Parekh v. CBS Corporation et al

Filing 58

ORDER granting 46 Motion to Compel execution of FBI form. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 10/19/2018. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
NIKLESH PAREKH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:18-cv-466-Orl-40TBS

CBS CORPORATION and BRIAN
CONYBEARE,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to
Compel FBI Authorization, or in the Alternative, Order of Preclusion (Doc. 46). Plaintiff
opposes the motion (Doc. 47).
Background

Pro se Plaintiff, Niklesh Parekh is suing Defendants, CBS Corporation d/b/a CBS
News and reporter Brian Conybeare for negligence, defamation, and libel (Doc. 1). His
claims stem from a news report that was televised and published online and in print,
concerning a cancer scam perpetrated by Plaintiff’s then girlfriend, Vediutie Hoobraj a/k/a
Shavonie Deokaran (“Hoobraj”) (Id., ¶¶ 3, 10). Hoobraj lied about having Leukemia to
obtain donations from her local community. Plaintiff states that he was one of Hoobraj’s
unwitting victims and notified local authorities and the media once he learned the truth of
her scheme (Id., ¶11). He claims that even though he reached out to the media,
Defendants publicly portrayed him as a co-conspirator in the scam thereby ruining his
reputation (Id., ¶¶ 5, 12, 16-17). Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendants “posted
Plaintiff’s pictures with the perpetrator and went to the extent of photo-shopping pictures

to falsely, on purpose, maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth and to give the
public the wrong impression about Plaintiff.” (Id., ¶ 5). Plaintiff claims Defendants said he
“suddenly moved to Florida because of suspicion within the community” once it was
confirmed that Hoobraj’s treating physician did not exist (Id., ¶¶ 12, 45). Plaintiff also
alleges that Defendants “false[ly] assert[ed] that [he] provided false information to local
and federal authorities including Defendant” (Id., ¶ 30). Plaintiff claims that Defendants
reported a version of the story that implicated him in the criminal scheme even though he
cooperated with the FBI and provided evidence that exculpated him. He filed this lawsuit
on March 28, 2018, claiming that Defendants “failed to exercise reasonable care in their
investigation” and “knew, or should have known, the falsity of such statements before
they were published in CBS TV News for the world to see.” (Id., ¶¶ 15, 17, 22, 25-26, 31,
34-35). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions harmed his reputation, trade/business,
as well as causing him “embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional injury” (Id., ¶¶ 35-36,
40, 47). On August 1, 2018, the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling
Order which established a November 21, 2018 deadline for the completion of all
discovery (Doc. 35 at 1).
Discussion
“The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the
disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in
any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and
therefore embody a fair and just result.” Oliver v. City of Orlando, No. 6:06-cv1671-Orl31DAB, 2007 WL 3232227, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007) (citing United States
v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958)). Discovery is intended to operate
with minimal judicial supervision unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a

-2-

motion requiring judicial intervention. S.L. Sakansky & Assoc., Inc. v. Allied Am. Adjusting
Co. of Florida, LLC, No. 3:05-cv-708-J-32MCR, 2007 WL 2010860, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 6,
2007).
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “A party should tailor
discovery requests to the needs of each case. The content of the requests should apply
to the particular case, and the form of discovery requested should be the one best suited
to obtain the information sought. In each case a party should carefully determine which
discovery methods will achieve the discovery goal of obtaining useful information as
efficiently and inexpensively as possible …” Middle District of Discovery (2015) at 4-5.
The Court expects that all parties will cooperate in discovery and will appropriately
respond to discovery requests. Kalzip, Inc. v. TL Hill Construction, LLC, Case No. 8:11cv-1842-T-27TBM, 2013 WL 12159343, *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2013); Signature
Pharmacy, Inc. v. Soares, No. 6:08-cv-1853-Orl-31TBS, 2012 WL 4815726, at *3 (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 10, 2012); In re Seroquel Products Liab. Litig., 2044 F.R.D. 650, 656 (M.D. Fla.
2007). When a party fails to cooperate in discovery, the requesting party can move for an
order to compel the discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv).
On September 17, 2018, Defendants asked Plaintiff to complete and sign a
Department of Justice Form DOJ-361 so that they can obtain records currenty within the
custody of the federal government:

-3-

Attached please find a Department of Justice Form DOJ-361
for your completion and execution. As you know, your
Complaint in the above-referenced action concerns the
solicitation of funds by Vedoutie Hoobraj a/k/a Shivonie
Deokaran (“Deokaran”) under the false pretenses of being a
terminally ill cancer patient. As a result, you have directly
placed in issue information maintained by the U.S.
Government, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Office of the United States Attorneys, and related agencies
concerning the fraud. We will be requesting records from
these government entities in relation to you and Deokaran.
Please complete and execute the attached form to facilitate
our request for records from the federal government.
(Doc. 46-1 at 1). Defendants’ document requests include:
[A]ll documents relating to an investigation, or request for an
investigation, regarding wire fraud and/or allegations of
fraudulent cancer fundraisers and solicitations by Vedoutie
Hoobraj a/k/a Shivonie Deokaran, including but not limited to
all communication with, investigation of, and sword statements
by Niklesh Parekh, reports, investigative files, interviews,
witness statements, photographs, and videos.
(Doc. 46 at 3-4). Defendants asked that the completed form be returned by September
21, 2018 (Doc. 46-1 at 1).
Where confidential information is relevant for discovery purposes, a court has
authority to direct a party to provide a signed records release. Zaffis v. City of Altamonte
Springs, Case No. 6:06-cv-385-Orl-31DAB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13267 (M.D. Fla. Feb.
27, 2007); Milsap v. Cornerstone Residential Mgmt., Case No. 05-60033-CIVMARRA/SELTZER, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102327 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2006); Morris v.
Arizona Bev. Co., LLC, No. 03-60907-CIV, 2004 WL 5333299, at * 1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14.
2004) (“Plaintiff shall provide the executed unemployment compensation records release
form to the Defendant within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order”).
By the averments in his complaint, Plaintiff has put into issue the statements he
made to the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office, his level of cooperation with authorities, and

-4-

his claimed lack of culpability (Doc. 1). The evidence Defendants seek goes to the heart
of these issues and is necessary for the preparation of their defense. Thus, it is relevant
and discoverable and Plaintiff has not presented good cause to shield it from disclosure.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel (Doc. 46) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff has until October 31, 2018 to complete and execute the form
attached to the motion as Exhibit A, page 2, and return it to Defendants’ counsel for
presentation to the relevant federal agencies.
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A), Defendants are AWARDED their
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to bring the motion to compel. The parties shall
agree on the amount or, if they are unable to agree, Defendants shall have 14 days from
the rendition of this Order to file their motion for fees and costs and Plaintiff will be
allowed 14 days to respond.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 19, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

Pro se Plaintiff

-5-