HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015605.jpg

January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002.” Defendant is seeking personal diary information during the time this non-party was a minor child and a victim of sexual trafficking. There is no reason this non-party should be forced to produce her diary from when she was a child. See Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989) (court of appeal holding that trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by granting deposition of party’s gynecologist which was only meant to invade privacy and intimidate and harass the party). Defendant also has a number of requests (Request nos. 2, 3, 4, 10 and 19) that seek “photographs” and “videos” of this non-party when she was a minor child and during the time she was the subject of sexual abuse. Photographs of Jane Doe 3 when she was a minor child are completely irrelevant to the matter before this Court. Defendant served this subpoena demand solely to intimidate, harass and embarrass this non-party and the Court should preclude this type of discovery set forth in Request Nos. 2, 3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 21. See Citimortgage, Inc. v. Davis, No. 50 2009 CA 030523, 2011 WL 3360318 (Fla. 15" Cir. Ct. April 4, 2011) (trial court granting protective order precluding a deposition noting “this deposition request is mere harassment” and had no relevance to the underlying dispute where the party was wrongfully using the discovery process for personal gain). b. Category 2 — Clear Abuse of the Subpoena Power By Seeking Documents Unrelated to this Action and Intended Instead to Provide Discovery for Other Actions Defendant is abusing the subpoena power of this Court by issuing subpoena requests that are intended to obtain discovery for the development of other actions against this non-party and are unrelated to the instant case. See Exhibit 5, Newsmax Interview (“And we’re considering suing her for defamation as well, but right now she was trying to hide in Colorado and avoid service, but we found her and we served her and now she’ll be subjected to a deposition.”). Defendant has admitted that his “goal” is to put Jane Doe No. 3 in “jail” and he is using this Court’s subpoena power to go on a fishing expedition in the hopes of fulfilling his ultimate stated HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015605