Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Margaret Gadsby, Frank Murphy v. American Golf Corporation of California

February 21, 2012

MARGARET GADSBY, FRANK MURPHY, JOHN GARDINER, SR., RICHARD J. BRUSSARD, JR., HOSPITAL BOUTIQUES, INC., JAMES TAYLOR, JODY TAYLOR, JEROME KUTCHE, JAMES RIES, DONALD OINONEN, CHARLES FEMMINELLA, JR., , PLAINTIFFS,
v.
AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, GOLF ENTERPRISES, INC., DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendants (Doc. #34) filed on January 20, 2012. Defendants filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Defendants (Doc. #41) on February 6, 2012. This Motion is now ripe for review.

I. Background

This case was removed from Florida state court on November 15, 2010. Plaintiffs filed that day an Amended Complaint (Doc. #2), alleging that in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Plaintiffs were introduced to the opportunity to purchase a golf membership at The Classics at Lely Resort, Lely Resort Golf & Country Club (the "Club"). In order to become members of the Club, Plaintiffs were required to pay a deposit, ranging from $30,000 -- $85,000. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiffs, inter alia, that Plaintiffs would be entitled to a certain percentage of their Membership Deposit upon resignation from the Club. Plaintiffs further allege that in September 2002, Plaintiffs were induced to deliver an upgrade fee of $5,500 which would entitle Plaintiffs to a reimbursement of 90% of their Membership fee at the time of resignation if they waited at least eighteen months to resign. Subsequent to the Upgrade Offer, Plaintiffs delivered written resignation notice to the Defendants but have not yet (more than six years later) received their Membership Refunds. Plaintiffs thus sue Defendants for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, negligent representation, and violation of the Investor Protection Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

On March 31, 2011, Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. #4). Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #21) on April 11, 2011. Defendants filed a Reply Memorandum (Doc. #24) on May 9, 2011. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is still pending.

On January 6, 2011, the Plaintiffs served Defendants with Plaintiffs' First Requests for Production. On February 8, 2011, Defendants served Plaintiffs with Defendants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiffs allege that the Parties' respective counsel agreed to "hold off" on discovery as the Court had not yet ruled on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants' claim, however, that there was no stipulation that discovery should be stayed, and points to the fact that Defendants produced to Plaintiffs documents totaling over 2,500 pages on February 28, 2011, and March 30, 2011. In October 2011, the Parties commenced the scheduling of Depositions. The first date that Plaintiffs' Counsel received to depose Defendants' corporate representative was December 6, 2011. Defendants apparently rescheduled that date to January 11, 2012. At this Deposition, Plaintiffs learned of additional documents that they claim are critical to their case and also learned of documents that exist that were not included in Defendants' Responses and Objections. Plaintiffs allege that immediately upon learning of these documents, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted Defendants' counsel with a request to obtain those documents, but that Defendants' counsel objected to Plaintiffs' counsel's request. The Court notes that the February 2, 2012, discovery deadline imposed by the Scheduling Order (Doc. #15), has come and gone.

II. Discovery Requests

Plaintiffs ask this Court to compel production of three additional documents of which Plaintiffs learned during the January 2012 deposition of Carole Waller, Defendants' Director of Sales. Plaintiffs contend that the documents are extremely critical in Plaintiffs' case preparation and that Plaintiffs cannot properly prepare without first receiving Defendants' thorough and complete responses.

A. The Resignation/Transfer/Exit List

With this Motion, Plaintiffs first seek the "Resignation List." Plaintiffs contend that this Document was covered by Plaintiffs' Production Request number 3: "Each document in your possession, custody, or control which constitutes, reflects, refers or relates to any other communication, notice, records, notes, internal memoranda, or other documents relating to the Resignation Lists." See Doc. #34-1 at 4; Doc. #34-2 at 4. Defendants objected as follows:

Defendant objects to this request-which seeks, inter alia, documents relating to documents-on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, vexatious, violative of the privacy rights of current and former Club members, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to any party's claim or defense.

Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendants will produce documents sufficient to show that each of the Plaintiffs have been moving up the membership transfer waiting list in accordance with the terms of the Club Bylaws and Membership Agreements.

See Doc. #34-3 at 3.

Plaintiffs argue that the Resignation List goes to the core of Plaintiffs' claims (that there are discrepancies in the number of positions that members are moving up the list and that Defendants are not complying with the Bylaws by not adhering to the rules regarding membership refunds). Plaintiffs object to Defendants' characterization of production of the list as violative of the privacy rights of current and former Club members. Plaintiffs learned at Ms. Waller's January 17, 2012, deposition that the only piece of information that may be considered private is each member's name on the list. Apparently, Plaintiffs' counsel has suggested redacting all names other than Plaintiffs'.

In turn, Defendants allege that the portion of Plaintiffs' Motion concerning the Resignation List is moot since Defendants agreed to and have since produced the Resignation List that Plaintiffs requested. On January 19, 2012, a day prior to Plaintiffs filing their Motion, Defendants' counsel advised that he would ascertain whether Defendants could produce a current (redacted) version of the Resigned Member List. See Doc. #41-1. On January 23, 2012, Defendants' counsel confirmed by email that Defendants would produce the Resignation List. See Doc. #41-2. Defendants have provided evidence that they did indeed produce the Resignation List to Plaintiffs four days later by e-mail and Federal Express. See Doc. #41-3. Defendants offer as additional proof that Plaintiffs have subsequently deposed two witnesses since production of the Resignation List.

Thus, the portion of Plaintiffs' Motion seeking production of the Resignation List is due to be denied as moot.

B. Defendants' End of the Month Reports

Plaintiffs next seek production of Defendants' End of the Month Reports that Carole Waller (Defendants' Director of Sales) testified to in her deposition on January 17, 2012. Plaintiffs contend that these reports should have been produced in response to Production Requests number 3, 4, 5, and 12. Plaintiffs' Requests and Defendants' Objections are set out in full here:

Production Request number 3: "Each document in your possession, custody, or control which constitutes, reflects, refers or relates to any other communication, notice, records, notes, internal memoranda, or other documents relating to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.