Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel for refusal to abide by Paragraph 6 this Court’s Oder Scheduling Pretrial Conference and Non-Jury Trial dated April 1, 2012, and states as follows:
1. This is an action for unpaid commission. Both Plaintiff and Defendant reside in Gainesville, FL. There is no connection with this case to any other city but Gainesville.
2. The Pretrial Conference was set for this case on June 15, 2012.
3. Paragraph 6 of this Court’s Oder Scheduling Pretrial Conference and Non-Jury Trial dated April 1, 2012 states as follows:
Not later than five (5) days before the Pretrial Conference, the parties shall meet personally and exhibit to each other all documentary and tangible evidence, exhibits, and visual aids, and shall specifically designate all portions of depositions, intended to be offered or used at trial, and shall make a reasonable faith effort to stipulate in writing as to the admissibility and use thereof. The parties shall mark all exhibits before trial.
4. On June 6, 2012, the undersigned emailed opposing counsel to arrange the meeting required by the Court’s Order. In response, Defendant’s counsel (with offices in Orlando) stated that he was not amenable to meeting in Gainesville and instead required the meeting to be closer to her offices in Orlando.
5. On June 6, 2012, the undersigned against emailed opposing counsel to arrange for the meeting, stating that this was a Gainesville case, and the Court’s Order required an in-person meeting. In response, Defendant’s counsel said that he was only willing to meet halfway between her offices in Orlando and Gainesville. A third email from the undersigned to opposing counsel also failed to secure her compliance with the Order.
6. This lawsuit has no connection with Orlando. All witnesses listed by the Plaintiff and Defendant are either from Gainesville or High Springs. The Defendant itself is based and operates out of Gainesville. The Plaintiff lives in Gainesville. The mediation of this matter occurred in Gainesville.
7. The Defendant’s refusal to meet as required by the Court’s Order in Gainesville is patently unreasonable and in violation of the Court’s Order. The same would hold if the Defendant’s counsel’s offices were in Miami or from out of the State. When Defendant’s counsel accepted this case, she knew its location was Gainesville. Thus, Defendant’s counsel is not complying with Paragraph 6 of the Court’s Order.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant and its counsel should not be held in Contempt or for an award of sanctions including attorneys’ fees or striking of pleadings for their refusal to comply with the Court’s Order.