IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. OO-CA-001074-(OC)
FIGG BRIDGE ENGINEERS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHARLES GRANDE, EDWARD McKAY, ROGER SHARP and KEVIN STINNETTE,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________I
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ON PLAINTIFF
The defendants, pursuant to Fla. R. C iv. P. 1.340, hereby give notice of service of the Defendants’ First Set Interrogatories on Plaintiff, attached hereto, and request that they be answered in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this notice and the First Set of Interrogatories were provided by fax and by U.S. Mail on October 16, 2000 to counsel for the plaintiff: Harold G. Melville, Melville & Sowerby, P.L., 2940 S. 25~ St., Fort Pierce, FL 3498 1-5605.
Respectftilly submitted,
Robert Rivas
The Rivas Law Firm
311 S. Calhoun St., Suite 206
Tallahassee, FL 32301-1802
Tel:
(850) 412-0306Fax:(850)412-0909
Florida Bar No 896969
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. O0-CA-001074-(OC)
FIGG BRIDGE ENGINEERS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
CHARLES GRANDE, EDWARD McKAY, ROGER SHARP and KEVIN STINNETTE,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________I
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES ON PLAINTIFF
The defendants, pursuant to Fla. R. C iv. P. 1.340, submit the following interrogatories to the plaintiff, Figg Bridge Engineers, Inc. ("Figg"):
1. Describe with particularity the "loss of business" damages Figg claims to have incurred as a result of the alleged defamation described in the complaint, setting forth each item of lost business; with whom or what entity the business would have been; how much Figg claims to have lost in connection wit each such item; and how Figg has determined that the loss of such item of business was a result of the alleged defamation.
Case
No. OO.CA-001074.(OC)2. Describe with particularity the loss of "reputation" damages Figg claims to have incurred as a result of the alleged defamation described in the complaint, setting forth how any such loss of reputation has actually caused Figg any monetary damages, and how much such monetary loss has been and is expected to be.
3. Give the name and address of
every person, government agency, corporation, or other entity that has withdrawn business from Figg, or declined to do business with Figg, as a result of the defamation alleged in this action.
-2-
Case No. 00.CA-001074.(OC)
4. This question is asked wit reference to
the allegation in paragraph 14 of the Complaint that the "defamatory statements made by Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp were all false and either known to be false to each of them andlor made with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the matters asserted." Please state with particularity the factual basis for Figg to reach this conclusion.
5. Please identify any factual basis, if there is any, for Figg to conclude that any defendant acted with common law malice (also known as "express malice" or "malice in fact") in publishing any of the allegedly defamatory statements.
-3-
Case No. OO.CA-001074-(OC)
6. With reference to the allegation in paragraph 20 of the Complaint (the allegation repeated in paragraphs 25, 30, 36, 41,46, 56, 62, and 67) that Figg "is not now nor has it ever been" under "a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation," please state how Figg knows this statement to be true.
7. With reference to the allegation in paragraph 30 of the Complaint (the allegation repeated in paragraphs 36, 41, 46, 56, 62, and 67) that Figg "is not now nor has Figg ever been" under "a state criminal investigation," please state how Figg knows this to be true.
-4-
Case No. OO-CA-001074-(OC)
8. Has any employee or officer of Figg had any communication with about this lawsuit with any officer or employee of the St. Lucie County Expressway and Bridge Authority? If so, identify what employee or officer of Figg had such a discussion, with what officer or employee of the Authority; state when this communication took place, and in what form (whether on the phone, in person, in writing, by e-mail, etc.); and state the substance of what was communicated.
FIGG BRIDGE ENGINEERS, INC.
By:
Linda FiggLinda Figg fka:Linda Figg McCallister
as its
Executive Vice President of OperationsSTATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF
LEON )
BEFORE ME PERSONALLY APPEARED
Linda Figgwho, being duly sworn, deposed and said that he or she is the
-5-
Case No. OO-CA-001074-(OC)
correct. The signatory:
(Notary must check one.)
is personally
known to me; orproduced
O. Theresa Maxwell
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
11/12/02SEAL:
0 Theresa Maxwell
A t,m COWA1SSU4 # CC1fl49 WEt
- November t~ 2802
7 bo.t,flt,.tJTftO~ FaJ ~$~~Ct INC
-6-
-6-
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
DEFENDANTS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff answers each of the numbered paragraphs in Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows:
1 Figg is selected for work based upon its reputation and qualifications. When defamatory statements are made, such as those by Defendants, Figg’s reputation and ability to generate business is damaged. This type of damage can linger for months and even years. At this point in time, however, Figg has not lost any existing contracts nor is Figg aware of any contracts of which it was denied as a result of the defamation.
2. Figg’s name and business reputation have been damaged by the defamation through the association of Figg’s name with criminal conduct, the direct implication that Figg has been involved in criminal conduct and the assertion that Figg has lied in the performance of its professional activities. The amount of monetary loss has not yet been calculated.
3. None which Figg is currently aware of. There is no way to tell, however, if others have declined to do business with Figg as a result of this defamation and have simply not told Figg the reason. In addition, this type of situation may continue for months and even years later.
4. Figg was never under investigation or the object or target of any federal grand jury investigation. Figg does not believe that any state criminal investigation ever took place. Defendants either knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard, apparently basing their statements solely on the information contained in the Palm Beach Post article, which article indicated that Figg and the Santa Rosa County Expressway Authority were witnesses and not the subjects of the investigation. Discovery has just been commenced, however, and other matters may be determined through discovery.
5. Defendants have repeatedly, without provocation and without justification attacked Figg, its character and reputation. These unjustified attacks include characterizing meetings as "Figg’s dog and pony show", claiming that Figg has engaged in a conflict of interest, claiming that Figg has lied to and misled the Expressway Authority and the public, claiming that Figg has "taken over" the project and using demeaning and misleading labels i.e., "Figg Expressway Authority" and "Figg’s Bridge", demanding that Figg be fired, intentionally twisting and misrepresenting legitimate news media stories to make it appear that Figg was under a federal grand jury investigation and state criminal investigation, and by both directly stating and implying that Figg was under a state criminal investigation and federal grand jury investigation. Discovery has just commenced, however, and other matters may be determined through discovery.
6. Figg was told this by those running the federal grand jury criminal investigation.
7. Figg is not aware of any state criminal investigation ever undertaken with regard to Figg.
8. Subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit, Linda Figg McCallister called Norman E. Hayslip, the Chairman of the Expressway Authority, and informed him that the lawsuit had been filed. Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit, Linda McCallister also spoke by telephone with Cliff Barnes concerning the possible settlement of the lawsuit.
ANSTO 1ST ROOS.81.wpd