No Value: FRANCIS, KYLE vs. SUPERSTORES INC, AMERICAN EAGLE

On July 05, 108 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between #1, Minor Child, #2, Minor Child, Francis, Allyson, Francis, Kyle, and American Eagle Superstores Inc, Sky King Fireworks Inc, Sky King Unlimited Inc, Superstores Inc, American Eagle, for PRODUCTS LIABILITY in the District Court of Martin County.

Preview
Filing # 140572485 E-Filed 12/17/2021 10:23:03 AM
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

KYLE FRANCIS, ALLYSON FRANCIS, CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830
MINOR CHILD #1 AND MINOR CHILD
#2,

Plaintiffs,

SKY KING FIREWORKS, INC.,
AMERICAN EAGLE SUPERSTORE INC
D/B/A BIG FIREWORKS and SKY KING
UNLIMITED, INC.,

Defendants.

DEFENDANT, SKY KING FIREWORKS, INC.’S, MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, FIRST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, AND EXPERT DISCOVERY
COMES NOW Defendants, SKY KING FIREWORKS, INC., by and through its

undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure hereby files this

Motion To Compel Better Responses To Defendant’s First Set Of Interrogatories, First

Request For Production, And Expert Discovery, and as grounds states as follows:
4
On September 17, 2018, Defendant, SKY KING FIREWORKS, INC., served

onto Plaintiff, KYLE FRANCIS, a First Set of Interrogatories and a First Request for

Production. Plaintiff's Answers to the Interrogatories, attached herein as “Exhibit
A,” as

well as Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Request for Production, attached herein
as “Exhibit B,” contain evasive and/or incomplete answers, as well as are prefaced with
boilplate objections not supported by applicable law. The following are among the issues
with Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Responses to
Defendant’s First Request for Production:
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

Boilerplate Objection:

Plaintiff begins both his Answer and Response by asserting a laundry list of nine (9)

boilerplate objections under the heading “General Objections.” Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.350(b) sets out, in pertinent part:

[T]he reasons for the objection shall be stated. If an objection
is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be
specified.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b) (emphasis added). Each objection, stated baldly and without

particulars, is patently without merit. Such “stonewalling tactics,” designed to delay

making a timely response to valid discovery requests, constitute discovery abuse and

should not be condoned. First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1999). Further, a party objecting on the grounds of a request/interrogatory being

vague, irrelevant overly broad, or unduly burdensome (as Plaintiff has) must explain the

specific and particular way in which a request is vague, seeks irrelevant information or is

unduly burdensome. See Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2000).

It is without a doubt that the mere statement by a party that boilerplate objections,

without more, are not adequate to voice a successful objection to an interrogatory and/or

request. In light of the foregoing, we ask this Honorable Court to waive all boilerplate

objections.

Formulaic Objections Followed by an Answer or Respons:

When a party recites a formulaic objection followed by an answer/response to the

interrogatory/request, such objections should be deemed waived as it leaves the

requesting party uncertain as to whether the discovery request (as propounded) has
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

actually been fully answered, whether the response relates only to the request as

unilaterally narrowed by the responding party, and/or whether the responding party is

withholding any responsive materials. In the same light, courts have held that, “[s]uch

objection and answer preserves nothing, and constitutes only a waste of effort and the

resources of both the parties and the court.” Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 399

(S.D. Fla. 2008).
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court waive such

formulaic objections as set forth by Plaintiff in his Answers to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories Numbers 6, 7, 13, 14, and 28.

Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatorie

That Interrogatory Number 5 asks:

5. “Describe” in detail, each act or omission on the part of any
Defendant you contend constituted negligence that was
contributing legal cause of the incident described in the
Complaint.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff Kyle Francis refers Defendant to his
Complaint and incorporates such complaints and facts as if
fully set forth herein.

To date, there have been multiple Complaints, via amendments, filed in this case.

Defendant should not be left to wonder which version Plaintiff is referring to. In addition,

the Complaint is an initial pleading that is only required to contain short and plain

statements of the ultimate facts showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Defendant, through

Interrogatory Number 5, is asking for detail, not a plain statement. Accordingly, Plaintiff

should be ordered to provide a complete Answer to this Interrogatory.

That Interrogatory Number 11 asks:

3
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

11. In the ten (10) year period prior to the incident described
in Plaintiffs Complaint, and during the time period following
the incident described in Plaintiff's Complaint and the present,
excluding the incident described in Plaintiff's Complaint,
“describe” any and all motor vehicle collisions involving
Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff was a driver or a passenger in any
vehicle, including the date and location of the motor vehicle
collision, Plaintiff's status as the driver or passenger in the
vehicle, an explanation of the motor vehicle collision, and
“identify” any and all injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result
of the motor vehicle collision.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this
interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek
the provision of information that is not relevant to this
proceeding.

Not only has Plaintiff asserted boilerplate objections, as discussed above, but

Plaintiff's prior injuries are all at issue in this case given this is a personal injury case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be ordered to provide a complete Answer to this Interrogatory.

That Interrogatory Number 18 asks:

18. “Identify” all other physicians, medical facilities, or other
health care providers by whom or at which Plaintiff has been
examined or treated in the past ten (10) years, and state as to
each the dates of examination or treatment and the condition
or injury for which Plaintiff was examined or treated.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is overly broad, unduly, burdensome, and
seeks the production of information that is not relevant to the
instant matter.

Not only has Plaintiff asserted boilerplate objections, as discussed above, but

Plaintiff's prior medical treatment is at issue in this case given this is a personal injury case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff should be ordered to provide a complete Answer to this Interrogatory.

Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s First Request for Production

That Request for Production Number 13 asks:
4
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

13. All statements obtained from or by persons having
knowledge concerning the facts or allegations contained in
Plaintiffs Complaint, the substantial equivalent of which
cannot be obtained by this Defendant without undue hardship.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this request
is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documents
that are not relevant to the instant matter. Plaintiff also objects
on the grounds that this request calls for the production of
materials that may be protected by an applicable privilege.
Defendant can obtain statements from or by persons having
knowledge concerning the facts or allegations contained in
Plaintiffs Complaint with no undue
hardship.

Not only has Plaintiff asserted boilerplate objections, as discussed above, but

Plaintiff has asserted a boldface evasive response, not allowing Defendant the benefit of

review of any statement by a witness in this case which may later be used as surprise or

trickery at trial. Defendant should have the benefit and opportunity to depose any such

witnesses in advance of a discovery trial deadline but may be unable to do so if Plaintiff

willingly “hides the ball.” Accordingly, Plaintiff should be ordered to provide a complete

Response, with responsive documents, to this Request.

2 On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff answered Defendant’s Expert Interrogatories,

attached herein as “Exhibit C,” as well as responded to Defendant’s Expert Request for

Production, attached herein as “Exhibit D,” contain evasive and/or incomplete answers

not supported by applicable law. The following are among the issues with Plaintiff's
Answers to Defendant's Expert Set of Interrogatories and Responses to Defendant’s
Expert Request for Production:

5
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s Expert Set of Interrogatorie:

That Expert Interrogatory Numbers 11, 12 and 13 ask:

11. State the substance of the facts to which each expert listed
above is expected to testify.

12. State the opinion to which each expert listed above is
expected to testify.

13. Give a summary of grounds or basis for each opinion
stated above.

RESPONSE (to all of the foregoing): Plaintiff Kyle Francis
objects to this interrogatory as it exceeds the scope of
permissible discovery as prescribed by Rule 1.280 of the
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs objection to the foregoing Interrogatories are not supported by Rule

1.280. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(A)(i) states, in pertinent part:

(i) By interrogatories a party may require any other party to identify
each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert
witness at trial and to state the subject matter on which the expert
is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and
opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a
summary of the grounds for each opinion.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Expert Interrogatory Numbers 11, 12

and 13 are requesting information allowed by the Rule; therefore, Plaintiff should be

ordered to provide a complete Answers to those Interrogatories.

Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant’s Expert Request for Production

That Expert Request Numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 ask:

1. All files maintained by any expert you have listed to testify
regarding this matter.

2. Any and all materials your experts have reviewed in this
matter, including, but not limited to, correspondence,
photographs, reports, books, articles, literature, films,
6
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

tests, experiments, statements, or other reference
materials that you used or are relying on.

4. Any and all reports which were furnished to your experts by
other experts in this case.

6. Any and all test results and/or experiments conducted in
this case by any retained experts.

7. Any and all results of tests your experts, agents, servants
or employees conducted in this case.

8. Complete billing files maintained by any retained expert in
this case, including, but not limited to, the charges rendered,
the statements rendered, the time spent on this case, and
other relevant materials concerning the time and billing on this
case.

9. Any and all notes, writings, memoranda, etc. which have
prepared on this case by any retained expert.

10. Any and all computer printouts from computers used by
any retained experts, agents, servants or employees which
were prepared for this case.

11. Any and all notes taken or prepared by any experts,
agents, servants or employees which were prepared for this
case.

12. Any and all literature written by any retained expert.

14. A copy of any and all written correspondence either
directed to the expert from Plaintiff(s) counsel or written by the
expert to Plaintiff(s) counsel.

15. All textbooks, journals or similar literature which any
expert has consulted and for which any expert has relied upon
in order to arrive at any opinions which they will render in this
case.

RESPONSE (to all of the foregoing): Plaintiffs object to this
request on the grounds that they are not in possession,
custody, or control of responsive documents and because this
request should properly be directed at the experts in question,
the identity of which have been disclosed to Plaintiffs.
7
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(5)(A)(iii), a party may obtain the following

discovery regarding any person disclosed as a person expected to be called as an expert

witness at trial:

dl The scope of employment in the pending case and the
compensation for such service.
2 The expert's general litigation experience, including the
percentage of work performed for plaintiffs and
defendants.
The identity of other cases, within a reasonable time
period, in which the expert has testified by deposition or at
trial.
An approximation of the portion of the expert’s
involvement as an expert witness, which may be based on
the number of hours, percentage of hours, or percentage
of earned income derived from serving as an expert
witness; however, the expert shall not be required to
disclose his or her earnings as an expert witness or
income derived from other services.

Further, the financial relationship between parties, attorneys, and witnesses is

generally discoverable pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fla. R. Civ.

P. 1.280; see also Fla. Stat. § 90.608(2). An opposing counsel has a right to inquire about

the financial relationship between another party and its witness. Allstate Ins. Co. v.

Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999). Specifically, discovery directed to a party, rather

than its expert, regarding the extent of the relationship between that party and its expert

should be allowed. /d. at 997. It is well established that the financial relationship between

the treating physician (i.e., expert) and the law firm is relevant to show potential bias and

is therefore not privileged. Worley v. Cent. Fla. Young Men’s Christian, 163 So. 3d 1240,

1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

In the instant case, Defendant's Expert Request for Production sought information

explicitly discoverable, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(A)(5)(iii). Such discovery is
8
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

relevant and therefore complies with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Cf. Steinger,

Iscoe & Greene, P.A. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.; Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc.

Further, Defendant's Expert Request for Production was directed towards Plaintiff and

should be allowed. Cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher at 997. Even if Plaintiff cannot

personally produce the discovery, Plaintiff can seek the discovery from the law firm

representing Plaintiff. Cf. Worley v. Cent. Fla. Young Men’s Chrisitian at 1249 (citing

Essex Builders Group, Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 230 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Court enter an Order (1)

overruling the objections outlined above and in Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's First Set

of Interrogatories, Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's First Request for Production,

Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's Expert Interrogatories, and Plaintiffs Responses to

Defendant’s Expert Request for Production; (2) compelling Plaintiff to provide answers

and responses that either object or answer the interrogatory / request, but not both; (3)

compelling Plaintiff to provide documents responsive to Defendant's First Request for

Production; and (4) for any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17'" day of December, 2021, a true and correct
copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Martin County by using the Florida Courts
e-Filing Portal, which will send an automatic e-mail message to the following parties
registered with the e-Filing Portal system: Sky King Unlimited, Inc., Jason P. Blevins, Esq,
Traub, lieberman, Straus & Shrewsberry, LLP, PBGPleadings@tlsslaw.com, 11770 U.S.
Highway One, Ste. 402 E, Palm Bch Gdns, FL 33408, (561) -8488 x300, Attorney for
Defendant, American Eagle Superstore Inc. d/b/a Big Fireworks, Kaitlin Cupp Jensen,
Esq., Traub, Lieberman, Straus & Shrewsberry, L.L.P., PBGPleadings@tlsslaw.com,

9
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

11770 U.S> Highway One, Suite 402E, West Palm Beach, FL 33408, (561) 848-
8300/(561) 848-8301 (F), Attorney for Defendant, American Eagle Superstore Inc. d/b/a
Big Fireworks, Michael A Monteverde, Esq., Zinober Diana, P.A.,
michael@zinoberdiana.com;adie@zinoberdiana.com;corey@zinoberdiana.com;kali@zi
noberdiana.com;egeribon@zinoberdiana.com;daniela@zinoberdiana.com, 500 West
Cypress Creek Rd., Suite 420, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, (954) 256-9288/(727) 498-
8902 (F), Attorney for Plaintiffs, Kyle Francis and Allyson Francis, Kali Lauren M. Sinclair,
Esq., Zinober Diana & Montverde, P.A., 2400 E. Commercial Blvd., Ste. 420, Fort

Lauderdale, FL 33308, (954) 256-9288/(727) 498-8902 (F), Attorney for Plaintiff, Kyle
Francis, Coren H. Stern, Esq., Bressler, Amery & Ross, cstern@bressler.com, 200 E. Las

Olas Boulevard, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, (954) 499-7979/(954) 499-7969
(F), Attorney for Plaintiffs, Allyson Francis and Kyle Francis and Andrew D. Stone, Esq.,
Stone, Glass & Connolly, LLP, astone@sgc-attorneys.com;scallahan@sgc-
attorneys.com;mcotter@sgc-attorneys.com, 9100 S Dadeland Blvd Ste 415, Miami, FL
33156, (305) 670-5044/(305) 670-5015 (F), Attorney for Defendants, Lauren De La Rosa
and Andrew De La Rosa.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Counsel for Defendant SKY KING
FIREWORKS, INC.
Tower Place, Suite 400
1900 Summit Tower Boulevard
Orlando, Florida 32810
Telephone (321) 972-0011
Facsimile (321) 972-0099
Primary e-mail: scott.shelton@csklegal.com
Secondary e-mail:
adriana.pfeiffer@csklegal.com
Alternate e-mail: dasha.jimenez@csklegal.com

By s/ Scott A. Shelton
SCOTT A. SHELTON
Florida Bar No.: 36486
ADRIANA PFEIFFER
Florida Bar No.: 1018385

10
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
CASE NO.: 2018-CA-00830

“Exhibit A°

11
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
TOWER PLACE, SUITE 400 - 1900 SUMMIT TOWER BOULEVARD - ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 - (321) 972-0000 (321) 972-0099 FAX
Exhibit A
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2018-CA-00830
KYLE FRANCIS and ALLYSON FRANCIS,

Plaintiffs,
Vv.

ANDREW DE LA ROSA and LAUREN DE
LA ROSA and SKY KING FIREWORKS, INC.,

Defendants.
i,

PLAINTIFF KYLE FRANCIS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT SKY KING FIREWORKS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff Kyle Francis, by and through the undersigned counsel, under Rule 1.350 of the

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to Defendant Sky King Fireworks, Inc.’s First

Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”) as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek discovery of

information and production of documents beyond that which is permitted by the Florida Rules of

Civil Procedure.

2 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek discovery of

information or documents protected by the attorney-client, attorney work product, or any other

applicable privilege.

3 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is

neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories and each instruction and definition therein to

the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, or unduly burdensome.

5099404_1
CASE NO. 2018-CA-00830

5 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that

is not within the Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control.

6. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they require the Plaintiff to

analyze or organize factual evidence already known to the Defendant.
7
Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are not limited to

requests for information regarding the subject matter of this litigation.

8 Plaintiff may be omitting from its Responses and Objections the identification of

individuals whose knowledge of relevant facts the Plaintiff has not yet been able to establish.

Plaintiff does not waive his right to call as witnesses at trial those persons who are not being

individually identified at this time, nor does Plaintiff waive his right to rely upon or use at trial

facts and documents that are not being produced or individually identified at this time. Plaintiff

will identify for the Defendant in advance of trial those persons the Plaintiff plans to call as

witnesses at trial and the documents the Plaintiff plans to introduce as exhibits at trial.

9. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is

already known to Defendant or its counsel, or in the possession, custody, or that can be obtained

from some other source that is more convenient to Defendant, less burdensome to the Plaintiff and

less expensive for both parties.

Plaintiff's investigation of the facts and preparation for trial is incomplete.

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement, amend, and/or correct all or any part of the responses

provided herein without waiver of any of the foregoing objections. Plaintiff asserts each of these

general objections to each of the requests herein. The failure to assert a general objection or the

assertion of a specific objection in response to a particular request does not constitute a waiver of

5099404_1
CASE NO. 2018-CA-00830

any general objection. Subject to and without waiving the above general objections to all

paragraphs of the requests, Plaintiff responds to the individual requests as follows:

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

Please state Plaintiff's full legal name, birth date, address, email address(es), mobile or
cellular telephone number(s) and provider(s), social security number, and Medicare
number (if any).

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects to giving his social security number on the grounds that it is
irrelevant, an invasion of privacy, not proportional to the needs of the case, and
creates an undue burden that outweighs the likely benefit of proposed discovery.
Plaintiff states that his full name is Kyle Victor Francis. His date of birth is
February 9, 1985. His address is 2407 NE Sharp Street, Jensen Beach, FL 34957,
His email address is kylefrancis29@gmail.com. His cellular phone number is (772)
380-8982. His cell phone provider is Verizon.

“Identify” each person who assisted or participated in preparing answers to any
Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents in this matter, and “identify”
each document used or referred to in answering said Interrogatories or Requests for
Production of Documents.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects to the extent this interrogatory calls for the production of
information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges.
Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff Kyle
Francis, with the assistance of counsel, prepared the answers to the instant
interrogatories. Plaintiff referred to a letter received from Florida Blue in
connection with providing information regarding medical expenses and liens.

“Identify” all former names used by Plaintiff, when Plaintiff
was known by those names,
all addresses where Plaintiff has lived for the past ten (10) years, the dates lived at each
address, and, if Plaintiff has ever been married, the name(s) of said spouse or spouses.

RESPONSE:

None.

“Identify” each and every employer, including self-employment, Plaintiff has had for the
past ten (10) years, including the name and address of each employer, the name of
Plaintiffs immediate supervisor, a description of Plaintiff's duties, and the wages earned.

RESPONSE:

5099404_1
CASE NO. 2018-CA-00830

Tim McGee
61 Bayou Circle
Gulfport, MS 39507
Mr. McGee owned a boat that Plaintiff Kyle Francis maintained. Plaintiff earned
$1,400 per week.

Rhett Bailey
3830 NE Linda Drive
Jensen Beach, FL 34957
Mr. Bailey owned a boat that Plaintiff Kyle Francis maintained. Plaintiff earned
$1,200 per week.

Andrew De La Rosa
22 E. High Point Road
Stuart, FL 34996
Plaintiff Kyle Francis maintained Defendant De La Rosa’s boat and handled all
duties pertaining to sport fishing as requested by Defendant De La Rosa. Plaintiff
earned $700 per week.

Gray Ingram
605 Waldemar Road
Jupiter, FL 33477
Plaintiff Kyle Francis maintained Mr. Ingram’s boat and handled all duties
pertaining to sport fishing as requested by Mr. Ingram. Plaintiff earned $1,400 per
week.

Pete Cherasia
96 West River Road
Rumson, NJ 07760
Plaintiff Kyle Francis maintained Mr. Cherasia’s boat and handled all duties
pertaining to sport fishing as requested by Mr. Cherasia. Plaintiff earned $1,400
per week.

All of the foregoing jobs also paid discretionary tips and 10% of tournament
winnings to Plaintiff Kyle Francis during the time he was employed at each
respective job.

“Describe” in detail, each act or omission on the part of any Defendant you contend
constituted negligence that was contributing legal cause of the incident described in the
Complaint.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff Kyle Francis refers Defendant to his Complaint and incorporates such
complaints and facts as if fully set forth herein.

5099404_1
CASE NO. 2018-CA-00830

“Identify” all persons who are believed or known by you, your agents, or your attorneys
to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues raised by the pleadings and specify
the subject matter about which the person has knowledge.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Furthermore, Plaintiff Kyle Francis is still in the process of
identifying individuals with knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding
this matter. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections, the
following individuals have knowledge concerning the issues raised by the pleadings:

Kyle Francis
Allyson Francis
Andrew De La Rosa
Lauren De La Rosa
Dr. Gerardo Olivera
Jennifer Collins, MD
Gary Curcio, MD
Rushi Patel, MD
Mark Aaron Kuzich, MD
Michael J. McGinley, MD
Alexander Vennos, MD.
Donald Wood, MD
Artur Velcani, MD
Lisa Sload, MD
William Merrell, MD
Leighton Taylor, MD
Paramedics responding to the scene of the accident who will be identified upon
further investigation.

“Identify” all persons having knowledge, or who you believe to have knowledge, of the
facts or issues involved in this civil action, including, but not limited to, any knowledge
related to the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, any issue of liability in this lawsuit, or
the damages Plaintiff claims in this lawsuit, and for each person “identified,” describe the
subject matter about which the person has knowledge and briefly summarize what you
understand that knowledge to be.

RESPONSE:

5099404_1
CASE NO. 2018-CA-00830

Kyle Francis - knowledge of the incident in question and his and his
wife’s economic, physical, mental, and emotional
damages.
Allyson Francis - knowledge of the incident in question and her and her
husband’s economic, physical, mental, and emotional
damages.
Andrew De La Rosa - knowledge of the incident in question and the facts and
circumstances regarding the night in question, the
provision of alcohol beverages to Plaintiffs and other
guests, and the purchase, use, and provision of the
fireworks in question that caused the injuries in this
matter.

Lauren De La Rosa - knowledge of the incident in question and the facts and
circumstances regarding the night in question, the
provision of alcohol beverages to Plaintiffs and other
guests, and the purchase, use, and provision of the
fireworks in question that caused the injuries in this
matter.

Dr. Gerardo Olivera - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Jennifer Collins, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Gary Curcio, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Rushi Patel, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Mark Aaron Kuzich, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Michael J. McGinley, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Alexander Vennos, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Donald Wood, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Artur Velcani, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Lisa Sload, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
William Merrell, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.

5099404_1
CASE NO. 2018-CA-00830

Leighton Taylor, MD - knowledge of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ injuries and
medical care and treatment.
Paulo Bexiga - knowledge of the costs of Plaintiff Kyle Francis’
prosthetics and the costs of replacement and
maintenance.
Plaintiff is still in the process of investigating this matter and will supplement this
response if and when additional individuals with knowledge are identified.

Was Plaintiff suffering from physical or mental infirmity, disability, or sickness at the
time of the occurrence of the incident described in the complaint? If so, what was the
nature of the infirmity, disability, or sickness?

RESPONSE:

No.

“Identify” any alcoholic beverages, drugs, or medications consumed in any matter by
Plaintiff within twelve (12) hours before the occurrence of the incident described in the
Complaint. If so, what type and amount of alcoholic beverages, drugs or medication were
consumed and where did Plaintiff consume them?

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff Kyle Francis states that he consumed two alcoholic beverages, consisting of
vodka and Sprite, within the twelve hours preceding the incident described in the
Complaint. These beverages were supplied to him by and consumed at Defendants
Andrew and Lauren De La Rosa’s residence.

10. In the ten (10) year period prior to the incident described in Plaintiff's Complaint, has
Plaintiff ever been convicted of a crime, other than any juvenile adjudication, where the
criminal charge related to Plaintiff's involvement in a motor vehicle collision, was
punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year, or involved dishonesty or a
false statement regardless of the punishment? If so, state to each conviction the specific
crime and the date and place of conviction.

RESPONSE:

No.

i Tn the ten (10) year period prior to the incident described in Plaintiff's Complaint, and
during the time period following the incident described in Plaintiff's Complaint and the
present, excluding the incident described in Plaintiff's Complaint, “describe” any and all
motor vehicle collisions involving Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff was a driver or a passenger in
any vehicle, including the date and location of the motor vehicle collision, Plaintiff's
status as the driver or passenger in the vehicle, an explanation of the motor vehicle
collision, and “identify” any and all injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the motor
vehicle collision.

5099404_1
CASE NO, 2018-CA-00830

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and seek the provision of information that is not relevant to this
proceeding.

12. “Describe” in detail how the incident described in the Complaint happened, including all
actions taken by Plaintiff to prevent the incident, including Plaintiff’s activities within the
twelve (12) hours prior to and twelve (12) hours following the incident described in
Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiffs activities at the time of the incident described in
Plaintiff's Complaint, and any and all actions taken by Plaintiff to prevent the incident
described in Plaintiff's Complaint.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff Kyle Francis refers Defendant to his Complaint and incorporates such
complaints and facts as if fully set forth herein. Additionally, Plaintiff states that on
the day in question, he accompanied his daughter to a “daddy-daughter dance.”
Thereafter, Plaintiff went to Defendants Andrew and Lauren De La Rosa’s house.
Defendants provided alcoholic beverages. After providing said beverages,
Defendant Andrew De La Rosa provided fireworks to his guests. Plaintiff Kyle
Francis lit off a few mortars without incident. After doing so, Plaintiff opened a
new mortar, lit the fuse, and realized that the mortar was underneath an overhang
covering Plaintiff Andrew De La Rosa’s dock. Plaintiff Kyle Francis carefully
attempted to move the mortar to avoid injury to others or property, while being
careful not to put his hand over the top of the mortar. The mortar malfunctioned
and exploded, gravely injuring Plaintiff Kyle Francis. Following the incident,
Plaintiff was airlifted to emergency surgery and then admitted to the hospital for
four days.

13. “Identify” each item of expense or damage, other than loss of income or earning capacity,
that Plaintiff claims to have incurred, as a result of the incident described in the Complaint,
giving for each item the amount of damage or expense, the date incurred, the name and
business address of the person or entity to whom each was paid or is owed, and the goods
or services for which each was incurred, and whether you have been or will be reimbursed
for such expense.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objection,
Plaintiff Kyle Francis attaches as Exhibit A the summary of medical expenses paid
by Florida Blue for Plaintiff Kyle Francis’ treatment. Plaintiff Kyle Francis
reserves his right to supplement this response, as his expenses are ongoing.

14 Do you contend that Plaintiff has lost any form of income, benefits, or earning capacity in
the past or future which allegedly resulted from the incident described in the Complaint? If

50994041
CASE NO, 2018-CA-00830

so, state the nature of the income, the amount lost, the period during which it was lost, and
the method that you used in computing the amount?

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and is impossible

Case Info

Judge

METZGER, ELIZABETH A Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 19, 2049

Case Filing Date

July 05, 108

County

Parties

#1, MINOR CHILD Plaintiff
#2, MINOR CHILD Plaintiff
AMERICAN EAGLE SUPERSTORES INC Defendant
CUPP, KAITLIN ELLEN Attorney
FRANCIS, ALLYSON Plaintiff
FRANCIS, KYLE Plaintiff
HALE, MICHAEL J Attorney
KOBYLINSKI, TYLER Attorneys for Defendants
LEONARDI, ROSS Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LOGAN, MICHAEL D Attorney
MONTEVERDE, MICHAEL A. Attorney
MONTEVERDE, MICHAEL A. Attorney for the Plaintiff
PFEIFFER, ADRIANA LUCIA Attorneys for Defendants
ROMAGUERA, CHRISTIAN Attorney
SHELTON, SCOTT ANDREW Attorneys for Defendants
SINCLAIR, KALI LAUREN Attorney
SKISCIM, MICHAEL J Attorney
SKY KING FIREWORKS INC Defendant
SKY KING UNLIMITED INC Defendant
STERN, COREN HARRIS Attorney
SUPERSTORES INC, AMERICAN EAGLE Defendant
VICKERS, BARTLEY G Attorneys for Defendants
VIGGIANI, JOHN Attorney
WECHLER, KALI LAUREN Attorney
Kaitlin Jensen Attorney
Andrew Stone Attorney
John Marion Attorneys for Defendants
J. Grimley Attorneys for Defendants
Jason Blevins Attorney
Michael Mone' Attorney
Steven Stern Attorney
Therese Savona Attorney
Gary Lewis Attorney
Michael Siskind Attorney
Scott Armstrong Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Dunlavy Attorney
Michael Alamo Attorneys for Defendants
Marie Lorenzo Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alejandro Brito Attorney
Seth Alhadeff Attorney
Robert Zarco Attorney
Jenna Fischman Attorney
Brenda Phang Attorney
Michael Braunstein Attorney
Francis Rodriguez Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gary Shendell Attorney
Paulino Nunez Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Keller Attorney
Jorge Cruz-Bustillo Attorney
Max Lopez Attorney
Jonathan Lanni Attorney
Robert Crabill Attorney
William Convey Attorney
Gerardo Fernandez-Davila Attorney
David Salazar Attorney
Albert Blair Attorney
Jana Fried Attorney
Geoffrey Lutz Attorney
Victoria Morales Attorney
Kara Olesky Attorney
Nelson Carmenates Attorney
Bryan Black Attorney
Jay Warner Attorney
A Gow Attorney
Edward Shelton Attorney
Michael Smith Attorney
James Flynn Attorney
Kevin Moore Attorney
Gary Luke Attorney
J. Magee Attorneys for Defendants
Leonard Ross Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kyle McCabe Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Edward Krakauer Attorneys for Defendants
Andrea Stone Attorney
Scott Axsom Attorneys for Defendants
Jorge Cruz Attorney
Andrew de la Fuente Attorney
Sheila Callahan Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: FRANCIS, KYLE vs. SUPERSTORES INC, AMERICAN EAGLE

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties