Preview
Filing # 196079220 E-Filed 04/12/2024 12:05:20 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION
COMPANY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 2022-CA-000100
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS
AND COMPEL DEPOSITION OF LATASHA JOHNSON
Plaintiff, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (“Florida Gas”), by and through
undersigned counsel, moves to overrule objections raised by Defendant, State of Florida
Department of Transportation (“FDOT”), and to compel the deposition of Latasha Johnson,
requiring her to answer questions she refused to answer at FDOT’s instruction, on the basis of
attorney-client privilege and work product:
INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Florida Gas seeks declaratory relief against FDOT for refusing to reimburse Florida Gas
for a pipeline relocation cost more commonly referred to as the “tax gross up” (the “Tax Gross Up
Cost”). Florida Gas is contractually entitled to the Tax Gross Up Cost by way of a comprehensive
document referred to as the Global Settlement Agreement—a contract that was negotiated and
executed in August of 2013 after Florida Gas exposed FDOT’s near decade-long series of bad faith
behaviors that jeopardized the safety of the motoring public.1 By its plain terms, the Global
1The Global Settlement Agreement was the result of years of disputes between Florida Gas and FDOT that concluded
with, in one instance, a judgment requiring FDOT to reimburse Florida Gas for more than $100 million in costs and
expenses incurred as a result of relocating its natural gas pipeline facilities to accommodate FDOT’s road-expansion
{00080755:1}
Settlement Agreement contemplates that Florida Gas will receive reimbursement for all costs
“associated with” or “relating to” the relocation of any pipeline protected by a private easement to
accommodate an FDOT roadway expansion project. 2
The broad language in the Global Settlement Agreement is, and always has been, designed
to make Florida Gas completely whole if it voluntarily relocates its pipeline to accommodate any
of FDOT’s roadway projects:
The parties made it clear in the Global Settlement Agreement that the cost definitions were meant
to include “all” costs: “In the event that Private Easement Facilities are relocated or adjusted under
projects, and in another instance, a settlement and additional payments where FDOT tried to “entomb” Florida Gas’
new high pressure natural gas pipeline (recently relocated for an FDOT project) in an area that was inaccessible for
Florida Gas to safely operate.
2
Florida Gas also is entitled to reimbursement of all costs for relocating its pipeline facilities located in Florida
Turnpike Right of Way (split 50-50 with FDOT). When Florida Gas facilities are located by permit, FDOT pays for
replacement right of way and Florida Gas pays relocation costs.
{00080755:1} 2
this Article II, FDOT shall be responsible for all Relocation Costs, Adjustment Costs and Right-
of-Way Acquisition Costs.”
Through public records requests and written discovery, FGT has confirmed that FDOT also
interpreted the above-quoted language as broad enough to make FGT completely whole in the
event FGT facilities were displaced from private easement for an FDOT project:
“In the event of a relocation or adjustment of Private Easement facilities to avoid conflict
with FDOT improvements, FDOT will pay 100% of FGT’s construction costs and the cost
of of right-of-way acquisition” and
“FDOT will pay 100% of costs for any relocation of FGT facilities on Private Easements
caused by this grant of access.”
Moreover, since the execution of the Global Settlement Agreement, FDOT has executed a dozen
agreements with multiple layers of review, including legal review, promising to pay Tax Gross Up
Costs to FGT, and has actually paid almost $3 million dollars in Tax Gross Up Costs to FGT as
part of reimbursements for costs incurred in relocating pipelines for FDOT projects. FDOT even
prepared (and distributed to its vast organization of employees) training materials to help interpret
the above-quoted language with the following graphic to illustrate FDOT’s obligations for
reimbursement to Florida Gas:
{00080755:1} 3
The certainty of FDOT’s obligation to pay the Tax Gross Up is undeniable, yet FDOT has
taken the position that the Tax Gross Up Cost is not recoverable under the Global Settlement
Agreement. The FDOT’s position, however, is not tethered to a defensible legal interpretation of
the Global Settlement Agreement. Rather, and as unearthed through public records requests,
FDOT’s decision not to honor the terms of the Global Settlement Agreement was, and remains,
based on a business decision. FDOT first disclosed its “business decision” through an internal
email dated October 15, 2019, between FDOT Central Office’s legal counsel, Latasha Johnson,
and counsel at a local FDOT district office. In a highly incriminating document as to the motive
for FDOT’s decision to improperly deny Florida Gas the benefits of the Global Settlement
Agreement, Ms. Johnson, FDOT’s Chief Counsel for Contracts and Special Projects, wrote:
A true and correct copy of this October 15, 2019, email correspondence is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. Significantly, FDOT produced this October 15, 2019, email, along with a number of
{00080755:1} 4
related and similar communications from this time frame to Florida Gas in response to public
records requests made by Florida Gas, without asserting any exemptions or privileges. 3
Ms. Johnson sat for deposition in this case on September 22, 2023. A complete copy of the
transcript (“Tr. Johnson”) is attached hereto as Exhibit B for the Court’s reference. When Ms.
Johnson was asked questions regarding her conversations with Messrs. Hawkins and Fenniman as
referenced in the October 15, 2019 email, Ms. Johnson (under direction from FDOT’s counsel)
raised—for the first time—attorney-client privilege and attorney work product as a basis for
refusing to answer any questions related to the substance of those conversations:
Tr. Johnson, 31:12-23.
3
While FDOT has belatedly asserted that these email communications were privileged, as further discussed infra, that
privilege (to the extent it even exists) has been unquestionably waived.
{00080755:1} 5
However, despite refusing to answer specifics regarding her conversations with Messrs.
Hawkins or Fenniman, Ms. Johnson went on to admit that those conversations did not involve the
provision of legal services or advice at all:
Tr. Johnson, 36: 7-15
Ms. Johnson went on to testify that she was instructed by her boss, Erik Fenniman, then
FDOT General Counsel, that there was no legal interpretation to be made:
Tr. Johnson, 37:24-38:8
{00080755:1} 6
It is clear from Ms. Johnson’s own testimony, that there is no attorney-client privilege or
work product protection applicable to the conversations at issue. Moreover, FDOT’s production
of communications discussing these conversations establishes that FDOT did not consider those
communications to be privileged at the time. Of course, now that these conversations have been
placed at issue and threaten to implode FDOT’s defenses in this matter, FDOT has changed its
tune and seeks to evade disclosure of the substance of these conversations by raising inapplicable
privileges. Such attempts should not be rewarded or condoned, and Ms. Johnson should be
compelled to answer questions regarding the non-legal conversations she had with Messrs.
Hawkins and Fenniman.
ARGUMENT
I. Attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine are inapplicable.
Ms. Johnson’s testimony (boosted by FDOT’s voluntary disclosure of email
communications referencing these conversations), belies FDOT’s belated attempt to assert
privilege and work product protections. Ms. Johnson acknowledged that she considered neither
Mr. Fenniman nor Mr. Hawkins to be her client. FDOT argues instead that the subject
conversations are protected by the attorney work-product doctrine as attorney mental impressions.
The work product doctrine, however, “was created as a litigation privilege” and does not protect
communications made for “ordinary business use[.]” Neighborhood Health Partnership, Inc. v.
Peter F. Merkle M.D., P.A., 8 So. 3d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (emphasis added) (citing
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994)). Indeed, the
“general likelihood of litigation in the corporation’s ordinary conduct of business is not enough
for a claim of work product protection.” Id. at 1183 (emphasis added).
{00080755:1} 7
Ms. Johnson stated as a basis for her refusal to disclose the substance of the subject
conversations that, at the time, “there was a potential for litigation and that potential was not too
far off from reality.” Tr. Johnson, 34:15-23 (emphasis added). But the potential for litigation is
not enough for work product protection as the cases from the Florida Supreme Court and this
District cited above make clear. See Neighborhood Health Partnerships, Inc., 8 So. 3d at 1183-84.
FDOT apparently shared this assessment at the time the communications were written because the
written communications referencing these conversations were voluntarily produced in response to
a public records request submitted by Florida Gas, without assertion of privilege or statutory
exemption.
But further, Ms. Johnson’s testimony and the face of the written correspondence that FDOT
has already voluntarily produced demonstrate clearly that the conversations at issue revolved
around FDOT’s “business-side issue, not legal” decisions not to reimburse Florida Gas for Tax
Gross Up Costs. See Ex. A and testimony excerpts cited above. Ms. Johnson’s (and FDOT’s) post-
hoc attempt to portray these conversations somehow as legal discussions and mental impressions
in the context of imminent legal proceedings, is clearly manufactured. Ms. Johnson should be
compelled to disclose the substance of these conversations.
II. Privilege has been waived.
Regardless, beyond the privilege and attorney work-product determination, FDOT has
nonetheless waived its ability to shield disclosure of these conversations by producing documents
referencing these conversations without redaction or objection. Florida courts consistently have
held that a public entities’ production of otherwise privileged documents in response to public
records requests waives any privilege subsequently asserted as to those documents. See e.g.,
Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326, 333-334 (Fla. 2007) (where State produced certain
{00080755:1} 8
documents in response to public records request, “we conclude that, even assuming a privilege
attached to these memoranda, the privilege was waived by the State’s own actions.”); Pruco Life
Ins. Co. v. Brasner, 2012 WL 3001570, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2012) (finding “work-product
protection is waived when protected materials are disclosed in a manner which is either
inconsistent with maintaining secrecy against opponents or substantially increases the opportunity
for a potential adversary to obtain the protected information.”); Bank Brussels Lambert v. Chase
Manhattan Bank, N.A., 1996 WL 944011, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1996) (“Work product
immunity is waived… if the party has voluntarily disclosed the work product in such a manner
that is likely to be revealed to his adversary.”). Here, not only were the emails (now claimed as
privileged by FDOT) discussing the meetings between Ms. Johnson and Messrs. Hawkins and
Fenniman “disclosed in such a manner that is likely to be revealed to [FDOT’s] adversary[,]” they
were disclosed directly to FDOT’s adversary, Florida Gas. Accordingly, to the extent any valid
privileges exist, they have nonetheless been waived.
Further, any “voluntary disclosure by the client to a third party waives the privilege not
only as to the specific communication disclosed, but often as to all other communications relating
to the same subject matter.” U.S. v. Cohn, 303 F. Supp. 2d 672, 680 (D.Md. 2003) (citing U.S. v.
Jones, 696 F. 2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982)) (finding when plaintiff “voluntarily produced
communications concerning the telemarketing program, it waived the attorney-client privilege as
to all communications relating to that program.”); see also, In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F. 2d
619, 623 (4th Cir. 1988) (“Most courts continue to state the rule… [that] any disclosure of a
confidential communication outside a privileged relationship will waive the privilege as to all
information related to the same subject matter.”). As is the case here, FDOT has not only waived
privilege as to the emails discussing conversations between Ms. Johnson and Messrs. Hawkins and
{00080755:1} 9
Fenniman, but also any further communications “relating to the same subject matter.” Cohn, 303
F. Supp. 2d at 680. Accordingly, Ms. Johnson should be compelled to appear again for deposition
and disclose the information previously withheld on such improper bases.
WHEREFORE, Florida Gas respectfully requests the Court overrule FDOT’s objections to
all questions related to the email attached hereto as Exhibit B – including the substance of the oral
conversations between Ms. Johnson and Messrs. Hawkins and Fenniman – and compel Ms.
Johnson to provide deposition testimony in such regard.
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERRAL
Counsel for Plaintiff, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC and Defendant, Florida
Department of Transportation instructed the witness not to answer on the assertion of attorney-
client privilege. On April 9, 2024, counsel for both parties had a meet and confer telephone
conference pursuant to Rule 1.380 in a good faith effort to resolve the issues, however, the matter
cannot be resolved, and a hearing is necessary.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 12, 2024 I filed the foregoing via Florida E-portal
which will automatically serve a copy to the following: Monica Galindo Stinson, Esq., Assistant
General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee, Street, MS 58, Tallahassee, FL
32399, Monica.Stinson@dot.state.fl.us, Michael.heidbreder@dot.state.fl.us, counsel for
Defendant; Rick M. Figlio, Esq., Alexandra E. Akre, Esq. and Martin B. Sipple, Ausley
McMullen, 123 S. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301, rfiglio@ausley.com,
{00080755:1} 10
Aakre@ausley.com, csullivan@ausley.com, nestes@ausley.com, msipple@ausley.com,
kreffit@ausley.com, Counsel for Defendant.
/s/ Ethan J. Loeb
ETHAN J. LOEB
Florida Bar No.: 0668338
EthanL@BLHTLaw.com
KerriR@BLHTLaw.com
HeatherW@BLHTLaw.com
eservice@BLHTLaw.com
CYNTHIA ANGELOS
Florida Bar No.: 539058
CynthiaA@BLHTLaw.com
MariaC@BLHTLaw.com
NICHOLAS M. GIESELER
Florida Bar No. 43979
NicholasG@BLHTLaw.com
ELLIOT P. HANEY
Florida Bar Number 1018829
ElliotH@BLHTLaw.com
SusanM@BLHTLaw.com
BARTLETT LOEB HINDS
THOMPSON & ANGELOS
100 North Tampa Street
Suite 2050
Tampa, Florida 33602
Phone: (813) 223-3888
and
CHRISTINA DODDS
Texas Bar No. 03813520
Florida Pro Hac No. 63641
Cdodds@BLHTLaw.com
UniqueA@BLHTLaw.com
1101 West 34th Street, #128
Austin, Texas 78705
Telephone: (512) 632-3849
Admitted Pro Hac Vice by Order
dated September 21, 2021
Attorneys for Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC
{00080755:1} 11
From: Johnson, Latasha
Sent: Tue 10/15/2019 4:05 PM (GMT-00:00)
To: Hawkins, Cary
Co:
Bcc:
Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Thanks, Cary. To fill you in, I raised this with Erik last week and he said it is a business
side issue, not legal.
I’ll forward the message below to him with copy to you, but I’m not sure if there will be
any further guidance from CO legal on this.
Latasha N. Johnson
Chief Counsel, Contracts and Special Projects
Florida Department of Transportation
Office of the General Counsel
605 Suwannee Street, MS 58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Phone: (850) 414-5356
Fax: (850) 414-5264
E-mail: latasha. johnson@dot. state. fl. us
FOOT
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender, delete this message, and do not use, disseminate, or copy its contents. Thank you.
From: Hawkins, Cary
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 12:01 PM
To: Johnson, Latasha
Subject: FW: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Good morning -
An FYI as an update to our conversation.
Cary
Cary Hawkins
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Chief Counsel, District 3
Office of the General Counsel
Florida Department of Transportation
1074 Highway 90 East
Chipley, Florida 32428-2162
Telephone: (850)330-1387
Facsimile: (850)330-1758
ca ry.hawkins@dot.state.fi. us
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete this message, and do not use,
disseminate, or copy its contents. Thank you.
From: Harris, Jonathan
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:32 AM
To: Redmon, Shad ; Hawkins, Cary
Subject: Fwd: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
FYI
Jonathan Harris
FDOT D3 District Utility Administrator
850-330-1479
850-260-9550 cell
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Mulhausen, Douglas
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:13:57 AM
To: Harris, Jonathan
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison
; Sanchez, Joseph ;
Coleman, Terry
Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Jonathan
We are not deducting the tax gross up from the proposed CRA amendment as it is properly includable
under the Global Settlement as a cost associated with relocation and adjustment. However, we will
continue working on the project under the current CRA and bid the project. After the bids are received
we should have a better understanding of the forecast cost to project completion. It is possible the
amendment may not be necessary for construction even with the tax gross up included. If the CRA
amendment is necessary for construction, we will not move forward with construction until the
amendment is executed as presented.
Thanks.
Fbrbes I 2017
AMERICA’S
BEST LARGE
ENERGY TRANSFER
EMPLOYERS
“Daily JtaUbauaen
Florida Gas Transmission Company
Southeast Division - Staff Engineer
2405 Lucien Way, suite 200
Maitland, Florida 32751
O: 407.838.7118
C: 407.256.6881
Email: douglas.mulhausen(5)energytransfer.com
From: Harris, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 3:59 PM
To: Mulhausen, Douglas
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison
; Sanchez, Joseph ;
Coleman, Terry
Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Doug, In final review of the CRA amendment there is line item for a Miscellaneous Expense - Tax Gross
Up at 13.68% for $843,210.00. As indicated in the attached letter the Department is not able to
participate in costs associated with income taxes and only with cost associated with relocation and
adjustment. Please provide a CRA amendment without the Tax Expense and/or call me to discuss.
Thanks,
Jonathan Harris
District 3 Utility Administrator
District 3 Design
jonathan.harris@dot.state.fl.us
850-330-1479
850-330-1148 FAX
http://www.fdot.qov/proqrammanaqement/utilities/Default.shtm
From: Mulhausen, Douglas [mailto:Douglas.Mulhausen@energytransfer.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 8:47 AM
To: Harris, Jonathan
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison
; Sanchez, Joseph ;
Coleman, Terry
Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Importance: High
Jonathan - I believe you still have the amended CRA, is that correct?
Fbrbes I 2017
AMERICA’S
BEST LARGE
ENERGY TRANSFER
EMPLOYERS
Daily J\talfiaiu>eti
Florida Gas Transmission Company
Southeast Division - Staff Engineer
2405 Lucien Way, suite 200
Maitland, Florida 32751
O: 407.838.7118
C: 407.256.6881
Email: douglas.mulhausen@energytransfer.com
From: Harris, Jonathan
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 4:46 PM
To: Mulhausen, Douglas
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison
: Sanchez, Joseph ;
Coleman, Terry
Subject: Re: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Waiting on the funds to be made available. Hopefully we are a week or so out from signing.
Jonathan Harris
FDOT D3 District Utility Administrator
850-330-1479
850-260-9550 cell
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Mulhausen, Douglas
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 3:27:07 PM
To: Harris, Jonathan
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison
; Noyes, David ; Sanchez,
Joseph ; Coleman, Terry
Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Jonathan - any update in the CRA revision being signed by FDOT?
Rwbes | 2017
AMERICA’S
BEST LARGE
ENERGY TRANSFER
EMPLOYERS
Florida Gas Transmission Company
Southeast Division - Staff Engineer
2405 Lucien Way, suite 200
Maitland, Florida 32751
O: 407.838.7118
C: 407.256.6881
Email: douglas.mulhausen@energytransfer.com
From: Mulhausen, Douglas
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 10:23 AM
To: Harris, Jonathan
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison
; Noyes, David ; Sanchez,
Joseph ; Coleman, Terry
Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
This is still a good version, no changes were made.
forbes | 2017
AMERICA’S
BEST LARGE
ENERGY TRANSFER
EMPLOYERS
Florida Gas Transmission Company
Southeast Division - Staff Engineer
2405 Lucien Way, suite 200
Maitland, Florida 32751
O: 407.838.7118
C: 407.256.6881
Email: douglas.mulhausen(5)energvtransfer.com
From: Harris, Jonathan
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 10:07 AM
To: Mulhausen, Douglas
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison
; Noyes, David ; Sanchez,
Joseph ; Coleman, Terry
Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Yes sir, I have the attachments and they have been bundled up and in legal way too long. The best
excuse I can offer is the two attorneys familiar with the process accepted other jobs over the last several
months and I'm starting over again. Just wanted to make sure this version was still good.
Thanks,
Jonathan Harris
District 3 Utility Administrator
District 3 Design
jonathan.harris@dot.state.fl.us
850-330-1479
850-330-1148 FAX
http://www.fdot.qov/proqrammanaqement/utilities/Default.shtm
From: Mulhausen, Douglas [mailto:Douglas.Mulhausen@energytransfer.com]
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 7:25 AM
To: Harris, Jonathan
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison
; Noyes, David ; Sanchez,
Joseph ; Coleman, Terry
Subject: FW: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Importance: High
EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments.
Jonathan,
Attached are the full project CRA Revision and the temporary work space document that was sent to
you on May 22nd. I understand from the email exchange between you and Joe Sanchez earlier this week
that you were inquiring on the status of the CRA revision. At this point I believe we need FDOT to sign
the CRA revision and the temporary work space document. Attached are the same documents that
were included in the May 22nd email. Please sign the appropriate documents and return to me at your
convenience.
If you need anything else or have any questions please let me know.
Thanks for all your corporation on this project.
Fbrbes I 2017
AMERICA’S
BEST LARGE
ENERGY TRANSFER
EMPLOYERS
Dau# AtuUiaaycu
Florida Gas Transmission Company
Southeast Division - Staff Engineer
2405 Lucien Way, suite 200
Maitland, Florida 32751
O: 407.838.7118
C: 407.256.6881
Email: douglas.mulhausen@energytransfer.com
From: Mulhausen, Douglas
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:05 AM
To: Jonathan Harris (ionathan.harris@dot.state.fl.us) Jonathan. harris@dot. state. f I. us>
Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike
; Paul, Jamison ; Berg, Kathy
; Noyes, David
Subject: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised
Reimbursement Agreement
Jonathan,
Please see the attached documents for the relocation of the FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral for the
widening of SR 77, FPID 217909-2-56-01, in Washington County, Florida.
1. FGT/FDOT Letter Agreement of Utilization of Temporary Construction Easements as shown on
the latest FGT project conceptual drawings that are attached.
a) Drawing P3-1C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19
b) Drawing P3-2C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19
c) Drawing P3-3C, Rev. F, dated 5/6/10
d) Drawing P3-4C, Rev. B, dated 5/6/10
2. FGT/FDOT Amendment to Cost Reimbursement Agreement dated May 24, 2017, along with the
revised Exhibit B cost estimate and the Exhibit C conceptual drawings.
a) Drawing P3-1C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19
b) Drawing P3-2C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19
c) Drawing P3-3C, Rev. F, dated 5/6/10
d) Drawing P3-4C, Rev. B, dated 5/6/10
3. CRA Exhibit B Original CRA verses Rev. 1 CRA Cost Comparison.
4. Original PDF drawings for use in place of the scanned PDF drawings referenced above. The
original PDF drawings should be better quality than the scanned PDF drawings.
a) Drawing P3-1C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19
b) Drawing P3-2C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19
c) Drawing P3-3C, Rev. F, dated 5/6/10
d) Drawing P3-4C, Rev. B, dated 5/6/10
Please have the appropriate FDOT person execute and date each of the two documents and return to
me by email transmittal.
In accordance with our discussions, FGT plans to start construction the first week in January 2020 with a
completion at the end of May 2020. Actual begin and end construction and pipe removal dates will be
confirmed after the project is bid and a contractor is selected.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Rjrbes | 2017
AMERICA’S
BEST LARGE
ENERGY TRANSFER
EMPLOYERS
MalftauAen
Florida Gas Transmission Company
Southeast Division - Staff Engineer
2405 Lucien Way, suite 200
Maitland, Florida 32751
O: 407.838.7118
C: 407.256.6881
Email: douglas. mulhausen@energytransfer.com
Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender.
Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender.
Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender.
Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender.
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION
COMPANY, LLC,
Plaintiff, Case No.:
v. 2022-CA-000100
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
Videotaped Deposition of
LATASHA JOHNSON, ESQUIRE
Taken on Behalf of the Plaintiff
DATE: Friday, September 22, 2023
TIME: 10:00 a.m. - 11:54 a.m.
PLACE: Remotely via Zoom
Reported by GARRETT LORMAN
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
EXHIBIT B
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 2
REMOTE APPEARANCES
On Behalf of the Plaintiff:
ETHAN J. LOEB, ESQUIRE
BARTLETT LOEB HINDS THOMPSON & ANGELOS, PLLC
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2050
Tampa, Florida 33602
(813) 223-3888
ethanl@blhtlaw.com
- and -
CHRISTINA DODDS, ESQUIRE
BARTLETT LOEB HINDS THOMPSON & ANGELOS, PLLC
1101 West 34th Street, #128
Austin, Texas 78705
(512) 632-3849
cdodds@blhtlaw.com
On Behalf of the Defendants:
ALEXANDRA E. AKRE, ESQUIRE
ERIK M. FIGLIO, ESQUIRE
AUSLEY McMULLEN
123 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(850) 425-5327
aakre@ausley.com
rfiglio@ausley.com
ALSO PRESENT:
MICHAEL STINGO, Videographer
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 3
- I N D E X -
EXAMINATION OF LATASHA JOHNSON PAGE
Direct by Mr. Loeb............................ 5
PLAINTIFF'S MARKED EXHIBITS PAGE
Exhibit 1 Defendant's Amended Response to
Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories (15 pages)...........24
Exhibit 2 Email to Cary Hawkins - Dated
10/15/2019 at 4:05 P.M. (9 pages)....29
Exhibit 3 Email to Erik Fenniman - Dated
10/15/2019 at 4:07 P.M. (9 pages)....57
Exhibit 4 Email to Giselle Justo - Dated
04/10/208 (28 pages).................67
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 4
1 (10:00 A.M.)
2 - oOo -
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on the video
4 record. Today's date is Friday, September 22,
5 2023, and the time is 10 o'clock a.m.
6 Here begins the remote videotaped deposition
7 of Latasha Johnson, taken in the matter of Florida
8 Gas Transmission Company, LLC versus State of
9 Florida Department of Transportation.
10 This deposition is being taken virtually via
11 Zoom. The videographer is Michael Stingo, and the
12 Court Reporter is Garrett Lorman, both with
13 Olender Legal Solutions.
14 Will Counsel please introduce themselves and
15 whom you represent, after which the Court Reporter
16 will swear in the witness.
17 MR. LOEB: Ethan Loeb, along with Christina
18 Dodds, on behalf of Florida Gas Transmission
19 Company LLC, the Plaintiff.
20 MS. AKRE: Alexandra Akre, along with Erik
21 Figlio, on behalf of the Defendant, the Florida
22 Department of Transportation.
23 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay, Ms. Johnson, if I
24 can get you to raise your right hand, please.
25
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 5
1 THEREUPON:
2 LATASHA JOHNSON, ESQUIRE
3 called as a witness, and after having been duly sworn
4 under oath, was examined and testified as follows:
5 THE WITNESS: I do.
6 - DIRECT EXAMINATION -
7 BY MR. LOEB:
8 Q: Morning. If you could please tell us your
9 name, ma'am.
10 A: Latasha Johnson.
11 Q: Ms. Johnson, do you have a business address
12 that you could provide to me?
13 A: I do.
14 Q: Okay. And what is that?
15 A: So, it's 2800 Ponce de Leon -- de Leon
16 Boulevard Suite 1400, Coral Gables, and the zip is
17 escaping me at the moment.
18 Q: That's okay.
19 Is there a name of the company that you work
20 at with that address?
21 A: There is a name, yes.
22 Q: What is that name?
23 A: Ehrenstein Sager.
24 Q: That's a law firm?
25 A: That is a law firm.
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 6
1 Q: All right. And you're an attorney at that
2 law firm, correct?
3 A: That's correct.
4 Q: All right. Ms. Johnson, if you need to be
5 served with a subpoena for a trial, what would be the
6 best number to have someone reach you at?
7 A: Telephone number?
8 Q: Yes, ma'am.
9 A: 305-794-2824
10 Q: And is that a cell phone number?
11 A: It is.
12 Q: Is that your cell phone number?
13 A: It is my cell phone number, yes.
14 Q: All right. Do you have an email address that
15 you could provide to me should someone need to get a
16 hold of you to communicate about service of a subpoena
17 or other court document?
18 A: Sure. Latasha@EhrensteinSager.com
19 Q: That's your work email address?
20 A: It is.
21 Q: All right. Ms. Johnson, my name is Ethan
22 Loeb. I don't believe we've met before today, have we,
23 ma'am?
24 A: Not to my recollection.
25 Q: Okay, not to mine either.
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 7
1 The reason we've asked you to sit here today
2 and give us some testimony as your name shows up on a
3 couple of documents in connection with the lawsuit
4 that's presently pending in St. Lucie County Circuit
5 Court. And also, because you've been identified in
6 some answers to interrogatories as -- as someone who
7 might have discoverable information.
8 Have you ever given a deposition before,
9 ma'am?
10 A: No.
11 Q: Have you taken a deposition before?
12 A: Testimony in a deposition is what you're
13 asking me, right?
14 Q: Yes, ma'am. Have you ever given testimony
15 like you are today?
16 A: No, I have not.
17 Q: Have you ever taken a deposition?
18 A: Indeed, I have.
19 Q: All right. I've been where you are right now
20 in the past, and it's -- it's -- I think it's fun, but
21 it's definitely a different role than when you get to
22 ask the questions as opposed to giving the answers.
23 Given that you have taken depositions, you're
24 probably familiar with the kinds of introductory
25 comments that -- that lawyers give to witnesses. I'll
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 8
1 try to make mine briefer than I would otherwise give
2 someone, given your familiarity with the process and to
3 not waste your time. I'm going to do my level best to
4 get you in and out of here as quickly as I can, given
5 the level of information that you do have, also being
6 respectful that I think you've got another commitment
7 sometime early afternoon. So, we're gonna get you done
8 with.
9 Throughout the course of -- of this session,
10 I'm going to try to make my questions as clear as I
11 possibly can. Not trying to trick you, not trying to
12 set you up or deceive you in any way, shape, or form.
13 I just want to find out what you know and what you
14 don't know.
15 If you could do me a favor, though, and if
16 there's a question that I asked of you that you do not
17 understand, will you please ask me to clarify so that
18 you and I can get on the same page?
19 A: Sure.
20 Q: Okay. All right.
21 If you need a break, happy to accommodate you
22 as long as there's no question pending. Get through
23 that and let you take a break, you know, need to
24 stretch your legs, get some sugar in your blood if you
25 need to, whatever's necessary, you just let me know.
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 9
1 It is not designed to be a test of wills, at least from
2 my perspective.
3 So now, with that being said, do you have any
4 questions for me before we get started?
5 A: I don't.
6 Q: All right. I'd like to touch very briefly in
7 terms of your background before we get into kind of the
8 substance of your testimony as it pertains to this
9 case.
10 Where did you go to undergraduate school,
11 ma'am?
12 A: The University of Houston.
13 Q: All right. When did you graduate?
14 A: 1999.
15 Q: You go to law school after that?
16 A: I did.
17 Q: Where did you go to law school?
18 A: Loyola University in New Orleans.
19 Q: Good school. When did you graduate?
20 A: 2005.
21 Q: Okay. And after you graduated from Loyola,
22 did you enter the workforce as a practicing attorney?
23 A: I did.
24 Q: And are you -- where are you licensed to
25 practice law?
Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020
A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com
Latasha Johnson, Esquire
Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023
Page 10
1 A: I am licensed in New York and in Florida.
2 Q: How long have you been licensed in Florida?
3 A: I don't remember the date of admission.
4 Q: All right. Generally, year wise, was it
5 right after you graduated from Loyola?
6 A: No, it was not. It would have been sometime
7 between 2009 and 2010.
8 Q: Okay. If you could give me just the
9 high-level points in an abbreviated narrative form kind
10 of, your work history from the time that you got out of
11 Loyola up until where you are today, working a
Preview
Filing # 196079220 E-Filed 04/12/2024 12:05:20 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2022-CA-000100 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant. _____________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEPOSITION OF LATASHA JOHNSON Plaintiff, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (“Florida Gas”), by and through undersigned counsel, moves to overrule objections raised by Defendant, State of Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”), and to compel the deposition of Latasha Johnson, requiring her to answer questions she refused to answer at FDOT’s instruction, on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product: INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND Florida Gas seeks declaratory relief against FDOT for refusing to reimburse Florida Gas for a pipeline relocation cost more commonly referred to as the “tax gross up” (the “Tax Gross Up Cost”). Florida Gas is contractually entitled to the Tax Gross Up Cost by way of a comprehensive document referred to as the Global Settlement Agreement—a contract that was negotiated and executed in August of 2013 after Florida Gas exposed FDOT’s near decade-long series of bad faith behaviors that jeopardized the safety of the motoring public.1 By its plain terms, the Global 1The Global Settlement Agreement was the result of years of disputes between Florida Gas and FDOT that concluded with, in one instance, a judgment requiring FDOT to reimburse Florida Gas for more than $100 million in costs and expenses incurred as a result of relocating its natural gas pipeline facilities to accommodate FDOT’s road-expansion {00080755:1} Settlement Agreement contemplates that Florida Gas will receive reimbursement for all costs “associated with” or “relating to” the relocation of any pipeline protected by a private easement to accommodate an FDOT roadway expansion project. 2 The broad language in the Global Settlement Agreement is, and always has been, designed to make Florida Gas completely whole if it voluntarily relocates its pipeline to accommodate any of FDOT’s roadway projects: The parties made it clear in the Global Settlement Agreement that the cost definitions were meant to include “all” costs: “In the event that Private Easement Facilities are relocated or adjusted under projects, and in another instance, a settlement and additional payments where FDOT tried to “entomb” Florida Gas’ new high pressure natural gas pipeline (recently relocated for an FDOT project) in an area that was inaccessible for Florida Gas to safely operate. 2 Florida Gas also is entitled to reimbursement of all costs for relocating its pipeline facilities located in Florida Turnpike Right of Way (split 50-50 with FDOT). When Florida Gas facilities are located by permit, FDOT pays for replacement right of way and Florida Gas pays relocation costs. {00080755:1} 2 this Article II, FDOT shall be responsible for all Relocation Costs, Adjustment Costs and Right- of-Way Acquisition Costs.” Through public records requests and written discovery, FGT has confirmed that FDOT also interpreted the above-quoted language as broad enough to make FGT completely whole in the event FGT facilities were displaced from private easement for an FDOT project: “In the event of a relocation or adjustment of Private Easement facilities to avoid conflict with FDOT improvements, FDOT will pay 100% of FGT’s construction costs and the cost of of right-of-way acquisition” and “FDOT will pay 100% of costs for any relocation of FGT facilities on Private Easements caused by this grant of access.” Moreover, since the execution of the Global Settlement Agreement, FDOT has executed a dozen agreements with multiple layers of review, including legal review, promising to pay Tax Gross Up Costs to FGT, and has actually paid almost $3 million dollars in Tax Gross Up Costs to FGT as part of reimbursements for costs incurred in relocating pipelines for FDOT projects. FDOT even prepared (and distributed to its vast organization of employees) training materials to help interpret the above-quoted language with the following graphic to illustrate FDOT’s obligations for reimbursement to Florida Gas: {00080755:1} 3 The certainty of FDOT’s obligation to pay the Tax Gross Up is undeniable, yet FDOT has taken the position that the Tax Gross Up Cost is not recoverable under the Global Settlement Agreement. The FDOT’s position, however, is not tethered to a defensible legal interpretation of the Global Settlement Agreement. Rather, and as unearthed through public records requests, FDOT’s decision not to honor the terms of the Global Settlement Agreement was, and remains, based on a business decision. FDOT first disclosed its “business decision” through an internal email dated October 15, 2019, between FDOT Central Office’s legal counsel, Latasha Johnson, and counsel at a local FDOT district office. In a highly incriminating document as to the motive for FDOT’s decision to improperly deny Florida Gas the benefits of the Global Settlement Agreement, Ms. Johnson, FDOT’s Chief Counsel for Contracts and Special Projects, wrote: A true and correct copy of this October 15, 2019, email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Significantly, FDOT produced this October 15, 2019, email, along with a number of {00080755:1} 4 related and similar communications from this time frame to Florida Gas in response to public records requests made by Florida Gas, without asserting any exemptions or privileges. 3 Ms. Johnson sat for deposition in this case on September 22, 2023. A complete copy of the transcript (“Tr. Johnson”) is attached hereto as Exhibit B for the Court’s reference. When Ms. Johnson was asked questions regarding her conversations with Messrs. Hawkins and Fenniman as referenced in the October 15, 2019 email, Ms. Johnson (under direction from FDOT’s counsel) raised—for the first time—attorney-client privilege and attorney work product as a basis for refusing to answer any questions related to the substance of those conversations: Tr. Johnson, 31:12-23. 3 While FDOT has belatedly asserted that these email communications were privileged, as further discussed infra, that privilege (to the extent it even exists) has been unquestionably waived. {00080755:1} 5 However, despite refusing to answer specifics regarding her conversations with Messrs. Hawkins or Fenniman, Ms. Johnson went on to admit that those conversations did not involve the provision of legal services or advice at all: Tr. Johnson, 36: 7-15 Ms. Johnson went on to testify that she was instructed by her boss, Erik Fenniman, then FDOT General Counsel, that there was no legal interpretation to be made: Tr. Johnson, 37:24-38:8 {00080755:1} 6 It is clear from Ms. Johnson’s own testimony, that there is no attorney-client privilege or work product protection applicable to the conversations at issue. Moreover, FDOT’s production of communications discussing these conversations establishes that FDOT did not consider those communications to be privileged at the time. Of course, now that these conversations have been placed at issue and threaten to implode FDOT’s defenses in this matter, FDOT has changed its tune and seeks to evade disclosure of the substance of these conversations by raising inapplicable privileges. Such attempts should not be rewarded or condoned, and Ms. Johnson should be compelled to answer questions regarding the non-legal conversations she had with Messrs. Hawkins and Fenniman. ARGUMENT I. Attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine are inapplicable. Ms. Johnson’s testimony (boosted by FDOT’s voluntary disclosure of email communications referencing these conversations), belies FDOT’s belated attempt to assert privilege and work product protections. Ms. Johnson acknowledged that she considered neither Mr. Fenniman nor Mr. Hawkins to be her client. FDOT argues instead that the subject conversations are protected by the attorney work-product doctrine as attorney mental impressions. The work product doctrine, however, “was created as a litigation privilege” and does not protect communications made for “ordinary business use[.]” Neighborhood Health Partnership, Inc. v. Peter F. Merkle M.D., P.A., 8 So. 3d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994)). Indeed, the “general likelihood of litigation in the corporation’s ordinary conduct of business is not enough for a claim of work product protection.” Id. at 1183 (emphasis added). {00080755:1} 7 Ms. Johnson stated as a basis for her refusal to disclose the substance of the subject conversations that, at the time, “there was a potential for litigation and that potential was not too far off from reality.” Tr. Johnson, 34:15-23 (emphasis added). But the potential for litigation is not enough for work product protection as the cases from the Florida Supreme Court and this District cited above make clear. See Neighborhood Health Partnerships, Inc., 8 So. 3d at 1183-84. FDOT apparently shared this assessment at the time the communications were written because the written communications referencing these conversations were voluntarily produced in response to a public records request submitted by Florida Gas, without assertion of privilege or statutory exemption. But further, Ms. Johnson’s testimony and the face of the written correspondence that FDOT has already voluntarily produced demonstrate clearly that the conversations at issue revolved around FDOT’s “business-side issue, not legal” decisions not to reimburse Florida Gas for Tax Gross Up Costs. See Ex. A and testimony excerpts cited above. Ms. Johnson’s (and FDOT’s) post- hoc attempt to portray these conversations somehow as legal discussions and mental impressions in the context of imminent legal proceedings, is clearly manufactured. Ms. Johnson should be compelled to disclose the substance of these conversations. II. Privilege has been waived. Regardless, beyond the privilege and attorney work-product determination, FDOT has nonetheless waived its ability to shield disclosure of these conversations by producing documents referencing these conversations without redaction or objection. Florida courts consistently have held that a public entities’ production of otherwise privileged documents in response to public records requests waives any privilege subsequently asserted as to those documents. See e.g., Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326, 333-334 (Fla. 2007) (where State produced certain {00080755:1} 8 documents in response to public records request, “we conclude that, even assuming a privilege attached to these memoranda, the privilege was waived by the State’s own actions.”); Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Brasner, 2012 WL 3001570, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2012) (finding “work-product protection is waived when protected materials are disclosed in a manner which is either inconsistent with maintaining secrecy against opponents or substantially increases the opportunity for a potential adversary to obtain the protected information.”); Bank Brussels Lambert v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 1996 WL 944011, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1996) (“Work product immunity is waived… if the party has voluntarily disclosed the work product in such a manner that is likely to be revealed to his adversary.”). Here, not only were the emails (now claimed as privileged by FDOT) discussing the meetings between Ms. Johnson and Messrs. Hawkins and Fenniman “disclosed in such a manner that is likely to be revealed to [FDOT’s] adversary[,]” they were disclosed directly to FDOT’s adversary, Florida Gas. Accordingly, to the extent any valid privileges exist, they have nonetheless been waived. Further, any “voluntary disclosure by the client to a third party waives the privilege not only as to the specific communication disclosed, but often as to all other communications relating to the same subject matter.” U.S. v. Cohn, 303 F. Supp. 2d 672, 680 (D.Md. 2003) (citing U.S. v. Jones, 696 F. 2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982)) (finding when plaintiff “voluntarily produced communications concerning the telemarketing program, it waived the attorney-client privilege as to all communications relating to that program.”); see also, In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F. 2d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 1988) (“Most courts continue to state the rule… [that] any disclosure of a confidential communication outside a privileged relationship will waive the privilege as to all information related to the same subject matter.”). As is the case here, FDOT has not only waived privilege as to the emails discussing conversations between Ms. Johnson and Messrs. Hawkins and {00080755:1} 9 Fenniman, but also any further communications “relating to the same subject matter.” Cohn, 303 F. Supp. 2d at 680. Accordingly, Ms. Johnson should be compelled to appear again for deposition and disclose the information previously withheld on such improper bases. WHEREFORE, Florida Gas respectfully requests the Court overrule FDOT’s objections to all questions related to the email attached hereto as Exhibit B – including the substance of the oral conversations between Ms. Johnson and Messrs. Hawkins and Fenniman – and compel Ms. Johnson to provide deposition testimony in such regard. CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERRAL Counsel for Plaintiff, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC and Defendant, Florida Department of Transportation instructed the witness not to answer on the assertion of attorney- client privilege. On April 9, 2024, counsel for both parties had a meet and confer telephone conference pursuant to Rule 1.380 in a good faith effort to resolve the issues, however, the matter cannot be resolved, and a hearing is necessary. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 12, 2024 I filed the foregoing via Florida E-portal which will automatically serve a copy to the following: Monica Galindo Stinson, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee, Street, MS 58, Tallahassee, FL 32399, Monica.Stinson@dot.state.fl.us, Michael.heidbreder@dot.state.fl.us, counsel for Defendant; Rick M. Figlio, Esq., Alexandra E. Akre, Esq. and Martin B. Sipple, Ausley McMullen, 123 S. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301, rfiglio@ausley.com, {00080755:1} 10 Aakre@ausley.com, csullivan@ausley.com, nestes@ausley.com, msipple@ausley.com, kreffit@ausley.com, Counsel for Defendant. /s/ Ethan J. Loeb ETHAN J. LOEB Florida Bar No.: 0668338 EthanL@BLHTLaw.com KerriR@BLHTLaw.com HeatherW@BLHTLaw.com eservice@BLHTLaw.com CYNTHIA ANGELOS Florida Bar No.: 539058 CynthiaA@BLHTLaw.com MariaC@BLHTLaw.com NICHOLAS M. GIESELER Florida Bar No. 43979 NicholasG@BLHTLaw.com ELLIOT P. HANEY Florida Bar Number 1018829 ElliotH@BLHTLaw.com SusanM@BLHTLaw.com BARTLETT LOEB HINDS THOMPSON & ANGELOS 100 North Tampa Street Suite 2050 Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: (813) 223-3888 and CHRISTINA DODDS Texas Bar No. 03813520 Florida Pro Hac No. 63641 Cdodds@BLHTLaw.com UniqueA@BLHTLaw.com 1101 West 34th Street, #128 Austin, Texas 78705 Telephone: (512) 632-3849 Admitted Pro Hac Vice by Order dated September 21, 2021 Attorneys for Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC {00080755:1} 11 From: Johnson, Latasha Sent: Tue 10/15/2019 4:05 PM (GMT-00:00) To: Hawkins, Cary Co: Bcc: Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Thanks, Cary. To fill you in, I raised this with Erik last week and he said it is a business side issue, not legal. I’ll forward the message below to him with copy to you, but I’m not sure if there will be any further guidance from CO legal on this. Latasha N. Johnson Chief Counsel, Contracts and Special Projects Florida Department of Transportation Office of the General Counsel 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Phone: (850) 414-5356 Fax: (850) 414-5264 E-mail: latasha. johnson@dot. state. fl. us FOOT This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete this message, and do not use, disseminate, or copy its contents. Thank you. From: Hawkins, Cary Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 12:01 PM To: Johnson, Latasha Subject: FW: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Good morning - An FYI as an update to our conversation. Cary Cary Hawkins EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A Chief Counsel, District 3 Office of the General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 1074 Highway 90 East Chipley, Florida 32428-2162 Telephone: (850)330-1387 Facsimile: (850)330-1758 ca ry.hawkins@dot.state.fi. us This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete this message, and do not use, disseminate, or copy its contents. Thank you. From: Harris, Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:32 AM To: Redmon, Shad ; Hawkins, Cary Subject: Fwd: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement FYI Jonathan Harris FDOT D3 District Utility Administrator 850-330-1479 850-260-9550 cell Get Outlook for iOS From: Mulhausen, Douglas Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:13:57 AM To: Harris, Jonathan Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison ; Sanchez, Joseph ; Coleman, Terry Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Jonathan We are not deducting the tax gross up from the proposed CRA amendment as it is properly includable under the Global Settlement as a cost associated with relocation and adjustment. However, we will continue working on the project under the current CRA and bid the project. After the bids are received we should have a better understanding of the forecast cost to project completion. It is possible the amendment may not be necessary for construction even with the tax gross up included. If the CRA amendment is necessary for construction, we will not move forward with construction until the amendment is executed as presented. Thanks. Fbrbes I 2017 AMERICA’S BEST LARGE ENERGY TRANSFER EMPLOYERS “Daily JtaUbauaen Florida Gas Transmission Company Southeast Division - Staff Engineer 2405 Lucien Way, suite 200 Maitland, Florida 32751 O: 407.838.7118 C: 407.256.6881 Email: douglas.mulhausen(5)energytransfer.com From: Harris, Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 3:59 PM To: Mulhausen, Douglas Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison ; Sanchez, Joseph ; Coleman, Terry Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Doug, In final review of the CRA amendment there is line item for a Miscellaneous Expense - Tax Gross Up at 13.68% for $843,210.00. As indicated in the attached letter the Department is not able to participate in costs associated with income taxes and only with cost associated with relocation and adjustment. Please provide a CRA amendment without the Tax Expense and/or call me to discuss. Thanks, Jonathan Harris District 3 Utility Administrator District 3 Design jonathan.harris@dot.state.fl.us 850-330-1479 850-330-1148 FAX http://www.fdot.qov/proqrammanaqement/utilities/Default.shtm From: Mulhausen, Douglas [mailto:Douglas.Mulhausen@energytransfer.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 8:47 AM To: Harris, Jonathan Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison ; Sanchez, Joseph ; Coleman, Terry Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Importance: High Jonathan - I believe you still have the amended CRA, is that correct? Fbrbes I 2017 AMERICA’S BEST LARGE ENERGY TRANSFER EMPLOYERS Daily J\talfiaiu>eti Florida Gas Transmission Company Southeast Division - Staff Engineer 2405 Lucien Way, suite 200 Maitland, Florida 32751 O: 407.838.7118 C: 407.256.6881 Email: douglas.mulhausen@energytransfer.com From: Harris, Jonathan Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 4:46 PM To: Mulhausen, Douglas Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison : Sanchez, Joseph ; Coleman, Terry Subject: Re: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Waiting on the funds to be made available. Hopefully we are a week or so out from signing. Jonathan Harris FDOT D3 District Utility Administrator 850-330-1479 850-260-9550 cell Get Outlook for iOS From: Mulhausen, Douglas Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 3:27:07 PM To: Harris, Jonathan Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison ; Noyes, David ; Sanchez, Joseph ; Coleman, Terry Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Jonathan - any update in the CRA revision being signed by FDOT? Rwbes | 2017 AMERICA’S BEST LARGE ENERGY TRANSFER EMPLOYERS Florida Gas Transmission Company Southeast Division - Staff Engineer 2405 Lucien Way, suite 200 Maitland, Florida 32751 O: 407.838.7118 C: 407.256.6881 Email: douglas.mulhausen@energytransfer.com From: Mulhausen, Douglas Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 10:23 AM To: Harris, Jonathan Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison ; Noyes, David ; Sanchez, Joseph ; Coleman, Terry Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement This is still a good version, no changes were made. forbes | 2017 AMERICA’S BEST LARGE ENERGY TRANSFER EMPLOYERS Florida Gas Transmission Company Southeast Division - Staff Engineer 2405 Lucien Way, suite 200 Maitland, Florida 32751 O: 407.838.7118 C: 407.256.6881 Email: douglas.mulhausen(5)energvtransfer.com From: Harris, Jonathan Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 10:07 AM To: Mulhausen, Douglas Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison ; Noyes, David ; Sanchez, Joseph ; Coleman, Terry Subject: RE: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Yes sir, I have the attachments and they have been bundled up and in legal way too long. The best excuse I can offer is the two attorneys familiar with the process accepted other jobs over the last several months and I'm starting over again. Just wanted to make sure this version was still good. Thanks, Jonathan Harris District 3 Utility Administrator District 3 Design jonathan.harris@dot.state.fl.us 850-330-1479 850-330-1148 FAX http://www.fdot.qov/proqrammanaqement/utilities/Default.shtm From: Mulhausen, Douglas [mailto:Douglas.Mulhausen@energytransfer.com] Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 7:25 AM To: Harris, Jonathan Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Noyes, David ; Paul, Jamison ; Noyes, David ; Sanchez, Joseph ; Coleman, Terry Subject: FW: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Importance: High EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments. Jonathan, Attached are the full project CRA Revision and the temporary work space document that was sent to you on May 22nd. I understand from the email exchange between you and Joe Sanchez earlier this week that you were inquiring on the status of the CRA revision. At this point I believe we need FDOT to sign the CRA revision and the temporary work space document. Attached are the same documents that were included in the May 22nd email. Please sign the appropriate documents and return to me at your convenience. If you need anything else or have any questions please let me know. Thanks for all your corporation on this project. Fbrbes I 2017 AMERICA’S BEST LARGE ENERGY TRANSFER EMPLOYERS Dau# AtuUiaaycu Florida Gas Transmission Company Southeast Division - Staff Engineer 2405 Lucien Way, suite 200 Maitland, Florida 32751 O: 407.838.7118 C: 407.256.6881 Email: douglas.mulhausen@energytransfer.com From: Mulhausen, Douglas Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:05 AM To: Jonathan Harris (ionathan.harris@dot.state.fl.us) Jonathan. harris@dot. state. f I. us> Cc: Shellhouse, Dave W. ; Teal, Mike ; Paul, Jamison ; Berg, Kathy ; Noyes, David Subject: FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral Relocation for SR 77, FPID 217909-3-56-01 - Revised Reimbursement Agreement Jonathan, Please see the attached documents for the relocation of the FGT 18" Smith Plant Lateral for the widening of SR 77, FPID 217909-2-56-01, in Washington County, Florida. 1. FGT/FDOT Letter Agreement of Utilization of Temporary Construction Easements as shown on the latest FGT project conceptual drawings that are attached. a) Drawing P3-1C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19 b) Drawing P3-2C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19 c) Drawing P3-3C, Rev. F, dated 5/6/10 d) Drawing P3-4C, Rev. B, dated 5/6/10 2. FGT/FDOT Amendment to Cost Reimbursement Agreement dated May 24, 2017, along with the revised Exhibit B cost estimate and the Exhibit C conceptual drawings. a) Drawing P3-1C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19 b) Drawing P3-2C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19 c) Drawing P3-3C, Rev. F, dated 5/6/10 d) Drawing P3-4C, Rev. B, dated 5/6/10 3. CRA Exhibit B Original CRA verses Rev. 1 CRA Cost Comparison. 4. Original PDF drawings for use in place of the scanned PDF drawings referenced above. The original PDF drawings should be better quality than the scanned PDF drawings. a) Drawing P3-1C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19 b) Drawing P3-2C, Rev. E, dated 4/29/19 c) Drawing P3-3C, Rev. F, dated 5/6/10 d) Drawing P3-4C, Rev. B, dated 5/6/10 Please have the appropriate FDOT person execute and date each of the two documents and return to me by email transmittal. In accordance with our discussions, FGT plans to start construction the first week in January 2020 with a completion at the end of May 2020. Actual begin and end construction and pipe removal dates will be confirmed after the project is bid and a contractor is selected. If you have any questions please let me know. Rjrbes | 2017 AMERICA’S BEST LARGE ENERGY TRANSFER EMPLOYERS MalftauAen Florida Gas Transmission Company Southeast Division - Staff Engineer 2405 Lucien Way, suite 200 Maitland, Florida 32751 O: 407.838.7118 C: 407.256.6881 Email: douglas. mulhausen@energytransfer.com Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender. Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender. Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender. Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender. Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No.: v. 2022-CA-000100 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant. __________________________________/ Videotaped Deposition of LATASHA JOHNSON, ESQUIRE Taken on Behalf of the Plaintiff DATE: Friday, September 22, 2023 TIME: 10:00 a.m. - 11:54 a.m. PLACE: Remotely via Zoom Reported by GARRETT LORMAN Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com EXHIBIT B Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 2 REMOTE APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: ETHAN J. LOEB, ESQUIRE BARTLETT LOEB HINDS THOMPSON & ANGELOS, PLLC 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2050 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 223-3888 ethanl@blhtlaw.com - and - CHRISTINA DODDS, ESQUIRE BARTLETT LOEB HINDS THOMPSON & ANGELOS, PLLC 1101 West 34th Street, #128 Austin, Texas 78705 (512) 632-3849 cdodds@blhtlaw.com On Behalf of the Defendants: ALEXANDRA E. AKRE, ESQUIRE ERIK M. FIGLIO, ESQUIRE AUSLEY McMULLEN 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (850) 425-5327 aakre@ausley.com rfiglio@ausley.com ALSO PRESENT: MICHAEL STINGO, Videographer Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 3 - I N D E X - EXAMINATION OF LATASHA JOHNSON PAGE Direct by Mr. Loeb............................ 5 PLAINTIFF'S MARKED EXHIBITS PAGE Exhibit 1 Defendant's Amended Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (15 pages)...........24 Exhibit 2 Email to Cary Hawkins - Dated 10/15/2019 at 4:05 P.M. (9 pages)....29 Exhibit 3 Email to Erik Fenniman - Dated 10/15/2019 at 4:07 P.M. (9 pages)....57 Exhibit 4 Email to Giselle Justo - Dated 04/10/208 (28 pages).................67 Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 4 1 (10:00 A.M.) 2 - oOo - 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on the video 4 record. Today's date is Friday, September 22, 5 2023, and the time is 10 o'clock a.m. 6 Here begins the remote videotaped deposition 7 of Latasha Johnson, taken in the matter of Florida 8 Gas Transmission Company, LLC versus State of 9 Florida Department of Transportation. 10 This deposition is being taken virtually via 11 Zoom. The videographer is Michael Stingo, and the 12 Court Reporter is Garrett Lorman, both with 13 Olender Legal Solutions. 14 Will Counsel please introduce themselves and 15 whom you represent, after which the Court Reporter 16 will swear in the witness. 17 MR. LOEB: Ethan Loeb, along with Christina 18 Dodds, on behalf of Florida Gas Transmission 19 Company LLC, the Plaintiff. 20 MS. AKRE: Alexandra Akre, along with Erik 21 Figlio, on behalf of the Defendant, the Florida 22 Department of Transportation. 23 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay, Ms. Johnson, if I 24 can get you to raise your right hand, please. 25 Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 5 1 THEREUPON: 2 LATASHA JOHNSON, ESQUIRE 3 called as a witness, and after having been duly sworn 4 under oath, was examined and testified as follows: 5 THE WITNESS: I do. 6 - DIRECT EXAMINATION - 7 BY MR. LOEB: 8 Q: Morning. If you could please tell us your 9 name, ma'am. 10 A: Latasha Johnson. 11 Q: Ms. Johnson, do you have a business address 12 that you could provide to me? 13 A: I do. 14 Q: Okay. And what is that? 15 A: So, it's 2800 Ponce de Leon -- de Leon 16 Boulevard Suite 1400, Coral Gables, and the zip is 17 escaping me at the moment. 18 Q: That's okay. 19 Is there a name of the company that you work 20 at with that address? 21 A: There is a name, yes. 22 Q: What is that name? 23 A: Ehrenstein Sager. 24 Q: That's a law firm? 25 A: That is a law firm. Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 6 1 Q: All right. And you're an attorney at that 2 law firm, correct? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: All right. Ms. Johnson, if you need to be 5 served with a subpoena for a trial, what would be the 6 best number to have someone reach you at? 7 A: Telephone number? 8 Q: Yes, ma'am. 9 A: 305-794-2824 10 Q: And is that a cell phone number? 11 A: It is. 12 Q: Is that your cell phone number? 13 A: It is my cell phone number, yes. 14 Q: All right. Do you have an email address that 15 you could provide to me should someone need to get a 16 hold of you to communicate about service of a subpoena 17 or other court document? 18 A: Sure. Latasha@EhrensteinSager.com 19 Q: That's your work email address? 20 A: It is. 21 Q: All right. Ms. Johnson, my name is Ethan 22 Loeb. I don't believe we've met before today, have we, 23 ma'am? 24 A: Not to my recollection. 25 Q: Okay, not to mine either. Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 7 1 The reason we've asked you to sit here today 2 and give us some testimony as your name shows up on a 3 couple of documents in connection with the lawsuit 4 that's presently pending in St. Lucie County Circuit 5 Court. And also, because you've been identified in 6 some answers to interrogatories as -- as someone who 7 might have discoverable information. 8 Have you ever given a deposition before, 9 ma'am? 10 A: No. 11 Q: Have you taken a deposition before? 12 A: Testimony in a deposition is what you're 13 asking me, right? 14 Q: Yes, ma'am. Have you ever given testimony 15 like you are today? 16 A: No, I have not. 17 Q: Have you ever taken a deposition? 18 A: Indeed, I have. 19 Q: All right. I've been where you are right now 20 in the past, and it's -- it's -- I think it's fun, but 21 it's definitely a different role than when you get to 22 ask the questions as opposed to giving the answers. 23 Given that you have taken depositions, you're 24 probably familiar with the kinds of introductory 25 comments that -- that lawyers give to witnesses. I'll Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 8 1 try to make mine briefer than I would otherwise give 2 someone, given your familiarity with the process and to 3 not waste your time. I'm going to do my level best to 4 get you in and out of here as quickly as I can, given 5 the level of information that you do have, also being 6 respectful that I think you've got another commitment 7 sometime early afternoon. So, we're gonna get you done 8 with. 9 Throughout the course of -- of this session, 10 I'm going to try to make my questions as clear as I 11 possibly can. Not trying to trick you, not trying to 12 set you up or deceive you in any way, shape, or form. 13 I just want to find out what you know and what you 14 don't know. 15 If you could do me a favor, though, and if 16 there's a question that I asked of you that you do not 17 understand, will you please ask me to clarify so that 18 you and I can get on the same page? 19 A: Sure. 20 Q: Okay. All right. 21 If you need a break, happy to accommodate you 22 as long as there's no question pending. Get through 23 that and let you take a break, you know, need to 24 stretch your legs, get some sugar in your blood if you 25 need to, whatever's necessary, you just let me know. Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 9 1 It is not designed to be a test of wills, at least from 2 my perspective. 3 So now, with that being said, do you have any 4 questions for me before we get started? 5 A: I don't. 6 Q: All right. I'd like to touch very briefly in 7 terms of your background before we get into kind of the 8 substance of your testimony as it pertains to this 9 case. 10 Where did you go to undergraduate school, 11 ma'am? 12 A: The University of Houston. 13 Q: All right. When did you graduate? 14 A: 1999. 15 Q: You go to law school after that? 16 A: I did. 17 Q: Where did you go to law school? 18 A: Loyola University in New Orleans. 19 Q: Good school. When did you graduate? 20 A: 2005. 21 Q: Okay. And after you graduated from Loyola, 22 did you enter the workforce as a practicing attorney? 23 A: I did. 24 Q: And are you -- where are you licensed to 25 practice law? Olender Legal Soltuions (866) 420-4020 A Boutique Litigation Support Firm Schedule@OlenderReporting.com Latasha Johnson, Esquire Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Florida DOT 9/22/2023 Page 10 1 A: I am licensed in New York and in Florida. 2 Q: How long have you been licensed in Florida? 3 A: I don't remember the date of admission. 4 Q: All right. Generally, year wise, was it 5 right after you graduated from Loyola? 6 A: No, it was not. It would have been sometime 7 between 2009 and 2010. 8 Q: Okay. If you could give me just the 9 high-level points in an abbreviated narrative form kind 10 of, your work history from the time that you got out of 11 Loyola up until where you are today, working a