: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NUMBER: 56-2008-CA-000066 JUDGE: SENIOR JUDGE, EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION Plaintiff Vs: KAREN A. KRONDES, ET AL. Defendants(S). : OCTOBER 19, 2014 / ANT’S (JOHN KRONDES) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COMES NOW, The Defendant, John J. Krondes, in the above-entitled action and hereby moves for a Protective Order as to any and all discovery sought by Plaintiff, inclusive of Hearing and furtherance of Plaintiff on its Motion To Compel Discovery, Motion To Determine Sufficiency Of Objections To Request For Admission, Plaintifi"s seeking of Scheduling Order, and any and all other motions filed by Plaintiff pending hearing. In support of the instant motion, the Defendant represents and states: 1. Plaintiff Has Failed And Refused To Respond To Defendants 1“ and 2"! Requests For Production and other discovery, 1, The Defendants served the Plaintiff EMC Mortgage Corporation with their First (1°) Request For Production on March 5, 2009. Service was made upon counsel, Law Offices Of David J, Stern. To date, October 19, 2014, the Defendants have not received any documents and/or any response from Plaintiff. More than Five (5) Years have elapsed and Plaintiff has failed to provide the Defendants any response to said First Request For Production. 2. The Defendants, Karen A. Krondes n/k/a Karen Krondes Blair and John J. Krondes, served Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, with their Second (2")2) Request For Production on March 19, 2010. Service was made upon Plaintiff's counsel, Law Offices Of Dan J. Stem on behalf of Plaintiff. To date, October 19, 2014, the Defendants have yet to receive any documents that were requested, and/or any response whatsoever from Plaintiff pertaining specifically to the Second Request For Production, Defendants note with emphasis, that more than Five (5) Years have elapsed and there has been no compliance with the stated an Request For Production. ‘The Defendants have made multiple requests with Plainitff, through Law Offices Of David J. Stem for the production of documents, and despite good faith efforts to provide the documents requested, Law Offices Of David J. Sten failed to provide the Defendants with anything requested in the First and Second Request For Production. The most recent counsel for Plaintiff, McCalla Raymer, LLC and Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP have further and additionally failed to provide the Defendants with the documents as requested. Law Offices Of David J. Stern was Ordered Shut Down by the Supreme Court Of Florida in early 2014 and the license to practice law of chief attorney David J Stem REVOKED for persistent employment of fraudulent acts and practices in the handling of foreclosure cases in Florida. During the Investigation of Law Offices Of David J. Stem, by the office of the Attorney General Of Florida, admissions were made in depositions by Ex-Employees Tammie Lou Kapusta and others that Notary Fraud, Robo Signing, and Shoddy Legal Work was frequent and standard practice. . Palm Beach County Cireuit Court Judge Naney Perez, stated publicly that, “Mr, Stern has not expressed any remorse in these proceedings”, she further added, “He has taken no responsibility”. Judge Perez. additionally added in her 35 Page@) Report that, “The incidents were not isolated, but rather a representation of the culture of the firm as to the low level of competence and ethics”. . The Defendants served Law Offices Of David J. Stem with a Notice Of Non- Compliance To Discovery Request by FedEx (Airbill # 8726 4627 2699) on Monday, March 7, 2011, noticing Plaintiff that it failed to respond pursuant to Fla Rule 1.350(b) to the Defendants’ 1" Request For Production, as well as the 2"° Request For Production. Defendants further apprise the Court that Plaintiff responded with an evasive bad faith response to its 3! Request For Production, with the elusive short language that this is a foreclosure action and that for this reason Plaintiff Objects. Plaintiff was served with the 3 Request For Production on March 3, 2011, and to date no documents have been received by the Defendants. As part of the Granting and any Order of this motion, the Defendants ask that the Court further determine the sufficiency of the ridiculous response given by Plaintiff to the Third (3"') Request For Production, and Order that Plaintiff produce all documents as requested On April 21, 2010, the Defendants served Plaintiff with its 2" Set Of Requests For Admissions. Service was made upon the Law Offices Of David J. Stem, The Defendants represent that the Plaintiff and Law Offices Of David J. Stem failed to respond within Thirty (30) Days with any valid response, and supply Defendants with any written answers, The Defendants represent, that pursuant to the Rules Of Civil Procedure in Florida, Plaintiff has admitted to all such facts sought by Defendants by its silence. ‘The Defendants further apprise the Court and emphasize that the Plaintiff was served with a First Request For Admissions, and such responses by Plaintiff were untimely and its responses and their sufficiency should be questioned.10. @) II. Order Sought To Suspend All Pending And Further Discovery Served By Plaintiff and Attempts To Strip Defendants Of Their Right To Discovery ‘As part of an Order made to Defendants’ Motion For Protective Order, it is asked that any Discovery served by Plaintiff'be effectively put on hold and suspended, until such time that each and all Discovery Attempts made by the Defendants as outlined and detailed above be complied with, and proof given that documents have been supplied the Defendants as requested. Plaintiff, Law Offices Of David J. Stern, and current counsel have denied the Defendants their ability to Defend this action by its refusal to provide Documents as requested in multiple discovery attempts. That Plaintifbe Ordered to supply each and all of the documents as requested by the Defendants in the 1, 2", and 3" Request For Production. That the untimely and evasive responses as made by Plaintiff by quashed and Plaintiff Ordered to produce the documents made in the stated requests, as each and all pertain to the question of standing of the Plaintiff. That the Court set a Hearing to determine the sufficiency of all evasive responses made by Plaintiff to the Defendants discovery before entertaining any motions or other discovery questions and conflicts alleged by Plaintiff in its own recent discovery, The failures by Plaintiff to supply the Defendants with documentation and other mandatory responses and answers is unconscionable, grossly negligent, and are abusive and egregious refusals to comply with the Rules of this Court and subject Plaintiff's case to involuntary dismissal of action and an adjudication on the merits of its suit, ‘That an Order be made that any and all prior Orders made by the Court be vacated, as Plaintiff has failed to produce one document to the Defendants. Pursuant to the Florida Rules on Discovery, Plaintiff is required to provide the6) Defendants with all documentation and answers to discovery within Thirty Days. The Plaintiff has provided not one document to the Defendants, only empty promises by personnel at Law Offices Of David J. Stern. 13, That an ORDER be made that the Plaintiff's lawsuit be Dismissed with Prejudice for Plaintiff's repeated and continual willful failures and refusal to provide Defendants with the requested documentation and other required admissions and answers to discovery. The egregious violations of Florida Court Rules and relevant case law provided below in the Memorandum Of Law gives this Court authority to Dismiss the instant action with Prejudice. III Memorandum Of Law 1, Recent rulings and case law in the State Of Florida and around the USA have shown a clear intolerability of the Courts in Foreclosure Actions to permit iniquitous failures of Plaintiffs to comply with discovery rules and orders of the court. 2. Florida Rule 1.350 Production Of Documents And Things: (b) Procedure... The party to whom the request is directed shall serve a written response within 30 days afier service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response within 45 days after service of the process and initial pleading on that defendant. 3. Florida Rule 1.420 Dismissal Of Actions, - (b) Involuntary Dismissal, stipulates in part that...Any party may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against that party for failure of an adverse party to comply with these rules or any order of the court. A dismissal under this subdi ision, unless otherwise specified, acts as an adjudication on the merits, 4, On March 25, 2010, in the matter of U.S. Bank National Association vs. Ernest E. Harpster (Case No. 51-2007-CA-6684ES), 6" Judicial Circuit Court in Pasco County, Judge Lynn Tepper Dismissed with Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, in part as a sanction© for the egregious failure of U.S. Bank National Association to comply with discovery rules. Judge Tepper ordered that the Plaintiff shall be prohibited from presenting the alleged Promissory Note to the Court, The Court found that U.S. Bank National Association failed to produce answers to the Defendant's Interrogatories and Request For Production for a period of 26 Months, between January 8, 2008 and March 1, 2010. ‘Additionally, it was found that the Plaintiff also failed to produce responses to a Second (2") Set of Requests For Production propounded in July 2009. 5. The 19" Judicial Cirouit Court in Martin County, Dismissed with Prejudice the 2010 Foreclosure case styled as Siar Funding Solutions, LLC v. John Krondes, Et Al (Case No. 10-1298-CA). Judge Sherwood Bauer, Jr. Dismissed with Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, for Plaintiff's egregious failures to comply with Defendant's First and Second Requests For Production, and supply the requested documents. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, the Defendant John J. Krondes respectfully moves the Court to Grant Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order. As Plaintiff has been persistent in its refusal to provide Defendants with requested documents and other answers to discovery made more than Five (5) Years ago, it is requested that an ORDER be made suspending any and all further and pending discovery requests made by Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants additionally move the Court for a Dismissal With Prejudice due to the egregious failures of Plaintiff to adhere to discovery rules. Dated: October 19, 2014 The Defendant Respectfully Submitted By: Date: o + Joh mndes Joh 3. Krondes PO ox 1795 “Tet: (208) 981-1926 ‘Email JKtondes@aoo coma CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The Defendant, John J. Krondes, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion For Protective Order has been furnished via USPS First Class Mail on October 19, 2014, to the office of the Plaintiff's counsel, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP at the address of 50 North Laura Street, Ste. 2200, Jacksonville, FL_ 32202 and McCalla Raymer, LLC, at the address of 225 East Robinson Street, Ste. 660, Orlando, FL 32801. Additional Service Was Made To: Attorney For Princess Condominium Attn: Robert Rydzewski, Esq. P.O. Box 66 Stuart, FL 34995 Karen Krondes Blair 26 Pinnacle Rock Road Stamford, CT 06903 Stephen D. Fromang, Esq. 1620 26" Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 ‘The Office Of The Attorney General Of Florida Attn: Pam Bondi The Capitol PL-O1 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 The Florida Bar Association 651 E. Jefferson Street ‘Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 Certification By The Defendant: