UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISION LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, et al.,Plaintiffs,v. Case No. 8:13-cv-220-T-27TBMCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST, et al.,Defendants. / O R D E R 

THIS MATTER is before the Court on

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective OrderRegarding Defendants’ Request for Production Pursuant to Exhibit A of Defendants’Flag and Ship Subpoena

 Duces Tecum

(Doc. 60), Defendants’ response in opposition and,in the alternative,

Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Subpoenas

 Duces Tecum

 

(Doc. 59), and Plaintiffs’ response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion toCompel (Doc. 63). Plaintiff also filed a

Report on the Parties’ Meet and ConferConferences on Issues to be Addressed at the Hearing Set for September 5, 2013

 (Doc.69). A motion hearing was held on September 5, 2013.By way of background, Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel (Docs.36, 37) is currently pending before the Court. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for 

1

October 3, 2012.

See

 (Doc. 61). In light of the pending Motion to Disqualify, DefendantsDefendants are referred to collectively herein as “the Church.”

1

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1617

 

issued subpoenas

duces tecum

 to law firms representing Plaintiff, specifically, Gray Robinson,P.A., Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche, P.A., and Weil Quaranta McGovern, P.A.; toindividual attorneys within those law firms, specifically, Robert Johnson, Richard Zabak,

2

Theodore Babbitt, and Ron Weil; and to nonparties Michael Rinder and Marty Rathbun.By their Motion (Doc. 60), Plaintiffs object to the document requests, arguing thatthe requests are patently overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek privileged information. Inresponse (Doc. 59), Defendants argue that the document requests are pertinent to their  pending Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel (Doc. 36). Moreover, much of theinformation sought is not covered by attorney-client privilege since the relevantcommunications are between Plaintiff’s attorneys and trial consultants and other attorneys. Thus, at most, the communications are work product, which is discoverable on a showing of need of the materials in preparation of the case and an inability, without undue hardship, toobtain the substantial equivalent by other means. Accordingly, in the alternative, Defendants bring a Motion to Compel (Doc. 60), seeking the documents responsive to the subpoena. Inresponse to Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 63), Plaintiffs reiterate that the informationsought is not directed to any legitimate issue concerning disqualification and improperlytargets privileged communications. Moreover, the Motion to Compel is premature prior to theCourt finding that the Motion to Disqualify Counsel has merit. At the hearing, the parties noted their agreement that the present subpoena issued to

2

Richard Zabak, Esq. is moot and need not be complied with, since Mr. Zabak only has possession of a limited number of duplicate documents. 2

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID 1618

 

Prior to the hearing, Plaintiffs filed a report on the parties’ meet and confer conference on issues to be addressed at the hearing (Doc. 69), which narrows the issues beforethe Court. Herein, the Court addresses the six categories as reflected in that report.Upon consideration,

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order RegardingDefendants’ Request for Production Pursuant to Exhibit A of Defendants’ Flag and ShipSubpoena

 Duces Tecum

(Doc. 60) is

GRANTED in part

. As to requests one and five,Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. The relationship among counsel for Plaintiffs, in particular, between Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche, P.A., and Weil Quaranta McGovern, P.A.,with Robert Johnson, Esquire and GrayRobinson, P.A., is pertinent to issues raised by theMotion to Disqualify Counsel. Thus, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order,Plaintiffs shall produce copies of the written retainer agreements with counsel in this litigationand any written agreement reflecting on the working relationship and fee split, among thesefirms or their individual counsel. Within this same time period, Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne &Le Clainche, P.A., and Weil Quaranta McGovern, P.A., Robert Johnson, Esquire and GrayRobinson, P.A., shall produce copies of any written agreements with Mike Rinder related tohis support and participation, in any manner, in this litigation. Such production shouldinclude documentation of the amounts paid to Rinder to date for his work in relation to thislitigation.3

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID 1619