UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KIMBERLY GRIPPA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-457-MW/MAF 

RONALD RUBIN, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The Defendant, Ronald Rubin (“Rubin”), pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves to compel the production of documents 

from the Plaintiff, Kimberly Grippa (“Grippa”), and in support states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Rubin – through his Requests for Production – seeks the production of 

documents directly related to Ms. Grippa’s allegations and his defenses in this 

matter. 

The Court’s Order on Mr. Rubin’s Motion to Dismiss substantially narrowed 

Ms. Grippa’s claims. (Doc. 22). All that remains is one branch of Ms. Grippa’s

defamation claim, which concerns two letters sent by Mr. Rubin’s prior counsel to 

Governor DeSantis and Chief Inspector General Melinda Miguel requesting an 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 16
2 

investigation into a potential criminal enterprise involving Ms. Grippa. (Id.). One of 

Mr. Rubin’s defenses to Ms. Grippa’s claim is the truth of the allegedly defamatory 

statement that Ms. Grippa is part of such an enterprise. 

In response to Mr. Rubin’s requests, Ms. Grippa lodged a series of 

unsubstantiated, boilerplate objections. After approximately six weeks of conferring, 

Ms. Grippa still refuses to produce responsive documents between herself and her 

ex-husband and friend Anthony Grippa or to provide a privilege log. Ms. Grippa also 

amended her Rule 26 Disclosures to remove Anthony Grippa as a witness. In short, 

Ms. Grippa is attempting to stonewall Mr. Rubin’s discovery of relevant evidence. 

The Court should overrule Ms. Grippa’s objections and grant this Motion. 

Specifically, Mr. Rubin seeks the following relevant documents from Ms. 

Grippa: 

• Documents and correspondence related to Ronald Rubin from November 1,

2018, through July 1, 2019.

• Documents and correspondence between Ms. Grippa and Anthony Grippa

related to the Department of Financial Services, the Florida Office of

Financial Regulation, Jimmy Patronis, Ronald Rubin, Paul Mitchell, and

Governor Ron DeSantis from November 1, 2018, through July 1, 2019.

• Documents and correspondence between Ms. Grippa and Anthony Grippa

related to Kimberly Grippa’s job search in Tallahassee, Florida for the

timeframe that Ms. Grippa is seeking damages until and including December

31, 2020.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 16
3 

The term “document” and “correspondence” for these requests include any 

text messages, voicemails, or emails. If Ms. Grippa contends any responsive 

document or correspondence is subject to privilege, then she should produce a 

privilege log as well. To date, Ms. Grippa has produced no privilege log.

Mr. Rubin’s requests for production are attached as Exhibit A. Ms. Grippa’s 

May 14, 2021, responses are attached as Exhibit “B” and her June 4, 2021, Amended 

Responses (Ms. Grippa amended her responses after being made aware that a motion 

to compel was going to be filed) are attached as Exhibit “C.” The Court should 

overrule Ms. Grippa’s objections and order the production of the requested 

documents. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. Legal Standard. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 indicate that “[t]he purpose of 

discovery is to allow a broad search for facts, the names of witnesses, or any other 

matters which may aid a party in the preparation or presentation of his case.” See

Adv. Com. Notes, 1946 Amendment, Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P. (citations omitted) 

(emphasis added). 

Courts have long recognized the wide scope of discovery allowed under the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the Eleventh Circuit's predecessor court noted,

The discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

allow the parties to develop fully and crystalize concise factual 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 16
4 

issues for trial. Properly used, they prevent prejudicial surprises 

and conserve precious judicial energies. The United States 

Supreme Court has said that they are to be broadly and liberally 

construed. 

Burns v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 483 F.2d 300, 304 (5th Cir.1973) (citing Hickman v. 

Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947); Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114–115, 

(1964)); see also Bank of Mongolia v. M & P Glob. Fin. Servs., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 

514, 518 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 

Ms. Grippa has opted to lodge baseless and boilerplate objections to relevant 

discovery requests rather than comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

applicable case law. 

B. Rubin’s Request #3 and Ms. Grippa’s Boilerplate Response

a. Request #3 seeks the production of discoverable documents.

In Request #3, Mr. Rubin requested the following documents from Ms. 

Grippa: “All documents and correspondence related to Ronald Rubin.” After the 

Court’s Order on the Motion to Quash the Verizon Subpoena, and in attempt to 

resolve this discovery dispute without Court intervention, Mr. Rubin offered to 

narrow the temporal scope of this request to stop on July 1, 2019 – three days after 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 4 of 16
5

Ms. Grippa declined an offer of employment with the Department of Financial 

Services.1

b. Ms. Grippa’s Objection is improper and should be overruled. 

In her original response, Ms. Grippa objected to Request #3 as follows: 

Plaintiff objects to this request as a fishing expedition. This 

request seeks information that will not lead to the discovery of 

evidence that will be admissible at trial and is propounded for the 

purpose of harassment and oppression. 

See Exhibit B. This is a boilerplate objection and should be ignored and overruled. 

Indeed, the Local Rules advise litigants that “boilerplate objections are strongly 

disfavored.” See Local Rule 26.1(C). 

The law is clear: “an objection that a discovery request is irrelevant and not 

reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence must include a specific 

explanation describing why the request lacks relevance, and why the information 

sought will not reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc., 

249 F.R.D. 399, 401 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (emphasis added); see also Miccosukee Tribe 

of Indians of Florida v. Cypress, 2013 WL 10740706, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2013). 

Ms. Grippa failed to include any such explanation here. 

Finally, Ms. Grippa’s objection that Request #3 “will not lead to the discovery 

of evidence that will be admissible at trial” misses the mark. It completely 

1 Ms. Grippa’s purported damages include lost wages because she was allegedly unable to get a 

job due to Mr. Rubin’s “defamatory” statements. The requested timeline is relevant because Ms. 

Grippa had a job with the state of Florida that she declined. 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 5 of 16
6 

misapprehends the scope of discovery and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

which specifically state that “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not 

be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” See F.R.C.P. 26. This objection 

should be overruled, and Ms. Grippa should be ordered to produce the requested 

documents. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, documents and communications related to 

Ronald Rubin are clearly relevant to this matter. Ms. Grippa lodges various 

allegations of defamation against Mr. Rubin related to his subsequent naming of Ms. 

Grippa as a part of an enterprise that worked to have him removed as OFR 

Commissioner. Mr. Rubin’s defenses include the truth of the statements made. As 

the defendant in this action, Mr. Rubin has the right to conduct discovery into Ms. 

Grippa’s documents and communications regarding him, as that information directly 

relates to her claims and his defenses. 

For example, Ms. Grippa’s communications immediately after her interview 

with Mr. Rubin are highly relevant, Ms. Grippa’s communications surrounding her 

decision to lodge a complaint with the Department of Financial Services about Mr. 

Rubin’s conduct at the interview are highly relevant, Ms. Grippa’s communications 

regarding the investigation by DFS into Mr. Rubin are highly relevant, and Ms. 

Grippa’s communications regarding her decision to reject a job offer by DFS 

allegedly because of Mr. Rubin are highly relevant. In general, Ms. Grippa’s 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 6 of 16
7 

communications about Mr. Rubin are highly relevant because they will show that 

Ms. Grippa was indeed involved in an enterprise that expected Mr. Rubin to hire Ms. 

Grippa, and then when he refused, worked to remove him from office. 

Ms. Grippa, however, via this boilerplate objection is refusing to produce 

pertinent and relevant information. Ms. Grippa refuses to produce responsive 

documents even though Mr. Rubin offered to narrow the temporal scope of his 

request. This refusal prejudices Mr. Rubin. Ms. Grippa’s objection should be 

overruled.

C. Rubin’s Request #4 and Ms. Grippa’s Boilerplate Response

a. Request #4 seeks the production of discoverable documents.

In Request #4, Mr. Rubin requested:

All documents and correspondence with Anthony Grippa related 

to the Department of Financial Services, the Florida Office of 

Financial Regulation, Jimmy Patronis, Ronald Rubin, Paul 

Mitchell, Governor Ron DeSantis, and/or Kimberly Grippa’s job 

search in Tallahassee, Florida.

After the Court’s Order on the Motion to Quash the Verizon Subpoena, and 

in attempt to resolve this discovery dispute without Court intervention, Mr. Rubin 

offered to narrow the temporal scope of this request through July 1, 2019 – three 

days after Ms. Grippa declined an offer of employment with the Department of 

Financial Services.2

2 See Footnote 1.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 7 of 16
8

The sole exception is for documents related to Ms. Grippa’s job search which 

should extend to December 31, 2020, as she is seeking damages for her inability to 

find a job during that time-period due to Mr. Rubin’s alleged defamation. (Doc. 16). 

b. Ms. Grippa’s Objection is improper and should be overruled. 

In her original response, Ms. Grippa objected to Request #4 as follows: 

Plaintiff objects to this request as a fishing expedition. This 

request seeks information that will not lead to the discovery of 

evidence that will be admissible at trial and is propounded for the 

purpose of harassment and oppression.

See Exhibit B. 

This is the same exact boilerplate objection that Ms. Grippa lodged in 

response to Request #3 above and should be overruled for the same reasons. Mr. 

Rubin incorporates his arguments in favor of overruling Ms. Grippa’s objection to 

Request #3 here in support of overruling the Ms. Grippa’s objection to Request #4. 

Next, documents between Mr. Grippa, Ms. Grippa’s friend and ex-husband, 

specifically relating to DFS, OFR, Jimmy Patronis, Ronald Rubin, Paul Mitchell, 

Governor Ron DeSantis, and/or Kimberly Grippa’s job search in Tallahassee, 

Florida are relevant and within the broad scope of discovery. 

Further, Ms. Grippa’s conversations with Mr. Grippa regarding DFS, OFR, 

Jimmy Patronis, Ronald Rubin, Paul Mitchell, Governor Ron DeSantis, and/or 

Kimberly Grippa’s job search in Tallahassee go directly to the heart of this case. 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 8 of 16
9 

For example, Mr. Grippa was instrumental in getting Ms. Grippa on the inside 

track with respect to a job at DFS through his communications with Paul Mitchell 

and Jimmy Patronis. Mr. Grippa spoke with Mr. Patronis on several occasions and 

included references in emails obtained through DFS regarding Ms. Grippa’s

“loyalty” to Mr. Patronis and his willingness to “do anything” for Mr. Patronis. Ms. 

Grippa sent her resume directly to Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Patronis at Mr. Grippa’s 

direction. Mr. Grippa also provided Ms. Grippa’s resume directly to Mr. Mitchell 

and called Mr. Patronis about scheduling a meeting between Ms. Grippa and Mr. 

Mitchell. Because of Mr. Grippa’s connections, Ms. Grippa met with Mr. Rubin and 

the events leading to this lawsuit took place. Ms. Grippa’s conversations with Mr. 

Grippa regarding Mr. Rubin and other key players in this case are crucial to Ms. 

Grippa’s claims and Mr. Rubin’s defenses. These documents are highly relevant and

contrary to Ms. Grippa’s assertions and misapplication of the standard, would 

undoubtedly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

D. Ms. Grippa’s Amended Responses to Mr. Rubin’s Request for 

Production should be overruled. 

a. The Amended Responses are untimely and should be disregarded.

In her Amended Response to Mr. Rubin’s Request for Production made only as 

to Request #3 and Request #4, served only after being made aware that a motion to 

compel was going to be filed as to these requests, Ms. Grippa objected to Request 

#3 as follows: 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 9 of 16
10

Plaintiff objects to this request as a fishing expedition and 

violative of the attorney client/work product privileges. This 

request seeks information that will not lead to the discovery of 

evidence that will be admissible at trial and is propounded for the 

purpose of harassment and oppression. Additionally, Ms. Grippa 

objects to this request in that the request is overly broad. This 

request is intended to circumvent the ruling of the Court in the 

case Rubin v. Mitchell, Case No. 2019-CA-2535, Leon County 

Circuit Court quashing the subpoenas/entering a protective order 

on similar information sought by Rubin. The issue in the instant 

case is whether Rubin defamed Plaintiff, i.e., whether Rubin made 

false statements about Plaintiff, whether those statements are true 

and Plaintiff’s damages. This request for all documents and 

correspondence related to Rubin could never lead to the discovery 

of evidence that would be admissible at trial because of the breadth 

of this request as it covers, for example, newspaper articles,

documents covered by the attorney client and work product 

privileges. Additionally, Plaintiff is her former husband’s attorney 

and the documents requested could and would cover documents 

protected by the attorney client privilege that Plaintiff has with her 

former husband. Plaintiff and both her former husband also are 

represented in the state court case referenced above by Ryan 

Andrews and the documents requested herein would cover 

communications between the Grippas and Mr. Andrews. Thus, 

this request invades the attorney-client privilege, as well as the 

work-product privilege of Ms. Grippa as it relates to any pending 

litigation wherein she is a party or non-party witness, or where she 

is the attorney for her former husband. Further, Ms. Grippa and 

Mr. Grippa had common interests such that any and/or all 

communications between Ms. Grippa and Mr. Grippa are 

protected pursuant to the common interest privilege. See Visual 

Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Bros., 508 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 

1987). See also First Union Nat'l Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172, 

fn. 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The common interest privilege also 

protects Plaintiff’s disclosure of all communications with 

Anthony Grippa and all other persons identified in request 4 

except Ron Rubin. See United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 10 of 16
11

1336 (7th Cir. 1979)(“the common interests privilege does not 

require that the defenses be in all respects compatible, but is 

applicable ‘where different lawyers represent clients who have 

some interests in common.’”). All other communications to the 

best of Plaintiff’s knowledge have been produced or are already 

in the Defendant’s possession and/or control.

See Exhibit C. 

In her Amended Response to Mr. Rubin’s Requests for Production, served 

only after being made aware that a motion to compel was going to be filed and that 

her objections were insufficient, Ms. Grippa objected to Request #4 as follows: 

Plaintiff objects to this request as a fishing expedition. This 

request seeks information that will not lead to the discovery of 

evidence that will be admissible at trial and is propounded for the 

purpose of harassment and oppression. Ms. Grippa references and 

incorporates her objections to request 3 into this response. Further, 

Ms. Grippa provided legal services to Mr. Grippa during the 

requested time period and continues to provide legal services to 

Mr. Grippa, thus disclosure of communications between Mr. and 

Ms. Grippa is protected under the attorney-client 3 privilege and 

the work product privilege. Further, during the requested time 

period, Ms. Grippa and Mr. Grippa had common interests such 

that documents and correspondence between Ms. Grippa and Mr. 

Grippa are protected pursuant to the common interest privilege. 

See Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Bros., 508 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 1987). See also First Union Nat'l Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 

2d 172, fn. 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The common interest privilege 

also protects Plaintiff’s disclosure of all communications with 

Anthony Grippa and all other persons identified in this request 

except Ron Rubin. See United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 

1336 (7th Cir. 1979)(“the common interests privilege does not 

require that the defenses be in all respects compatible, but is 

applicable ‘where different lawyers represent clients who have 

some interests in common.’”).

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 11 of 16
12

See Exhibit C. 

These amended objections – made several weeks after her original responses 

were due and served and only after a discovery deficiency letter and lengthy meet 

and confer telephone conference regarding this motion to compel – should be 

overruled because the arguments have been waived by Ms. Grippa. 

Indeed, “failure to make timely objections to the discovery waives those 

objections.” Rollins v. Banker Lopez & Gassler, No. 8:19-CV-2336-T-33SPF, 2020 

WL 1939396, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2020); see also Third Party Verification, 

Inc. v. SignatureLink, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-415-Orl-22DAB, 2007 WL 1288361, at *2 

(M.D. Fla. 2007) (“A party failing to serve an objection to a discovery request within 

the time required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 or 34, in the absence of good cause or of an 

extension of time to do so, waives the right to later raise objections.”); Universal 

City Dev. Partners, Ltd. v. Ride & Show Eng'g, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 688, 697 (M.D. Fla. 

2005) (a “[f]ailure to serve written objection to a subpoena within the time specified 

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 typically waives any objections the party may have”). Ms. 

Grippa cannot make discovery a moving target and amend her objections when she 

realizes a motion to compel is going to be filed. 

b. The Common-Interest Privilege does not apply.

Moreover, Ms. Grippa’s new “common-interest privilege” objection is 

meritless and was made in bad faith. First, the “common-interest privilege” certainly 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 12 of 16
13

does not protect communications with Mr. Grippa – or any party – that occurred 

prior to any dispute among the parties or that occurred outside the scope of seeking 

advice regarding litigation. In fact, the “common-interest privilege” does not apply 

here at all. “There are three threshold questions to determine whether the attorneyclient and joint-defense privilege, also known as the common interest privilege, 

should apply: (1) whether the original disclosures were necessary to obtain informed 

legal advice and might not have been made absent the attorney-client privilege; (2) 

whether the communication was such that disclosure to third parties was not 

intended; and (3) whether the information was exchanged between the parties for the 

limited purpose of assisting in their common cause.” In re Int'l Oil Trading Co., 

LLC, 548 B.R. 825, 833 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2016).

Mr. Rubin seeks communications and documents regarding himself (in 

Request #3) and between Ms. Grippa and Mr. Grippa (in Request #4) related to 

several related persons and entities. The requested communications and documents 

include details about Ms. Grippa’s job search in Tallahassee, her interview with Mr. 

Rubin, her meetings with Paul Mitchell, her correspondence with Mr. Patronis 

regarding her job search, and her job offers with DFS. Each of these 

communications, as well as other responsive communications, are outside the 

bounds of any “common-interest privilege” and took place prior to the initiation of 

any litigation. The requested communications do not involve any party seeking 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 13 of 16
14

litigation advice or strategizing regarding litigation. To the extent, Ms. Grippa and 

Mr. Grippa (or another person) enjoy a common-interest privilege as it relates to 

litigation with Mr. Rubin, those communications should go on a privilege log and 

be provided to Mr. Rubin. 

c. Attorney-Client Privilege Does Not Preclude the Production of

Documents or a Privilege Log.

Finally, to the extent Ms. Grippa claims her conversations are protected by 

the attorney-client privilege because she represents her ex-husband in unrelated 

business matters, those documents have not been requested. Indeed, Ms. Grippa’s 

representation of her husband does not relate to DFS, OFR, Jimmy Patronis, Ronald 

Rubin, Paul Mitchell, Governor Ron DeSantis, and/or Kimberly Grippa’s job search 

in Tallahassee, Florida. The scope of Mr. Rubin’s request is very narrow. And, if 

Ms. Grippa believes certain conversations are protected by the attorney-client 

privilege, she should have provided Mr. Rubin with a privilege log in accordance 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Despite requests to do so, Ms. Grippa has 

refused. Indeed, “if such an objection is made without a proper privilege log 

attached, it shall be deemed a nullity.” Guzman, 249 F.R.D. at 401. 

CONCLUSION

The Court should overrule Ms. Grippa’s objections and require the production 

of responsive documents and a privilege log, if necessary, in accordance with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within fourteen days. Moreover, the Court should 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 14 of 16
15

award Mr. Rubin the attorney fees and costs he incurred in being forced to file this 

motion to gain access to relevant discovery. 

LOCAL RULE 7.1(F) CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that this memorandum contains 3593 words. 

LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that counsel for Mr. Rubin conferred via telephone 

and written correspondence with counsel for Ms. Grippa regarding the contents of 

this motion. Counsel for Ms. Grippa does not agree with the relief sought. 

WHEREFORE, the Defendant Ronald Rubin respectfully requests that the 

Court enter an Order granting this Motion and requiring the Plaintiff, Kimberly 

Grippa, to produce documents responsive to Requests #3 and #4, for an award of 

attorney fees and costs incurred in filing this motion, and for such other relief as the 

Court deems just. 

Dated this 14th day of July 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

Defendant, 

By counsel.

/s/ James L. Kauffman

James L. Kauffman (Fla. Bar No. 12915)

BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP

1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW 

Suite 540 

Washington, DC 20007 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 15 of 16
16

Telephone: (202) 463-2101 

Facsimile: (202) 342-2103 

Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

Secondary: vpierre@baileyglasser.com 

Nicole L. Ballante (Fla. Bar No. 0125356)

BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP

360 Central Avenue, Suite 1500

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Telephone: (727) 894-6745 

Facsimile: (727) 894-2649 

Email: nballante@baileyglasser.com

Counsel for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 14, 2021, a copy of the foregoing document was 

filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent be e-mail to all parties by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system as indicated on the Notice of 

Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF 

System. 

/s/ James L. Kauffman

James L. Kauffman 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 52 Filed 07/14/21 Page 16 of 16