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)

Download PDF
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?