STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS, DOAH Case N0.: 18-0811 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND OPPG Case N0.: 2016-003 PROFESSIONAL GUARDIANS Petitioner, vs. ELIZABETH SELDEN SAVITT ReSpondent. RESPONSE TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO RESPONDENT Respondent, ELIZABETH SELDEN SAVITT (?Respondent?), by and through her undersigned counsel, pursuant to section 120.596, Florida Statutes, Rule 28?106.206, Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 1.350, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to the First Request for Production to Respondent ?led by the Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL GUARDIANS (?Petitioner?), as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS As to all requests, Respondent objects to the extent that Petitioner seeks documents or communications prohibited from discovery through application of work privilege doctrine and/or attomey/client privilege and/or spousal privilege. As to all requests, Respondent objects to the extent to which said requests are vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome. As to all requests, Respondent objects because the documents or communications sought are unrelated to the grounds for disciplinary action pled by Petitioner in the Administrative Filed April 3, 2018 8:17 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Complaint; are not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence and extend beyond the scope of permissible discovery contemplated by Rule 1280, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. As to all questions, Respondent objects because all nine counts of the Administrative Complaint refer to purported statutory violations by ReSpondent under Chapter 744, concerning Florida Statutes with an effective date of 2016, yet the factual allegations in the Complaint, which are adopted by reference in each of said nine counts, all pertain to alleged misconduct by Respondent that purports to occur prior to 2016 and purportedly pertain to Respondent when she was acting as a curator which is not governed by Chapter 744 and Petitioner has no jurisdiction over curators. RESPONSES 1. In addition to the General Objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to this Request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome and vague. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent used, referred to, and reference the Report and Court documents to answer Petitioner?s First Set of Interrogatories. Petitioner is in possession and has access to all court documents on every case which Petitioner made allegations about. Notwithstanding these Objections and without waiving them, Respondent will produce any documents that are not Court documents which are responsive to Request 2. In addition to the General Objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent objects to this Request as it seeks to elicit documents that are protected by the spousal privilege contained in ES. 90.504. In addition to the General Objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the part of this Request asking about documents wherein she served as a curator as they are not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request In addition to the General Objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the part of this Request asking about documents wherein she served as a curator as they are not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request In addition to the General Objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the part of this Request asking about documents wherein she served as a curator as they are not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request In addition to the General Objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to this Request as being overbroad, unduly burdensome and vague and states that Petitioner is in possession, custody and control of any and all court documents. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the form of this request as too vague to adequately describe the phrase ?may be perceived? and too vague in that Respondent cannot reasonably have knowledge of who may have perceived that she had a con?ict of interest. 10. Respondent speci?cally objects to the part of this Request asking about documents wherein she served as a curator as they are not calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent responds that to the best of her knowledge there are no such communications and she is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the portion of this request asking about documents wherein she served as curator and objects to the form of this request as too vague to adequately describe the phrase ?may be perceived? and too vague in that Respondent cannot reasonably have knowledge of who may have perceived that she had a con?ict of interest. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request In addition to the General Objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent states that there are many court documents which disprove the allegations in the Complaint which Petitioner is in possession of. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent will produce documents that are responsive to Request #9 and reserves the right to amend this answer as discovery is ongoing. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the portion of this request asking about documents wherein she served as curator. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, 11. 12. 13. Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request #10. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the portion of this request asking about documents wherein she served as curator. Respondent additionally speci?cally objects to this Request as being overbroad and unduly burdensome as it lacks a time frame and as not being calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any photographs or video recordings responsive to Request #11 and is not aware of any such photographs, other than photographs which may been taken at a public event or in a courtroom. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to this Request as being overbroad and unduly burdensome as it lacks a time ?ame and as not being calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request #12. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to this Request as being overbroad and unduly burdensome as it lacks a time frame and as not being calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request #13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the form of this request as it applies to providing billing records related to curator services as this part of this request is beyond the scope of the Administrative Complaint and the scope of the Guardianship Law under F. 744. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent will produce any documents she has that are responsive to Request #14 which were related to when she served as guardian, other than those related to when she served as curator and those which are part of the Court documents that Petitioner has custody, possession and control of. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the form of this request as it is overbroad, vague and unduly burdensome as it does not specify with whom the communication are with that it is seeking and calls for attorney/client privileged information. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, ReSpondent speci?cally objects to the form of this request as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request #16. Petitioner is in possession custody and control of court documents responsive to this Request. (See Respondent?s Answer to Interrogatory Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the portion of this request asking about documents wherein she served 19. 20. 21. as curator. Notwithstanding these objections Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents rCSponsive to Request #18. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the form of this request as it is overbroad, vague and unduly burdensome and as Respondent objected to Interrogatory Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request #19. Subject to the general objections set forth hereinabove, Respondent speci?cally objects to the extent that she identi?ed in her Answer to Petitioner?s Interrogatory #12 that there are two such documents: one is a con?dential matter unrelated to guardianship and will not be produced. The other document is a veri?ed document from the Irving Stone guardianship Case 2011 GA 000510 but Respondent is not in possession, custody and control of that court document, although Petitioner is. Respondent is not in the possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to Request #21 at this time and reserves the right to amend this response as discovery is ongoing. Respectfully Submitted, ELDER LAW ASSOCIATES PA Counsel for the Respondent 7284 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 101 Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561) 750-3850 Fax: (561) 750-4069 E-Mail: emorris@elderlawassociates.com Secondary E~Mai1: dsans@elderlawassociates.com Secondary E-Mail: lrubin@elder1awassociates.com 81 By: an . ELLEN S. MORRIS, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 850306 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing was served on this &?day of April, 2018 to the Department of Elder Affairs, Of?ce of Public and Professional Guardians via email to Carol A. Berkowitz and Michael McKeon at mckeonmaDelderaffairs.org and via fax to 850-414-2384. ELLEN S. MORRIS, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 850306