Adelman et al v. Boy Scouts of America et al
Filing
273
MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief Regarding Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order as to Deposition of Carter Conrad, Jr. by Howard K. Crompton, Andrew L. Schmidt. (Levin, Drew)
66450-3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 10-CV-22236-ASG
Magistrate Judge: Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman
HOWARD ADELMAN and JUDITH SCLAWYADELMAN, as Co-Personal Representative of the
Estate of MICHAEL SCLAWY-ADELMAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, THE SOUTH
FLORIDA COUNCIL, INC.; BOY SCOUTS OF
AMERICA; PLANTATION UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH; HOWARD K.
CROMPTON, individually; and ANDREW L.
SCHMIDT, individually,
Defendants.
________________________/
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF
REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO DEPOSITION OF CARTER CONRAD, JR.
The Defendants, HOWARD K. CROMPTON and ANDREW L. SCHMIDT, by
and through the undersigned counsel, and in accordance with Magistrate Jonathan
Goodman’s Discovery Procedures and Order Taking Under Advisement Defendants’
Motion for Protective Order [DE 269], hereby requests leave of court to file a three (3)
page reply brief regarding Motion for Protective Order as to Deposition of Carter Conrad,
Jr., and as grounds in support thereof, state as follows:
1.
Plaintiffs’ counsel has lodged a personal attack on undersigned counsel’s
ethics by stating in the first line of Plaintiffs’ Response that the Motion for Protective
Order is “inaccurate and misleading”. These Defendants are in need of an opportunity to
CASE NO. 10-CV-22236-ASG
file a reply brief to address this and the following other new issues that were not
discussed in the Motion for Protective Order.
2.
The reply will address Plaintiffs’ representation that Mr. Conrad was
authorized by this Court to perform analysis of the data on Mr. Crompton’s cell phone in
order to answer Plaintiffs’ counsel’s question at the deposition.
3.
The reply will address Plaintiffs’ representation that the orders of this
Court protected the “substance of phone calls and text messages” on Mr. Crompton’s cell
phone, but not the identity of data from May 7, 2009 and prior.
4.
The reply will address Plaintiffs’ representation that “the essence of the
Court’s order” was “limiting the analysis into the substance of . . . Crompton’s phone
calls and/or text messages.” (Emphasis in original).
5.
The reply will address Plaintiffs’ misconception that undersigned counsel
asked similar questions (to the questions in dispute) during the course of the deposition.
6.
The reply will demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not accurately
characterize undersigned counsel’s position taken at the deposition and during the
conferral process, which has led to an inaccurate description of what actually occurred.
7.
The reply will address Plaintiffs’ request for fees and costs, which these
Defendants did not ask for as a result of the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel at the
deposition of Carter Conrad, Jr., as is fully described in the Motion for Protective Order.
8.
These Defendants request a (3) page limit for the reply, to be filed on or
before Friday, August 11, 2011.
CASE NO. 10-CV-22236-ASG
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, HOWARD K. CROMPTON and ANDREW L.
SCHMIDT, respectfully request that this Honorable Court permit a reply brief to
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order as to Deposition of
Carter Conrad, Jr.
L.R. 7.1 CERTIFICATION
During today’s afternoon telephone conference with Robert Peltz, Esquire, prior
to the filing of Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Protective Order, undersigned counsel
asked Mr. Peltz if he would be opposed to these Defendants applying for leave of court to
file a reply brief. Mr. Petz would not agree at that time, but undersigned counsel offered
to wait to read the Response brief, and if he felt a reply was necessary, he would call and
ask again. Immediately after receiving and reviewing Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
Motion for Protective Order [DE 271], undersigned counsel spoke to Robert Peltz,
Esquire, again, and asked him whether he would be opposed to undersigned counsel
requesting leave of court to file a two (2) page reply. Mr. Peltz stated he opposed
undersigned counsel’s application to this Court for permission to file a two (2) page reply
brief on behalf of Mr. Crompton and Mr. Schmidt.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 10, 2011, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the
foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the
attached Service List in the manner specified, via transmission of Notices of Electronic
Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or
parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
CASE NO. 10-CV-22236-ASG
WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY &
FORD, P.A.
Attorney for Howard K. Crompton and
Andrew L. Schmidt
2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Suite 800
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 448-3939
Fax: (305) 441-1745
By: /s/ Drew M. Levin_________
Frederick E. Hasty III
Florida Bar No. 260606
Drew M. Levin
Florida Bar No. 0048419
CASE NO. 10-CV-22236-ASG
Service List
Ira H. Leesfield, Esquire
Leesfield & Partners, P.A.
2350 South Dixie Highway
Miami, FL 33133
Robert D. Peltz, Esquire
Leesfield & Partners, P.A.
2350 South Dixie Highway
Miami, FL 33133
William S. Reese, Esquire
Lane, Reese, Summers, Ennis & Perdomo
Douglas Centre, Suite 304
2600 Douglas Road
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Greg M. Gaebe, Esquire
Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & DiMatteo
420 South Dixie Highway, 3rd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33146
William L. Summers, Esquire
Lane, Reese, Summers, Ennis & Perdomo
2600 Douglas Road, Suite 304
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Ubaldo J. Perez, Jr., Esquire
Law Office of Ubaldo J. Perez, Jr., P.A.
8181 N.W. 154 Street, Suite 210
Miami Lakes, FL 33016
Horace Clark, Esquire
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Regional Solicitor
Southeast Region
75 Spring Street, S.W., Suite 304
Atlanta, GA 30303
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?