EXHIBIT 4 

 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 1 of 5
 

Herbert L. Allen 

Ava K. Doppelt 

Brian R. Gilchrist 

Christopher F. Regan 

David L. Sigalow 

Richard K. Warther 

Michael W. Taylor 

 John F. Woodson II 

Stephen H. Luther 

Ryan T. Santurri 

Robert H. Thornburg 

Jack G. Abid 

David S. Carus 

Justin R. Sauer 

Allison R. Imber 

Matthew G. McKinney 

Jaafar Choufani 

Stephanie Vazquez 

David Roncayolo

svazquez@allendyer.com

Orlando Office (Main) 

255 South Orange Ave., Suite 1401 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Mail to: P.O. Box 3791 

Orlando, FL 32802-3791 

tel 407-841-2330 

fax 407-841-2343 

Winter Springs Office 

1135 E. State Road 434, Suite 3001 

Winter Springs, FL 32708 

tel 407-796-5051 

fax 407-796-5065 

Miami Office 

1221 Brickell Ave., Suite 2400 

Miami, FL 33131 

tel 305-374-8303 

fax 305-374-8306 

Jacksonville Office* 

4720 Salisbury Road 

Jacksonville, FL 32256 

tel 904-398-7000 

fax 904-398-7003 

www.allendyer.com * Satellite Office 

August 31, 2020 

Via Electronic Mail Only 

Shanti Sadtler Conway, Esq. 

shanti.conway@kirkland.com 

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

601 Lexington Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

Re: SH Group Global IP Holdings L.L.C. v. 2399 Collins Avenue Condominium 

Association, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-22423-UU – Response to August 20th Letter 

Regarding Defendants’ Discovery Responses 

Dear Shanti: 

We write in response to your August 20th letter concerning issues raised on behalf of SH 

Group Global IP Holdings L.L.C. (“Plaintiff” or “SH Group”) regarding Defendants 2399 Collins 

Avenue Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Association”) and John P. Bostany’s (“Mr. 

Bostany”) (collectively, “Defendants’) respective responses, dated August 10, 2020 

(“Responses”), to SH Group Global IP Holdings, L.L.C.’s (“SH Group”) First Set of Requests for 

Admission (“RFAs”), First Set of Requests for Production (“RFPs”), and First Set of 

Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”) (collectively, the “Requests”) in the above-referenced action. 

I. “General Objections” Raised in Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatories 

Regarding Defendants’ “General Objections” raised in response to SH Group’s First Set of 

Interrogatories, Defendants clarify that no response or portion thereof has been withheld on the 

basis of these objections. In fact, Defendants’ “General Objections” are akin to Plaintiff’s own 

“Preliminary Statement” included in its response to the Association’s First Set of Requests for 

Production, namely including statements addressing that the responses provided are made pursuant 

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, that the responding party does not waive 

attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege, that responses are based upon the party’s best 

knowledge, information, and belief held at that time, that discovery is ongoing and therefore new 

information may be discovered, and that the party reserves the right to supplement or amend its 

answers. Thus, the objections raised are not the type of “boilerplate” objections typically 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 2 of 5
Shanti Sadtler Conway, Esq. 

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

Re: SH Group Global IP Holdings v. 2399 Collins Avenue Condominium Association 

 Case No. 1:20-cv-22423-UU 

August 31, 2020 

Page 2 of 4 

disfavored by courts in this District such as those which leave the requesting party “unable to a 

certain whether the question has been fully answered, or only a portion of the question has been 

answered.” Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 399, 401 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Nonetheless, in an 

attempt to eliminate any ambiguities concerning “General Objections,” Defendants agree to 

provide amended responses to SH Group’s First Set of Interrogatories. 

II. Objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions Which Seek Admission of Legal 

Conclusions 

Concerning the issues raised regarding Defendants’ responses to SH Group’s First Set of 

Requests for Admission, Defendants stand by their objections. The RFA objected to by Defendants 

asked Defendants to admit to legal conclusions. For example, RFA No. 2, mentioned in the August 

20th letter, asks the Association to “[a]dmit that the ASSOCIATION did not use the 

ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK in U.S. commerce prior to December 31, 2018” requiring 

that the Association admit a legal conclusion as to whether the Association’s use of said mark prior 

to December 31, 2018 constitutes “use in commerce” as defined under the Lanham Act. Similarly, 

RFA No. 6, also mentioned in the August 20th letter, asks the Association to “[a]dmit that SH 

GROUP used the term ‘1’ in U.S. commerce, including but not limited to in SH GROUP’S 

MARKS, prior to the ASSOCIATION’s first use of the ASSOCIATION’S CLAIMED MARK” 

requiring that the Association admit a legal conclusion as to whether the SH Group’s use of term 

“1” prior to the Association’s use of its mark constitutes “use in commerce” as defined under the 

Lanham Act. 

Although Rule 36(a) authorizes a party to serve a request for admission relating to the 

application of law to fact, a party may not seek an admission as to a pure conclusion of law. See 

Perez v. Aircom Mgmt. Corp, No. 12-60322-CIV-WILLIAMS/SELTZER, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

849, at *4-5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2013) (citing Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. 

Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 234 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2006) (“In 1970, Rule 36 was 

amended to allow for requests applying law to fact. It is still true, however, that one party cannot 

demand that the other party admit the truth of a legal conclusion. . . . For example, it would be 

inappropriate for a party to demand that the opposing party ratify legal conclusions that the 

requesting party has simply attached to operative facts.”) (internal citations omitted); Hanley v. 

Como Inn, Inc., No. 99 C 1486, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7130, 2003 WL 1989607, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 

Apr. 28, 2003) (“A party cannot be asked to admit a legal conclusion.”); Tulip Computers Int'l, 

B.V. v. Dell Computer Corp., 210 F.R.D. 100, 108 (D. Del. 2002) (“[R]equests that seek legal 

conclusions are not allowed under Rule 36.”); 8B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Mary 

Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2255 (3rd ed. 2008) (“As the Committee Note 

indicates, even the amended rule does not allow a request for admission of a pure legal 

conclusion.”)). 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 3 of 5
Shanti Sadtler Conway, Esq. 

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

Re: SH Group Global IP Holdings v. 2399 Collins Avenue Condominium Association 

 Case No. 1:20-cv-22423-UU 

August 31, 2020 

Page 3 of 4 

Thus, Plaintiff’s requests for admissions directed to the Association Nos. 2–3, 18–38, 89–

90 and RFA directed to Mr. Bostany Nos. 4, 6, 21–41, 93–94 improperly seek admissions of legal 

conclusions. See Perez v. Aircom Mgmt. Corp, No. 12-60322-CIV-WILLIAMS/SELTZER, 2013 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 849, at *6; Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington 

Metro. Area Transit Auth., 234 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2006); (requests seeking admission that no 

provision of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, or the Federal Transit Administration regulations were 

applicable to the plaintiff's claims improperly sought legal conclusion); Reichenbach v. City of 

Columbus, No. 2:03-CV-1132, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3058, 2006 WL 143552 at *2 (S.D. Ohio 

Jan. 19, 2006) (the defendants properly objected to a request asking them to admit that the curb 

ramp at issue was not in compliance with ADA accessibility design standards on the ground that 

the request sought a pure legal conclusion). 

III. Mr. Bostany’s Response to Interrogatory 2 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 2 directed at Mr. Bostany, as written, is vague and overbroad. 

Interrogatory 2 requests that Mr. Bostany “[i]dentify all person(s) with knowledge of [his] 

contractual obligations under each of the Agreements and describe the subject matter of each 

person’s knowledge, including the relevant Agreement.” As objected to, this request potentially 

calls for Mr. Bostany to identify every condominium unit owner who has signed the same 

agreements which is not feasible nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. It is unclear what the relevance is of such a request. Should Plaintiff wish to specify 

and/or narrow its request, Mr. Bostany is will work in good faith to provide Plaintiff a more 

substantive response. 

IV. Mr. Bostany’s Response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production 6-7, 13-15, 33, 

36, 41 

Plaintiff’s Requests for Production 6-7, 13-15, 33, and 36 directed to Mr. Bostany, request 

documents which are not within Mr. Bostany’s possession, custody, or control. These are 

documents which, should they exist, would be in the possession, custody, or control of the 

Association. Mr. Bostany will nonetheless conduct a reasonable search of his personal records for 

documents responsive to RFP 6-7, 13-15, 33, and 36 and shall produce non-privileged documents 

should any exist. 

Mr. Bostany shall also conduct a reasonable search of his personal records for documents 

responsive to RFP 41 and shall produce non-privileged documents should any exist. 

Mr. Bostany shall serve amended responses to SH Group’s First Set of Requests for 

Production reflecting the above. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 4 of 5
Shanti Sadtler Conway, Esq. 

Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 

Re: SH Group Global IP Holdings v. 2399 Collins Avenue Condominium Association 

 Case No. 1:20-cv-22423-UU 

August 31, 2020 

Page 4 of 4 

V. The Association’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories 3-5, and 7 

The Association’s responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories 3-5, and 7 direct the Plaintiff to 

records which can be publicly accessed as permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. To 

the extent that it is unclear which federal trademark applications for the Association’s mark 1 

HOMES are referenced in the responses, the Association refers to the following trademark 

applications: U.S. Application Serial No. 88457662, U.S. Application Serial No. 88879248, and 

U.S. Application Serial No. 88914537. 

VI. The Association’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission 4-17 

Similarly, the Association’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission 4-17, 

reference the USPTO trademark application records for SH Group’s specified marks and provide 

that the Association at this time is “without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny [the] request[s] 

and therefore denies.” The Association does not at this time have sufficient knowledge to admit 

these requests pertaining to the prosecution history of trademark applications for which it was not 

an applicant or party itself. The only information available to the Association at this time regarding 

SH Group’s trademark applications for the marks specified is the USPTO record which is publicly 

available and referenced by the Association in its response. The completeness or accuracy of the 

records cannot at this time be admitted to by the Association without the benefit of further 

discovery. 

VII. The Association’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production 45-46 

Regarding Plaintiff’s Requests for Production 45-46, the Association shall amend its 

response. The Association will conduct a reasonable search of its records for documents responsive 

to RFP 45-46 and shall produce non-privileged documents should any exist. 

The Defendants shall produce amended responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests as 

discussed above. Should Plaintiff have any remaining concerns regarding Defendants’ discovery 

responses, Defendants’ counsel are available to conduct a meet-and-confer call this week to 

address any remaining issues. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Stephanie Vazquez 

Stephanie Vazquez 

SV/sh 

cc: Client 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 42-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 5 of 5