Filing # 170490624 E-Filed 04/06/2023 01:01:20 PM
`Filing # 170490624 E-Filed 04/06/2023 01:01:20 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 117! JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`SAGIV ISRAELI, Individually;
`SHAYDA VELASCO,Individually; and
`MARIA PAOLA MOLINA,Individually,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
`CASE NO.: 2018-037602 CA 01
`
`VS.
`
`SHAKUR STEVENSON,Individually;
`DAVID LAMONT GRAYTON,Individually;
`PARK ONE OF FLORIDA,LLC,a Florida
`limited liability company; and MC GA
`COLLINS REALTY LLC,a Delaware
`limited liability company,
`
`Defendants.
`/
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSE EXPERT DR. TSIOURIS
`
`Plaintiffs request that this Court enter an orderstriking belatedly disclosed expert A. John
`
`Tsiouris, MD and as groundstherefor, state the following:
`
`1. This case arises from a seriousassault and battery incident occurring on June 30, 2018 in
`
`a parking garage in Miami Beach and during which professional boxer Shakur Stevenson
`
`struck Plaintiffs Maria Molina and Shayda Velasco and intentionally and repeatedly
`
`punchedPlaintiff Sagiv Israeli in and about the head and face with such force thatit, among
`
`other things, fractured Mr.Israeli’s right jaw and orbit aroundhisleft eye.
`
`2. Suit was filed against Mr. Stevenson in November 2018 and during the nearly five years
`
`that this matter has been pending, it has been subject to multiple Uniform Pretrial Orders
`
`the earliest of which was back in October 2021.
`
`3. Currently and since June 10, 2022 the Parties have been governed by and subject to this
`
`Court’s current Uniform Pretrial Order which set this matter for trial commencing April
`
`

`

`17, 2023 with calendar call on April 6 and a discovery cutoff of April 3. When the order
`
`was entered 9 months ago, it was knownthat this matter would betreated as specially set,
`
`numberone,fortrial.
`
`4. The Uniform Pre-trial Order of June 10, 2022 required that the parties disclose experts who
`
`are expected to testify at the trial of this cause by Wednesday February 15, 2023 (60 days
`
`priorto the first day of the trial period). See Exhibit A. Pre-trial Order at para.3.
`
`5. On February 15, 2023 Plaintiffs re-listed their previously disclosed experts, including with
`
`regard to the medical issues of Mr.Israeli:
`
`a. Nicholas Suite, MD — treating doctor / neurologist / hybrid expert
`
`b. Cheri Surloff, PhD, PsyD — treating neuropsychologist / hybrid expert
`
`6. On February 16,2023 Defendant Stevensonfiled his Amended Expert Witness List naming
`
`corresponding experts:
`
`a. Brad Herskowitz, MD —~ CMEneurologist
`
`b. Pedro Saez, PhD — CME neuropsychologist
`
`7. This time, however, Stevenson for the first time listed Robert L. Kagan, MD whois a
`
`Clinical Pathology specialist, board certified in Nuclear Medicine and Pathology. Dr.
`
`Kagan did not perform any CME on Mr.Israeli but according to the disclosure was going
`
`to testify about his review of medical and litigation-based records. See Exhibit B.
`
`8. On March 17, 2023 Plaintiff’s process server served Dr. Kagan with a deposition notice
`
`and subpoena duces tecum for deposition to occur on March 29, 2023 at Noon and
`
`proceeded to take measures in preparation for the anticipated deposition.!
`
`On March 17, 2023 Defense counsel called and asked if the deposition of Dr. Kagan
`1
`could take place at 10:30 AM instead of Noon. This was agreed and a re-Notice was issued.
`
`

`

`9. However, on March 28, 2023 Defendant Stevenson withdrew Dr. Kagan as an expert in
`
`this matter.
`
`10. Then, on March 29, 2023, less than three weeks beforetrial and well after the February 15,
`2023 expert disclosure date, Defendant Stevenson listed a new expert, Dr. Apostolos John
`
`Tsiouris. Dr. Tsiouris is not a Clinical Pathologist, but rather a neuroradiologist. Per the
`
`disclosure, this expert, who also performed no CMEofMrIsraeli, is expected to “testify
`
`concerning his review ofthe radiology films of Plaintiff Sagiv Israeli. Exhibit B.
`
`11. In addition to being untimely, the new and very late disclosure of a new expert having a
`
`new specialty provided no deposition dates for Dr. Tsiouris, and to date, although requested
`
`in an abundance of caution on 3/29 and again on 4/5, no deposition dates have been
`
`provided. The disclosure also did not provide the standard Rule 1.280(b)(5) information
`
`for Plaintiff to assess this expert andit is too late to serve expert discovery.”
`
`12. The addition of this new expert witness now, when this matter has been on at least four
`
`prior trial dockets and for which the parties made expert disclosures each time, is utter
`
`surprise. Defendant’s disclosure never before included a neuroradiologist and the addition
`
`now,this close to trial and well beyond the timeto disclose, is prejudicial to the Plaintiffs.
`
`13. Defendant Stevenson will argue innocence and profess that a serious and sudden condition
`
`of Dr. Kagan prompted a mere “substitution.” But Dr. Tsiouris is NOT a mere substitution.
`
`Heis a different witness with different specialty and practice, entirely. And, we posit that
`
`Plaintiffs had served expert discovery once Dr. Kagan wasdisclosed, - both expert interrogatories
`2
`directed specifically to Dr. Kagan and a general expert request for production in order to learn of the
`opinions and substantiation therefor. That discovery is due today, -April 6, 2023. Given the late withdrawal
`of Dr. Kagan andlate listing of Dr. Tsiouris it was hoped that Defendant Stevenson’s counsel would see fit
`to responding to the expert discovery asif it initially had been directed to Dr. Tsiouris. It is doubtful that
`responses to the discovery will be received. Even if received, thetrial in this matter is to start 4/17 and,
`trial preparation is well under way and Defendant’s counsel has refused to provide deposition dates even
`if time could be made between now andtrial to take this late disclosed new expert’s deposition.
`
`

`

`the disclosure of Dr. Kagan and his recent withdrawal was a mere diversion to provide a
`
`pretext for the intentional swap out on the eveoftrial.
`
`14.
`
`Specifically, on Saturday March 25, 2023 at 12:12 PM Defendant’s counsel sent the
`
`undersigned an email (not seen until a few hours later) wherein he claimed he had met with
`
`Dr. Kagan on Thursday (3 days earlier) and that Dr. Kagan’s health has taken a “dramatic
`
`turn for the worst ... preventing him from being able to effectively communicate.” Exhibit
`
`C. Then at 12:52 PM Defendant’s counsel again emailed stating he would be “substituting
`
`Dr. Kagan with Dr. Tsiouris, WHO IS ALREADY UP TO SPEEDon the case...”
`
`(Emphasis added). Exhibit D.
`
`15.
`
`It is astonishing how, from an unexpected medical decline of one newly disclosed expert
`
`on Thursday, simultaneously emerged another expert on Saturday whois “already up to
`
`speed on the case”! Why was Dr. Kagan’s condition not relayed to the undersigned on
`
`Thursday when counsel claims to have learned about it? Why did Counsel wait until
`
`Saturday afternoon to advise? Dr. Kagan had beenset for deposition since March 17, 2023
`
`and by all accounts as of March 28, 2023 he was willing to sit for his March 29, 2023
`
`deposition, indicating his condition is likely not at all as dire as professed by Defendant’s
`
`counsel. Indeed, Dr. Kagan’s office never contacted the undersigned to indicate there was
`
`any problem with Dr. Kagan appearing for an expert deposition (the undersigned is who
`
`had Dr. Kagan personally served with court process and is who should be contacted if
`
`unable to comply with the court subpoena).
`
`16.
`
`And, if a qualified expert was already up to speed, why were they not disclosed when the
`
`Uniform Pretrial Order directed Defendant to do so? The alleged new medical condition
`
`of Dr. Kagan is unproven and as stated above, is suspected to be a pretextual method of
`
`

`

`“substituting in” the expert the Defense really planned to useall along but whose identity
`
`they wanted to keep under wraps to gain some kind of unfair advantage or reason to
`
`continuethis trial.
`
`17. Unfortunately,this is not the only instance of odd circumstance regarding the Defendant’s
`
`experts.? The compounding of such odd circumstanceson the eve oftrial only makesit all
`
`the more incredible and morelikely thatit is all part of a calculated and coordinated strategy
`
`and tactic to (1) ambushPlaintiffs on the eveoftrial in order to gain an upper handor unfair
`
`advantage; (2) force Plaintiffs to divert efforts away from necessary trial preparation in
`
`order to address Defendant’s late, last minute discovery moves; and/or (3) coax yet another
`
`trial continuance out of this court or create some appellate issue.* None of these are
`
`acceptable.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`The Florida Supreme Court has instructed: “A primary purpose in the adoption of
`the Florida Rules of Civil Procedureis to prevent the use of surprise, trickery, bluff
`and legal gymnastics. Thus, the general rule in Florida is that there be “complete
`disclosure.”
`
`On March 17, 2023 the undersigned’s process server served a deposition subpoena on
`3
`defense expert Dr. Brad Herskowitz. Like with Dr. Kagan, the only request regarding the
`deposition was whether we would agree to moveit from 2:30 PM to 4:00 PM. We agreed. Never
`once did Dr. Herskowitz’ office contact the undersigned who issued the court process to say he
`could not appear at the appointed time and date. However, on Sunday (March 26) night after 8:00
`PM - less than 24 hourspriorto the scheduled deposition ofDr. Herskowitz, Defendant’s counsel’s
`assistant sent an email stating that Dr. Herskowitz would not be appearing for his deposition and
`needed to reschedule. He had been served with a subpoena and wasobligated to appear. His non-
`appearance has now caused his deposition and that of another of Defendant’s experts to be stacked
`on top of each other and to occur on dates that this Court is hearing Daubert motions as to non-
`medical experts.
`
`Plaintiffs will not be in a position to evaluate whether to add a rebuttal expert to respond
`4
`to this late disclosed neuroradiologist and what doesthis do to the trial setting? Isn’t this precisely
`the position in which Defendant ¢galculated its tactics would place the Plaintiffs — five years down
`the road on the eveoftrial.
`
`

`

`Montero v. Corzo, 320 So0.3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), citing SurfDrugs, Inc. v. Vermette,
`236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970).
`
`The predicament of what to do when parties belatedly disclose new witnesses was
`
`addressed squarely by the Florida Supreme Court in Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310
`
`(Fla. 1981). The opinion therein contains a detailed discussion ofhowatrial court should analyze
`
`the issue of what to do when a party fails to disclose the identity of a witness in compliance with
`
`a pre-trial order. Therein the Court agreed that a newtrial was warranted whena party’s intentional
`
`non-disclosure combined with the surprise and disruption occasioned by the use of the unlisted
`
`witness at trial and the inability to alleviate the problems caused thereby, prejudiced the other
`
`party.> Jd. at 1314-15. Binger has been cited with approval and followed by the Third District
`
`Court of Appeal. See, e.g., Callari v. Winkeljohn, 329 So0.3d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)(requiring
`
`trial court to analyze the Binger factors prior to admitting or excluding late disclosed exhibits or
`
`witness testimony); and Montero v. Corzo, 320 So.3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)(sameand reversing
`
`and remanding for new trial because court allowed in undisclosed evidence without engaging in
`
`Binger analysis). The outcomes therein were in keeping with the general policy of full and open
`
`disclosure in Florida and the implemented Rules of Civil Procedure, the goals of such are “to
`
`eliminate surprise, to encourage settlementandto assist in arriving at the truth.” Jd. at 1313, citing
`
`Spencerv. Beverly, 307 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4 DCA 1975).
`
`Assuch, in terms of the present dispute, the Binger opinion provides:
`
`...[A] trial court can properly exclude the testimony of a witness whose name has
`not been disclosed in accordance with a pretrial order. The discretion to do so must
`not be exercised blindly, however, and should be guided largely by a determination
`as to whether use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the objecting party.
`Prejudice in this sense refers to the surprise in fact of the objecting party, and it is
`not dependent on the adverse nature of the testimony. Other factors which may
`
`Prejudice under Binger refers to the surprise in fact of the objecting party, and it is not
`5
`dependent on the adverse nature of the testimony. Binger, 320 So.3d at 1314.
`
`

`

`enter into the trial court’s exercise of discretion are: (i) the objecting party’s ability
`to cure the prejudice or, similarly, his independent knowledge of the existence of
`the witness; (ii) the calling party’s possible intentional, or bad faith, noncompliance
`with the pretrial order; and (iii) the possible disruption of the orderly and efficient
`trial of the case (or other cases). If after considering these factors , and any others
`that are relevant, thetrial court concludes that use of the undisclosed witness will
`not substantially endanger the fairness of the proceeding,
`the pretrial order
`mandating disclosure should be modified and the witness should be allowed to
`testify.
`
`Requiring reasonable compliance with a pretrial order directing witnesses’
`disclosure will help to eliminate surprise and avoidtrial by “ambush.”
`
`Id. at 1313-14. (Citations omitted).
`
`In a strikingly similar situation, the court in Florida Marine Enters. v. Bailey, 632 So.2d
`
`649 (Fla. 4" DCA 1994)applied the Bingerfactors to exclude four belatedly disclosed experts by
`
`the defense. While the opinion finding no abuseofdiscretion bythe trial court in striking the four
`
`experts is out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, it is instructive andillustrative of what may
`
`and respectfully should, occur here.
`
`Florida Marinearose outof a rear end collision incident wherein liability was admitted and
`
`the matter set for trial on damages. Though the matter wascalled for trial on November2, 1992,
`
`on October 19 the defense listed for the first time two expert witnesses previously completely
`
`unknown to Plaintiff and who specialized in fields in whichtheplaintiff had not obtained experts
`
`for trial (biomechanics and a neuroradiologist). The third expert disclosed by defendant was a
`
`timely disclosed neuropsychologist but that expert refused to perform a CME with videographer
`
`present and the court granted brief continuance to allow defendant.to find another and to disclose
`
`them by November 6. Defendant did disclose a new neuropsychologist, but not until November 9
`
`and in further violation of the court’s order, did notlist the address of the new expert so plaintiff
`
`was unable to find her to depose her and she never ended up doing a CME anyway. Both
`
`neuropsychologists were struck and defendant went
`
`to trial presenting his only expert, a
`
`

`

`neurologist. A plaintiff's verdict was entered and defendant filed an appeal contending that the
`
`trial court improperly eliminated 4 of its 5 medical experts by “hypertechnical application”of the
`
`pretrial witness disclosure requirements.
`
`The appellate court disagreed, finding to the contrary that the trial court properly exercised
`
`its discretion in enforcing its own pretrial order. It explained:
`
`Binger ... squarely places decisions regarding the testimony of improperly
`disclosed witnesses within the broad discretion ofthe trial judge, who is vested with
`the interpretation and enforcement of any pretrial order mandating witness
`disclosure. Id. at 1313. Except in cases of a clear abuse of discretion prejudicial to
`the affected party,trial courts must be allowed to enforce pretrial orders to achieve
`the orderly and efficient administration ofjustice, fair to all parties. ....
`
`Compliance with pretrial orders directing proper disclosure of witnesses eliminates
`surprise and prevents trial by “ambush.” (citation omitted) Counsel who disobey
`a trial court order entered months earlier should not be rewarded for their conduct.
`Pipkin v. Hamer, 501 So.2d 1365, 1370 (Fla. 4 DCA 1987).
`
`Florida Marine, 632 So.2d at 651-52.
`
`The court went on further to state and appropriately so:
`
`Where,as here a party without good cause improperly discloses witnesses, and by
`virtue of the improper disclosure gains an unfair advantage over the opposing party
`whois in compliance with the pretrial order, Binger givesthetrial court discretion
`to strike those witnesses to prevent the objecting party from being forced to choose
`between frantic last-minute discovery and an unjustified delay of hertrial. Thisis
`not a fair manner in which to “cure the prejudice” caused by the defendants’ failure
`to timely prepare their case, and wehold that binger does not require such a result
`here.
`
`In this instance the trial court properly found that unfair prejudice to Plaintiff
`existed because she would be unable to counter testimony offered so late in the
`game. (citation omitted).
`
`Binger does not mean that trial courts are obligated to automatically grant last
`minute continuances to parties who choose not to timely prepare their cases for
`trial. The trial court’s discretion under Binger includes the power to appropriately
`enforce pretrial orders, as the court below didin this case.
`
`Florida Maine, 632 So.2d at 652-63.
`
`

`

`Here, it is clear that Dr. Tsiouris was not disclosed in accordance with this Court’s pre-trial
`
`order. He should have been disclosed and at the very latest disclosed whenthey first engaged him,
`
`even if it meant withdrawing him later, at least he would have been disclosed and Plaintiff would
`
`not be scrambling on the eve oftrial to find out who he is, what hashetestified in and to before,
`
`wondering what opinions he might have, what the basis for those opinions mightbe, and do we
`
`need an expert to counter. Dr. Tsiouris’ presencein this litigation, nearly five years after it was
`
`commenced,is a surprise and completely unexpected, especially given that the medical issuesthis
`
`case have been knownfor years andthe parties’ respective experts have been disclosed (the same
`
`ones) on multiple occasions since 2021. Then,all of a sudden, a new expert (Dr. Kagan)is timely
`
`disclosed, only to be removedat the last minute — effectively shuffled out of the deck on the eve
`
`of trial and a joker card “substituted” in its place.
`
`Wewill never know what Dr. Kagan would havetestified to, as we never got to depose him.
`
`Wewill never know what his medical condition is because he was pre-emptively withdrawn prior
`
`to his deposition. We will never know if the reason given for his late withdrawal is truly pretext.
`
`But what we do know and what this Court may consider under Bingeris the following:
`
`1. Ability to cure: Continuance is not an option. We have been on this docket since June
`2022. Counsel are not new to the practice and should marshal their calendars better and
`think ahead when scheduling with the goals of full and fair disclosure and trying the case
`on the merits in mind. Thousandsof dollars have been spent; witnesses calendars arranged,
`counsel’s calendars arranged, travel accommodations made. This case has been pending
`for nearly five years. The Florida Supreme Court has mandated that cases of this age and
`even younger be tried. Likewise, forcing Plaintiffto divert efforts to discovering, deposing
`and finding rebuttal for whateverit is his new witness has to say in this short time period
`is not possible and to require such is extremely prejudicial to the Plaintiffs in the
`preparation of their case. It also would serve to reward Defendant’s tactics.
`
`In addition to the
`2. Possible intentional/bad faith noncompliance with the pretrial order:
`expert switch and late deposition cancellations of subpoenaed witnesses referenced in the
`preceding paragraphs, the Defendant’s pattern ofinconvenience and delay gets ever clearer
`such as when Defendant sets CME’s, he sets them less than 30 days from the pre-trial
`ordered deadline for such (cutting down the rule given time to object and jamming up
`
`

`

`schedules that by that late notice are already planned and then have to get moved around
`to accommodate the dilatory action or face potential continuance), which then places the
`obtaining of the CME report several days thereafter and any ability to depose the CME
`Doctor on a date close to or on the eve oftrial. This was the case with the 4 CME’s
`Stevenson (who set 3) and a prior Defendant (who set 1) set of Mr. Israeli to occur
`(inconveniently) all in one (1) week (the week of March 1, 2022), necessitating the filing
`of an emergency Motion for Protective Order. The case got continued.
`
`After Mr.Israeli sat for 3 of the 4 CMEsthat week, Defendant Stevenson refused to timely
`provide the CMEreports necessitating the filing of a Motion to Compel. Onthe eveofthe
`hearing on that Motion to Compeland for sanctions, Stevenson’s counsel withdrew one of
`the experts whose report had been withheld (Dr. Jorge Blanco, DDS). That action of
`Defense counsel is the subject of another recently filed Motion to Compelthat still has to
`be heard. Suffice it to say, Counsel for Stevenson refused to provide the CME Report of
`his withdrawn dentist notwithstanding the undersigned’s request for same even though
`Rule 1.360 and case law requires production of the report (even for a withdrawn expert).
`Then, shockingly — photographs from that withdrawn CMEexpert miraculously appeared
`in the expert file of Stevenson’s CMEneurologist Dr. Brad Herskowitz.
`
`Though CMEneuropsychologist Pedro Saez PhD has been Stevenson’s disclosed expert
`since February 10, 2022, and notwithstanding the lengthy time the June 10, 2022 Pre-trial
`Order and its known deadlines have been in existence, no request for CME by Dr. Saez
`was requested until shortly before the deadline, knowing the report would be issued long
`after that and again, that depositions would haveto be taken.
`
`Defense counsel has set expert depositions and on the eve of Plaintiff's treating doctors/
`experts depositions, has cancelled those depositions, leaving the doctors without patients
`to see or funds for the time they lost. It cost the undersigned money each time these
`witnesses had to prepare for their depositions, only to have them cancelled. Defense
`counsel professes the late cancellations are the undersigned’s fault because he did not have
`every paper in the expert’s file produced to him a week before the deposition when he
`himself fails to produce files and fails to pre-pay the experts (an act which, again, has
`prompted motion practice in order to protect the time of the expert witnesses and the
`integrity of this process).
`
`Defendant’s fact witness list also leaves much to desire and it is set up in such a way as to
`say nothing with regard to the witnesses Defendant expects to be called attrial.
`It lists
`merely “categories of witnesses” and provides no names save for one nameall the way at
`the end. Plaintiff has had to file a Motion to Strike the list (which will be heard) because
`it is directly contradictory to the mandate given by the Third District Court of Appeal in
`Montero v. Corzo, 320 So.3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), an opinion Plaintiff cited in his
`Motion to Strike the witness list, in the hopes that Defendant would acknowledgeits
`strategic error and correct it. Defendant never did. The Court in Montero expressly stated
`that category designations on witnesslists is improper.
`
`Allowing the use of Dr. Tsiouris at this late date is prejudicial to the Plaintiff and will
`
`10
`
`

`

`410 E. Broughton Street
`Savannah, GA 31401
`Tel:
`(912) 651-9967
`Email: steve@hlmlawfirm.com
`Email: korinne@hlmlawfirm.com
`
`And
`
`LEWIS LEGAL GROUP,P.A.
`12401 Orange Drive, Suite 100-C
`Davie, Florida 33330
`Telephone:
`(954) 660-4499
`Facsimile:
`(954) 660-4818
`Email: jlewis@lewislegaleroup.com
`Email: eservice@lewislegalgroup.com
`
`BY:
`
`C. Lewis
`JEANNETEC. LEWIS
`Florida Bar No. 987565
`Plaintiffs’ Co-counsel
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`Counsel for Defendant, MC GA Collins Realty, LLC
`
`Todd Ehrenreich, Esq.
`Nina Conte, Esq.
`LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
`2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1110
`Coral Gables, FL 33134
`Tel:
`(305) 725-3244
`Fax:
`(786) 513-2249
`Primary Email: todd.ehrenreich@lewisbrisbois.com
`
`Email: Nina.conte@lewisbrisbois.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant, Shakur Stevenson
`
`Max R.Price, Esq.
`Law Offices of Max R.Price, P.A.
`6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 104
`Miami, FL 33143
`Tel:
`(305) 662-2272
`Fax:
`(305) 667-3975
`Primary Email: mprice@pricelegal.com
`Email: mia@pricelegal.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Park One of Florida, LLC
`
`Jacob J. Liro, Esq.
`Brandon J. Hechtman, Esq.
`Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A.
`2800 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 800
`Coral Gables, FL 33134
`Tel:
`(305) 448-3939
`
`12
`
`

`

`(305) 441-1745
`Fax:
`Primary Email: jliro@wickersmith.com
`
`Email: bbhechtman@wickersmith.com
`Email: lacuna@wickersmith.com
`Email: agaitan@wickersmith.com
`
`Barry Robert Eichen, Esq.
`Robert Banas, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
`40 Ethel Road
`Edison, NJ 08817
`Tel:
`©
`(732) 777-0100
`Fax:
`(732) 248-8273
`Email: mmarciano@njadvocates.com
`Email: beichen@njadvocates.com
`Email: rbanas@njadvocates.com
`
`Jeannete C. Lewis, Esq.
`Lewis Legal Group, P.A.
`12401 Orange Drive, Suite 100-C
`Davie, FL 33330
`Tel:
`(954) 660-4499
`Fax:
`(954) 660-4818
`
`Email:
`jlewis@lewislegalgroup.com
`
`Email: eservice@lewislegalgroup.com
`
`Stephen G. Lowry, Esq.
`Caitlin Clark, Esq.
`Harris Lowry Manton LLP
`410 E. Broughton Street
`Savannah, GA 31401
`Tel: (912) 651-9967
`Email: steve@hlmlawfirm.com
`Email: heather@hlmlawfirm.com
`Email: korinne@himlawfirm.com
`
`Co-counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`Co-counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`Co-counsel for Plaintiffs, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`
`13
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Filing # 166990088 E-Filed 02/16/2023 05:22:27 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURTOF THE 117 JUDICIAL
`CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
`FLORIDA
`
`CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2018-037602 CA 06
`
`SAGIV ISRAELI,_individually; SHAYDA
`
`
`VELASCO,
`individually;
`and MARIA PAOLA
`MOLINA,individually,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`individually; DAVID
`SHAKUR STEVENSON,
`LAMONT GRAYTON,individually; PARK ONE OF
`FLORIDA,LLC,a Florida limited liability company;
`and MC GA COLLINS REALTY LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company,
`
`Defendants,
`
`/
`
`DEFENDANT, SHAKUR STEVENSON’S AMENDED EXPERT WITNESS LIST
`
`COMESNOW,the Defendant, SHAKUR STEVENSON,by and through his undersigned
`
`counsel hereby files his Expert Witness List and states as follows:
`
`1. Pedro A, Saez, Ph.D.
`Neuropsychology Associates of Miami
`9065 S.W.87 Ave., Suite 106
`Miami, FL 33176
`
`Dr. Saez is a licensed neuropsychologist in the State of Florida. He is expected to testify
`
`as to the allegations in the complaintasto the Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries, causation, and the extent
`
`and severity of the Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages. His opinions will be based upon his
`
`education, experience,training, review of the medical records, review ofpleadings and deposition
`
`testimony taken in this case, videos/photographsofthe subject incident, plaintiffs’ experts’ reports
`
`and depositions, and other records available for review. CV attached.
`
`

`

`Sagiv Israeli, et al. v. Shakur Stevenson,et al.
`Case No. 2018-037602 CA 06
`
`2. Chuck J. Rylant, Psy.D., MBA
`1375 E. Grand Ave., Suite 502
`Arroyo Grande, CA 93402
`
`Mr. Rylant is a stand-your-ground/self-defense expert. The subject matter Dr. Rylantis
`
`expected to testify is on the stand-your-ground/self-defense. Dr. Rylant has relied upon facts
`
`presented in video footage of the incident, deposition transcripts, interview with defendant, and
`
`courtroom testimony. Dr. Rylant is expected to testify that Shakur Stevenson was the victim of
`
`assault and battery and stood his groundin self-defense. Dr. Rylant will opine that Stevenson used
`
`sufficient force to renderthe plaintiff Israeli unable to continueto fight or cause a threat of bodily
`
`harm to Stevenson or his companions. Stevenson’s action were based on Stevenson’s reasonable
`
`belief that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself and others
`
`by the plaintiff Israeli. Rylant formed his opinions based uponhis education,training, experience,
`
`and the evidence contained within the video footage of the incident, deposition transcripts,
`
`interview with defendant, and courtroom testimony. CV and fee schedule attached.
`
`3. David B. Ross, M.D. - Neurologist
`Comprehensive Neurobehavioral Instrtute, PLLC
`
`Medical Director/CEO
`4330 W. Broward Blvd., Ste.G _
`Plantation, FL 33317
`
`NeuroPAS Global, LLC
`Medical Director/Owner
`4330 W. Broward Blvd., Ste. G
`Plantation, Florida 33317
`
`Dr. Ross is a licensed Neurologist in the State of Florida. He is expected to testify as to
`
`the allegations in the complaint as to the Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries, causation, the extent and
`
`severity ofthe Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages, and the need and expense offuture medical
`
`care and treatment. His opinions will be based upon his education, experience,training, review of
`
`the medical records, review of pleadings and deposition testimony taken in this case, plaintiffs’
`
`

`

`Sagiv Israeli, et al. v. Shakur Stevenson,etal.
`Case No. 2018-037602 CA 06
`
`experts’ reports and depositions, videos/photographs of the subject incident, and other records
`
`available for review. CV and fee schedule attached.
`
`4. Dr. Brad J. Herskowitz, M.D.
`The Neurology Group LLC
`Southwest 87th Court, Suite 200
`Miami, FL 33176-2317
`
`Dr. Herskowitz is a licensed Neurologist in the State of Florida with over 20 years of
`
`medical experience with special training in concussion treatment. Heis expected totestify as to
`
`the allegations in the complaint as to the Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries, causation, the extent and
`
`severity ofthe Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages, and the need and expenseoffuture medical
`
`care and treatment. His opinions will be based upon his education, experience, experience as a
`
`Florida boxing ringside and team physician, training, review of the medical records, review of
`
`pleadings and deposition testimony taken in this case, plaintiffs’ experts’ reports and depositions,
`
`videos/photographsofthe subject incident, and other records available for review. CV attached.
`
`5. Robert L. Kagan, M.D., F.C.A.P., F.A.C.R.
`Sunshine Readers, Inc.
`3122 E. Commercial Blvd.
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
`
`Dr!Robert Kagan, MD‘isaClinical Pathology Specialist in-Fort Lauderdale, FL and hasover
`
`51 years of. experience in the medical field. Dr. Kagan is certified by the American Board of
`
`Nuclear Medicine and American Board of Pathology. Dr. Kagan graduated from Georgetown
`
`University School of Medicine. He is expected to testify as to the allegations in the complaint as
`
`to the Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and causation. His opinions will be based upon his education,
`
`experience, training, review of the medical records, x-rays, MRIs, review of pleadings and
`
`deposition testimony taken in this
`
`case, plaintiffs’
`
`experts’
`
`reports and depositions,
`
`videos/photographsof the subject incident, and other records available for review. CV attached.
`
`

`

`Sagiv Israeli, et al. v. Shakur Stevenson, etal.
`Case No, 2018-037602 CA 06
`
`6. Defendant reservesthe right to amend or supplement his Expert Witness List as necessary.
`
`7. Defendant reserves the right to object to any and all expert witnesses listed by any other
`
`parties to this action.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFYthat a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via this
`
`Court’s E-Filing system upon all counsel of record on February 16, 2023.
`
`LAW OFFICES OF MAX R.PRICE,P.A.
`6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 104
`Miami, FL 33143
`Tel.: 305-662-2272
`Fax: 305-667-3975
`Primary:
`mprice@pricelegal.com
`Secondary:
`mia@pricelegal.com
`
`BY:/s/: Max R. Price
`MAX R. PRICE, ESQ.
`FBN: 651494
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Filing # 169907306 E-Filed 03/29/2023 01:04:49 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURTOF THE111 JUDICIAL
`CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MJAMI-DADE COUNTY,
`FLORIDA
`
`CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
`
`CASENO. 2018-037602 CA 06
`
`SHAYDA
`individually;
`ISRAELI,
`SAGIV
`VELASCO,
`individually;
`and MARIA PAOLA
`MOLINA,individually,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`VS.
`
`individually; DAVID
`SHAKUR STEVENSON,|
`LAMONT GRAYTON,individually; PARK ONE OF
`FLORIDA, LLC,a Florida limited liability company;
`and MC GA COLLINS REALTY LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`/
`
`
`DEFENDANT, SHAKUR STEVENSON’S SECOND AMENDED
`EXPERT WITNESS LIST
`
`COMESNOW,the Defendant, SHAKUR STEVENSON,by and through his undersigned
`
`counsel hereby files his Second Amended Expert Witness List and states as follows:
`
`1. Pedro A. Saez, Ph.D.
`Neuropsychology Associates of Miami
`9065 S.W.87 Ave., Suite 106
`Miami, FL 33176
`
`Dr. Saez is a licensed neuropsychologist in the State of Florida. He is expectedto testify
`
`as to the allegations in the complaintasto the Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries, causation, and the extent
`