Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions of Ron Wolfe Fdlg

8/8/2019 Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions of Ron Wolfe Fdlg

1/63

ICE LEGAL , P.A.1015 N. STATE RD. 7, SUITE D, ROYAL PALM BEACH , FL 33411 TELEPHONE (561) 729-0530 FACSIMILE (866) 507-9888

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CITIBANK, NA AS INDENTURE TRUSTEEFOR BSARM 2007-2,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GENERAL JURISDICTIONDIVISION

CASE NO.50 2008 CA 030498XXXX MB

Division: AWJOSEPH J BARBARO A/K/A JOSEPHBARBARO; THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OFJOSEPH J BARBARO A/K/A JOSEPHBARBARO; MAUREEN RUSSELL A/K/AMAUREEN A RUSSELL; THE UNKNOWNSPOUSE OF MAUREEN RUSSELL A/K/A

MAUREEN A RUSSELL ANY AND ALLUNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY,THROUGH, UNDER, AND AGAINST THEHEREIN NAMED INDIVIDUALDEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOT KNOWNTO BE DEAD OR ALIVE, WHETHER SAIDUNKNOWN PARTIES MAY CLAIM ANINTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS,DEVISEES, GRANTEES, OR OTHERCLAIMANTS; BANK OF AMERICA;CHASE BANK USA, NATIONALASSOCIATION; TENANT #1, TENANT #2,TENANT #3, TENANT #4, TENANT #5,TENANT #6, TENANT #7, and TENANT #8the names being fictitious to account for partiesin possession,

Defendants.___________________________________/

Defendants, JOSEPH J. BARBARO and MAUREEN RUSSELL, move the Court,

pursuant to Rule 1.380(a) Fla. R. Civ. P., for an order compelling RONALD WOLFE

(WOLFE), a non-party witness, to answer deposition questions which he refused to answer

despite the absence of any privilege. Defendants also request an instruction that WOLFEs

counsel refrain from making speaking objections during the deposition. Additionally,

DEFENDANTS, JOSEPH J.BARBARO AND MAUREEN

RUSSELLS, MOTION TO

COMPEL ANSWERS TODEPOSITION QUESTIONS


2/63

CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 030498XXXX MB

2ICE LEGAL , P.A.

1015 N. STATE RD. 7, SUITE D, ROYAL PALM BEACH , FL 33411 TELEPHONE (561) 729-0530 FACSIMILE (866) 507-9888

Defendants request an award of attorneys fees and costs for having to bring this motion (and

reconvene in Tampa) and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. In support of this

motion, Defendants state as follows:

I. Introduction

This is a foreclosure action in which Plaintiff, CITIBANK, NA AS INDENTURE

TRUSTEE FOR BSARM 2007-2, (CITIBANK), seeks to take the real property of the

Defendants, JOSEPH J. BARBARO and MAUREEN RUSSELL, in satisfaction of a debt.

A. The assignment of mortgage was executed by Plaintiff counsels managingpartner, WOLFE.

This case was filed by Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (FDLG) on behalf of

CITIBANK alleging that CITIBANK is now the holder of a promissory note granted to WELLS

FARGO BANK, N.A. (WELLS FARGO) and/or is entitled to enforce the Mortgage Note and

Mortgage. While CITIBANK originally argued that no assignment of mortgage was necessary

to foreclose, 1 it later filed an assignment of mortgage which had been executed and recorded

after the case was filed (but well before it told this Court that an assignment was not needed). 2

The Assignment purported to transfer both the mortgage and note from the original

lender WELLS FARGO to CITIBANK and was executed by its self-described attorney-in-fact,

WOLFE. WOLFE is the managing partner and attorney supervisor of the law firm representing

CITIBANK in this action, FDLG, and was at the time that he executed the assignment of

mortgage to his firms own client.

3

1 Plaintiffs Response to Defendant Maureen Russells Motion to Dismiss, 6.2 Notice of Filing Original Note and Assignment of Mortgage, January 30, 2009.3 Deposition of Ronald Wolfe taken August 26, 2010 (Wolfe Depo., Exhibit A), pp. 5-6;Deposition of RONALD RICHARD WOLFE in Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Seigman , Case No.16-2008-CA-9724 (Duval County) taken January 27, 2010, p. 21 (excerpts at Exhibit D).


3/63


3ICE LEGAL , P.A.


B. WOLFE also strategized with independent witnesses as to how to respondto deposition requests from Defendants and other homeowners.

CITIBANK also filed an affidavit of an alleged expert on the reasonableness of the

attorneys fees requested, Lisa Cullaro (the Cullaro affidavit). The affidavit was notarized by

her sister-in-law and former FDLG employee, Erin Cullaro, who, according to newspaper

reports, is currently under investigation by her own current employer, the Florida Attorney

General, in connection with her notarization of such affidavits. 4

When defense counsel attempted to depose the Cullaros regarding their signatures on the

affidavit, FDLG withdrew the affidavit.

5 Both CITIBANK (through FDLG) and the Cullaros

(through their own attorney) filed motions for protective order to avoid the depositions on the

grounds that the affidavit had been withdrawn. 6

Before arriving at this tactic of withdrawing the affidavits in this and other cases in which

defense counsel sought the Cullaros depositions, the Cullaros conferred with FDLG attorneys

including WOLFEas to how to avoid the depositions and whether FDLG would shoulder the

burden of opposing them. In an email to FDLG (and WOLFE), Lisa Cullaro stated that she had

no intention of filing her own motion for protective order and that she understood it would be

FDLG which would aggressively defend against the depositions:

I have never indicated that I would, nor do I intend to, either: (1) directly handleany discovery matters in any FDLG case with opposing counsel, or (2) file anymotion for protective order either on behalf of myself or Erin. To the contrary,

4 State AG investigates its own . Shannon Behnken and Michael Sasso, Tampa Tribune, May 1,2010, http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may/01/bz-state-ag-investigates-its-own/.5 Defendants Notice of Deposition of Lisa Cullaro, dated December 17, 2009; DefendantsNotice of Deposition of Erin Cullaro, dated December 17, 2009; Notice of Withdrawal of Affidavit as to Reasonable Attorneys Fees, January 8, 2010.6 Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order, January 8, 2010; the Cullaro Motion for Protective,January 19. 2010, in which the Cullaros are represented by FDLGs current expert on thereasonableness of attorneys fees, John Cullaro.


4/63


4ICE LEGAL , P.A.


and as Ron [WOLFE] and discussed last week, it was my understanding thatFDLG wished to aggressively defend the taking of Erin's deposition as a notary,as well as my request to be paid as an expert witness.

[I]t was my impression that FDLG was not going to permit this type of patentlyabusive discovery. To this end, Ron informed me that any fees associated with thedefense of such discovery motions would ultimately be paid by the defendant andas such, i t was his desire to pursue an aggressive course of action on these typesof issues. 7

Lisa Cullaro went on to specifically address WOLFE in the email, asking him to make a

final decision on this issue so we may present a cohesive front, not only in this case, but with

respect to any future matters.

8 Notably, shortly after this email conversation between FDLG

and these witnesses, FDLG claimed that it represented the Cullaros, but quickly disavowed such

representation when it was pointed out that such representation would be a conflict of interest. 9

C. WOLFE is also an investor, owner, and manager of the title company whosefees are at issue in this litigation.

CITIBANK seeks to recover the fees for a title search conducted by New House Title,

L.L.C., a company owned by FDLG 10 or more specifically, by the partners that own FDLG. 11

RON WOLFE has described himself as an investor in New House Title and as the one who

ultimately addresses management issues. 12

7 Email from Lisa Cullaro to Cindy Runyan of FDLG (cc: Erin Cullaro and RON WOLFE)September 16, 2009 (Exhibit B).8 Id .9 Emails dated November 13, 2009 through November 17, 2009 in The Bank of New York Mellon

Trust Co. NA v. Sanchez , Case No. 50 2008 CA 027182XXXX MB (Palm Beach County)(Exhibit C).10 Affidavit of Plaintiff's Counsel as to Attorney's Fees and Costs, February 9, 2009, 7.11 Deposition of RONALD RICHARD WOLFE in Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Seigman , Case No.16-2008-CA-9724 (Duval County) taken January 27, 2010, pp. 24-25, 111 (excerpts at ExhibitD).12 Id . at 24.


5/63


5ICE LEGAL , P.A.


D. WOLFEs job responsibility includes ensuring that FDLG policies andprocedures are followed.

As the managing partner of FDLG, WOLFE has the responsibility, among others, to

ensure that the policies and procedures of the firm areare reviewed, intact and followed. 13

Document

Once such practice is the certification by attorneys that documents are mailed by U.S. mail days

before they are actually delivered to the United States Postal Service. The following table

summarizes only some of the documents filed in this case in which the certificates are false:

Certified By AnFLDG AttorneyAs Having Been

Mailed:

Actual Mail DateAccording to Date

Stamp on

Envelope

Time Lag

Affidavit of Improper Service December 24, 2008 December 29, 2008 Five days

Discovery propounded on Defendants(See , email exchange Exhibit E)

June 5, 2009 June 9, 2009 Four days

Notice of Mediation Conference. January 16, 2009 January 19, 2009 Three days

Notice of Filing Affidavit of Amounts Due and Owing

February 11, 2009 February 13, 2009 Two days

Plaintiffs Response to Maureen

Russells Motion to Dismiss

January 7, 2009 January 8, 2009 One day

Notice of Filing of Affidavit of Reasonable Attorney Fees andAffidavit of Plaintiffs Counsel as toAttorneys Fees and Costs.

February 9, 2009 February 10, 2009 One day

Notice That Plaintiff Has RespondedTo Defendant, Joseph J BarbaroA/K/A Joseph Barbaro, DiscoveryRequest

March 4, 2009 March 5, 2009 One day

A letter from a FDLG attorney 14

13 Wolfe depo., p. 6.

concedes that FLDG does not deliver its motions and

pleadings to the U.S. Postal Service on the day certified by FDLG lawyers. Rather, the certified

14 Letter to defense counsel re: Mail Issues dated March 17, 2009 (Exhibit F).


6/63


6ICE LEGAL , P.A.


date is the day FDLG delivers its mail to a third party mail service provider for pre-sorting and

bar-coding before it is delivered to the U.S. Postal Service. As the FDLG partner responsible for

the adherence to FDLG procedures, WOLFE would be able to provide information on this

subject.

Additionally, WOLFE would be able to verify facts about the fees CITIBANK seeks to

recover from Defendants in this case. An example of such fees are those of the process server,

the only evidence of which is an affidavit filed by an FDLG attorney without any supporting

invoice. 15 Cross-examination regarding fees proven only through affidavits of FDLG attorneys

(such as service of process and title search fees) has never been more important, given that theAttorney Generals Office is currently investigating FDLG because the firm appears to be

fabricating and/or presenting false and misleading documents in foreclosure cases. 16

II. WOLFEs Testimony is Highly Relevant to this Case.

As shown above, WOLFEs testimony is directly relevant to a number of issues in the

case:

His authority to execute an assignment of mortgage on behalf of WELLS FARGO;

The underlying facts represented in the assignment he executedi.e. whether atransfer of the debt from WELLS FARGO to CITIBANK actually occurred;

The transfer of the note, given that, at the time he executed the assignment,CITIBANK had represented to the Court that the subject promissory note could notbe found, even after due and diligent search.

15 Affidavit of Plaintiff's Counsel as to Attorney's Fees and Costs, February 9, 2009, 6.16 Case L10-3-1095, Active Public Consumer-Related Investigation;http://myfloridalegal.com/__85256309005085AB.nsf/0/A4F1B85DCC5D5ACD852577130045B63F


7/63


7ICE LEGAL , P.A.


Whether FDLG is providing legal services for its own fee expert, Lisa Cullaro, andthe notary on the expert affidavits, Erin Cullaro. (Such services would be undisclosedcompensation to these witnesses for their testimony.)

The details of his conversations with these witnesses regarding their joint plans and

agreements for blocking their depositions. (Relevant to credibility of the witnessesand the defense of unclean hands.)

Actual fees for title searches performed by New House Title, LLC, in which WOLFEhas an interest. (No receipts or other evidence has been produced of actual feescharged.)

Policies and procedures of FDLG regarding the practice of certifying pleadings andmotions as having been served by U.S. Mail days before they are actually delivered tothe U.S. Postal Service.

The identity of the process server normally used by FDLG and the actual fees paid forservice of process.

III. WOLFE Refused to Answer Relevant, Non-Privileged Questions at His Deposition.

Upon his agreement to appear for deposition without subpoena, Defendants noticed the

deposition of WOLFE. The notice specified that he was being asked to appear as Attorney in

Fact for Wells Fargo and Individual Capacity. 17

On instructions from Ms. Hill, WOLFE refused to answer a number of questions relevant

to the issues listed above, foreclosing entire lines of questioning in these areas. Not one of these

objections was based on a privilege. The following table lists the nineteen questions that

WOLFE refused to answer based on instructions from counsel. In one instance, (marked with an

arrow below), WOLFE even refused to answer whether he had any personal knowledge of a fact

in issue:

WOLFE brought his own attorney to the

deposition, Suzanne Barto Hill from Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A.

17 Notice of Deposition dated June 9, 2010.


8/63


8ICE LEGAL , P.A.


QUESTION OBJECTION

Q. Do -- to your knowledge, did the retaineragreements between Florida Default LawGroup and their attorneys [differ] from one

client to another? (p. 77)

Not within the scope of his testimonynotnoticed as a representative of FDLG. (p. 77);relevance and lack of foundation. (p. 78).

Instruction not to answer. (p. 79)Q. Are you aware whether affidavits signedby Lisa and Erin Cullaro have been withdrawnin any cases? (p. 83)

Object to the form. Beyond the scope of thedeposition because witness was not noticed asa corporate representative. (p. 84) Instructionnot to answer. (p. 84)

Q. Did you ever discuss having theirdepositions taken with either Lisa or ErinCullaro? (p. 84)

Same objection. Same instruction. (p. 84)

Q. Did you ever instruct Lisa Cullaro or

Erin Cullaro that Florida Default Law Groupwould aggressively defend having theirdepositions taken in this case or any othercases? (p. 85)


Q. Do you have personal knowledge as tohow Lisa Cullaro would be paid as an expertfor executing these affidavits? (pp. 96-97)

Thats a question that needs to be directed toan appropriate representative of FloridaDefault Law Group pursuant to an appropriatenotice. (p. 97)

Q. In regards to Erin Cullaro, do you haveany personal knowledge as to how -- or

whether she was paid to notarize the Affidavitsof Reasonable Attorney's Fees? (p. 97)


Q. Okay. And what are your firm policiesregarding affidavits filed or regardingattachment of documents to affidavits of --filed in support of summary judgment? (p. 98)

That is a question that should be directed to anappropriately-noticed corporate representativedeposition. Instruct the witness not to answer.(p. 98)

Q. Do you have personal knowledgeregarding the firm's policy on those types of records being attached? (p. 99)

[Witness] A. Again, do I have knowledge onthat? Sure. Am I prepared to discuss thatwith you today, absolutely not. And based onthe advice that I've been provided by mylawyer, which has been stated on the recordseveral times, I'm not going to answer. (p. 99)


9/63


9ICE LEGAL , P.A.


QUESTION OBJECTION

[When asked to compare signatures on LisaCullaros notary application with her signatureon the affidavit]

Q. Would you agree that the signatureslook different from the affidavit to the notaryapplication? [objection]

Q. Simply to a layman [objection]

Q. -- would you agree that they look different? (pp. 104-05)

Same objection. Same instruction. Witnessnot an expert on signatures. (pp. 104-05)

Q. Okay. And moving to Erin Cullaro'sapplication, would you agree that thosesignatures look different? (p. 105)


Q. Are you aware of any policies orprocedures regarding how the mail is handledat Florida Default Law Group? (p. 105)


MR. IMMEL [defense counsel]: are youinstructing the witness not to answer based onany sort of privilege or --MS. HILL: It's the same objection that I haveasserted over and over again.MR. IMMEL: Based on relevancy and scope

then essentially?MS. HILL: And I think constitutes

harassment. (p. 106)Q. who in 2008 were you using as serviceof process? (p. 106)

Q. Were you using Provest as a servicingcompany -- or process server in 2008? (p. 107)

Q. Are you personally aware in yourexperience as either an associate, managingattorney or partner of how Florida Default --what type of what service company FloridaDefault utilized? (p. 107)

Same objection. Same instruction. (pp. 106,107)

Q. Well, so you don't have any personalknowledge as to who was being used byFlorida Default Law Group for service of process in 2008? (p. 112)

Mischaracterizes the testimony. Assumes factsnot in evidence. Same objection based onprior objection. Same instruction. (p. 112)


10/63


10ICE LEGAL , P.A.


QUESTION OBJECTION

Q. are you more familiar of any recentchanges as to requirements in filing motions --or Affidavits as to Amounts Due and Owing,

what is to be attached to them during May of 2010? (p. 114)


Q. When the affiant says that they'veexamined all books, records and documents,does Florida Default Law Group have a policyof requiring the affiant to attach or produce thebooks, records and documents that theyexamined? (pp. 115-116)


Q. Okay. Recently, the Attorney General'sOffice has opened an investigation of some of

the practices regarding the firm. Have youindividually been as one of the managingpartner -- as the managing partner been one of the people dealing with the Attorney General'soffice in response or is that another attorneywith the firm? (p. 116)

This is not a deposition that is being conductedwith respect to any investigation conducted by

any agency. You are not a representative of any agency conducting any sort of aninvestigation. This question goes far beyondthe scope of this case in which this depositionwas noticed. Clearly gone into an area thatconstitutes pure harassment. Instruct witnessnot to answer. (p. 116)

Q. Okay. Since the investigation, have anypolicies, procedures been looked at or

changed in any manner by Florida Default LawGroup? (p. 117)

Same totality of objections. Same instructions.(p. 117)

IV. Black Letter Law Forbids the Instruction Not to Answer a Deposition Question,Except on the Basis of Privilege.

Rule 1.310(c) Fla. R. Civ. P. mandates that a witness must testify in response to questions

that do not seek information that is privileged or already prohibited by a court order:

A party may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a

privilege, to enforce a limitation on evidence directed by the court, or to present amotion under subdivision (d). Otherwise, evidence objected to shall be takensubject to the objections.

Here, no privilege would apply to any of the questions and, not surprisingly, not a single

objection to the above questions was based on a claim of privilege. Neither WOLFE nor


11/63


11ICE LEGAL , P.A.


CITIBANK sought a protective order to limit WOLFEs testimony prior to the depositionnor

would any such limitation have been available since the areas of inquiry were all relevant to the

subject matter of this action. Rule 1.280(b)(1) Fla. R. Civ. P.

The Fourth District has vehemently condemned the practice of instructing witnesses not

to answer deposition questions, a tactic it considers to be a breach of the standards of

professionalism:

[The witness] indeed should have answered, and the arrogance of the defenseattorney in instructing the witness not to answer is without legal justification.Nowhere in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is there a provision that statesthat an attorney may instruct a witness not to answer a question

Smith v. Gardy , 569 So.2d 504, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The court went on to denounce this

tactic as selective adherence to the rules of civil procedure by the trial bar, that sadly, shows

that the level of professionalism is not where it should be. Id . As a veteran attorney from a

well-respected firm, WOLFEs counsel surely knew that the instructions violated the Rules of

Civil Procedure. But like the attorney in Smith v. Gardy , WOLFEs counsel took a calculated

riskthat the rules could be violated with impunity. Id . See also State v. Pelliccio , 388 So.2d

19, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (witness on deposition may not pick and choose with immunity

what questions he wishes to answer, absent any recognized privilege.). WOLFEs refusal to

answer based on his attorneys instruction is even more egregious since he is also a member of

the Florida Bar and the supervisor of an army of civil litigation attorneys; it may be presumed

that he has a passing familiarity with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

WOLFEs primary objection throughout the depositionthat the questions were beyond

the scope of the notice for depositionis without merit. Specifically, WOLFE claimed that the

deposition notice somehow limited the questions that could be posed to the witness. For

example, according to WOLFE, even though he may have personal knowledge related to a


12/63


12ICE LEGAL , P.A.


undocumented fee on an affidavit of an FDLG attorney, he could refuse to testify on the subject

because he had not been noticed as a corporate representative of FDLG. Indeed, according to

WOLFE, he may refuse to reveal whether he even has personal knowledge on a subject.

WOLFE would have this Court believe that, to answer these questions, Defendants would

have to separately notice him as a corporate representative of various non-parties, such as FDLG

and New House, LLC. There is no rule or case law, however, to support the notion that a

witness noticed individually for deposition may evade questions within his personal knowledge

solely based on the deposition notice.

Even if he had been noticed as a corporate representative, Defendants would not belimited by the topics listed in the deposition notice. See King v. Pratt & Whitney, a Div. of

United Technologies Corp ., 161 F.R.D. 475, 476 (S.D. Fla. 1995) aff'd sub nom. King v. Pratt &

Whitney , 213 F.3d 646 (11th Cir. 2000) and aff'd sub nom. King v. Pratt & Whitney , 213 F.3d

647 (11th Cir. 2000) (If the examining party asks questions outside the scope of the matters

described in the [30(b)(6)] notice, the general deposition rules govern so that relevant

questions may be asked and no special protection is conferred on a deponent by virtue of the fact

that the deposition was noticed under 30(b)(6).); New World Network Ltd. v. M/V NORWEGIAN

SEA, 05-22916 CIV, 2007 WL 1068124 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (This procedure of course does not

mean that a party can simply instruct a witness not to answer questions that the party's lawyer

unilaterally deems irrelevant. The Court's Local Rules squarely preclude this tactic that was

mastered by deposition bullies masquerading as members of the bar.) 18

18 Florida courts look to the federal rules and decisions for guidance in interpreting Florida's civilprocedure rules. Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos , 602 So.2d 1282, 1283-84 (Fla. 1992).


13/63


13ICE LEGAL , P.A.


Accordingly, Rule 1.310(b)(6) (designation of corporate representative) is one of

specification, not limitation. More importantly, the Defendants are deposing WOLFE as an

individual, not as a corporate representativeby definition, there is no designation of topics.

The only limitation on the scope of a deposition of an individual in this personal capacity is

relevance to the subject matter of the case. See Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray , 343

So.2d 61, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (The scope of [deposition] examination covers all matters not

privileged which are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. The examination is not

limited to what is relevant to the issues, nor is it limited to what would be admissible as evidence

at the trial.). And even a perceived lack of relevance cannot justify an instruction not to answer.

V. Defendants request that the Court instruct WOLFEs counsel to refrain fromspeaking objections.

The courts have described what occurred here (an attorney instructing a witness not to

answer relevant, non-privileged deposition questions) as arrogant, unprofessional, and the tactic

of deposition bullies. But the deposition transcript is also replete with examples of yet another

abusethe speaking objection. Here, WOLFEs counsel repeatedly argues her objections on the

record for pages at a time. 19 Indeed, as a result of these lengthy monologues, she speaks fifty

percent more words than her own client at the deposition. She also repeatedly threatens to get

the judge on the phone, 20

Rule 1.310(c) Fla. R. Civ. P. also provides that [a]ny objection during a deposition shall

be stated concisely and in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. When this language

even though such a procedure is not enumerated among those

provided by Rule.

19 See e.g., Wolfe depo., pp. 22-24, 53, 62, 66, 78-79, 81, 87-89, 101-103, 109-111.20 See e.g., Wolfe depo., pp. 23, 33, 34, 79, 108.


14/63


14ICE LEGAL , P.A.


was adopted into the federal version of the rule, the Advisory Committee explicitly stated that

the purpose was to address what it considered to be obstructive tactics:

Depositions frequently have been unduly prolonged, if not unfairly frustrated, by

lengthy objections and colloquy, often suggesting how the deponent shouldrespond.

Accordingly, Defendants request that, if the deposition is reconvened upon order of this

Court, that WOLFEs counsel be instructed to refrain from making speaking objections.

VI. Defendants are entitled to attorneys fees and costs.

Rule 1.380(a)(4) Fla. R. Civ. P. provides that, when a motion to compel is granted, the

court shall require the deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion (or counsel advising the

conduct) to pay the moving party the reasonable expenses and attorneys fees incurred in

obtaining the order. Costs for bringing this motion would include the court reporter fees for

preparing the transcript of WOLFEs aborted deposition.

Defendants submit that, in the spirit of this rule, they also be reimbursed for the costs and

fees for having to travel back to Tampa to obtain the answers to questions that the witness

wrongfully refused to answer.

WHEREFORE , Defendants ask the Court to grant its motion to compel WOLFE to

answer the questions posed and any questions related to those areas of inquiry and to instruct

WOLFEs counsel from making speaking objections. Defendants also request reimbursement for

costs and fees and associated with bringing this motions and travelling to Tampa to continue the

deposition.


15/63


15ICE LEGAL , P.A.


CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 1.380(d) FLA.R.CIV.P.

The movant, in good faith, has conferred, or attempted to confer, with the party failing to

answer or respond in an effort to obtain such answer or response without court action.

Dated: September 13, 2010.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by mail

this September 13, 2010 to all parties on the attached service list.

ICE LEGAL, P.A.Counsel for Defendants1015 N. State Rd. 7, Suite DRoyal Palm Beach, FL 33411Telephone: (561) 729-0530Facsimile: (866) 507-9888

By:

THOMAS E. ICEFlorida Bar No. 0521655

ICE LEGAL, P.A.Counsel for Defendants1015 N. State Rd. 7, Suite DRoyal Palm Beach, FL 33411Telephone: (561) 729-0530Facsimile: (866) 507-9888

By:

THOMAS E. ICEFlorida Bar No. 0521655


16/63


16ICE LEGAL , P.A.


SERVICE LIST

Joseph Mancilla, Esq.FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L.

9119 Corporate Lake Dr., Suite 300Tampa, FL 33634(305) 662-4110Plaintiffs counsel

Suzanne Barto Hill, Esq.RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A.

100 North Tampa, Suite 2000Tampa, FL 33601Counsel for Wolfe

Florencia Engle2901 Stirling Road, Suite 300Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312Counsel for Bank of America


17/63


17ICE LEGAL , P.A.


Exhibit A


18/63


18ICE LEGAL , P.A.



19/63


19ICE LEGAL , P.A.



20/63


20ICE LEGAL , P.A.



21/63


21ICE LEGAL , P.A.



22/63


22ICE LEGAL , P.A.



23/63


23ICE LEGAL , P.A.



24/63


24ICE LEGAL , P.A.



25/63


25ICE LEGAL , P.A.



26/63


26ICE LEGAL , P.A.



27/63


28/63


28ICE LEGAL , P.A.



29/63


29ICE LEGAL , P.A.



30/63


30ICE LEGAL , P.A.



31/63


31ICE LEGAL , P.A.



32/63


32ICE LEGAL , P.A.



33/63


33ICE LEGAL , P.A.



34/63


34ICE LEGAL , P.A.



35/63


35ICE LEGAL , P.A.



36/63


36ICE LEGAL , P.A.



37/63


37ICE LEGAL , P.A.



38/63


38ICE LEGAL , P.A.



39/63


39ICE LEGAL , P.A.



40/63


40ICE LEGAL , P.A.



41/63


41ICE LEGAL , P.A.



42/63


43/63


43ICE LEGAL , P.A.



44/63


44ICE LEGAL , P.A.



45/63


45ICE LEGAL , P.A.



46/63


46ICE LEGAL , P.A.



47/63


47ICE LEGAL , P.A.



48/63


48ICE LEGAL , P.A.



49/63


49ICE LEGAL , P.A.


Exhibit B


50/63


50ICE LEGAL , P.A.



51/63


51ICE LEGAL , P.A.



52/63


52ICE LEGAL , P.A.



53/63


53ICE LEGAL , P.A.



54/63


54ICE LEGAL , P.A.


Exhibit C


55/63


55ICE LEGAL , P.A.



56/63


56ICE LEGAL , P.A.



57/63


57ICE LEGAL , P.A.


Exhibit D


58/63


58ICE LEGAL , P.A.



59/63


59ICE LEGAL , P.A.



60/63


60ICE LEGAL , P.A.



61/63


61ICE LEGAL , P.A.



62/63


62ICE LEGAL , P.A.


Exhibit E


63/63

Documents

Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions of Ron Wolfe Fdlg