Petitioner, LUXCOM, filed its response and objections to
Respondent’s, PALMETTO BAY, First Request For Production to Petitioner dated
September 26, 2019 on Friday, 11/08/2019. CLICK HERE to view the complete 25
page document.
Also filed that same day, Friday, 11/08/2019, at 4:36 PM,
was Petitioner, LUXCOM's, Notice of serving its Answers to the Respondent’s,
VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, First Set of Interrogatories propounded September 26,
2019. [CLICK HERE to view the Notice (no attached answers)]
Note that both were filed later than 30 days from service. There were no motions to compel discovery responses filed, so the only assumption is that either a
short extension was negotiated between the attorneys or filed under threat of a
motion to compel.
NEXT UP - The Village of Palmetto Bay will either accept the responses and objections or will see redress with the Judge to overrule the objections, compelling LUXCOM to make full discovery. The Village responses to the
discovery requests of LUXCOM filed 10/1/2019 are now due as well, absent an agreement to extend time (note that any response will likely include, both responses
and objections similar to those raised by LUXCOM).
IMPACT: Unknown at this time as I am not privy to the actual
documents, the sworn answers or documents. More updates will follow as more
information comes to light. The Final Hearing currently remains on schedule for
December 18 through 20, 2019; beginning at 9:00 a.m., at Palmetto Bay Village
Hall.
PRIOR POSTS RELATED to LUXCOM discovery:
and
October 1, 2019, Update on Administrative action filed by Petitioner, YACHT CLUB BY LUXCOM, LLC., Four (4) discovery demands filed Tuesday, 10/1. Read the details.
CLICK HERE to view PRIOR POSTS related to LUXCOM.
CONTINUING SPECIAL NOTE: Palmetto Bay officials continue to
neglect to update the “litigation page” online to include any information
relating to this action (or other recent actions) on the official village
website (at least as of 10:00 AM, Monday,
11/11/2019). Posting would be for courtesy, as it is not required, but would
aid in transparency. As pointed out previously, many of the documents from the
prior administrations have been removed from public access online, casting
shade on transparency as well as accessibility of these public records.
After all, if DOAH can post these (and many other) documents
online, why can’t Palmetto Bay? Don't buy the "ADA" argument.
DOAH/the Courts are under the same ADA requirements as any other government
entity. There is no lack of ability for Palmetto Bay elected leaders, only a
lack of will to make the records accessible.
Eugene Flinn
No comments:
Post a Comment