is frivolous and blatantly filed for an improper purpose—as the express and admitted basis of Tross’s continuing non-compliance with the Court’s orders ! 14. After October 27, 2021, when the Court again ordered Tross to serve its discovery supplement, Tross filed papers on November 8, 2021 which purport to be a discovery supplement. 7 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 15. These November 8, 2021 papers are extremely deficient, non- substantive, served in bad faith, and the Court should impose strong sanctions. 16. The November 8, 2021 papers are loaded with obstruction, objections, and even outright false statements about this Court’s rulings in Tross’s effort to continue to evade providing substantive responses to discovery requests.1 The attached exhibits show Tross’s discovery responses. Ex. A-C are Tross’s February 11, 2021 late-served discovery responses, which were served 176 days after receipt of the discovery requests. Ex. D-F are Tross’s documents which were served on November 8, 2021, 446 days after service of the discovery requests. 17. The deficiencies in these discovery responses are patent on the face of the documents and Plaintiffs are seeking enhanced sanctions for these continuing willful violations of the Court’s orders. 18. On November 8, 2021, Tross again filed a deceptive and misleading document with the Court entitled “notice of compliance.” 19. Tross also served a purported document supplement or a (“document-dump”) on November 8, 2021. The document-dump is blatantly 1 Despite the absence of any justification under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for the scale of this non-compliance and repeated violations of Court orders, Tross’s attorney essentially told the Court that “this is how things are done in construction cases.” The non-complying party’s counsel even (improperly and repeatedly) proclaimed that he is “board certified” in construction law. But this just shows willfulness. In Mercer v. Raine, the defendant “knew what was going on” and had a “total disregard for the consequences.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983). In Mercer, “the defendant failed to timely comply with the requirements of the trial court's order.” Id. at 945. Here, Defendant Tross continues to show a lack of respect for the Court in its continuing failure to comply with at least six Court orders compelling its discovery supplement. 8 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 deficient and non-responsive. In addition to the fact that numerous categories of documents are missing or incomplete, the “go fish” response contains no indication of what documents are responsive to what requests, if any. 20. In a March 18, 2021 hearing with Judge Miller in Maia v. Tross, et al, 2020-19687-CA-01, which Tross is prone to misquoting, Judge Miller expressly informed Mr. Charlson that Tross’s discovery responses were deficient and “sanctionable.” Mar. 18, 2021 Tr. at 13:19-25. 21. Tross and Charlson have done it again, and this discovery obstruction must stop. Tross already played games with the Court in consenting to, and then objecting to, a resolution to discovery matters by the general magistrate. Since Tross will not consent to the magistrate, Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose sanctions. Clearly Tross does not respect the Court’s authority as it continues to play games. 22. Furthermore, in an effort to obscure and minimize the written record, Mr. Charlson has taken to demanding telephonic meet and confer calls and he objects to written meet and confer emails. 9 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 23. However, on the most recent telephone call with Mr. Charlson, on October 4, 2021, Mr. Charlson acted in an unprofessional manner, he raised his voice, used profanity and expletives, hung up the telephone, apparently lied about hanging up the telephone, and Mr. Charlson made numerous false statements and threats on the telephone call. Ex. G. 24. Written communications are better so that the record will be clean and clear. Plaintiffs will submit a proposed order directing Mr. Charlson to refrain from raising his voice and using profanity and expletives and making threats on telephone calls. Also, the meet and confer regarding written discovery must be memorialized in writing for obvious reasons. 25. On November 22, 2021, Plaintiffs intend to ask the Court to impose strong sanctions pursuant to Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Sanctions, for Adverse Evidentiary Inference, for Default on Issue of Liability, for Attorneys’ Fees and for Order to Show Cause why Defendant Tross One LLC and its Counsel Ryan Charlson Should not be Held in Contempt of Court for Willful Violations of Multiple Court Orders Compelling Supplemental Discovery Responses. D.E. 186. 26. Defendant Tross remains in willful violation of at least six Court orders compelling substantive discovery responses. The attached papers served by Tross—238 days after being ordered to serve them—on November 8, 2021 are obstructive, non-compliant and sanctionable. 10 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Kenneth E. Chase Kenneth E. Chase Chase Law & Associates, P.A. 1141 71st Street Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 402-9800 Fax: (305) 402-2725 Email 1: kchase@chaselaw.com Email 2: efile@chaselawnational.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kenneth E. Chase, hereby certify that I served the foregoing via Florida’s E-Portal, which serves all counsel of record and parties of interest, on November 10, 2021. By: /s/ Kenneth E. Chase Kenneth E. Chase 11 CHASE LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1141 71ST STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33141 EXHIBIT A Filing # 121263760 E-Filed 02/11/2021 04:14:02 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SEVENTS PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01 a limited liability company, and ELLI VENTOURAS, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. TROSS ONE, LLC a limited liability company, Defendants ________________________________/ DEFENDANT, TROSS ONE, LLC’S NOTICE OF SERVING RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF, SEVENT PROPERTIES, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant, TROSS ONE, LLC, pursuant to Rule 1.340 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable law, gives notice of serving responses to Plaintiff, SEVENT PROPERTIES, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 11, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to all counsel of record. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Lakeside Office Center, Suite 500 600 North Pine Island Road Plantation, Florida 33324 T: (954) 473-1112 F: (954) 474-7979 ryan.charlson@csklegal.com yazen.alami@csklegal.com /s/ Ryan M. Charlson RYAN M. CHARLSON Florida Bar No.: 95033 Cole, Scott & Kissane Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01 Tross One’s Notice of Serving Response to Plaintiffs’ 1st Set of Interrogatories YAZEN ALAMI Florida Bar No.: 110319 -2- Cole, Scott & Kissane Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA SEVENTS PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01 a limited liability company, and ELLI VENTOURAS, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. TROSS ONE, LLC a limited liability company, Defendants ________________________________/ TROSS ONE’S RESPONSES TO SEVENT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify by name, address and telephone number each person or entity who has knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint and summarize your understanding of the knowledge of each person. RESPONSE: Tross One states that the answer to this interrogatory can be discerned from documents in the possession, custody, and control of Tross One, Sevents, Elli Ventouras, the authority having jurisdiction, other parties, and non-parties. Pursuant to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Tross One directs Sevents to those documents, including those produced by Tross One pursuant to Sevents’ First Request for Production to Tross One. 2. If you deny liability to Plaintiffs for the damages alleged in the Complaint, state all reasons for your denial. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as a violation of the attorney-client because it seeks information related to attorney-client communications. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as a violation of the work product privileges because it seeks information related to the mental impressions of counsel and trial strategy. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it calls for the production of Tross One’s trial witness and trial exhibit list before the deadlines imposed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and/or this Court. For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as improper and a violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandate certain procedures and deadlines for challenging the legal sufficiency of affirmative defenses. For its fifth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it improperly encroaches on the role of the finder of fact and seeks to substitute Tross One’s determination regarding Cole, Scott & Kissane Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01 Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories liability for the finder of fact’s determination. For its sixth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it calls for a legal conclusion. 3. Identify by name, address and telephone number each person or entity from whom You sought or obtained financing, funding or capital for the Building from its inception to the present time. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in a reasonable time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. 4. State all reasons why you were not prepared to close on October 31, 2017. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it lacks foundation and/or factual predicate; specifically, that Tross One was not prepared to close on October 31, 2017. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it lacks foundation and/or factual predicate; specifically, that a closing was mandated or otherwise supposed to take place on October 31, 2017. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as contrary to the provisions of the contract governing the relationship of the parties; specifically, Article 8 of the applicable purchase and sale agreement (PSA), entitled “Completion Date,” states that Tross One “estimates that it will substantially complete construction of the Unit . . . by October 31, 2017.” PSA Art. 8 (emphasis added). For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as a violation of the attorney-client because it seeks information related to attorney-client communications. For its fifth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as a violation of the work product privileges because it seeks information related to the mental impressions of counsel and trial strategy. For its sixth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it calls for the production of Tross One’s trial witness and trial exhibit list before the deadlines imposed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and/or this Court. For its seventh objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as improper and a violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandate certain procedures and deadlines for challenging the legal sufficiency of affirmative defenses. 5. For each recorded mechanics lien, as reflected in the Miami-Dade Official Records and reproduced on p. 4-5 of the Complaint, state all reasons why a mechanics lien was recorded. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in reasonable time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the -2- Cole, Scott & Kissane Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01 Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information, on its face, that is not in the corporate knowledge of Tross One but the individuals or entities that recorded the referenced mechanics liens. For its fifth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing because the referenced machanics liens speak for themselves. 6. Identify the name of the owner for each unit in the Building. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing because the information sought is publicly available information, and it would be less burdensome for Sevents to reference this publicly available information. 7. Identify all transactions and/or changes in title for each unit in the Building. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing because the information sought is publicly available information, and it would be less burdensome for Sevents to reference this publicly available information. 8. As to each unit in the Building, state whether said unit is complete/finished or not complete/not finished. These terms are given their common and usual meanings. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth -3- Cole, Scott & Kissane Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01 Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing because the information sought is publicly available information, and it would be less burdensome for Sevents to reference this publicly available information. 9. Identify all documents reflecting ownership, control, capitalization and management responsibilities of Tross One LLC. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and harassing because the information sought is publicly available information, and it would be less burdensome for Sevents to reference this publicly available information. For its fifth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. 10. Identify which features of the Building were promised to Plaintiffs and identify all promises made to Plaintiffs. RESPONSE: Tross One states that the answer to this interrogatory can be discerned from documents in the possession, custody, and control of Tross One, Sevents, Elli Ventouras, the authority having jurisdiction, other parties, and non-parties. Pursuant to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Tross One directs Sevents to those documents, including those produced by Tross One pursuant to Sevents’ First Request for Production to Tross One. Specifically, Tross One directs Sevents to Article 26 of the applicable Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA): 11. State the name, address and telephone number of each person or entity with whom You contracted for as it relates in any way to the Building. -4- Cole, Scott & Kissane Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01 Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories RESPONSE: Tross One objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because it seeks information related to “each person or entity with whom [Tross One] contracted for as it relates in any way to the Building,” instead of being focused on those individuals and entities related to the issues to be decided in this lawsuit. Regarding those portions of this interrogatory for which Tross One does not object, Tross One states that the answer to this interrogatory can be discerned from documents in the possession, custody, and control of Tross One, Sevents, Elli Ventouras, the authority having jurisdiction, other parties, and non-parties. Pursuant to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Tross One directs Sevents to those documents, including those produced by Tross One pursuant to Sevents’ First Request for Production to Tross One. 12. State whether you contend that the Building is completed. RESPONSE: Tross One objects to this request as vague and confusing because whether the Building is completed is based upon an objective, rather than a subjective, analysis, and this interrogatory seeks a subjective analysis. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it seeks documents that are protected by the work product privilege because the subjective analysis that must be performed in order to respond to this interrogatory would be based on the mental impressions of counsel and would be performed in preparation for litigation. 13. Identify by bank name, account name and account number all bank accounts in your name and/or in any name that are or were associated with the Building. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. 14. For each unit that has not been sold, identify all reasons explaining why the unit has not been sold at this time. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. For its fourth objection, Tross One objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. For its fifth objection, Tross One objects to this -5- Cole, Scott & Kissane Miami | Fort Lauderdale West | Fort Lauderdale East | West Palm Beach | Orlando | Jacksonville | Tampa | Bonita Springs | Naples | Pensacola | Fort Myers | Key West Case No. 2020-14167-CA-01 Tross One’s Response to the Sevent’s 1st Set of Interrogatories interrogatory based on the work product privilege because it seeks information produced in anticipation of litigation. 15. For each payment or transfer of money of any kind made by the Building to Argentum Capital Partners LLC, or any member of Argentum Capital Partners LLC, state the date, amount and reason for the payment or transfer. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing because the request is not limited in time and scope. For its second objection, Tross One objects to this request because the information sought is irrelevant because it does not have the tendency to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. For its third objection, Tross One objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because the information sought is unrelated to any factual or legal issues to be determined in this matter. 16. State whether you entered into any contract with a prospective owner who did not close on the purchase of any unit. RESPONSE: For its first objection, Tross One objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing