UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-22423-UU 

PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT SH GROUP 

GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS, L.L.C.’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT JOHN P. 

BOSTANY TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS 

SH GROUP GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS, L.L.C., 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, 

v. 

2399 COLLINS AVENUE CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC. 

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, 

and JOHN P. BOSTANY, 

Defendant. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 1 of 17
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2

III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4

A. Legal Standard ........................................................................................................ 4

B. Bostany Should Be Required to Produce Documents Responsive to the 

Requests for Production. ......................................................................................... 5

1. Bostany’s Failure to State Whether He Is Withholding Responsive 

Documents Violates Federal Rule 34. ........................................................ 7

2. The Association’s Discovery Responses Do Not Excuse Bostany 

From Conducting a Reasonable Search for Responsive Documents. ......... 8

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10

 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 2 of 17
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Adelman v. Boy Scouts of Am., 

276 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ................................................................................................4 

Catchplay Inc. (Cayman) v. Studio Sols. Grp., Inc., 

No. CV 12-7525 GW(JCX), 2013 WL 12137107 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) ...........................8 

Cuervo v. Airport Servs., Inc., 

No. 12-20608-CIV, 2014 WL 12802522 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2014) .........................................10 

Douglas v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 

No. 15-CV-1185-ORL-22-TBS, 2016 WL 1637277 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) ......................5 

Hickman v. Taylor, 

329 U.S. 495 (1947) .................................................................................................................10 

LLB Convenience & Gas, Inc. v. Se. Petro Distribs., Inc., 

No. 18-CV-914-ORL-40TBS, 2019 WL 1586732 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2019) ......................8, 9 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Cypress, 

No. 12-22439-CIV, 2013 WL 10740706 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2013) ..........................................9 

Moore v. Chertoff, 

577 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D.D.C. 2008) ...........................................................................................9 

Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 

762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................4 

In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 

No. 11–md–2233, 2012 WL 4361430 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2012) ...........................................8 

U. S. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 

356 U.S. 677 (1958) .................................................................................................................10 

Waste Corp. of Am. v. Genesis Ins. Co., 

No. 03-61480-CIV, 2004 WL 7331295 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2004)............................................9 

Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .............................................................................................................................4 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 .................................................................................................................4, 5, 7, 8 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 .......................................................................................................................5, 11 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 3 of 17
iii 

Local Rule 26(g)(2) ..........................................................................................................................5 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 4 of 17
1 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant SH Group Global IP Holdings, L.L.C. (“SH Group”), 

pursuant to Local Rule 26.1(g) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, hereby moves to compel 

the production of documents from Defendant John P. Bostany (“Bostany”) in the abovecaptioned action (the “Litigation”). 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Bostany has refused to search for and produce documents that are relevant to many key 

issues in this case. In particular, SH Group’s Requests for Production Nos. 6–7, 13–15, 36 and 

39 to Bostany (collectively, the “Requests for Production”) seek documents relating to the 

trademark infringement claims asserted against both Bostany and Defendant 2399 Collins 

Avenue Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Association”). Bostany has merely objected and 

refused to even search for such documents on the misplaced grounds that the Association has 

agreed to search for and produce them. Yet, as SH Group has explained, Bostany, who is the 

Association’s Board President, may also have such documents, or may have documents that the 

Association does not currently have. Bostany has offered no response to these points and has 

refused to state that he has no responsive documents. 

Moreover, Bostany operated in bad faith and attempted to delay the filing of this Motion 

to Compel as he initially agreed to amend his responses to the Requests for Production (the 

“Responses”), but then weeks later reversed course and refused to do so. SH Group has made 

numerous attempts to work with Bostany to resolve this discovery issue, but to no avail. As a 

result, SH Group has had no choice but to file this Motion to Compel. Accordingly, SH Group 

respectfully requests that Bostany be ordered to conduct a reasonable search for and produce any 

documents that are responsive to the Requests for Production. SH Group also respectfully 

requests that Bostany be ordered to pay SH Group’s reasonable expenses incurred in making this 

Motion, including its attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Federal Rule 37(a)(5)(A). 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 5 of 17
2 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

In this case, SH Group asserts trademark infringement claims against both the 

Association and its Board President, Bostany, relating to the use of the mark 1 HOMES. (See, 

e.g., D.E. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 83–115.) The trademark claims against Bostany are based not only on 

Bostany’s personal use of infringing trademarks, such as on his LinkedIn page, but also based on 

Bostany’s direction, inducement, and/or control of the Association’s infringement. (Id. ¶¶ 45–

54.) SH Group also has asserted against Bostany breach of contract claims based on his and the 

Association’s interference with SH Group’s trademark rights, including deriving from the 

Association’s attempt to cancel SH Group’s trademark registrations at Bostany’s direction. (Id.

¶¶ 58–77.) 

On July 9, 2020, SH Group served its First Set of Requests for Production to Bostany.1

 

See Exhibit 1. SH Group sought documents regarding the Association, its members and 

stakeholders, its goods and services provided under infringing trademarks, and its attempt to 

cancel SH Group’s trademark registrations. See id. at 10–12, 14 (Request Nos. Nos. 6–7, 13–15, 

33, and 36). On August 10, 2020, Bostany served his Responses to SH Group’s First Set of 

Requests for Production. See Exhibit 2. In the Responses, Bostany provided only objections and 

made no commitment to search for or produce responsive documents. Id. at 4, 7, 14–15. The 

common objection to each of the Requests for Production is that the “documents [sought] are not 

within Bostany’s possession, custody, or control.” Id. 

On August 20, 2020, SH Group’s counsel sent a letter to Bostany’s counsel raising its 

concerns about the Responses, among other deficiencies in Defendants’ discovery responses. 

1

 SH Group also served a separate First Set of Requests for Production to the Association, to 

which the Association separately responded and which are not at issue in this Motion.

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 6 of 17
3 

See Exhibit 3 at 4. SH Group requested that Bostany “amend his responses to provide 

substantive responses” to the Requests for Production. Id. at 4. Bostany’s counsel responded on 

August 31, 2020, stating that “Mr. Bostany will . . . conduct a reasonable search of his personal 

records for documents responsive to RFP 6–7, 13–15, 33, and 36 and shall produce nonprivileged documents should any exist.” Exhibit 4 at 3. In a subsequent email, Bostany’s 

counsel agreed to provide amended responses to the Requests for Production by September 14, 

2020. See Exhibit 5 at 14; see also id. at 13.2

 On the evening of September 14, Bostany’s 

counsel stated in an email that they were “experiencing some unanticipated delays in getting the 

amended responses to the Requests for Production directed to the Association and Mr. Bostany 

approved by our clients” and that “[i]n the event we cannot get those to you this evening we will 

continue our efforts to get them served to you by tomorrow.” Id. at 6. Counsel for SH Group 

asked for the reasons for the delay but received no response. Id. at 5. 

On the evening of September 15, 2020, Bostany served his amended Responses to SH 

Group’s First Set of Requests for Production. See Exhibit 6. At the bottom of the cover email, 

Bostany’s counsel stated: “Please note that responses to Requests for Production No. 6–7, 13–15, 

33 and 36 directed to Mr. Bostany were not amended. Mr. Bostany wishes to maintain his 

original responses.” Id. at 1. That same evening, counsel for SH Group emailed Bostany’s 

counsel noting his prior agreement to amend the Responses and requesting that the Responses by 

amended accordingly. Exhibit 5 at 5. Bostany’s counsel did not respond, and SH Group’s 

counsel followed up on September 17. Id. at 4. Bostany’s counsel responded to that follow up, 

2

 The correspondence between the parties’ counsel also reflects numerous other deficiencies in 

Defendants’ discovery responses, and Defendants’ delay tactics as to those issues as well. 

SH Group is not currently moving as to those other issues, but reserves its rights to do so, 

including once it receives Defendants’ respective document productions as Defendants have 

not yet produced any documents. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 7 of 17
4 

reiterating that Bostany would not be amending his Responses. Id. at 3–4. In subsequent emails, 

counsel for SH Group continued to attempt to resolve this issue in order to avoid motion 

practice. Id. at 1–3. For instance, SH Group’s counsel asked: “is your position that such 

documents are not in Mr. Bostany’s possession, custody, or control? If that is the case, can you 

please confirm that there are no documents that are respons[ive] to [the Requests for Production] 

that are in Mr. Bostany’s possession, custody, or control?” Id. at 3. Counsel for Bostany did not 

directly respond do those questions. Id. at 2–3. Instead, counsel stated that “Mr. Bostany stands 

by the objections provided for each response” and that “[t]hese requests are for documents that 

are all clearly Association records not personal records of Mr. Bostany.” Id. at 2. In response, 

on September 18, SH Group’s counsel explained: 

As the Association’s Board President, Mr. Bostany presumably would have these 

documents as well. It is possible that Mr. Bostany could have documents that the 

Association does not have. We have no way of knowing. The simple solution 

here, and what is required under the Federal Rules, is for Mr. Bostany to agree to 

search for and produce any responsive documents that are in his possession, 

custody, or control. We understand from your below response that he is refusing 

to do so. 

Id. at 1. Bostany’s counsel did not respond. 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. Legal Standard 

A party may obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

In turn, Federal Rule 34 allows any party to request the production of “any designated documents 

or electronically stored information” that is “in the responding party’s possession, custody, or 

control[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The party responding to discovery requests bears the burden 

of establishing a basis for resisting production. See, e.g., Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 

762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Adelman v. Boy Scouts of Am., 276 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Fla. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 8 of 17
5 

2011) (noting that court could grant motion to compel “solely based on [discovery respondent’s] 

procedurally inadequate objections”). “When a party ‘fails to respond that inspection will be 

permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34,’ the requesting party can 

move for an order compelling production.” Douglas v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., No. 15-CV1185-ORL-22-TBS, 2016 WL 1637277, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(b)(2)(B)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). Moreover, “an evasive or incomplete 

disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 

B. Bostany Should Be Required to Produce Documents Responsive to the 

Requests for Production. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 26(g)(2), below SH Group provides (1) the Requests for 

Production, (2) Bostany’s objections and stated grounds for not producing responsive 

documents, and (3) the reasons that Bostany should be compelled to produce responsive 

documents. 

SH Group’s Requests for Production: The Requests for Production at issue in this 

Motion to Compel are as follows: 

Request No. 6: “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all investors, shareholders, 

stakeholders, condominium association members, BOARD members, or others 

having an interest in the ASSOCIATION, the ASSOCIATION’S GOODS AND 

SERVICES, and/or the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK.”3

3

 Terms that appear in all capital letters are defined in SH Group’s First Set of Requests for 

Production. See Exhibit 1. For instance, the term “ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK” 

“means and refers to 1 HOMES, as well as any other mark to which the ASSOCIATION 

claims rights that includes the term ‘1,’ including but not limited to, any accompanying 

design elements.” Id. at 2. The term “ASSOCIATION’S GOODS AND SERVICES” 

“means and refers to” various goods and services specified in the Association’s pending 

trademark applications “and any other goods or services that the ASSOCIATION has made, 

sold, offered for sale, licensed, or distributed, or intends to make, sell, offer for sale, license, 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 9 of 17
6 

Request No. 7: “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the founding or formation of 

the ASSOCIATION and the scope of its authority.” 

Request No. 13: “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all annual sales for the 

ASSOCIATION’S GOODS AND SERVICES in the United States.” 

Request No. 14: “DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all annual expenditures by 

the ASSOCIATION in connection with advertising, promoting, and/or marketing 

the ASSOCIATION’S GOODS AND SERVICES and/or the ASSOCIATION’S 

CLAIMED MARK.” 

Request No. 15: “All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING or REFERRING OR 

RELATING TO any MARKET RESEARCH or SURVEY CONCERNING or 

REFERRING OR RELATING TO the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK, 

the term ‘1,’ and/or SH GROUP’S MARKS in the United States.” 

Request No. 33: “All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING or REFERRING OR 

RELATING TO any profits earned by the ASSOCIATION from the sale of goods 

and services under the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK in the United 

States.” 

Request No. 36: “All DOCUMENTS referenced, relied upon or otherwise 

consulted in preparing the PETITION FOR CANCELLATION.” 

Bostany’s Objections: In response to each of the Requests for Production, Bostany 

stated that he “objects to this request as it seeks documents that are not within Bostany’s 

possession, custody, or control.” Exhibit 2 at 4, 7, 14–15. Bostany did not state affirmatively 

whether or not documents would be searched for and produced. Thereafter, Bostany’s counsel 

stated that “Mr. Bostany will . . . conduct a reasonable search of his personal records for 

documents responsive to [the Requests for Production] and shall produce non-privileged 

documents should any exist.” Exhibit 4 at 3. Nevertheless, Bostany subsequently changed 

course, reiterated his prior objections, and refused to amend his Responses and to search for and 

produce documents. See Exhibit 6 at 1; see also Exhibit 5 at 2. Bostany’s counsel further stated 

or distribute, in the United States using a trademark that includes the term ‘1,’ including, but 

not limited to, ‘1 HOMES.’” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 10 of 17
7 

that “[t]hese requests are for documents that are all clearly Association records not personal 

records of Mr. Bostany” and that “the Association has agreed to search and produce documents 

as provided in its response to each request [to the Association].” Exhibit 5 at 2. 

Reasons Supporting this Motion to Compel: Bostany’s Responses are deficient for two 

reasons: (1) they do not clearly state whether or not documents are being withheld, and thus 

violate Federal Rule 34, and (2) the fact that the Association may also have some responsive 

documents does not absolve Bostany from searching his own records and producing all 

responsive documents in his possession, custody or control. Bostany’s refusal to search for and 

produce responsive documents prejudices SH Group as Bostany may have documents that the 

Association does not have, including for instance his own personal notes, drafts of documents he 

created or edited, and/or marked up copies of responsive documents. Bostany also may have 

documents that the Association previously had, but have not been maintained, or otherwise were 

not included in or captured by the Association’s search for documents. Moreover, even if 

Bostany has the same documents as the Association, such production would confirm Bostany’s 

personal knowledge of certain information, which is relevant to SH Group’s claims that he 

directed, induced, and/or controlled the Association’s infringement and interference with SH 

Group’s trademark rights. (See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5, 46–47, 57.) 

1. Bostany’s Failure to State Whether He Is Withholding Responsive 

Documents Violates Federal Rule 34. 

First, Bostany’s Responses to the Requests for Production are deficient because they 

merely provide objections and fail to clearly state whether responsive documents are being 

withheld. Federal Rule 34 provides that any objection to a request for production “must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection 

to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 11 of 17
8 

34(b)(2)(C). Moreover, the 2015 Committee Notes on Rule 34 state: “The producing party does 

not need to provide a detailed description or log of all documents withheld, but does need to alert 

other parties to the fact that documents have been withheld and thereby facilitate an informed 

discussion of the objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Committee Notes on Rules—2015 Amendment. 

Accordingly, courts have granted motions to compel the production of documents in the face of 

deficient responses, finding that “[t]he rules require Defendant to state whether responsive 

information is being withheld on the basis of a specific objection. Defendant has not complied 

with this requirement. If Defendant has responsive information, it must produce it.” LLB 

Convenience & Gas, Inc. v. Se. Petro Distribs., Inc., No. 18-CV-914-ORL-40TBS, 2019 WL 

1586732, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2019) (granting plaintiff’s motion to compel); see also

Catchplay Inc. (Cayman) v. Studio Sols. Grp., Inc., No. CV 12-7525 GW(JCX), 2013 WL 

12137107, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2013) (granting motion to compel and ordering that 

amended responses “reflect that [defendant] conducted ‘a diligent search and reasonable inquiry’ 

within the time frame set forth below”). Only if the responding party indicates that “after a 

reasonable inquiry, no documents exist that are responsive to the request, then their obligations 

under the Federal Rules are satisfied and the Court can compel nothing more.” In re Porsche 

Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 11-md-2233, 2012 WL 4361430, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2012). Here, 

Bostany’s Responses provide only objections and Bostany has not agreed to conduct a 

reasonable search for responsive documents. The Responses are thus facially deficient and 

Bostany should conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents. 

2. The Association’s Discovery Responses Do Not Excuse Bostany From 

Conducting a Reasonable Search for Responsive Documents. 

Second, Bostany cannot deflect his own discovery obligations by pointing to the 

Association’s separate discovery responses. The requesting party’s possession of a document 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 12 of 17
9 

through its own course of business or discovery from another party has no bearing on the 

responding party’s obligation to produce relevant materials. See LLB Convenience, 2019 WL 

1586732, at *4 (“That Plaintiff may already be in possession of the information is irrelevant to 

Defendant’s duty to produce documents that are responsive, relevant and proportional to the 

needs of the case.”); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Cypress, No. 12-22439-CIV, 2013 

WL 10740706, at *5 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2013) (finding that even though party may have 

documents from another party in the case, it still must produce responsive documents). Where a 

request for production to an individual requests only documents “in his possession” and the 

“failure to meet this obligation prompt[s] in large part, plaintiffs’ motion to compel,” granting a 

motion to compel is the proper remedy to correct the discovery deficiency. Moore v. Chertoff, 

577 F. Supp. 2d 165, 168 (D.D.C. 2008) (overruling defendant’s objection to the magistrate 

judge’s grant of a motion to compel where defendant erroneously argued that the requests 

required the production of documents not in defendant’s possession). 

Here, the Requests for Production properly seek documents in Bostany’s possession, 

custody, or control, pursuant to Federal Rule 34(a)(1). While such documents also may be in the 

possession, custody, or control of the Association, that does not excuse Bostany from also 

searching for and producing responsive documents. See Waste Corp. of Am. v. Genesis Ins. Co., 

No. 03-61480-CIV, 2004 WL 7331295, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2004) (permitting discovery of 

additional information that is “related to, or might overlap with” other discovery in the case). 

Bostany is the Association’s Board President and SH Group has alleged that he directed, 

induced, and/or controlled the Association’s trademark infringement and interference with SH 

Group’s trademark rights. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 44–57.) Thus, it is likely that Bostany himself 

would have responsive documents concerning the Association and its stakeholders, its use of and 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 13 of 17
10 

sales under the infringing marks, and documents relied upon in preparing the petition to cancel 

SH Group’s trademark registrations. See Exhibit 1 at 10–12, 14 (Request Nos. 6–7, 13–15, 33, 

and 36). This may include Bostany’s own notes and marked up copies, emails (including sent 

and received from his personal email addresses), and more. Bostany also may have documents 

that the Association previously had, but has not maintained, or documents that may not be 

included in the Association’s searches, all of which would provide valuable information as to the 

adequacy of Defendants’ document preservation, collection, and production efforts, pursuant to 

Federal Rule 37. Without an order compelling Bostany to search for and produce responsive 

documents, SH Group will have no way of knowing whether responsive documents exist and are 

being withheld. See U. S. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958) (“Modern 

instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose . . . [and] together with pretrial procedures make 

a trial less a game of blind man’s buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts 

disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 

(1947)). Moreover, the fact that Bostany possesses responsive documents also may shed light on 

his role in the Association’s infringement and interference with SH Group’s trademark 

rights. Bostany’s ongoing failure to even search for responsive documents, necessitating this 

Motion, is completely unjustified. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, SH Group respectfully requests that the Court enter an order 

requiring Bostany to search for and produce all documents that are response to the Requests for 

Production, to award SH Group its reasonable expenses incurred relating to this Motion 

(including attorneys’ fees),4

 and for all such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

4

 See Cuervo v. Airport Servs., Inc., No. 12-20608-CIV, 2014 WL 12802522, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 

Mar. 4, 2014) (“[T]he Court must order [the losing party] and/or its counsel to pay [the 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 14 of 17
11 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 and Federal Rule 37, undersigned counsel certifies that SH 

Group has conferred with Bostany’s counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by 

this motion without Court involvement, but the parties have been unable to resolve these matters 

on their own. 

 

winning party’s] reasonable expenses (including attorney’s fees) relating to the motion, 

unless the Court finds that [the losing party’s] position was substantially justified, or there 

are other circumstances that make an award of expenses unjust.”) (emphasis in original) 

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii)–(iii)).

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 15 of 17
12 

Dated: October 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Gavin C. Gaukroger

 Gavin C. Gaukroger 

Fla. Bar. No. 76489 

Christina M. Perry 

Fla. Bar. No. 1003098 

BERGER SINGERMAN LLP 

350 East Las Olas Boulevard 

Suite 1000 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Tel. (954) 525-9900 

Fax (954) 523-2872 

Email: ggaukroger@bergersingerman.com 

Email: cperry@bergersingerman.com 

Email: DRT@bergersingerman.com 

 DALE M. CENDALI 

(admitted pro hac vice) 

CLAUDIA RAY 

(admitted pro hac vice) 

SHANTI SADTLER CONWAY 

(admitted pro hac vice) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

601 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Tel. (212) 446-4800 

Fax (212) 446-6460 

Email: dale.cendali@kirkland.com 

Email: claudia.ray@kirkland.com 

Email: shanti.conway@kirkland.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant 

 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 16 of 17
13 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HERBY CERTIFY that on October 1, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has 

been transmitted by electronic filing with the Clerk of the court via CM/ECF which will send 

notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record. 

 By: /s/ Gavin C. Gaukroger 

 Gavin C. Gaukroger 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 17 of 17