Epstein Secrets

DATED this day of , 20 . Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 169440 Jack P. Hill Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Phone: Fax: Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) Shipley, P.A. EFTA00722714 v, Epstein, et al Case No. 50 2008CA025129=O(MB Al SDT Without Deposition Page3 CERTIFICATION OF RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA DUCE

m Beach, and Robert M. Moletteire, of Graham, Moletteire, 'futile & Torpy, PA., Melbourne, for Respondents. HARRIS, J. Gary and Joellen Parrish ("Parrish") sued State Farm as their uninsured motorist carrier. Since there were two policies involved, Parrish claimed that the policy coverage for each p

process concerning the stacking cover- age option was handled by State Fann, apparently to see if there was any basis to avoid the con- sequence of Parrish's previous selection. When the trial court ordered the production, State Farm filed its certiorari petition urging that the discovery re- quest was

hed list, this V day of February, 2009. Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 189440 Jack P. Hill Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) Shipley, P.A. EFTA00614441 A.C. v. Epstein, et al Case No. 50 2008CA025129XXXXMB Al Notice of Production from Non-Party Page 3 COUNSEL LIST sissi At

nt Beach, and Robert M. Moletterre, o Graham, Moletteire, 'futile & Torpy, PA., Melbourne, for Respondents. HARRIS, J. Gary and Joellen Parrish ("Parrish") sued State Farm as their uninsured motorist carrier. Since there were two policies involved, Parrish claimed that the policy coverage for each p

process concerning the stacking cover- age option was handled by State Fenn, apparently to see if there was any basis to avoid the con- sequence of Parrish's previous selection. When the trial court ordered the production, State Farm filed its certiorari petition urging that the discovery re- quest was

IFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Motion was furnished via email this 8th day of March, 2018: Jack Scarola Shipley, P.A. Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. 350 1 o- ounse or ee ant Co

party may waive its objection to an order setting trial, "notwithstanding the compulsory nature of rule 1.440." 170 So. 3d at 130. "For example, in Parrish v. Dougherty, 505 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the appellant's attorney appeared at the trial and participated without objecting to the manner i