Svistina v. Elbadramany et al

Filing 216

ORDER GRANTING 214 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 1/17/2023. See attached document for full details. (caw)

Case 1:22-cv-20525-BB Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 22-cv-20525-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
ELENA SVISTINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK FADEL ELBADRAMANY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Mark Elbadramany’s Motion for
Clarification, ECF No. [214] (“Motion”), filed on January 13, 2023. Therein, Elbadramany seeks
clarification on the effect of a statement within the Court’s Order on Motion to Dismiss
Counterclaims, ECF No. [202] (“Order”). In that Order, the Court stated:
The Court agrees with Svistina that her immigration status and Russian citizenship
have no apparent relation to this case, and the Counterclaims’ repeated references
to those facts could only cause undue prejudice.
ECF No. [202] at 15. Accordingly, the Court ordered Elbadramany to omit references to
the parties’ citizenship outside of the “Parties” section of Elbadramany’s Counterclaims.
Id. at 16.
According to the Motion, the Court’s statement regarding Svistina’s citizenship and
immigration status has caused confusion among the parties. Elbadramany asserts that
Svistina is attempting to use the Court’s statement to “bar all discovery touching upon Ms.
Svistina’s immigration status.” ECF No. [214] at 2.
Due to this apparent confusion, the Court finds that clarification is necessary to

Case 1:22-cv-20525-BB Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2023 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-20525-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
explain the scope of the Court’s ruling. The Court’s Order was not intended to preclude
discovery on the issues of Svistina’s citizenship and immigration status. In the Order, the
Court was not making an evidentiary ruling, not was the Court overruling the Magistrate
Judge’s discovery order regarding Svistina’s immigration status. See ECF No. [201] at 2.
The Court was solely addressing Svistina’s request to strike references to her citizenship
and immigration status within Elbadramany’s Counterclaims. In finding that Svistina’s
immigration status had no apparent relation to those Counterclaims, the Court did not
decide that such information was undiscoverable. See, e.g., Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (noting that relevancy in the discovery context is
“construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to
other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.”). In sum, the
Court’s statement within the Order is not a valid basis for Svistina to object to discovery
requests regarding her immigration status.
Accordingly, Elbadramany’s Motion for Clarification, ECF No. [214], is
GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 17, 2023.

_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Counsel of Record

2