This document is a response by the defendants to the plaintiff's motion to supplement his motion to compel discovery responses. The defendants argue that they have properly responded to all of the plaintiff's discovery requests. They assert that the purpose of the motion to compel is to compel responses when the other side has not responded, which is not the case here. The defendants believe the plaintiff is trying to force them to change their discovery answers to ones more favorable to the plaintiff through this motion. They request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion.

1. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT,
DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
DEFENDANTS DISMAS CHARTIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS AND
ADAMS LESHOTA’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SECOND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES
Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams,
incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota (collectively “Defendants”), through their undersigned
counsel, file their Brief in Response to Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to
Supplement Motion to Compel Responses to Second Request for Production and Interrogatories
and state as follows:
1. Plaintiff, a former Federal Inmate, has filed a vague and confusing lawsuit against
his Community Correction Center/Half Way House, Dismas, and three of its employees, Gispert,
Thomas and Lashanda Adams. The Complaint contains 50 paragraphs of “factual allegations”
filed by a laundry list of four alleged Federal Theories of Recovery and six alleged state law
theories of recovery. However, the Plaintiff cannot maintain any State or Federal cause of action
against any defendant. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which has
been briefed and pending ruling since June 5, 2011. Defendants believe that the disposition of

2. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 2 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
that Motion will bring and end to this lawsuit and the need for discovery and ruling on the
Plaintiffs’ discovery motions.
2. Despite the fact that the Defendants timely and properly responded to all
discovery, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Docket number 58). Defendants timely responded
to the Motion to Compel. (Docket number 59)
3. In response to the Defendants response brief, instead of replying, the Plaintiff
filed a Supplemental Motion to Compel. (Docket 61)
4. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion and Supplemental Motion to Compel
must be denied.
ARGUMENT AND CITIATION TO AUTHORITY
The Defendants have properly responded to the Requests for Production and
Interrogatories.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Requests for
Production and Second Set of Interrogatories against the Defendants. (Docket number 58). As
the Defendants have responded to all interrogatories and agreed to produce and produced the
requested documents at their counsel’s office as they are kept in the course of business, the
Defendants have complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (2)(E). Accordingly, the
Motions to Compel must be denied. Rather than be repetitive, the Defendants adopt their
response brief (Docket Number 59) as though it is fully set forth herein, in response to the
Supplemental Motion to Compel.
The Defendants have clearly properly responded to Plaintiff’s Second Set of
Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production. Accordingly, there is nothing to compel.
2

3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 3 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied as Defendants have timely and properly responded to all
discovery requests.
The Plaintiff’s motion is nothing more than an attempt to argue the merits of his case
rather than the propriety of the Defendants’ discovery responses. (See docket number 61,
paragraphs 11, 12, 19-31 and page 7 of the Motion). For example, the Plaintiff raises the First
Amendment, Freedom of Religion Argument and Title VII argument in page 6 of the Motion to
Compel. Clearly, these issues have nothing to do with the Motion to Compel. A Motion to
Compel is an improper forum to argue the alleged merits of his case.
The Plaintiff, pro se, apparently fails to understand that the purpose of a Motion to
Compel is to compel responses to discovery when the other side does not respond. In this case,
the Defendants have clearly responded to all discovery. However, the Plaintiff does not like the
Defendants answers to the questions as they are in contravention to his position and harm his
case.
The Plaintiff is confusing a Motion to Compel Responses with a Motion to Compel
Responses That He Likes. The Plaintiff is apparently trying to force the Defendants to answer
discovery with the answers that are satisfactory to him. However, the Plaintiff cannot force and
compel the Defendants to change their answers and respond in a manner acceptable to the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff apparently does not like the answers and is moving to compel the
Defendants to change their answers to ones acceptable to the Plaintiff. Apparently, the Plaintiff
cannot handle the truth.
If the Plaintiff disagrees with the answers provided, then he has the ability to refute the
Defendants’ statements at trial. The Plaintiff cannot move the Court to compel the Defendants to
3

4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 4 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
change their answers to answers acceptable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Motion must be
denied.
As the Plaintiff’s Motion has no basis in law or fact, it should be stricken. Plaintiff
should be sanctioned for forcing the Defendants’ to respond to his baseless Motion.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and
Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota respectfully request that Plaintiff’s
Motion be denied and that the Court grant any further relief it deems appropriate, including
sanctions against the Plaintiff.
EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL,
& CHAIET, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendants
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Suite 265-South
Hollywood, FL 33021
(954) 894-8000
(954) 894-8015 Fax
BY: /S/ David S. Chaiet____________
DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE
FBN: 963798
4

5. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 5 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th day of October, 2011, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the
attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic
Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties
who are authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
__/s/ David S. Chaiet_______________
DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 963798
5

6. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 6 of 6
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
SERVICE LIST
Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc., et al.
Case No..: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Traian Bujduveanu
Pro Se Plaintiff
5601 W. Broward Blvd.
Plantation, FL 33317
Tel: (954) 316-3828
Email: orionav@msn.com
6