writ of certiorari to review certain portions of the lower court's order which granted, in part, a motion to compel discovery filed by respondents Ruzzo and Exec., Inc. Petitioners argue that those portions de- part from the essential requirements of law and will cause them irreparable harm because

compelled to disclose intimate details of their sexu- al history. We decline to issue the writ of certiorari. Balas and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Ex- ec, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." Ac- cording to Balas and Shumate, The Boardroom op- erates ostensibly as *1077 a leisure spa but

76, and that was a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, and I will quote headnote 3, "had the Petitioners brought their lawsuit against Ruzzo and the Board Room only under Section 769.09, evidence of Petitioner's past prostitution 8 including with the Board Room and their earnings 9 r

ourt they sit, is going to be entitled to a fair shake and a fair trial and entitled to the EFTA00776411 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the Ballast vs. Ruzzo case. For the record, the citation is 703 So.2d. 1076, and that was a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, and I will quote headnote 3,

writ of certiorari to review certain portions of the lower court's order which granted, in part, a motion to compel discovery filed by respondents Ruzzo and Exec., Inc. Petitioners argue that those portions de- part from the essential requirements of law and will cause them irreparable harm because

compelled to disclose intimate details of their sexu- al history. We decline to issue the writ of certiorari. Bales and Shumate filed suit against Ruzzo and Ex- ec, Inc., doing business as "The Boardroom." Ac- cording to Batas and Shumate, The Boardroom op- erates ostensibly as *1077 a leisure spa but

08-cv-80119-KAM Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2009 Page 9 of 13 Page9 States v. Bear Stops. 997 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1993); Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998). The information sought in 4(e) is relevant and discoverable even if no

requested information is not relevant? 7. Next, despite Plaintiffs' strained interpretation and application of the discovery requests in Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), that case is instrumental in that, once again, we are at the "discovery

lanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually abused child.). 14. In further support of Defendant's motion, See Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), as it is on point to the discovery issues in this action, and the rele

ces may be held to prevent mere discovery, is not applicable in this instance, where Plaintiff has placed her past sexual history at issue. Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5 DCA 1997), rev. th denied,719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998)(allowing discovery of plaintiff’s employment history which included pros

e, prostitutes who sued a house of prostitution (as an "enterprise") for inflicting systematic and repetitive abuse on them, over time. See Baku v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (offering an example of a civil RICO claim against the operators of an alleged "house of prostitution,"

anation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually abused child.). In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 {Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as Exhibit A as it is on point to the discovery iss

, prostitutes who sued a house of prostitution (as an "enterprise") for inflicting systematic and repetitive abuse on them, over time. See Bala: v. Ruzzo, 703 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (offering an example of a civil RICO claim against the operators of an alleged "house of prostitution,"

anation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually abused child.). In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as Exhibit A as it is on point to the discovery iss

n medical doctors is a basic discovery need related to the claims alleged by JANE DOE for which Plaintiff's counsel refuses to compromise. Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 8 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2009