Jump to content

Fontainebleau Florida Hotel LLC v Botach

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida[1]
Docket 1:25-cv-20251-JTK[1]
Filed Original complaint filing date not identified in the reviewed order.[1]
Judge(s) Jeffrey T. Kuntz (district judge); Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein (magistrate judge, discovery order)[1]
Plaintiffs Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC[1]
Defendants Jacob Shmuel Botach (captioned Shmuley Boteach Jacob a/k/a Shmuel Botach), et al.[1]
Case type Civil damages litigation concerning allegedly defamatory statements and AI-platform discovery[1]
Claims / issues Scope of authorized damages discovery; AI communications, alleged malice and Florida punitive-damages cap; financial discovery and deposition scheduling[1]
Status October 9, 2026: AI-provider subpoena and Seventh RFP objections under advisement; supplemental briefs due October 12; discovery responses due October 21 and continued deposition November 4.[1]

Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach is a federal civil action involving damages discovery concerning allegedly defamatory statements and other material about the hotel. An October 9, 2026 order addresses the hotel’s requests for communications with AI platforms and sets supplemental briefing on their relevance.[1]

AI-communications discovery

Following an October 8 discovery hearing, Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein took under advisement objections to the hotel’s Seventh Request for Production and four proposed subpoenas to AI service providers. The requests concern communications used to create allegedly defamatory statements, images and other material relating to the hotel and lawsuit. The hotel argues that these records may bear on malice and an exception to Florida’s punitive-damages cap; Botach disputes their relevance to the authorized damages discovery. The hotel also cited possible spoliation as a reason to seek provider records.[1]

The parties must file supplemental briefs by October 12, each limited to ten pages excluding the caption and service certificate. The court will rule separately after considering the submissions.[1]

Other discovery and schedule

The order recounts an October 7 district-court extension of previously authorized discovery through November 9. It allows a total of 35 interrogatories and limits financial-worth discovery to the preceding two years. Responses, objections and production of undisputed responsive material are due October 21; Seventh RFP responses are subject to the forthcoming scope ruling.[1]

The parties must confer by October 23 and advise whether further court intervention is necessary. A conditional discovery hearing is reserved for October 26 at 1 p.m. The continued damages deposition is scheduled for November 4 via Zoom, limited to three additional hours by agreement.[1]

References