Ike Perlmutter Motion, Part 2
Ike Perlmutter Motion, Part 2
Ike Perlmutter Motion, Part 2
suit. He did not want to discuss it and does not know whether he is assisting Karen with the suit.
Perlmutter plays tennis and continues to speak highly of her.
He has heard in general discussion at High Ridge Country Club that the defendants are trying to
get Karen fired. The other members from the Residences are Postal, Sloan, Granoff, Gales and
Peerenboom, but he denied that any of them made the comment. He did not have any information
regarding Karen's real estate license and did not know whether these issues arose coincidental
with that.
He heard that the Mathesons were trying to get Karen fired because of competition with Mrs.
Matheson's real estate business. He is not aware that she had a monopoly and has no knowledge
that the allegations are true. He did not hear the same about Peerenboom.
Matheson hire Bob Moore to investigate the tennis program with the Town of Palm Beach? He
knew of no retention or any authority extended by the HOA.
He has heard about letters slandering Peerenboom, alleging despicable acts, but has not seen any
of them. He would not consider anything in the letter at issue to be despicable. He has no idea
who authored or distributed the letters. No one believes it. He does not know anyone who has
such ill feelings toward Peerenboom.
EXHIBITS: Board minutes and the letter that provides the basis for the suiL
EFFECT ON LIABILITY EXPOSURE: The decision was made not to attempt to impeach
these witnesses, since they tried hard to distance themselves from any testimony that would be
harmful to our defense.
Richard Bornstein established the basic elements of the qualified privilege and confirmed that all
communications respecting the subject letter were expected from a director and intended to
resolve the problems at the HOA regarding the tennis director. His testimony confirmed the
•
qualified privilege. He had no direct knowledge of actual malice .
EFFECT ON DAMAGES EXPOSURE: The plaintiffs reputation and popularity remain intact.
STRATEGY, PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS: We will move ahead with the depositions
of the Perlmutters, which will be important. I will send a §57.105 letter to the plaintiffs to set
them up for a claim for attorney's fees. I recommend that we-also file a proposal for settlement in
the amount of $100. I recommend that we delay the motion for summary judgment untU the
Perlmutter depositions have been completed.
Cordially,
William M. Douberley
HAROLD PEERENBOOM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ISAAC ("IKE")PERLMUTTER,
LAURA PERLMUTTER, and
JOHN/JANE DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants.
__________________________/
APRIL 8, 2016
1:30 P.M. TO 4:25 P.M.
REPORTED BY:
MELISSA KALLAS
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 04-08-2016 Page 2 of 161
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 04-08-2016 Page 3 of 161
1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
2 OPENING STATEMENTS
BY MR. BLACK: 7
3
BY MR. BOWEN: 12
4
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION:
By Mr. Black: 24
7
8
WITNESS: DETECTIVE LARRY MENNITI
9
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
10 By Mr. Bowen: 112
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 04-08-2016 Page 32 of 161
2 of a specific table?
5 A. More specific?
8 DNA?
9 A. Yes.
12 A. Yes.
14 A. Generally.
17 A. Yes.
23 8-2 A.
8 A. Yes.
10 A. Yes.
12 deposition?
13 A. Yes.
15 A. Yes.
18 A. Yes.
13 deposition?
17 A. Yes.
19 A. Yes.
2 A. Yes.
5 A. No.
6 Q. Why not?
8 lawyers.
17 Perlmutter deposition?
18 A. No.
21 A. No.
23 A. By Mr. Speckin.
3 by a certified individual.
5 A. Yes, I did.
8 A. Yes.
10 A. I don't know.
13 A. Yes.
15 diseases?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Alzheimer's?
18 A. Yes.
20 A. I have no idea.
22 A. Yes.
24 A. Yes.
HAROLD PEERENBOOM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ISAAC ("IKE")PERLMUTTER,
LAURA PERLMUTTER, and
JOHN/JANE DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants.
__________________________/
REPORTED BY:
MELISSA KALLAS
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 04-25-2016 Page 2 of 53
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 04-25-2016 Page 3 of 53
1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 04-25-2016 Page 13 of 53
3 A. Yes, 5 grand.
15 Speckin?
16 A. Yes.
25 A. No.
EXHIBIT 18
CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA LJTIGA TION MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINES
General
We will direct new cases to one la\l,yer within the firm. In most instances, we expect that this
lawyer will be the one who will assume primary responsibility for the case. However, we do
recognize that other individuals, such as lawyers of different levels of experience, paralegals and
law clerks, may be better able to provide the necessary services in a more efficient and cost
effective manner. We therefore require a proposal from you as to who you recommend should
staff the case. This proposal must be sent \Vithin 72 hours of assignment, and should include the
rates for all individuals proposed to be involved in the case. We must agree, in writing, to any
increase in compensation rates prior to fees appearing on the bills at the new rate.
Your foe statements should be rendered to us on a quarterly basis in accordance with the billing
criteria set forth below. Included in the summary below is an indication of the infomrntion and
reports we will require with respect lo this matter. We would appreciate if you could provide the
follmving infonnation and/or documents as soon as possible:
I. Copies of the pleadings filed in the litigation, including Motions records:
2. Your estimate of expected defence costs for the life of the case;
3. Your analysis of the case, from the perspective of both liability and damages;
and
4. A summary of the present status of the matter and anticipated next steps.
Please note that you are expected to consult with and seek approval of the Chubb claim
representative before undertaking any significant activity in the litigation, including that which
may in any manner bind Chubb and/or the insured(s). Moreover, it is expected that defence
counsel will obtain the approval of the Chubb claim representative of all documents to be filed in
respect of the defence of the claim, including, but not limited to, Statement of Defcnce(s),
Affidavit of Documents, Cross-claims, Counterclaims, Demand for Particulars, Jury Notices, and
motion materials.
Billing Criteria
Fees and expenses should accurately reflect the cost of work necessary to defend or resolve the
claim. Only those reasonable and necessary fees and expenses allocable to a covered loss (or
determination of coverage for a loss) will be considered for payment or used to satisfy any
deductible provisions on an lnsured's policy.
We reserve the right to review and audit all fees and disbursements submitted by defense counsel,
including the right to examine counsel's files. V,/ealso reserve the right to examine and audit all
charges paid by the Insured pursuant to a se.lf-insured retention or deductible.
1) All charges for services by attorneys and paralegals must be billed at the actual time
incurred and in. I hour increments. The time for each activity must be separately stated.
Grouping multiple activities under a single time charge is not acceptable.
2) We normally pay for only one solicitor to accomplish any single task. For example, we
would not pay for two or more solicitors attending examinations or cou11 hearings without
prior approval. We will not pay for any solicitor re-doing the work of another solicitor nor for
duplicated entries for reviev,ing and analyzing documentation and legal research. We will not
pay for repeated file reviews
Reporting Criteria
It is impottant to us that we be kept advised of the conduct of our insured's defence. We would
therefore ask that you provide us with periodic status reports to enable us to evaluate our
insured's potential exposure. Unless we provide an exception, it is expected that your reporting
will be done utilizing our Lihgalion Reporting fom1.
HAROLD PEERENBOOM,
Plaintiff,
vs-
Defendants.
____________________________________/
Counter-Plaintiffs,
vs-
Counter-Defendants.
_____________________________________/
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
REPORTED BY:
VICTORIA AIELLO MILLER, COURT REPORTER
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 10-10-2017
6 8
7 9
1 At page, take a look at Exhibit 919-B, at page 1 question it is wrong to lie to them. And he said I did
2 166 of your testimony. Do you recall testifying that, 2 not lie, and that's true. No one lied to anybody. The
3 "The deposition simply provided an opportunity for the 3 fact is, nobody raised the issue.
4 client to take forensic evidence. How anybody could 4 Q. Oh, so I understand your defense that nobody
5 think this was, this was contrived to schedule a 5 ever called you out for anything so therefore it was
6 deposition for that purpose isn't reading the record." 6 acceptable; is that what you're telling us?
7 You're talking about the record in this case, correct? 7 A. I think that if something untoward is going on
8 A. The record in this hearing. 8 in the presence of a strange person, it certainly could
9 Q. Well, this hearing didn't have a record yet. 9 have been brought up. But that's different from
10 It's the record in this case that the Court's order is 10 deceiving. Deceiving is outright lying to somebody and
11 based on, isn't it? 11 no one was lied to here.
12 A. No, that's not the record I was referring to. 12 Q. Well, let's examine that.
13 Q. Well -- 13 A. Surreptitious is different.
14 A. We were making a record at that hearing. 14 Q. Surreptitious is different --
15 Q. Yes, but you were saying how in the world 15 A. To me.
16 could the judge find that the crime fraud applied based 16 Q. -- than deceptive, right?
17 on the record of this case. And the record of this case 17 A. To me.
18 was formulated in August-- excuse me, April and May of 18 Q. To you. Okay. You used what looked like a
19 2016. You were just adding to it, weren't you? 19 real exhibit and handed it to the Perlmutters; isn't
20 MR. BACHI: Object to the form of the 20 that correct?
21 question, the narrative and mischaracterizing the 21 A. It was a real exhibit.
22 witness' testimony. 22 Q. It wasn't marked as an exhibit, was it?
23 THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer. 23 A. It didn't have to be marked. It was an
24 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm looking at the 24 exhibit.
25 context. I think that that referred to the entire 25 Q. Look at Exhibit 802-A. Let's take a look at
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 10-10-2017
10 12
1 this exhibit that you used. Turn a couple of pages. 1 Q. And you instructed Sherry Schwartz not to
2 Let's leave it right there. This is the so-called 2 touch it?
3 exhibit, right? It doesn't have an exhibit sticker on 3 A. Correct.
4 it, does it? 4 Q. You never disclosed what the real purpose of
5 A. I think we've agreed that there was no exhibit 5 this so-called exhibit was, did you?
6 stickers for the deposition. 6 MR. BACHI: Object to the form, ambiguous as
7 Q. Right. Let me ask you this: How many 7 to the real purpose.
8 exhibits have you ever seen that have a stamp: 8 THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.
9 "Caution, evidence chemically treated. Handle with 9 THE WITNESS: The real purpose obviously was
10 gloves." How many exhibits have you ever seen like 10 to find if they could recognize those terms and to
11 that? 11 take false testimony if they denied they knew
12 A. You do know that that was put on by the 12 anything about them.
13 lab -- 13 BY MR. BLACK:
14 Q. Sure. 14 Q. So that's what you say the purpose of this
15 A. -- after the deposition. 15 exhibit was?
16 Q. Of course. You didn't do it ahead of time 16 A. It was.
17 because that be telling people what were you were doing. 17 Q. The so-called exhibit?
18 Yes, this was done afterwards. 18 A. It was. And it was so that the technician to
19 A. During the testing process. 19 could take fingerprints if any could be found.
20 Q. Yes. And you knew they were going to do this, 20 Q. And the reason-- Isn't is it a fact the reason
21 right? 21 it wasn't marked is so Sinke could take it away after
22 A. I didn't know what they were going to do. 22 the deposition?
23 Q. You knew they were going to test this for DNA, 23 A. Yes. It eliminated a potential complication.
24 didn't you? 24 Q. It eliminated the complication of giving it to
25 A. I assumed that someone would, but I didn't 25 the court reporter and making it part of the record,
11 13
1 know who was going to test it and what process they 1 right, that complication?
2 would use. 2 A. Most depositions, the exhibits are retained by
3 Q. Let's make it clear for the record. When you 3 me when they're my exhibits, and everybody agrees to it.
4 helped get the DNA, you knew the purpose of getting it 4 You make a copy and send it to them.
5 was to test it; isn't that correct? 5 So it wouldn't have mattered that much if it
6 A. Didn't help get DNA. 6 was marked except that you end up having more handling.
7 Q. You deny that you helped get DNA? 7 I had many-- You know, they ended up being of no
8 A. Correct. I provided an opportunity for a 8 evidentiary value in the case because he denied knowing
9 technician to take bottles and to take these papers, but 9 anything about them.
10 not to get DNA. 10 Q. All right. And the reason it wasn't marked,
11 Q. This was prepared by Mr. Sinke, right? 11 let me see if I can make this clear. The reason it
12 A. I assume so. He gave it to me. 12 wasn't marked is so the technician could take that with
13 Q. Not by a lawyer? 13 him back to the lab; isn't that correct?
14 A. Correct. 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This was not prepared by a lawyer as an 15 Q. And let me show you Exhibit 22-A or I think it
16 exhibit in take deposition? 16 should be your next exhibit. This is your questioning
17 A. Most exhibits are not prepared, they're real 17 of Mr. Perlmutter at his deposition. And you asked him,
18 evidence, but, no. 18 "So I'm just going to go to these, see if you can help
19 Q. This was prepared by a technician for one 19 us with these crazy phrases." That was deceptive,
20 purpose, to get biological material from the 20 wasn't it?
21 Perlmutters; isn't that correct? 21 A. No.
22 A. Fingerprints. 22 Q. "Yes, sir."
23 Q. And not only then, you had to be instructed on 23 Question: "You speak Hebrew, right?" "Yes,
24 how to handle it, right? 24 sir." "And probably some Yiddish back there?" "Yes,
25 A. Keep my fingerprints off, correct. 25 sir." "So maybe you can help us. These are separate.
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 10-10-2017
26 28
27 29
1 MR. BACHI: Objection. That mischaracterizes 1 first section there. Doesn't the rule require
2 the record. 2 "Documents and things produced for inspection during the
3 BY MR. BLACK: 3 examination of the witnesses shall be marked for
4 Q. Well, when was it taken? 4 identification"?
5 A. Bornstein before, I guess, and Davidow after. 5 A. I never read it that way.
6 Q. When was Davidow taken? 6 MR. BACHI: Your Honor, the title of this
7 A. I think it was the next one after. 7 says, "In foreign countries." I'm not sure--
8 Q. All right. So it was at or around the same 8 THE WITNESS: Where are you reading from?
9 time? 9 MR. BLAKC: I'm sorry, it's highlighting the
10 A. We had the series of people who were involved 10 wrong thing.
11 in the litigation, in the Kay-Dee litigation that were 11 THE COURT: I think he's reading 1.310 which
12 to be deposed all together. 12 is the rule.
13 Q. So it was at or around the same time as the 13 BY MR. BLACK:
14 Perlmutters' depositions? 14 Q. Look at 1.310(f)(1), page 65. Sorry, I didn't
15 A. After, yes. 15 realize. If we can get to (f)(1) of that. Thank you.
16 Q. And this one, you didn't want the letters, the 16 It says there starting on the third line, "Documents and
17 hate mail to be marked, to be part of the record? 17 things produced for inspection during the examination of
18 A. Right. 18 the witness shall be marked for identification and
19 Q. But you marked them nevertheless? 19 annexed to and returned with the deposition." Is that
20 A. I think that's because-- 20 correct?
21 Q. I didn't ask because, I said you marked them 21 MR. BACHI: Objection, that's an incomplete
22 nevertheless? 22 reading of that.
23 A. No. 23 BY MR. BLACK:
24 MR. BACHI: Objection. That mischaracterizes 24 Q. Okay. "-- upon the request of a party, it may
25 the document. We should look at the document to 25 be inspected and copied by any party except that the
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 10-10-2017
42 44
1 that the Perlmutters were private people and it would be 1 Q. And the court says that they should be given,
2 too hard to pick up their garbage? 2 in the middle of that paragraph, they should be given
3 A. I never said that. 3 the opportunity to articulate any specific privacy
4 Q. Please take a look at 919-C. If you could 4 concerns so the court can fashion rules to address the
5 turn to page 174 at the bottom and 175 at the top. 5 issue?
6 Now, last time you testified about why you 6 A. Well, you're reading from the opinion. I'm
7 didn't file a motion to have the Perlmutters give their 7 not going to try to paraphrase it.
8 DNA. Your answer was: 8 Q. All right. You're familiar with Rule 1.360,
9 "I didn't have time to go through some court 9 aren't you?
10 process. I knew what kind of fight would be put up on 10 A. Not off the top of my head, no.
11 the another side that would just complicate our lives." 11 Q. You know that there's a rule for which you can
12 Is that what you testified to? 12 require people to undergo on physical examination, don't
13 A. Yes. 13 you?
14 Q. And I think you testified you took the DNA 14 A. Yes.
15 surreptitiously because it would be too much time and 15 Q. And you have to file a motion in that rule,
16 difficulty to actually go to a judge. Have I said that 16 right?
17 accurately? 17 A. If it's an exam by a doctor, yes.
18 A. "It would complicate our lives." That's what 18 Q. And you have to prove to the court that what
19 I said. 19 you're asking to be examined is relevant to the cause of
20 Q. All right. And please take a look at 20 action in the case?
21 Defendant's Exhibit 28-2. You see that this is a 21 A. If challenged, yes.
22 Florida Appellate Court decision? 22 Q. And you have to show good cause, don't you?
23 A. Yes. 23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If you could turn to page 5 at the bottom of 24 Q. Now, when you talked about this being
25 the page and take a look at the first sentence in the 25 inconvenient and a real problem, you didn't want to go
43 45
1 middle of that paragraph. The court says that you can 1 to court, did you?
2 file a motion-- Excuse me. You can get a buccal swab 2 A. Oh, it would take months.
3 for DNA if you satisfy the good cause and in controversy 3 Q. Right. It would be too much trouble?
4 requirements of Rule 1.360. 4 A. Well, it would just take months. You know,
5 MR. BACHI: Objection, Your Honor. This is 5 everything is moving a pace. We're trying to get to
6 legal argument and there is no predicate that this 6 summary judgment and we don't want this complication.
7 has anything to do with their case. 7 Q. So you just don't follow the rules or the
8 THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer. 8 cases because it's inconvenient, it would take too much
9 THE WITNESS: I'm not-- I can't paraphrase 9 time; is that right?
10 this opinion. 10 MR. BACHI: Objection. That's argumentative
11 BY MR. BLACK: 11 and mischaracterizes what occurred.
12 Q. All right. And then if you look at the bottom 12 THE COURTT: Overruled. You can answer.
13 of the highlighting it says: 13 THE WITNESS: No, that's not right. And it is
14 "Additionally, without specifically analyzing 14 argumentative.
15 its applicability, courts in this state have looked to 15 BY MR. BLACK:
16 Rule 1.360 to determine the propriety of orders 16 Q. Well, thank you. But, Mr. Douberley, can you
17 requiring DNA testing when the testing was not ordered 17 just ignore the rules when you think they would be too
18 pursuant to a particular statute provided for such 18 much trouble?
19 testing." And cites a number of cases. Do you see that? 19 A. No rule required --
20 A. Yes. 20 Q. No rule required --
21 Q. And if we could go to page 8. Do you see 21 A. --the court's approval to pick up a bottle
22 where it says that: 22 after a deposition.
23 "Adrian and Evelyn have a privacy interest 23 Q. Do you think that you defrauded the court of
24 they seek to protect." 24 its opportunity to rule on this matter before you seized
25 A. That's what the court said in this opinion. 25 somebody's DNA and had it tested?
Sasser, Honorable Meenu 10-10-2017
46 48
47 49
1 of Civil Procedure in Florida do, don't they? 1 know either, they were sending somebody down who was
2 A. No. 2 experienced in preserving chain of custody.
3 MR. BACHI: Objection. This is argumentative. 3 Q. Did you talk to Reesor?
4 THE WITNESS: This answer is no. 4 A. No.
5 THE COURT: That's overruled. He's already 5 Q. So the only person you ever communicated with
6 answered. 6 about all these ideas was Harold Peerenboom?
7 BY MR. BLACK: 7 A. Yes. I wasn't that involved in it.
8 Q. Why did the DNA have to be taken secretly? 8 Q. If we could put up, take a look at 174-H. If
9 A. It didn't have to be. We couldn't expect him 9 you could put that up, page 16.
10 to do it voluntarily. 10 When I took your deposition, you said you
11 Q. Why not? Why didn't you ask? 11 refused to answer the question as to why it was done
12 A. Why hasn't he done it since then? 12 secretly saying it went to your strategy. What strategy
13 Q. Why didn't you ask? 13 was that?
14 A. Because we know the answer. 14 A. You reading something different than I am?
15 Q. Why? You mean, you assumed that they would 15 Q. Well, take a moment to read it.
16 say no. 16 A. Goes to my thought process. And later it says
17 A. That's correct. Witness the fact he took his 17 goes to my strategy, which was my thought process and
18 bottle with him. He's nothing going to give anything 18 goes to conversations with my client.
19 up. 19 Q. And what was the conversation with the client
20 Q. So that means you knew they wouldn't consent? 20 that you declined to tell us about at the deposition?
21 A. Correct. 21 A. I don't know that we discussed why it had to
22 Q. And you despite the fact you knew they 22 be done secretly, we just assumed that rather than
23 wouldn't consent to DNA, the collection of their DNA, 23 having some hue and cry coming from the witness, we had
24 and the testing of their DNA, you went ahead and did it 24 a right to do this.
25 secretly, right? 25 Q. You said you declined to testify, that this
51 53
1 A. Yes. The same as if I take surveillance. You 1 was privileged in some way?
2 don't ask people, can I take film of you leaving the 2 A. Okay.
3 deposition, you do it secretly. 3 Q. It goes to my strategy, it goes to
4 Q. Yeah, but they don't have rules about that 4 conversations with my client. So there must have been
5 where you have to have a judge make a decision before 5 some basis for you to invoke this privilege?
6 you can take substances from a person and test them? 6 A. I think I've just explained all that there
7 MR. BACHI: Objection, argumentative and 7 was.
8 mischaracterizes the rules. 8 Q. Now, the Perlmutters couldn't change their
9 THE COURT: All right. Sustained. 9 DNA, right?
10 BY MR. BLACK: 10 A. I assume not.
11 Q. So other than the fact they wouldn't agree, 11 Q. Right. Their genome is going to remain the
12 what was the strategy about doing this secretly? 12 same for the rest of their life?
13 A. So we could take samples from discarded 13 A. Yes.
14 materials without there being any fuss about it. We 14 Q. So, I mean, it's not like there was any need
15 were able to control it, I assume through this 15 to grab it right away?
16 technician, and he could take it and do the process that 16 A. If I expected it to be of any use to me
17 they are accustomed to doing. 17 whatsoever, as it turned out not to be, we couldn't go
18 Q. And this technician was an employee of 18 through some lengthy process, whatever that was. And I
19 Speckin, correct? 19 didn't research what the other process, what the court
20 A. I assume so, yes. 20 process would be.
21 Q. They told you-- Mr. Peerenboom told you that 21 Q. Oh, good. What use was it going to be to you?
22 Speckin was sending the technician? 22 A. Because I don't know that he-- I don't know
23 A. Yes, but I never knew the guy. Couldn't give 23 that -- He filed his suit somewhere in the same time
24 you his name if you asked me right now. But, yeah, I 24 frame. And that's really when we're off of any
25 knew they were-- I knew through Reesor, who I didn't 25 expectation of cooperation at that point because of the
EXHIBIT 20
EXHIBIT 21
From: wdouberley@dc-atty.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:25 PM
To: tracymurphy@chubb.com
Cc: perry@mand rake. ca
Subject: Kay-Dee Sportswear, Inc. v. Matheson POLICY 30116524 DATE OF LOSS 10/01/2011
Claims Ref 014512003466
Attachments: 212338.pdf
Sensitivity: Private
Deposition Report
~Villiam M. Qz:lt~~!_~),:, Esq. I Special Litigation Counsel! R-£-1~!!,!;x & Cicern.J Chubb & Son Staff Counsel
f!
WO.O.§Jif,g_ti-:1-iC'.qn:,q;:a;-1J!':.f'.;~,tJ;wi:!Y I S_µit.d9.0 I Sunrise, FL 333231 1i° (954) 626-50731 (305) 608-5653 I ~ (954) 238-884:
Information contau1e din Ulis ele ctrnnic co mmunic at.ion and any &t.i~!wl,%,a\:-:.J.t:~JJ,e...,q_,xoJJ:W.W.:). CO NF ID ENT JAL and may conti
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. It is only for the use ofU1e indi·vidual or entity named above If you are not U1e intended recipient, you t
any revie 1.I', release, retransmission, copying. dissemination or other use ot: or taking any act.ion in reliance upon this communicaho:
you have received this commu:11icat.ion in error, please "immediately not.inf the sender by reply e-mail &id permanently delete the ma
comp1Jter and destroy any })tinted copies. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attomey-client,
0U1er priv ileges.
• - 212338.~df
EXHIBIT
j 1&
DEPOSITION REPORT
Dear Tracy:
The following is a summary report on the depositions.of Mr. and Mrs. Perlmutter.
EVALUATION OF WITNESS: Mr. Perlmutter is one of the wealthiest men in the country and
He was born in Israel and became a citizen 38 years ago. He moved here 42 years ago. He
graduated from high school in Israel but has retained a strong accent.
He lives at Sloan's Curve, his permanent residence, and has had a place in NY for 35 years. He
also has a summer place in New Jersey. ·
He is CEO of Marvel Entertainment. He has not been a board member of a HOA but has served
on private company boards. His role was to please the shareholders and to make sure the
company follows the law.
He plays. tennis ·every other day; at one time he played every day. He sees Karen once in a
while--perhaps once a week. He paid her for a few lessons 15 years ago. He plays with outside
He was at l or 2 SCHA meetings. Someone made some allegations that they should check what
she was making, to see when the contract expired, and see if can bring in someone else for less
money who is better. To him the money is not the issue; Karen knows how they play.
He is a very close friend of Karen's. He came to listen to get a better idea of what was happening.
Bornstein came to him and showed him a sheet, and asked if he knew anything about it. He asked .
can you help so we can resolve this. He shared' it with the president of SCHA (2000 Condo Assn),
Ira Hollenberg when he saw him at the swimming pool. Perlmutter asked; "Why do we have to
have this conflict?" He does not know how Bornstein got the document. He looked at it quickly
but was not offended by anything in it. He did not like Karen less as a result. Hollenberg shared it
with Davidow, the president of SCHA. He recalls seeing something else after the "facts" letter
but does not know who created it.
He discussed filing a suit with Karen. He was introduced to the attorney by Steve Rafael, a social
acquaintance. They both were upset about what was happening to Karen.
He said it was normal that there was jealously because of competition in real estate sales with
Monique Matheson, but no one has said that. Nothing was said by Monique herself. Karen said
she asked her to work for her, and he considered that to be a clever effort to control the Sloan's.
Curve market through Karen, who has the relationships. He knew that they had been friends but
did not know that Monique encouraged her to get her RE license. He said, "There is something
between Monique and Karen."
I:Ie said he was not sure about any of the allegations. His goal was to keep her on as tennis
director, and he believes that they still have problems. Matheson is the problem, not Peerenboom.
He ~eard comments from others, not from either qefendant or from Karen.
He and Steve said that they would back h_er and pay for her litigation. He does not know how
•
much he has paid. Rafael does not have a vendetta against or dislike for either defendant.
He does not beli~ve that people should have a right to give theitopinions without being sued. He
did agree that a ;board meeting is the proper forum for voicing concerns about tennis operations.
That does not represent defamation or slander.
He considers it to be greed and stupidity to disrupt this family but agreed that a suit is not the way
to achieve peace. He said that as long as the Mathesons stay in the community they will have
problems. He hired the best former administrator to go after Karen for zoning violations. He _
believes this occurred when Karen got_ a RE license.
KEY TESTIMONY REGARDING DAMAGES: He acknowledged that Karen never lost her
contract, but she had a health problem. After this incident the tennis shop was closed, Karen
could not give lessons, and they interviewed others for her job. He does not know why it was
closed but did not know if it was related to code violations or people coming from outside but
assumed it was because of some violation. She was losing money, having health problems, was a
single rri:other with 2 children, and had operated for 20 years without complaint, and now
everything had changed. He acknowledged that Karen closed for a few weeks in the smmner and
knew nothing about her actual income.
EV ALVA TION OF WITNESS: She makes a good impression as a witness but had little to
offer. She was born in the Bronx. They bought their first home in Florida at Sloan's Curve in 87
or 88 ..
There was a major meeting of SCHA with 150 there to support of Karen, and it was discussed.
She only has heard hearsay from people there: Matheson wanted the program to be let for bids to
at
someone else.She was not present the meeting in March or April 2011 and has not heard either
question the tennis program directly. It is all anyone talked about at the time. She cannot recall
who she has heard this from, Her husband was at the meeting. She spoke with him about it
briefly.
They occasio_nally have dinner with Karen and spoke about her problems: loss of revenue, upset.
She was told that everyone is supporting her and it will work itself out.
They did not discuss the defendants specifically. She did not encourage the lawsuit. (The
attorney said that he represents her for purposes of the deposition.) Her husband did not
encourage the suit, and her husband is paying her fees . She was not a part of that decision, but he
asked her to write the check. The attorney did not permit her to testify as to the amount paid. She
does not know how the attorney was selected and has not met with before her preparation for the
deposition. Karen did not discuss the suit with her,in advance of the suit being filed, nor did she
discuss the "facts"'Jetter. It was generally known that the defendants were spearheading the issues
with Karen.
She doesn't play tennis, but her husband plays 3 times per week. He plays with people who are
not members ofSCHA. Her checks are tc)Sloan's Curve Tennis, not to Kay-Dee or to I<.aren
directly. She had never heard of Kay-Dee before the day of the deposition. She has not seen the
tennis contract. She is aware that some people ~anted the contract to be put out to bids, but not
the defendants specifically. She was not aware that anyone said she would get the contract
anyway and was not aware with the requirements of the law. She disagreed with putting it out for
· bid, because the tennis program is one of the smooth thipgs that helps make the property valuable.
She did not think it was wrong for someone else to want it to be put out for bid. She did not
disagree with voicing opinions at a board meeting, including a desire to put the contract out for
bid. She saw the "facts" letter when shown to her by her husband. It was not at a dinner with the
Bornsteins, who are friends of theirs. He threw it at her and said, "Look at this." She does not
know who drafted it and has not discussed it with Karen. He got it from Bornstein, who,
according to Bornstein, thought he could help settle things, although he never was on the board.
She met Matheson within a year or 2 after they moved. They were friendly but not now-they
went their separate ways . She does not wish to be friendly with them. It is not related to Karen;
she has not seen them socially for years.
KEY TESTIMONY REGARDING DAMAGES: She knows Mrs. Matheson is a realtor and
knows that Karen is a realtor, as well. She does not recall Karen saying that Matheson was trying
to affect her real estate business. At the time the issue arose, she stopped giving lessons,
presumably because she was told not to. She does not know any details of the tennis arrangement
EFFECT ON DAMAGES EXPOSURE: They assumed that she reduced her business because
of this controversy but were not aware of the real facts.
l
I
STRATEGY, PLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This concludes the evidence needed _to
support our motion for summary judgment.
DNA and fingerprint evidence was collected by a technician at the deposition, but it is doubtful
that he is directly involved in the letter-writing campaign against Peerenboom. He denied any
knowledge of the terms used in the letters or any person who used those words in normal
• conversation. He spyculated that he was being falsely implicated by the authors by including
Yiddish or Hebrew words. Perhaps to divert the attention away from himself, he offered a large
reward in addition to the reward offered by Peerenboom.
Cordially,
William M. Douberley