Exhibit A

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 1 of 84
From: Michael J. Carney

To: Rebecca Eisenbrey

Cc: Barbara Fox; Lily Wong; Victoria Roytenberg; Jennifer Thelusma; Clay Losier; Eileen Connor

Subject: Re: Roberson v. HCI - Plaintiffs" 2d Set of RFPs to FEI and 3d Set of RFPs to HCI

Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 3:34:07 PM

Of course. Ty, Rebecca

Sent from my so-called “smartphone” so please excuse any obvious spellcheck errors.

On Nov 17, 2023, at 3:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

wrote:

Wednesday is fine for FEI. We can agree to a final cutoff date of November 30 for HCI,

but please make a rolling production if possible and provide whatever you can before

then.

Plaintiffs’ responses to the most recent set of RFPs are currently due the day after

Thanksgiving. In light of the holiday, could we extend that deadline one week, to

December 1?

From: Michael J. Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com> 

Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 2:53 PM

To: Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Cc: Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com>; Lily Wong <lw@kubickidraper.com>; Victoria

Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>; Clay

Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Eileen Connor <econnor@ppsl.org>

Subject: Re: Roberson v. HCI - Plaintiffs' 2d Set of RFPs to FEI and 3d Set of RFPs to HCI

Rebecca:

WE can get FEI done for sure next week, Wednesday,

But given the holidays we need probably until Nov f30th for HCI to be safe, does that

work ?

Ty

Mike

Sent from my so-called “smartphone” so please excuse any obvious spellcheck errors.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 2 of 84
On Nov 17, 2023, at 2:31 PM, Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

wrote:

Hi Mike,

We got the document this morning and accessed it without any trouble—

thanks. For the extension, how much time do you need?

Becca

From: Michael J. Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com> 

Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 2:22 PM

To: Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Cc: Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com>; Lily Wong

<lw@kubickidraper.com>; Caroline A. Sand <cas@kubickidraper.com>;

Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer Thelusma

<Jthelusma@ppsl.org>; Clay Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>;

Eileen Connor <econnor@ppsl.org>

Subject: Re: Roberson v. HCI - Plaintiffs' 2d Set of RFPs to FEI and 3d Set of

RFPs to HCI

Rebecca

First did you get the native format doc (Exh H). I believe it was sent this

AM.

Second, i need to request a bit of an extension on the latest RFP. I know

we had the shortened response timeframe, and that was in fact my idea,

but we’ve been slammed the last couple weeks. Barbara was in trial this

week and we lost our partner, Caroline, who left to work elsewhere, and

she had done a great deal of the discovery legwork in this case. 

Let me know if ok and I can prepare an Order.

Sincere thanks in advance,

Mike.

Sent from my so-called “smartphone” so please excuse any obvious

spellcheck errors.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 3 of 84
On Nov 17, 2023, at 12:30 PM, Rebecca Eisenbrey

<REisenbrey@ppsl.org> wrote:

Hi all,

Pursuant to Judge McCabe’s Order on DE 104 (DE 133),

responses to Plaintiffs’ second set of RFPs to Defendant FEI

and third set of RFPs to Defendant HCI were due yesterday.

Please let us know when we can expect them.

All best,

Becca

From: Rebecca Eisenbrey 

Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 10:21 AM

To: Michael J. Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com>; Barbara

Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com>; Lily Wong

<LW@kubickidraper.com>; Caroline A. Sand

<cas@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer

Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>; Clay Losier

<nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Eileen Connor

<econnor@ppsl.org>

Subject: Roberson v. HCI - Plaintiffs' 2d Set of RFPs to FEI

and 3d Set of RFPs to HCI

Counsel,

Attached are Plaintiffs’ second set of RFPs to Defendant FEI

and third set of RFPs to Defendant HCI.

All the best,

Becca

Becca Eisenbrey

Attorney

Project on Predatory Student Lending

769 Centre Street, Suite 166

Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Tel.: 617-322-2808

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 4 of 84
Fax: 781-218-9625

www.ppsl.org

<image001.jpg>

<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

Michael J. Carney

Shareholder

Direct (954) 713-2323

Fax (954) 768-0514

mjc@kubickidraper.com

110 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1400

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Committed to DEI, and proudly certified: RING Platinum

<image006.png>

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 5 of 84
Exhibit B

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 6 of 84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 7 of 84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 8 of 84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 9 of 84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 10 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 11 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 12 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 13 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 14 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 15 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 16 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 17 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 18 of

84
Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 19 of

84
Exhibit C

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 20 of

84
From: Victoria Roytenberg

To: Michael J. Carney; Clay Losier; Lily Wong; Barbara Fox

Cc: Jennifer Thelusma; Rebecca Eisenbrey

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issue s- Post Meeting Follow-Up

Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:36:54 PM

Attachments: image009.png

image010.png

image011.png

image012.png

image013.png

Thank you, Mike. We will file it today.

From: Michael J. Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com> 

Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:25 PM

To: Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Clay Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Lily

Wong <lw@kubickidraper.com>; Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: Jennifer Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>; Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issue s- Post Meeting

Follow-Up

The Motion is fine, Victoria

Hopefully we will have a lot of agreements in the next couple days, per our discussions.

TY

Mike

Michael J. Carney

Shareholder

Direct (954) 713-2323

Fax (954) 768-0514

mjc@kubickidraper.com

110 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1400

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Committed to DEI, and proudly certified: RING Platinum

From: Victoria Roytenberg [mailto:VRoytenberg@ppsl.org] 

Sent: Monday, January 08, 2024 3:04 PM

To: Clay Losier; Lily Wong; Barbara Fox; Michael J. Carney

Cc: Jennifer Thelusma; Rebecca Eisenbrey

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issue s- Post Meeting

Follow-Up

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 21 of

84
Hello Mike,

I wanted to follow up on the email below. Also, attached is a Joint Motion for Further

Extension of Time (for plaintiffs to file a motion to compel). We would like to file this today.

Please let us know if you agree to file it jointly and if you have any edits. Otherwise, please let

us know your position on the motion.

Thank you,

Victoria

From: nicole@mayerlawflorida.com <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com> 

Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 7:22 PM

To: Lily Wong <lw@kubickidraper.com>; 'Barbara Fox' <bf@kubickidraper.com>; 'Michael J. Carney'

<mjc@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>;

Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issue s- Post Meeting

Follow-Up

Hello Mike,

Just writing to recap our call today and provide info. you requested. Please let us know if

any of this is incorrect or if we forgot anything.

Motion to Compel Timing

You asked that we wait to file a motion to compel until after you file Defendants’ response

to the class cert. motion. We agree and will send a motion next week with a request to

change our current Jan. 9th deadline. The hope is that we can reduce the number of

disputes before filing any such motion.

Plaintiffs’ Second Set of RFPs to HCI

Search of Communications Using Search Terms

10/27/23 Order from Judge McCabe (ECF No. 133, ¶ 3) stated that “to the extent any

documents ordered to be produced by way of this Order include emails” the parties

were to agree on search terms within a week of the order.

Communications were ordered to be produced for:

RFP Nos. 23, 27, 28 - All responsive communications to be produced.

RFP No. 21 - Limited to communications regarding the 2018 BON WPB

application and Ft. Lauderdale application (including emails, letters, text

messages, internal memos, reports, ExCom meetings)

RFP No. 43 – Limited to communications with Sachs Media, FEI, any FEI

investor, or any HCI investor about this lawsuit.

We agreed on search terms by 11/3/23 and all docs. were to be produced within 30

days of the Order (though we granted an extension)

Please advise if these searches were run and if all documents retrieved from use of the

search terms (meaning without further limiting by Defendant) have been produced.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 22 of

84
RFP No. 1 You stated you would review Alecia Dennis’s testimony and look into whether

there are any processes, policies, etc. that have not been produced.

RFP No. 2 You stated you would look into whether there are any other meeting notes

referencing the 50% Rule that have not been produced.

RFP No. 21 HCI produced just six pages which were emails. You asked that I identify

these by Bates numbers. The Bates Nos. are HCI025380-25385. You stated you

would look to see if there are any responsive communications not produced and

whether any ExCom meeting minutes are responsive since the court ordered

their production.

RFP No. 43 You said you would check to see if there are any other communications

about this lawsuit with Sacks Media, FEI, or any FEI investor about this lawsuit

(which the court ordered produced)

Plaintiffs’ Third Set of RFPs to HCI

RFP Nos. 4, 5, 7, 24, 27, 28, 29 – You said these are RFPs for which documents are still

forthcoming. Lily will provide a complete index, including identifying the Bates

numbers for docs. previously produced which HCI’s responses stated had

already been provided (RFP Nos. 6, 12, 14).

RFP Nos. 1 & 2 You advised you would confer with your client to look into whether the

financial documents we identified by name are easily produced, and if so, may be

willing to produce the documents.

RFP No. 9 You stated you would check to see if there are other meeting notes regarding

the choice of Exit Exam and let us know.

RFP No. 10 You stated you would:

a. Determine the basis for the heavy redactions in the ExCom meeting minutes

that were produced and not listed on HCI’s privilege log (see Bates 28383-

28426) and determine if these could be unredacted or whether an in camera

inspection by the court is appropriate;

b. Determine why so few ExCom meeting minutes were produced (including but

not limited to the meeting minutes missing for the meetings held on the dates

listed on page 7 of our meet & confer letter); and

c. Respond to our request for additional information on HCI’s privilege log about

why 7 sets of ExCom meeting mins. were withheld as privileged.

RFP No. 13 You stated that you could agree to produce written policies, processes, and

documents mentioned by Alecia Dennis in her deposition. You consider the

request for communications a separate issue. Whether we need to compel on this

may be impacted by whether the search of communications reference in at the

beginning of this email was performed.

RFP No. 14 You stated you would check to see if there are written processes and

communications regarding student advancement that have not been produced.

You also stated you would include in your index the Bates numbers for the

documents your response states were already produced.

RFP No. 15 You stated that agreements with Tatsiana Tuchinsky may be produced but

that you needed to look into this.

RFP No. 25 You agreed that the limitations we placed on the requests in italicized text

seemed fair.

RFP No. 28 Regarding the request for docs. and communications reflecting payments

made by HCI to or on behalf of FEI . . . . You stated that you were “putting a pin

in” this request, which we think means resting on your objections. In response to

this, and HCI’s resistance to producing financial documents, I asked what you

would request if you were seeking discovery about the connection/overlap

between two related defendants. You stated this was an interesting question and

that you would think about this. If you have any ideas, we are happy to consider

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 23 of

84
them.

Plaintiffs’ Second Set of RFPs to FEI

Missing documents – We explained that we think it is critical that HCI produce

the missing investor documents listed on pages 10 and 11 of our meet and

confer letter and that if not produced, we will need to seek these through

third-parties. You stated you would look into why certain documents were

missing and get back to us.

RFP No. 10 We did not specifically discuss this during our call but are we correct

in presuming that it will be handled the same as HCI’s financial

documents? I believe Ryan Miller testified that he keeps these docs. for FEI

as well. If not, the accounting firm would have them.

Jan. 2023 VM transcript at FLORIAN000875 You stated you would look into why

this document was redacted and listed on FEI’s privilege log. We explained

we saw no basis for withholding a document sent to investors.

Withheld draft investor report – You stated you would look into why a draft

investor report (referred to in FLORIAN00212) was withheld as privileged

and consider our request for additional information in the privilege log such

as the identity of the client and the attorney holding the privilege.

Upcoming Depositions

As discussed, we would like to take one day to depose Celeste Blackwell and David

Shelpman while we are in WPB for the Cooke and Bonds depos. It is preferable (but

not required) to do the Bonds or Cooke depo the first day since you plan to start those

at 11am; therefore, those of us in Florida could drive to WPB that morning and do two

nights in a hotel rather than 3.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Nicole

From: Andrea Gibson <Andrea.Gibson@kubickidraper.com> 

Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 8:56 AM

To: 'Rebecca Eisenbrey' <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>; Lily Wong <LW@kubickidraper.com>; Clay Losier

<nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com>; Michael J. Carney

<mjc@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Good morning

Lets go with 2:30 pm. Shall I send a zoom link?

From: Rebecca Eisenbrey [mailto:REisenbrey@ppsl.org] 

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2024 6:58 PM

To: Andrea Gibson; Lily Wong; Clay Losier; Barbara Fox; Michael J. Carney

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg; Jennifer Thelusma

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 24 of

84
Subject: Re: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Hi Andrea, do we have a time tomorrow?

From: Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 12:15:35 PM

To: Andrea Gibson <Andrea.Gibson@kubickidraper.com>; Lily Wong <lw@kubickidraper.com>; Clay

Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com>; Michael J. Carney

<mjc@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>

Subject: Re: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Andrea, we’re available tomorrow from 2 to 5.

From: Andrea Gibson <Andrea.Gibson@kubickidraper.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 10:22 AM

To: Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>; Lily Wong <lw@kubickidraper.com>; Clay

Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com>; Michael J.

Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Good morning

Mike Carney is in transit and has been delayed in getting back to the office. Please advise your

availability for Friday, 1/5/24 after 2pm. Once you confirm, I will send out a calendar invite. Thank

you.

Andrea Gibson

Legal Assistant

Direct (954) 713-2309

Fax (954) 768-0514

Andrea.Gibson@kubickidraper.com

110 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1400

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Committed to DEI, and proudly certified: RING Platinum

From: Rebecca Eisenbrey [mailto:REisenbrey@ppsl.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2024 6:23 PM

To: Lily Wong; Clay Losier; Barbara Fox; Michael J. Carney

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg; Jennifer Thelusma; Andrea Gibson 

Subject: Re: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 25 of

84
And happy New Year!

From: Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 6:22:50 PM

To: Lily Wong <lw@kubickidraper.com>; Clay Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Barbara Fox

<bf@kubickidraper.com>; Michael J. Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>;

Andrea Gibson <Andrea.Gibson@kubickidraper.com>

Subject: Re: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Thanks, Lily and Andrea. Please let us know as soon as possible.

From: Lily Wong <LW@kubickidraper.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 3:51:47 PM

To: Clay Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com>; Michael J.

Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: Victoria Roytenberg <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; Jennifer Thelusma <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>;

Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>; Andrea Gibson <Andrea.Gibson@kubickidraper.com>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Hi Nicole,

Happy New Year!

Mike is in transit. I’ve cc’ed our assistant Andrea to this email chain, she’ll be able to confirm the

time for the telephone conference tomorrow.

Thank you,

Lily

Lily Wong

Attorney

Direct (954) 713-2319

Fax (954) 768-0514

LW@kubickidraper.com

110 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1400

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Committed to DEI, and proudly certified: RING Platinum

From: nicole@mayerlawflorida.com [mailto:nicole@mayerlawflorida.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2024 3:45 PM

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 26 of

84
To: Barbara Fox; Michael J. Carney; Lily Wong

Cc: 'Victoria Roytenberg'; 'Jennifer Thelusma'; 'Rebecca Eisenbrey'

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Hello. We would appreciate knowing what time you are available to speak with us

tomorrow.

Nicole

From: nicole@mayerlawflorida.com <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 3:23 PM

To: 'Barbara Fox' <bf@kubickidraper.com>; 'Michael J. Carney' <mjc@kubickidraper.com>; 'Lily

Wong' <LW@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: 'Victoria Roytenberg' <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; 'Jennifer Thelusma' <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>;

'Rebecca Eisenbrey' <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Hello. Just following up to see what time works best for you on Thursday for a call.

To the extent you can provide an earlier written response to some of the issues raised

in our letter (for example, the requests for which the responses stated documents

were produced but for which we did not receive documents) this would help narrow

our call on Thursday.

Thank you.

Nicole

From: nicole@mayerlawflorida.com <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com> 

Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2023 12:14 PM

To: 'Barbara Fox' <bf@kubickidraper.com>; 'Michael J. Carney' <mjc@kubickidraper.com>; 'Lily

Wong' <LW@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: 'Victoria Roytenberg' <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; 'Jennifer Thelusma' <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>;

'Rebecca Eisenbrey' <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

On the 4th, we are available 11-12 or 12:30-2:45.

From: Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com> 

Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 2:51 PM

To: 'nicole@mayerlawflorida.com' <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Michael J. Carney

<mjc@kubickidraper.com>; Lily Wong <LW@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: 'Victoria Roytenberg' <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; 'Jennifer Thelusma' <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>;

'Rebecca Eisenbrey' <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 27 of

84
I am guessing that due to the holidays the 4th is probably more feasible. Let me know the times you

are available.

From: nicole@mayerlawflorida.com [mailto:nicole@mayerlawflorida.com] 

Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 2:37 PM

To: Barbara Fox; Michael J. Carney; Lily Wong

Cc: 'Victoria Roytenberg'; 'Jennifer Thelusma'; 'Rebecca Eisenbrey'

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Thank you, Barbara. Please let us know if having a call at 2:30 on Tuesday January

2nd would allow enough time for you to consider the discovery issues raised in our

letter and to confer with you client if you deem necessary. If not, we are free most of

the 3rd and the 4th as well.

Thank you and Happy Holidays to all.

Nicole

From: Barbara Fox <bf@kubickidraper.com> 

Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 11:56 AM

To: 'nicole@mayerlawflorida.com' <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Michael J. Carney

<mjc@kubickidraper.com>; Lily Wong <LW@kubickidraper.com>

Cc: 'Victoria Roytenberg' <VRoytenberg@ppsl.org>; 'Jennifer Thelusma' <Jthelusma@ppsl.org>;

'Rebecca Eisenbrey' <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Subject: RE: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Hi Nicole,

We can agree to extend the deadline and speak after the new year. Happy Holidays.

Barbara Fox

Shareholder

Direct (305) 982-6716

Fax (305) 374-7846

bf@kubickidraper.com

9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1800

Miami, Florida 33156

Committed to DEI, and proudly certified: RING Platinum

From: nicole@mayerlawflorida.com [mailto:nicole@mayerlawflorida.com] 

Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 8:44 PM

To: Michael J. Carney; Lily Wong; Barbara Fox

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 28 of

84
Cc: 'Victoria Roytenberg'; 'Jennifer Thelusma'; 'Rebecca Eisenbrey'

Subject: Roberson v. HCI - Meet and Confer Re: Outstanding Discovery Issues

Counsel,

Attached is a meet and confer letter regarding several outstanding discovery

issues. Specifically, issues related to HCI’s Responses and Production to

Plaintiffs’ Third Set of RFPs, HCI’s Production in Response to Court Order No.

133, and FEI’s Production and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of RFPs.

Given the number of outstanding discovery issues, the upcoming holidays, and

the pending court deadlines, would Defendants agree to extend Plaintiffs’

deadline for moving to compel on any of these discovery issues until January

9th? Our goal would be to conclude the meet and confer discussions by January

4th so that we would have time to draft any necessary motions to compel prior

to the 9th.

If Defendants are willing to grant this request, we will draft a motion reflecting

this agreement.

Thank you.

Nicole

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 29 of

84
Exhibit D

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 30 of

84
From: Rebecca Eisenbrey

To: Michael J. Carney

Cc: Clay Losier; Lily Wong

Subject: RE: Response

Date: Thursday, January 11, 2024 4:59:00 PM

Okay. Does this mean you are no longer seeking an extension of the deadline for your response?

-----Original Message-----

From: Michael J. Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 4:46 PM

To: Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>

Cc: Clay Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>; Lily Wong <lw@kubickidraper.com>

Subject: Re: Response

They are, Rebecca, and I agree with your e-mail. We are working on our response to the motion to certify right

now, which is due tomorrow.

I’ll have to look at this on Saturday, I’ll endeavor to get you an update tomorrow, but the timing overlaps on these

deadlines.

Mike

Sent from my so-called “smartphone” so please excuse any obvious spellcheck errors.

> On Jan 11, 2024, at 3:35 PM, Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org> wrote:

>

> Hi Mike,

>

> Just checking in on this. Our MTC is due on Tuesday, and we need to know what issues that we raised in our letter

have been resolved and what we still need to move to compel. From our conversation on Friday, it seemed like

indexes and supplemental productions were almost ready to go. We'd rather not waste our time - and the Court's

time - briefing issues unnecessarily.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Becca

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Rebecca Eisenbrey

> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 3:58 PM

> To: Michael J. Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com>; Clay Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>

> Subject: RE: Response

>

> Hi Mike,

>

> Sorry for the delay. We can agree to the extension if (a) you can assure us that by COB tomorrow you will

produce the indexes and a substantial amount of the documents we discussed last week, let us know whether HCI

ran the search terms/custodians we agreed to pursuant to ECF No. 133, and clarify exactly which requests

Defendants refuse to produce any documents in response to, and (b) by the end of this week we can nail down depo

dates (both for FEI and for Cooke/Bonds/Shelpman/Blackwell).

>

> Happy to discuss.

>

> Becca

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 31 of

84
>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Michael J. Carney <mjc@kubickidraper.com>

> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 12:11 PM

> To: Rebecca Eisenbrey <REisenbrey@ppsl.org>; Clay Losier <nicole@mayerlawflorida.com>

> Subject: Response

>

> Guys

>

> As you can probably guess, Barbara is doing the lions share of the response, she asked me to inquire if you would

agree to an extension through Tuesday (it’s currently due Friday), couple other issues in other cases we are both

dealing with. Let me know and thank you!

>

> Mike

>

> Sent from my so-called “smartphone” so please excuse any obvious spellcheck errors.

>

>

> Michael J. Carney

> Shareholder

>

> Direct (954) 713-2323

> Fax (954) 768-0514

>

> Kubicki Draper

> 110 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1400

> Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

>

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 32 of

84
Exhibit E

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 33 of

84
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

West Palm Beach Division 

Defendant, HCI COLLEGE LLC (DBA HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LCC) 

(“HCI” or “Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 34, hereby files its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third 

Set of Request for Production dated November 2, 2023, as follows: 

General Statement 

 These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action, and are made without 

waiving: (1) the right to object, on the grounds of competency, proprietary, admissibility, privilege, 

relevancy or materiality, or any other proper grounds, to the use of these responses for any purposes 

in whole or in part, in any subsequent step or proceeding in this action or any other action; (b) the 

right to object on any and all grounds, at any time, to other interrogatories or requests for production 

or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of these Requests for 

Documents; and (c) the right at any time to revise, correct, add to or clarify any of the responses 

provided herein. 

BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA 

FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, 

TIFFANY KING, and TRESHA

THOMPSON, individually and on 

behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

HCI COLLEGE LLC (DBA 

HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE

LLC), FLORIAN EDUCATION

INVESTORS LLC, and STEVEN

W. HART,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 9:22-cv-81883-RAR

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 34 of

84
2

The responses herein reflect only the present state of Defendant’s recollection and the 

present state of discovery. Defendant has not yet completed its investigation of the facts relating to 

this action, has not yet completed its discovery in this action and has not yet completed its 

preparation for trial. Moreover, as discovery investigation and legal research progress, new facts 

may be discovered and previously known facts may take on new meaning or significance, thereby 

changing any conclusions, opinions, representations, objections and/or statements made herein. 

Consequently, Defendant expressly reserves the right to rely on, at any time including trial, 

subsequently discovered information or information omitted from these responses as a result of 

mistake, error, oversight, inadvertence, further diligence, or otherwise. 

 Except for facts explicitly admitted herein, no admissions or any nature whatsoever are 

implied or should be inferred. The fact that any Requests for Documents herein has been answered 

should not be taken as an admission or acceptance of the existence of any facts set forth or assumed 

by such Document Request, or that such answer constitutes admissible evidence. Except otherwise 

stated below, an objection to a specific Request for Documents does not imply that facts or 

documents response to the specific Request for Documents exist. Any response herein is not 

intended as, and shall not be deemed to be, a waiver of any objection set forth herein. Defendant 

expressly reserves the right to raise any applicable objection at any time. 

General Objections 

Preliminarily, and as a general objection applicable to all of the following 

specific requests for production contained in Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for 

Production that reference the words “documents” and/or “relating to,” and 

“communications”. As set forth below, Defendant objects as the terms “documents” and 

“relating to,” and “communications,” even as defined, are so broad, as to provide no 

meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this broadness 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 35 of

84
3

would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. For example, 

the definition of “communications” means any conveyance of information, whether 

reciprocated or not, from one party to another, and all records thereof, making it 

impossible to discern exactly what is being sought. Similarly vague and broad is the 

term, “document”” which means any written or recorded matter of every kind or 

description. The terms “related to” “reflect” and “reflecting” is likewise so broad, 

particularly when coupled with the terms “communications” and “documents”, that is 

impossible for Defendant to determine what is being sought to as to perform a 

reasonable search. 

Specific Responses to Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents 

1. All profit and loss statements, balance sheets, income statements, and statements of 

cash flows.

Defendant objects as to the fact that profit and loss statements, balance 

sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flow are not defined and are so 

overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to provide no meaningful guidance as to 

what is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to 

compile responsive items unduly burdensome. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek 

information pertaining to HCI’s net worth as to the sole punitive damages claim 

against HCI arising from Count 9, such claim is limited to “the lesser of $500,000 or 

1 per centum of the net worth of the creditor.” See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1691e (b). Thus, 

the discovery of what appears to be seek all financial records is burdensome as 

described above and not proportionate to the needs of the case. Rule 26(b)(1) 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 36 of

84
4

provides, discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Here such all 

encompassing requests for financial records to determine one percent of the 

Defendant’s net worth, which would be relevant only if Plaintiffs prevailed as to 

count IV is not proportionate to the needs of the case since it is of minimal 

importance in resolving the issues of the case, and HCI is a small organization which 

has already produced in excess of 20,000 pages of documents and this has created a 

significant burden in terms of time spent and resources allocated away from the 

needs of the business.

2. All documents concerning or relating to audits of the documents referenced in 

Request 1, and all communications relating to same Request 1, and all communications 

relating to same. 

As set forth above, Defendant objects as to the fact that profit and loss 

statements, balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flow are 

themselves irrelevant are so overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to provide no 

meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this broadness 

would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. Likewise, 

Defendant objects as to the fact that all “documents concerning or related to” and 

“communications relating to” profit and loss statements, balance sheets, income

statements, and statements of cash flow or audits of same are irrelevant and are so 

overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to provide no meaningful guidance as to 

what is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 37 of

84
5

compile responsive items unduly burdensome. Also, the term communications is 

overly broad, vague and ambiguous and does not define the individuals whose 

communications are sought or otherwise define parameters and moreover, it is 

difficult to discern how all communications related to such financial papers has any 

realistic benefit to the issues raised in the complaint. 

To the extent that Plaintiffs seek information pertaining to net worth on the 

sole punitive damages claim against HCI arising from Count 9, such claim is limited 

to “the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the creditor.” See 15 

U.S.C.A. § 1691e (b). Thus, the discovery of what appears to be every record 

pertaining to the “loss statements, balance sheets, income statements, and statements

of cash flows” is not in proportion to the needs of the case. Rule 26(b) (1) provides, 

discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Here such all 

encompassing requests for financial records given to determine one percent of the 

Defendant’s net worth, which would be relevant only if Plaintiffs prevailed as to 

count IV is not proportionate to the needs of the case since it is of minimal 

importance in resolving the issues of the case, and HCI is a small organization which 

has already produced in excess of 20,000 of pages of documents and this has created 

a significant burden in terms of time spent and resources allocated away from the 

needs of the business. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 38 of

84
6

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 39 of

84
7

3. All documents related to the “integrity” of the ATI tests and Kaplan tests that HCI used, or 

considered using, during 2021, as discussed by Alecia Dennis during her 30(b)(6) deposition (e.g., 

115:5-11, 132:23-24). This includes all documents relating to concerns about test integrity,

“anomaly reports,” communications with vendors regarding test integrity, internal communications 

regarding test integrity, communications with students regarding test integrity, and documents 

reflecting disciplinary actions or potential disciplinary actions related to test integrity.

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought. 

Specifically the terms “all documents” “relating to concerns about test integrity” as 

well as “communications regarding test integrity”, and “documents regarding 

disciplinary actions” and “potential disciplinary actions related to test integrity”, so 

overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to provide no meaningful guidance as to 

what is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to 

compile responsive items unduly burdensome. Likewise, the term internal 

communications and communications with students is overly broad, vague and 

ambiguous and without further parameters does not define the individuals among 

whom such communications are sought. 

Nonetheless, and without waiving any objections HCI will provide 

documents responsive to this request as those terms can be discerned and readily 

understood. 

4 . Each monthly “Operation Report,” as that term is used in the Authorization

Guidelines found at HCI004133-4167, and all communications regarding same. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought. 

Specifically the terms, all communications regarding same, which is so overly broad, 

vague and ambiguous as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 40 of

84
8

sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to compile 

responsive items unduly burdensome. Further, Rule 26(b)(1) provides, discovery 

must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the 

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to 

relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in 

resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit.” Given the allegations of the case, the need for all 

communications regarding same, with no parameters is not proportionate to the 

needs of the case. Specifically, and HCI is a small organization which has already 

produced in excess of 20,000 of pages of documents and this has created a significant 

burden in terms of time spent and resources allocated away from the needs of the 

business. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving the above, HCI is producing its 

operational reports and emails that accompany their dissemination. 

5. All communications concerning the preparation and distribution of FEI newsletters, investor

reports, and investor presentations, including all emails sent from, or received by, an HCI email

address that mentions, attaches, or relates to information or material to be distributed or shared

with any FEI investor or potential investor. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought 

Specifically, all “communications” concerning the “preparation and distribution of

newsletters, reports and presentations and all emails” that “attach or relates to 

information or materials to be distributed or shared with any FEI investor or 

potential investor” is so overly broad, vague and ambiguous so as to provide no 

meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this broadness 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 41 of

84
9

would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome; this is 

particularly true here since the words “information” and “material” are themselves 

vague and overly broad. Regardless, this request is irrelevant to the allegations of 

the complaint; this is not a case filed by investors against FEI, rather, it pertains to 

students at HCI seeking relief from what they claim is a “subpar” educational 

experience so that investor newsletters and communications regarding same are 

irrelevant. Further, Rule 26(b)(1) provides, discovery must be “proportional to the 

needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the 

parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit.” Specifically, and HCI is a small organization which has already produced 

in excess of 20,000 of pages of documents and this has created a significant burden 

in terms of time spent and resources allocated away from the needs of the business. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving the above, HCI is producing investor 

presentations and related documents and communications which appear 

specifically related to same to the best of its ability to do so given the broadness and 

vagueness of the subject request. 

6. All external audits and/or reviews of HCI’s enrollment process, including the admissions 

process, financial aid process, and any other process used to aid in enrolling students in HCI’s RN 

Program, and all communications regarding same. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought. 

Specifically, “all communications regarding same” is so overly broad and without 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 42 of

84
1

indicating the individuals to whom such communications were made or received, 

and without further parameters, is so vague and ambiguous, and overly broad so as 

to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and 

this broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly 

burdensome. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving the above, HCI has produced external

audits and/or reviews of HCI’s enrollment process via previous discovery responses.

7. All internal audits and/or reviews of HCI’s enrollment process, including the admissions 

process, financial aid process, and any other process used to aid in enrolling students in HCI’s RN 

Program, and all communications regarding same. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought 

Specifically, all communications regarding same is so overly broad and without 

indicating the individuals to whom such communcations were made or received, and 

without further parameters, is so vague and ambiguous, and overly broad so as to 

provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this 

broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving the above, HCI is producing audits 

and reviews to the best of its ability to do so given the broadness and vagueness of 

the subject request. 

8. All Nursing Curriculum Committee meeting or decision notes concerning the planning, 

development, approval, and/or launch of the “new” RN Program at HCI’s West Palm Beach

Campus. For this request, the time period is July 2017 through December 2019. 

Defendant is producing responsive documents. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 43 of

84
1

9. All Nursing Curriculum Committee meeting or decision notes concerning the choice of

Exit Exam (meaning the last exam taken by students in HCI’s Capstone course before they are 

cleared for graduation) used by HCI. 

Defendant is producing responsive documents. 

10. All notes from ExCom meetings, as discussed by Steven Hart in his deposition, 

concerning advancement and graduation requirements for the RN Program, the use of 

examinations in the RN Program, and/or RN Students’ preparation for and performance on the 

NCLEX-RN.

Defendant is producing responsive documents. 

11. All written evaluations and/or performance reviews for RN Program instructors 

conducted on a semester or annual basis, as testified to by Alecia Dennis in her 30(b)(6) deposition. 

See Dennis Dep. Tr. 233:22-234:13. 

Defendant is producing responsive documents. 

12. All “secret shopping,” hidden shopping, or undercover reviews or reports of interactions 

between HCI employees and consumers during the Relevant Period, as discussed by Pedro De 

Guzman during his 30(b)(6) deposition, and all communications regarding same. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought Specifically, all 

communications regarding same is so overly broad and without indicating the individuals to 

whom such communications were made or received, without further parameters, is so vague 

and ambiguous, and overly broad so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being 

sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items 

unduly burdensome. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving the above, HCI has produced 

responsive documents, including secret shopper records and other performance 

evaluations in previous discovery.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 44 of

84
1

13. All “written processes” regarding curriculum creation and changes to curricula, as 

discussed by Alecia Dennis during her 30(b)(6) deposition, and all communications regarding 

same. See Dennis Dep. Tr. 75:18-76:1.

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought Specifically, all 

communications regarding same is so overly broad and without indicating the individuals to 

whom such communications were made or received, and without further parameters, is so 

vague and ambiguous, and overly broad so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is 

being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to compile responsive 

items unduly burdensome. Further, it appears that Ms. Dennis specifically did not 

specifically identify the existence of any “written process” in the quoted parts of her 

deposition. 

14. All “written processes” regarding student advancement in the RN Program, as discussed 

by Alecia Dennis in her 30(b)(6) deposition, and all communications regarding same. See 

Dennis. Dep. Tr. 76:23-77:6.

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought Specifically, 

all communications regarding same is so overly broad and without indicating the 

individuals to whom such communications were made or received, and without further 

parameters, is so vague and ambiguous, and overly broad so as to provide no meaningful 

guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any 

effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving same, all requested processes are in the 

Catalogs and Nursing Handbooks, which have been provided.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 45 of

84
1

15. All documents concerning HCI’s dealings with Tatsiana Tuchinsky and/or 

EduCompliance Strategies, LLC, including all agreements for services; written 

communications between HCI and Tatsiana Tuchinsky and/or EduCompliance 

Strategies, LLC; attachments to those written communications; and any notes,

summaries, or reports generated by Tatsiana Tuchinsky and/or EduCompliance 

Strategies, LLC concerning HCI. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague 

and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought 

Specifically, document “concerning HCIs dealings with Tatsiana TUchinksy 

and/or EduCompliance Strategies, LLC” is so overly broad so vague and 

ambiguous, and overly broad so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what 

is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to 

compile responsive items unduly burdensome. The terms “dealings with” is also 

not defined as appears to the extent it should have some specific meaning, none 

can be readily discerned and additionally, appears to seek all documents and is 

not limited to those not pertaining to the allegations of the lawsuit and therefore 

this request is irrelevant. 

16. All communications made by HCI to RN Students regarding HCI’s probationary status 

with the Florida Board of Nursing, or lack thereof, during the Relevant Period. 

Objection since HCI is a corporation and cannot “communicate” 

However, to the extent this request seeks information or statements formally 

disseminated on behalf of HCI, such documents will be produced. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 46 of

84
1

17. All documents relating to the Equity Appreciation Rights Plan referenced in the 

document labeled HCI Sub. Prod. 4/24/23 – 003858, produced in response to Plaintiffs’ subpoena 

to the Commission for Independent Education, including all participant award letters related to the 

issuing of Appreciation Rights Shares. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague 

and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought 

Specifically, all documents relating to is so overly broad, vague and ambiguous so 

as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request 

and this broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly 

burdensome. Regardless, this request is wholly irrelevant to the allegations of the 

complaint; this is not a case filed by investors or shareholders against FEI, rather, 

it pertains to students at HCI seeking relief from what they claim is a “subpar” 

educational experience so that share distribution or appreciation is irrelevant 

Further, Rule 26(b)(1) provides, discovery must be “proportional to the needs of 

the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the 

parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit.” Specifically, and HCI is a small organization which has already 

produced in excess of 20,000 of pages of documents and this has created a 

significant burden in terms of time spent and resources allocated away from the 

needs of the business. 

18. All documents regarding HCI’s relationship with Sachs Media, including but not 

limited to: 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 47 of

84
1

a. All contracts, operating agreements, or other Documents establishing, governing, or 

describing the business relationship between Sachs Media and HCI, including but not limited to, 

the scope of the work, the purpose of the work, and the compensation for the work; 

This request is wholly irrelevant to the allegations of the complaint. The 

business relationship between the two entities has no bearing on the allegations of 

the complaint and this request appears to be a fishing expedition and otherwise 

harassing.

b. All emails, text messages, correspondence, or other communications, as well as any 

corresponding attachments, between HCI and Sachs Media, or any anyone acting on behalf of, 

or in the interest of, HCI between September 1, 2019, the present; and

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague 

and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being 

sought. Specifically, HCI is a corporation and therefore does not communicate 

and without identifying the individuals for whom such information is transmitted 

from or to and without further parameters. this request is overly broad so as to 

provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and 

this broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly 

burdensome Moreover, the term “anyone acting of behalf of or in the interest of 

HCI,” is so woefully and unduly broad, vague and ambiguous that it also provides 

no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this 

broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome 

if not impossible. Given the allegations of the case, the need for the information 

appears to be a fishing expedition and otherwise harassing. Further culling 

though all correspondence for anyone acting on behalf of or in the interest of HCI 

for a four year period, or from Sachs Media on matters not even related to the 

allegations of the complaint, is irrelevant and is so burdensome, that it is 

untenable. It appears to be nothing more than a fishing expedition. It is also not 

proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, and HCI is a small organization 

which has already produced in excess of 20,000 of pages of documents and this has 

created a significant burden in terms of time spent and resources allocated away 

from the needs of the business. 

c. All Documents pertaining to the “HCI College Statement on the Roberson 

Lawsuit February 3, 2023,” including but not limited to: all drafts of this statement 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 48 of

84
1

(including drafts with comments), all communications about this statement, and all 

documents discussing or concerning how it was determined that “at least 300 

graduates . . . have passed the National Council Licensure Examination” as that phrase

is used in the February 3, 2023, statement. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought 

Specifically, the phrases all documents “pertaining to” “all documents discussing 

or concerning” are so overly broad, vague and ambiguous so as to provide no 

meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this broadness 

would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. Further, 

communications without identifying the individuals to whom such 

communications were made or received, and without further parameters without 

make, is so vague and ambiguous, and overly broad so as to provide no 

meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this broadness 

would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. Further, 

it is unclear how any documents compiled after the lawsuit have any relevance to 

the allegations of the complaint which pre-dated same and none of which are 

premised on the statements contained therein- as such this discovery is irrelevant; 

there are no allegations of the complaint based on the February 3, 2023 statement 

and what action it took after is irrelevant. 

19. All logs or other records showing RN Student attendance at clinical sites, as discussed 

by Pedro De Guzman during his 30(b) (6) deposition. 

Responsive documents will be produced. 

20. All fisdap.com clinical sign-up records. 

Responsive documents will be produced. 

21. Accounting records, including order sheets, inventory checklists, and related 

receipts, showing money spent on simulated clinical labs, as discussed by Alecia Dennis during 

her 30(b)(6) deposition. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague 

and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought 

Specifically, the terms “accounting records and related receipts” is so overly 

broad, vague and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what 

is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to 

compile responsive items unduly burdensome. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 49 of

84
1

Further, HCI does not keep records in the manner described. Without waiving such 

objections, HCI will produce records which track spending on simulated clinical labs as 

kept in the course of business as discussed above. 

22. “Historical data” regarding equipment used in simulations, as discussed 

by Alecia Dennis during her 30(b)(6) deposition (246:2). 

Responsive documents will be produced. 

23. Lease agreements with Blue State and other lessors of lab equipment, as discussed by 

Steven Hart during his deposition. 

Responsive documents will be produced. 

24. All invoices from advertising and/or marketing companies, all contracts for 

services with such companies, and all communications regarding same. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague 

and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being 

sought. Specifically, the terms all communications regarding same is so overly 

broad, vague and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what 

is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to 

compile responsive items unduly burdensome. Further, any such documents with 

marketing or advertising companies is wholly irrelevant to the allegations of the 

complaint; the contracts, payment and any communications relating thereto are 

wholly irrelevant to the present lawsuit. 

25. Work produced by SEM Management, Heart Globe Enterprises, and similar 

companies to carry out HCI’s marketing during the relevant time period, including

marketing and advertising plans, SEO directives, and market research, and all 

communications regarding same.

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought. 

Specifically, the term “work” is not defined all communications regarding same is so 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 50 of

84
1

overly broad, vague and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what 

is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to compile 

responsive items unduly burdensome. Further, this requires is overly broad to the 

extent it seeks documents have no relation to the allegations of the complaint. To the 

extent, Plaintiffs seek marketing plans, same have already been produced. Likewise, 

statements prepared by Sem Management related to the complaint have been produced. 

26. All contracts with Facebook, Google, and any other similar third party for 

marketing or SEO services, and all communications regarding same. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague 

and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being 

sought. Specifically, all communications regarding same is so overly broad, vague 

and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought 

by this request and this broadness would make any effort to compile responsive 

items unduly burdensome. Further, this request is irrelevant as they seek 

documents have not relation to the allegations of the complaint since the contracts 

for marketing have bearing to the allegations of the complaint and therefore 

appear to be nothing more than a fishing expedition. 

27. All documents sufficient to show which instructor(s) taught each core nursing course, 

as that term is used in HCI’s College Catalog, at each HCI campus during each semester in the 

Relevant Period. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought. Specifically, 

the term “sufficient to show” same is so overly broad, vague and ambiguous so as to 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 51 of

84
1

provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this 

broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving same, Defendant is producing records as kept in the 

normal course of business reflecting professor assignments. 

28. All documents, including communications, reflecting payments made by HCI to, or on

behalf of, FEI and/or its employees or principals, including invoices, billing statements, 

account statements, and/or receipts. 

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague 

and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought 

Specifically, all documents and communications reflecting payments to is so 

overly broad, vague and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to 

what is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to 

compile responsive items unduly burdensome, particularly where there is no 

guidance as to whom the communications are directed to or received from and no 

further parameters given. Further, given the allegations of the case, the need for 

the information requested is not relevant since it has nothing to do with same. 

The allegations of the complaint take issue with the fact that the education 

product was “subpar” or not what was promised and do not hinge on or are in 

any way dependent on disbursements to Florian. As such, this appears to be 

harassing and a fishing expedition. 

29. All documents establishing the qualifications of any consulting or testifying 

expert(s) retained by Defendants in this case, including but not limited to their most recent

CV or resume, publications, and expert reports submitted in other actions. 

A copy of experts CV and list of publications will be produced. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 52 of

84
2

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 53 of

84
Exhibit F

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 54 of

84
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 9:22-cv-81883- RAR 

BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA 

FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, TIFFANY 

KING, and TRESHA THOMPSON, 

individually and on behalf of others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HEALTH CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba 

HCI COLLEGE LLC and HCI ACQUISITION LLC), 

FLORIAN EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, and 

STEVEN W. HART, 

Defendant(s) 

DEFENDANT, FLORIAN EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, 

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Defendant, FLORIAN EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC (“Florian” or “Defendant”), by and 

through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, hereby files its 

Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Request for Production dated November 2nd

 ,

2023, as follows: 

General Statement 

These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action, and are made without 

waiving: (1) the right to object, on the grounds of competency, proprietary, admissibility, privilege, 

relevancy or materiality, or any other proper grounds, to the use of these responses for any purposes 

in whole or in part, in any subsequent step or proceeding in this action or any other action; (b) the 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 55 of

84
2 

right to object on any and all grounds, at any time, to other interrogatories or requests for production 

or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of these Requests for 

Documents; and (c) the right at any time to revise, correct, add to or clarify any of the responses 

provided herein. 

 The responses herein reflect only the present state of Defendant’s recollection and the 

present state of discovery. Defendant has not yet completed its investigation of the facts relating to 

this action, has not yet completed its discovery in this action and has not yet completed its 

preparation for trial. Moreover, as discovery investigation and legal research progress, new facts 

may be discovered and previously known facts may take on new meaning or significance, thereby 

changing any conclusions, opinions, representations, objections and/or statements made herein. 

Consequently, Defendant expressly reserves the right to rely on, at any time including trial, 

subsequently discovered information or information omitted from these responses as a result of 

mistake, error, oversight, inadvertence, further diligence, or otherwise. 

 Except for facts explicitly admitted herein, no admissions or any nature whatsoever are 

implied or should be inferred. The fact that any Requests for Documents herein has been answered 

should not be taken as an admission or acceptance of the existence of any facts set forth or assumed 

by such Document Request, or that such answer constitutes admissible evidence. Except otherwise 

stated below, an objection to a specific Request for Documents does not imply that facts or 

documents response to the specific Request for Documents exist. Any response herein is not 

intended as, and shall not be deemed to be, a waiver of any objection set forth herein. Defendant 

expressly reserves the right to raise any applicable objection at any time. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 56 of

84
3 

General Objections 

Preliminarily, and as a general objection applicable to all of the following specific 

requests for production contained in Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Requests for Production that 

reference the words “documents” and/or “relating to,” and “communications”. As set forth below, 

Defendant objects as the terms “documents” and “relating to,” and “communications” as defined, 

are so broad, as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and 

this broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. For 

example, the definition of “communications” means any conveyance of information, whether 

reciprocated or not, from one party to another, and all records thereof, making it impossible to 

discern exactly what is being sought. Similarly vague and broad is the term, “document” which 

means any written or recorded matter of every kind or description. The terms “related to” 

“reflect” and “reflecting” is likewise so broad, particularly when coupled with the terms 

“communications” and “documents”, that is impossible for Defendant to determine what is being 

sought to as to perform a reasonable search. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 57 of

84
4 

Specific Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents 

1. All FEI investor newsletters and investor reports drafted and/or distributed during the

relevant period and all communications regarding same.

Defendant will respond in part to this request, and object in part.

FEI objects on the grounds that the request is overbroad; specifically, that 

the phrase “communications regarding” the investor newsletters and investor 

reports is so overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to provide no meaningful 

guidance as to what is being sought, and FEI contends that this overbreadth would 

make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. 

Further, while the term “related to” is defined, the term “regarding” is not 

and the use of one term rather than the other leaves Defendant guessing as to 

whether it is ascribed a different meaning. Regardless, all communications 

regarding newsletters and reports would appear to be irrelevant to the allegations of 

the complaint; this is not a case filed by investors against FEI, rather, it pertains to 

students at HCI seeking relief from what they claim is a “subpar” educational 

experience so that investor newsletters and communications from Florian are 

irrelevant. 

Further, Rule 26(b)(1) provides that discovery must be “proportional to the 

needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the 

parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 58 of

84
5 

benefit.” Given the allegations of the case, the need for all communications 

regarding newsletters and reports is not proportionate to the needs of the case and 

appears to be a fishing expedition. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving the above, Florian is producing 

reports provided to investors during the relevant time. Florian does not produce or 

disseminate “newsletters” as that term is readily understood. 

2. All documents relating to FEI investor presentations made during the Relevant Period,

including electronic calendar invitations, applicable slide decks and power point presentations, 

and any communications regarding each presentation.

Defendant objects as to the fact that “all documents related to” and 

“communications” regarding the investor newsletters and investor reports is so 

overly broad, vague and ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to 

what is being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to 

compile responsive items unduly burdensome. Further, while the terms, “related 

to” is defined, “regarding” is not and the use of one term rather than the other 

leaves this Defendant guessing as to whether it is ascribed a different meaning. 

Regardless, all documents and communications related to same, as those terms are 

defined, and regarding same are irrelevant to the allegations of the complaint; this is 

not a case filed by investors against FEI, rather, it pertains to students at HCI 

seeking relief from what they claim is a “subpar” educational experience so that 

investor newsletters and communications regarding same are irrelevant. Further, 

Rule 26(b)(1) provides, discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, 

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 

controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 59 of

84
6 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Given the 

allegations of the case, the need for all documents and communications relating 

Investor presentations is not proportionate to the needs of the case and appears to 

be a fishing expedition. 

Notwithstanding and without waiving the above, Florian is producing 

investor presentations and related documents and communications to the best of its 

ability to do so given the broadness and vagueness of the subject request. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 60 of

84
7 

3. Each “Operation Report,” as that term is used in the Authorization Guidelines found 

at HCI004133-4167, and any communications regarding same. 

None. 

4. All documents, including communications, concerning or referencing HCI’s 

termination of the “old” RN Program at its West Palm Beach campus and/or HCI’s ending its use 

of NCLEX code 70755. 

 None. 

5. All documents, including communications, concerning or referencing HCI’s launch 

of the “new” RN Program at its West Palm Beach campus and/or HCI’s beginning its use of 

NCLEX code 704146.

None.

6. All documents, including communications, concerning or referencing HCI’s 

attempts to gain programmatic accreditation during the Relevant Time Period.

None.

7. All documents, including communications, concerning or 

referencing HCI’s NCLEX-RN passage rates or probationary status with the Florida Board of 

Nursing. 

None. 

8. The following regarding FEI’s relationship with Sachs Media: 

None.

a) All contracts, operating agreements, or other Documents establishing, 

governing, or describing the business relationship between Sachs Media 

and FEI, including but not limited to, the scope of the work, the purpose 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 61 of

84
8 

of the work, and the compensation for the work; 

b) All emails, text messages, correspondence, or other communications, as 

well as any corresponding attachments, between FEI and Sachs Media any 

anyone acting on behalf of, or in the interest of, FEI between September 

1, 2019, the present; 

c) All Documents pertaining to the “HCI College Statement on the Roberson 

Lawsuit February 3, 2023,” including but not limited to: all drafts of this 

statement (including drafts with comments), all communications about 

this statement, and all documents discussing or concerning how it was 

determined that “at least 300 graduates . . . have passed the National 

Council Licensure Examination” as that phrase is used in the February 3, 

2023, statement; and 

d) All Documents regarding this lawsuit, Roberson et al. v. Health Career

Institute LLC et al., S.D. Fla. Case No. 9:22-cv-81883-RAR.

9. All documents, including communications, related to FEI’s involvement in the 

preparation of federal and state tax documents that reflect the earnings, losses, and expenses of 

HCI.

Defendant objects as to the request as a whole since it is so broad, vague and 

ambiguous so as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought. 

Specifically the terms “all documents”, “communications”, “related to”, 

“involvement” and “that reflect” so overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to 

provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by this request and this 

broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items unduly burdensome. 

Regardless, such documents are irrelevant to the allegations of the complaint; this is 

not a case filed by investors against FEI, rather, it pertains to students at HCI 

seeking relief from what they claim is a “subpar” educational experience so that 

investor newsletters and communications regarding same are irrelevant. To the 

extent that Plaintiffs seek information pertaining to net worth and the sole punitive 

damages claim against HCI arising from Count 9, such claim is limited to “the lesser 

of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the creditor.” See 15 U.S.C.A. § 

1691e (b). Thus, the discovery of every record pertaining to the “preparation of

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 62 of

84
9 

federal and state tax documents that reflect the earnings, losses, and expenses of 

HCI” is not proportional to the needs of the case. Rule 26(b)(1) provides, discovery 

must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the 

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to 

relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in 

resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit.” 

Further, this request is similar to Plaintiffs’ First Request to Produce 

Number 14, which states: “Provide all tax returns Florian has prepared for HCI, 

including federal corporate income tax returns, state income tax returns, and state 

property tax returns.” Florian objected to this request and Plaintiffs did not move 

to compel same and therefore, have waived same. To the extent that Plaintiff is 

improperly trying to overcome Florian’s previous objections, it again asserts that 

this request is “irrelevant and therefore appears harassing and is otherwise invasive, 

particularly in this stage of the proceedings.”

10. All profit and loss statements, balance sheets, income statements, and statements of 

cash flows.

Defendant objects as to the fact that profit and loss statements, balance

sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flow are irrelevant are so overly 

broad, vague and ambiguous as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is 

being sought by this request and this broadness would make any effort to compile 

responsive items unduly burdensome. 

Regardless, all the items requested in #10 are irrelevant to the allegations of 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 63 of

84
10

the complaint; this is not a case filed by investors against Florian, rather, it pertains 

to students at HCI seeking relief from what they claim is a “subpar” educational 

experience so the request pertaining to Florian’s finances is irrelevant. Moreover, 

there is no pending punitive damage claim against Florian. Rule 26(b)(1) provides, 

discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” 

Given the allegations of the case, as discussed, the need for the requested and 

irrelevant financial information is not proportionate to the needs of the case and 

appears to be a fishing expedition. 

11. All documents concerning or relating to audits of the documents 

referenced in Request 10, and all communications relating to same.

Defendant objects as to the fact that all “documents concerning or related to” 

and “communications relating to” profit and loss statements, balance sheets, income

statements, and statements of cash flow are irrelevant and are so overly broad, vague 

and ambiguous as to provide no meaningful guidance as to what is being sought by 

this request and this broadness would make any effort to compile responsive items 

unduly burdensome. Regardless, all the items requested are irrelevant to the 

allegations of the complaint; this is not a case filed by investors against Florian, 

rather, it pertains to students at HCI seeking relief from what they claim is a 

“subpar” educational experience so the request pertaining to Florian’s finances is 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 64 of

84
11

irrelevant. Moreover, there is no pending punitive damage claim against Florian. 

Rule 26(b)(1) provides, discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, 

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 

controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Given the 

allegations of the case, as discussed, the need for the requested and irrelevant 

financial information is not proportionate to the needs of the case and appears to be 

a fishing expedition. 

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 65 of

84
12

12. All documents establishing the qualifications of any consulting or testifying 

expert(s) retained by Defendants in this case, including but not limited to their most recent CV or 

resume, publications, and expert reports submitted in other actions. 

See attached. 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 66 of

84
Exhibit G

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 67 of

84
1 spots and soft spots?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And how would you do that?

4 A. In our ExCom meetings.

5 Q. And do you prepare documents before the ExCom

6 meetings?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you prepare an agenda?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And do you distribute that to the members of

11 the ExCom?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. When I say that, I'm still -- tell me if I'm

14 wrong, but I'm talking about the three of you, Mr. Hart,

15 Mr. DeGuzman and yourself.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And also in the authorization guidelines there

18 is reference to SSA as an acronym.

19 What does that stand for?

20 A. Senior staff accountant.

21 Q. And is that a particular person at HCI?

22 A. It could be.

23 Q. Right now, is there an SSA?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Who is the most recent SSA?

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 68 of

84
1 A. The one now that would be referred to as an

2 SSA is our current controller.

3 Q. The one in accounting you mentioned?

4 A. Right.

5 Q. What's his name again?

6 A. Daniel Albano.

7 Q. And before he filled that role, who was in the

8 SSA role?

9 A. While he was there, I also had another staff

10 accountant, Roberta. I can't think of her last name.

11 And then prior to that, when I first joined we

12 had one staff accountant, Bernadette Shaia.

13 Q. There is a section in the authorization

14 guidelines called payroll roster and pay rate changes.

15 Is there actually a payroll roster that's kept

16 for employees of HCI College?

17 A. I don't understand the question.

18 Q. So is there one document that contains all the

19 payroll numbers for HCI College employees?

20 A. You are asking me if there is a payroll

21 roster?

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. Yes, we have a payroll roster and we can run

24 payroll roster reports out of our payroll system.

25 Q. Which payroll system?

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 69 of

84
1 A. Currently using Paylocity.

2 Q. You told me since 2019 you have used that?

3 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.

4 Q. And is there a bonus plan at HCI?

5 A. There has been.

6 Q. And when I say -- I guess I used plan loosely,

7 but is there a formal bonus plan?

8 A. For?

9 Q. Employees in general.

10 A. We have had bonus plans on the manager level

11 in the past and everybody would have their different

12 criteria to meet in order to be eligible. And it also

13 was based on the fact of hitting or beating budget

14 numbers.

15 Q. And so beating budget numbers, who would be

16 receiving a bonus if budget numbers were beat?

17 A. It's just a general clause in there that if

18 you're not hitting the budget number, then it decreases

19 your chance of receiving a bonus.

20 Q. And you say it's a clause in there. In where?

21 A. The different bonus plans.

22 Q. So there are written plans?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And are there different plans for different

25 positions at HCI?

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 70 of

84
1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So do, for example, do you have a bonus plan?

3 A. No, I don't.

4 Q. Does the director of financial aid have a

5 bonus plan?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Does the director of admissions have a bonus

8 plan?

9 A. Uh-uh, no.

10 Q. Do the admissions representatives have a bonus

11 plan?

12 A. Absolutely not.

13 Q. Do teachers have a bonus plan?

14 A. Teachers could have a bonus plan for meeting

15 certain requirements, like we had an NCLEX bonus plan

16 that was paid out to faculty.

17 Q. And what was that? What does that mean, an

18 NCLEX bonus plan?

19 A. If the school was 80 percent or better, there

20 was a bonus plan.

21 Q. Would it be the same for all teachers if

22 80 percent or better get the same amount of money or is

23 it a percentage?

24 A. I don't recall.

25 Q. Where does that bonus plan reside, the actual

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 71 of

84
1 written plan?

2 A. I don't know. I'd have to look for it.

3 Q. Who would you go to if you wanted to see a

4 copy of it?

5 A. Myself.

6 Q. And where would you look?

7 A. In files.

8 Q. Which folder? Is there a folder that has HR

9 stuff?

10 A. I couldn't tell you which folder it's in.

11 Q. Who would you have gotten that type of a

12 document from?

13 A. Either I created it or Pedro helped create it.

14 Q. Does the executive committee come up with the

15 bonus plans?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So other than teachers, who else has had a

18 bonus plan?

19 A. The same that I mentioned before was the

20 management could have a potential bonus plan.

21 Q. Who falls under management? What positions?

22 A. In the past I've had, we've had the director

23 of IT. We've had the COO. That's all I can remember

24 right now off the top of my head.

25 Q. Has the director of nursing ever had a bonus

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 72 of

84
1 plan?

2 A. I don't recall. It would be the same that I

3 mentioned before with the NCLEx bonus plan.

4 Q. And the bonus plans, would these be things

5 established at those executive committee meetings?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And so would they be reflected in the

8 committee meeting notes?

9 A. I'm not sure.

10 Q. Are you the keeper of the executive committee

11 meeting notes?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And if a bonus plan was established at one of

14 those meetings, would you put it in the meeting notes?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you recall the last bonus plan that was

17 established by the executive committee?

18 A. No.

19 Q. There's a place in the authorization

20 guidelines talking about auditors, an annual review of

21 auditors that says the VPF does that.

22 What is the annual review of an auditor?

23 A. It's a annual review to make sure that as a

24 company, we're getting what we need on both the

25 financial side and the compliance side, and that the

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 73 of

84
1 A. Somewhat. I helped review it in its final

2 stages.

3 Q. Do different documents have different

4 retention periods?

5 A. Sure.

6 Q. So like the financial documents you work on,

7 is there like a blanket retention period for them?

8 A. It's all listed in that RDP. So I would have

9 to pull that up to see what the --

10 Q. It's actual called document retention policy?

11 A. I'd have to tell you what the exact name is.

12 Q. Okay. Monthly financial review, I saw that

13 term used a few places. Is that the same thing as the

14 cash flow meeting or is that different?

15 A. No, that's monthly, as you said, and the cash

16 flow is weekly.

17 Q. Okay. Is the same thing looked at at monthly

18 financial review as you're looking at in the cash flow

19 meetings, or are you looking at something different?

20 A. What do you mean?

21 Q. Well, at cash flow meetings you said, I think

22 you agree it's kind of looking at money coming in, going

23 out, are we where we thought we would be; right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And so the monthly financial review, is it

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 74 of

84
1 that same thing, money coming and going in that month

2 and are we where we thought we would be?

3 A. So two parts to that. Monthly financial

4 review is reviewing your previous month's results versus

5 budget or forecast.

6 In that, as we went through there is the

7 income statement, balance sheet and cash flow. So your

8 balance sheet cash flow show your cash on a monthly

9 basis. We also look at, depending on where the meeting

10 is, we will look at the weekly one as well and tie that

11 in to there.

12 Q. And HCI sends money some way, shape or form to

13 Florian during the year, Florian Education Investors?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And is that done on a regular basis or

16 randomly?

17 A. Typically, it's monthly.

18 Q. And what would that be called on the HCI

19 budget?

20 A. Distribution.

21 Q. So there's a line item I guess you are saying

22 in the budget that says distribution?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And how much is that monthly right now?

25 A. 50,000.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 75 of

84
1 Q. And do you know what that money goes to?

2 A. It goes to the Bank of America account of FEI.

3 Q. Do you know what FEI does with the money when

4 it's sent?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Who has access to that Bank of America

7 account?

8 A. Steve and myself.

9 Q. So you can operate the Bank of America account

10 for FEI?

11 A. I don't think I'm set up that way to operate.

12 When you say operate --

13 Q. Like could you sign a check?

14 A. No. Two different things.

15 Q. Okay. What can you do with that account?

16 A. I believe I can log in to see a balance if I

17 needed to.

18 Q. Are you listed as a, like an account user,

19 account holder? How does that work?

20 A. I'm not sure how he set that up.

21 Q. Is the bank permitted to speak with you about

22 that account?

23 A. I don't know. I doubt it.

24 Q. So if there was a distribution from HCI to

25 Florian Education Investors and something happened and

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 76 of

84
Exhibit H

 

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 77 of

84
1 know if there's any policies regarding curriculum

2 creation and changes to curriculum; is that right?

3 MR. CARNEY: That's my objection. You just

4 changed the word.

5 THE WITNESS: Right.

6 MR. CARNEY: I'll clarify if you want, but I

7 won't if you don't want. I'm just objecting to you

8 asked two separate questions using different words.

9 I'll clarify if you want.

10 MS. MAYER: No, please do.

11 MR. CARNEY: Add the word process. Ms. Dennis

12 has already clarified the distinction between a

13 policy and a process. Your question was exclusive

14 of the latter and I think that's unfair based on

15 what Ms. Dennis was telling you. But go ahead.

16 MS. MAYER: I understand.

17 BY MS. MAYER:

18 Q. And so I'll ask, are HCI processes written

19 down?

20 A. So yes, we have guidance on the various

21 processes we implement.

22 Q. So regarding curriculum creation and changes

23 to curricula, are their written processes for that?

24 A. Right. As I said before, that would guide

25 those meetings, how we go about making those changes;

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 78 of

84
1 yes.

2 Q. And would you get those from the director of

3 nursing?

4 A. So the director of nursing certainly would be

5 familiar with this, but again, ultimately you would go

6 to your academic affairs officers in relation to those

7 matters.

8 Q. And they would have written processes in

9 place?

10 A. So I don't know that every single process that

11 we follow is written. Obviously, some of them are

12 standard practices. Others would have written guidance,

13 depending on what you're discussing.

14 Q. So how changes are made to the curriculum, is

15 there written guidance on that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And who does that reside with?

18 A. That would be academic affairs.

19 Q. Okay. And who is in academic affairs that you

20 would talk to about that?

21 A. So your dean's office is part of academic

22 affairs, as well as your VP or chief academic officer.

23 Q. And similar question for advancement in

24 courses, are you aware of any written policies or

25 processes that guide advancement requirements at the

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 79 of

84
1 school?

2 A. So yes, and for the student that's outlined in

3 the catalog as well. In terms of when you repeat a

4 course, our repeat policy for the course, those kind of

5 things, yeah, that's something you can reference as

6 well.

7 Q. So other than something that's student-facing,

8 I'm asking about something that's kept by the school,

9 that someone could reference and say, okay, I want to

10 know what your policy or process is on how advancement

11 occurs at the school. Can you go somewhere and look at

12 a written version of that process or policy?

13 A. So specifically as it relates to advancing

14 from one course to the next, you're guided by what is

15 outlined in the catalog. I mean, that's fairly

16 transparent. There's not a back-end side to that. It's

17 fairly straightforward in terms of what a student

18 requires. If you're not successful in the course, here

19 is your -- here are your options, here's the repeat

20 policy. Both faculty and student are using that same

21 information to guide them. It's consistent.

22 Q. So are you saying the catalog is the written

23 policy?

24 A. The catalog indicates what the school's

25 requirements are for course advancement.

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 80 of

84
Exhibit I

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 81 of

84
1 AND AS THE AUTHORIZATION GUIDELINES SAY

2 IF YOU BRING A -- PART OF WHAT THEY DO

3 THEY HAVE TO SAY WHEN THEY'RE BRINGING

4 ON A NEW VENDOR IS MAKE IN THE

5 DECLARATION IN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT

6 THERE IS NO CONFLICT.

7 BY MS. ROYTENBERG:

8 Q WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE

9 GUIDELINES?

10 A PEDRO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND

11 CHANGES AND I HAVE TO AGREE TO THEM. RYAN MAY HAVE

12 SOME AUTHORITY, TOO, IN THE CASH AREA; BUT THE

13 RECOMMENDATION MAY GO TO PEDRO AND I, IN THAT CASE,

14 BUT PEDRO.

15 Q SO PEDRO CAN MAKE OR RECOMMEND CHANGES

16 OR EDITS TO THE GUIDELINES AND YOU APPROVE THEM, IS

17 THAT CORRECT?

18 A YES.

19 Q AND IN WHAT CAPACITY DO YOU APPROVE

20 THEM?

21 A AS CHAIRMAN. IT'S WRITTEN IN THE

22 GUIDELINES.

23 Q WE ALREADY SAID THAT EXCOM OR EXECUTIVE

24 COMMITTEE IS THE VP OF FINANCE, YOURSELF AS THE

25 CHAIRMAN, AND THE PRESIDENT AND CEO, IS THAT

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 82 of

84
1 CORRECT?

2 A YES.

3 Q AND AT TIMES OTHER PEOPLE JOIN THOSE

4 MEETINGS; BUT THE COMMITTEE, ITSELF, ARE THOSE

5 THREE PEOPLE?

6 A YES.

7 WE'VE DISCUSSED BRINGING DAVID SHELPMAN

8 IN AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE DONE THAT OR NOT.

9 Q BUT HE HASN'T BEEN PREVIOUSLY A PART OF

10 THE -- A CORE PART OF THE COMMITTEE?

11 A CORRECT.

12 Q THE COMMITTEE MEETS ONCE A MONTH, YOU

13 SAID, ROUGHLY?

14 A WE MEET ONCE A MONTH.

15 IT'S IN THE AUTHORIZATION GUIDELINES

16 WHEN IT HAS TO BE.

17 Q AND ASIDE FROM BUDGETS -- BUDGETS AND

18 BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS, WHAT ELSE IS DISCUSSED IN

19 THE EXCOM MEETINGS?

20 A THAT'S IT.

21 Q JUST THE BUDGET AND BUDGETARY

22 CONSIDERATIONS?

23 A WE WOULD DISCUSS THE FINANCIAL RESULTS

24 AND OTHER -- AND LOOK HOW THEY DO VERSUS BUDGET OR

25 VERSUS FORECAST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT; BUT, IT'S

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 83 of

84
1 A -- IT'S LARGELY FINANCIAL, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE WE

2 COVER OPERATING THINGS, TOO BUT IT'S LARGELY

3 FINANCIAL.

4 Q I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO SOME OTHER

5 AUTHORIZATION GUIDELINES IN A LITTLE BIT.

6 WHEN YOU WERE CEO OF HCI UNTIL -- LET ME

7 GET THIS RIGHT.

8 YOU WERE CEO OF HCI UNTIL NOVEMBER OF

9 2019?

10 A MAY I OFFER A CORRECTION?

11 Q YES.

12 A I WAS A CO-CEO.

13 Q OKAY. CO-CEO.

14 A UNTIL SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER OF 2019.

15 Q AND IN NOVEMBER OF 2019, YOU BECAME

16 CO-CHAIRMAN?

17 A SEPTEMBER TO NOVEMBER, SOMEWHERE IN

18 THERE.

19 Q SOMEWHERE IN THERE, THOSE ROLES

20 SWITCHED. YOU WENT FROM CO-CEO TO CO-CHAIRMAN?

21 A WHEN PEDRO DE GUZMAN JOINED US, HE

22 BECAME CEO AND WE ACTUALLY COULD NOT BE TRI-CEOS.

23 Q THAT MAKES SENSE.

24 A SO WE MOVED UP TO CO-CEOS. EXACTLY WHEN

25 ALL THAT HAPPENED, IT WAS WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF

Case 9:22-cv-81883-RAR Document 156-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2024 Page 84 of

84