RAMIREZ_Appendix_Writ_Certiorari_2_6_2017

№ ____________________ 

IN THE 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

________________________________________ 

CARLOS RAMIREZ — PETITIONER 

VS. 

BAUSCH AND LOMB, INC. — RESPONDENT 

________________________________________ 

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

________________________________________ 

APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

________________________________________ 

Andrew Paul Kawel 

Counsel of Record 

Kawel PLLC 

80 SW 8th St. Ste. 3330 

Miami, Florida 33130-3004 

apkawel@kawellaw.com 

(305) 209-4529

Case: 15-11914 Date (752 Filed: of 2011) 04/20/2016 Page: 2 of 2 

CARLOS RAMIREZ, 

versus 

BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 


______________ 

No. 15-11914-BB 

______________ 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

__________________________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida 

__________________________________________ 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL: Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R. 42-2(c), this appeal is DISMISSED for 

want of prosecution because the appellant Carlos Ramirez failed to file CORRECTED appendix 

within the time fixed by the rules, effective April 20, 2016. 

AMY C. NERENBERG 

Acting Clerk of Court of the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 

by: Carol R. Lewis, BB, Deputy Clerk 

FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION 

A. 1


A. 2


A. 3

Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document 190 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2964 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TAMPA DIVISION 


Plaintiff, 

v. Case No: 8:10-cv-2003-T-35TGW 


Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

Decision by Court. 

This action came before the Court and a decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

Judgment is entered in favor of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. and against Carlos Ramirez. 

SHERYL L. LOESCH, CLERK 

s/R. Korb, Deputy Clerk 

A. 4



Plaintiff, 






Defendant. 

/ 

ORDER 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the mandate of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Dkt. 177); Defendant’s 

Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Causation, (Dkt. 183); and Plaintiff’s Response 

in opposition thereto. (Dkt. 188) In accordance with the Circuit Court’s mandate and 

upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the 

Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s renewed request for summary judgment. (Dkt. 183) 

I. BACKGROUND 

This case involves a claim that Defendant, Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“B&L”), 

terminated Plaintiff, Carlos Ramirez (“Ramirez”), in violation of the Florida Whistleblower 

Act (“FWA”), Fla. Stat. § 448.102. (Dkt. 7-1) B&L moved for an entry of summary 

judgment in its favor on November 11, 2011. (Dkt. 78) This Court granted B&L’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment on August 10, 2012, finding that Ramirez had failed to establish 

a prima facie case of retaliation under the FWA. (Dkt. 155) Ramirez appealed this 

Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (Dkt. 

159) On appeal, the Circuit Court vacated this Court’s Order and remanded the case, 

A. 5


directing the Court to “perform a new causation analysis.” (Dkt. 173 at P. 6; Dkt. 177) 

The Parties have filed supplemental memoranda addressing the issue of causation (Dkt. 

183; 188), and B&L accordingly renews its request for an entry of summary judgment in 

its favor. (Dkt. 183) 

II. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant can show that there is no 

genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law. Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Welding Servs., 

Inc. v. Forman, 509 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir. 2007)). Which facts are material depends 

on the substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 248 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue 

of material fact exists. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). 

Evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Fennell, 559 

F.3d at 1216 (citing Welding Servs., Inc., 509 F.3d at 1356). A moving party discharges 

its burden on a motion for summary judgment by showing or pointing out to the Court that 

there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Denney v. City 

of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172, 1181 (11th Cir. 2001). When a moving party has discharged 

its burden, the non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings, and by its own 

affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate 

specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 

1321 (11th Cir. 2006). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must rely on 

more than conclusory statements or allegations unsupported by facts. Evers v. Gen. 

A. 6 

2


Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985) (“conclusory allegations without specific 

supporting facts have no probative value@). 

III. 

DISCUSSION 

The Circuit Court set forth the legal standard applicable to Ramirez’s FWA claim 

in its Opinion: 

We apply the state’s substantive law in cases involving diversity 

jurisdiction. Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950 (11th 

Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, where there is no controlling state law, FWA 

claims are analyzed under the Title VII retaliation framework. See id. For 

retaliation claims based on circumstantial evidence, we apply the burdenshifting 

analysis established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 

792 (1973). Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1181 (11th Cir. 

2010). Under Title VII, a plaintiff can make out a prima facie case of 

retaliation by showing that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected 

expression; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the 

adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. Crawford 

v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 970 (11th Cir. 2008). Once a plaintiff establishes 

a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer has an opportunity to 

articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged 

employment action. Id. At that point, the plaintiff then has the ultimate 

burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

employer’s proffered explanation is pretext. Perryman, 698 F.2d at 1142. 

To prove pretext, the plaintiff must show that the employer’s proffered 

reasons were “a coverup for a . . . discriminatory decision.” Rojas v. 

Florida, 285 F.3d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). 

Ramirez v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 546 F. App’x 829, 831-32 (11th Cir. 2013). 

The Circuit Court vacated this Court’s Order granting B&L’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and remanded this case stating that the Court had failed to consider all of the 

evidence offered by Ramirez to establish a causal connection between his allegedly 

protected activity and his termination. First, the Circuit Court directed this Court to 

consider evidence of the November 3, 2008 meeting that Ramirez attended at which he 

complained about perceived violations of Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP’s”) and 

A. 7 

3


Good Manufacturing Practice Regulations (“GMP’s”) 1 and whether his remarks 

constituted protected activity that was sufficiently close in time to demonstrate causation. 

Id. at 832. If not, the Circuit Court stated that this Court should consider Ramirez’s 

multiple instances of alleged protected activity that occurred prior to the time that he went 

on FMLA leave as evidence of causality. Id. at 833. The Circuit Court stated that, if 

necessary, this Court may consider the additional incidents of alleged protected activity 

(and not just those events which occurred during the three-month window prior to 

Ramirez’s termination, largely comprised of his FMLA leave) because Ramirez did not 

rely solely on temporal proximity to establish a causal connection. Id. 

a. Whether Ramirez’s Remarks at the November 3, 2008 Meeting 

Constituted Protected Activity Sufficiently Close in Time to Establish 

a Causal Connection 

Upon his return to work on November 3, 2008, Ramirez attended a meeting with 

Human Resources Representative Javier Callejas (“Callejas”) and Quality Team Leader 

Anita Mujagic (“Mujagic”). (Dkt. 86-9) Notes from that meeting indicate that when 

asked if Ramirez had anything he would like to share before returning to work, he 

indicated that some of his issues were: “Violation of SOP’s and GMP’s” and “Issues with 

nonconformance documents.” (Id.) Ramirez’s work journal 2 indicates that he informed 

1 

GMP’s are regulatory requirements for all manufacturers of drugs and medical devices, codified at 

21 C.F.R., Parts 210, 211, 600 and 820. The FDA requires that registrants manufacture their 

products in accordance with their SOPs, which must be approved by the FDA. (Dkt. 88-1 at P. 6) 

2 

Despite B&L’s objection to the consideration of Ramirez’s work journal on summary judgment as 

inadmissible hearsay, the Court finds that the work journal may be properly considered to the extent 

that it is reducible to admissible evidence at trial. See Macuba v. Bedoer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322-24 

(11th Cir. 1999). Ramirez’s sworn deposition testimony confirms that the journal was made by him 

and contains his personal observations of the events in question. (Dkt. 77-3 at P. 6; Dkt. 88-3 at P. 

6; Dkt. 88-4 at P. 2) Ramirez could be called to testify at trial regarding his statements made during 

this meeting, not for the truth of the matter asserted but for the fact that the Defendant was made 

aware of Ramirez’s perceptions. See Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 

A. 8 

4


Callejas and Mujagic that his issues included: “Downgrading my defects findings, not 

following SOP’s, GMP’s . . . .” (Dkt. 86-3 at P. 16) 

The FWA states that “[a]n employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action 

against an employee because the employee has: . . . [o]bjected to, or refused to 

participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, 

rule, or regulation.” Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3). The comments made by Ramirez during 

the November 3, 2008 meeting indicate that he was objecting to what he perceived to be 

a violation of law committed by B&L. However, in order to prevail on his claim, Ramirez 

“must prove that the activity, policy or practice objected to is, in fact, in violation of a law, 

rule or regulation.” White v. Purdue Pharma, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1337 (M.D. Fla. 

2005); see also In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases--Report No. 2011-01 

(Unlawful Retaliation), 95 So. 3d 106, 107-10 (Fla. 2012). It is not enough that Ramirez 

reasonably believed that the actions he objected to were in violation of a law, rule, or 

regulation. Id. A “[l]aw, rule, or regulation” is defined to include “any statute or 

ordinance or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute 

or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” Fla. Stat. § 

448.101(4). 

Generally, violations of a company’s own internal rules and policies are not 

considered violations of law under the FWA. See Lawson v. Dollar General Corp., No. 

8:04-cv-2366-T-17TBM, 2006 WL 1980277, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2006). However, 

violations of a federal rule or regulation are considered violations of law under the FWA 

because federal regulations are adopted pursuant to federal statutes, and thus, fall within 

2012). 

A. 9 

5


the definition of a “[l]aw, rule, or regulation” under the FWA. See Diaz v. Impex of Doral, 

Inc., 7 So. 3d 591, 594-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). In the context of this case, federal 

regulations, referred to as GMP’s, require manufacturers such as B&L to establish written 

procedures, referred to as SOP’s, for production and process control and to maintain 

detailed batch production and control records. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 211.100, 211.122, 

211.188. Any deviation from the written procedures must be recorded and justified. Id. 

Additionally, manufacturers such as B&L are required to have a quality control unit that is 

responsible for ensuring that the written procedures are followed. 21 C.F.R. § 211.22. 

Ramirez worked as a Quality Control Coordinator (“QCC”) in B&L’s quality control 

unit. (Dkt. 77 at 1; Dkt. 77-1 at P. 13) Many of Ramirez’s alleged “protected actions” 

are instances of Ramirez detecting and reporting potential nonconformities and defects 

in the manufacturing process which were then recorded and corrected in accordance with 

B&L’s SOP’s. These allegations represent Ramirez performing his job as part of the 

quality control unit. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 13-14) A violation of law does not occur simply 

because a potential issue is identified by a QCC and corrective action is taken. (Id.) On 

the contrary, such actions are actually consistent with, rather than in violation of, the 

federal manufacturing regulations applicable to B&L. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 211.100, 

211.122, 211.188, 211.22. 

However, Ramirez also made allegations regarding incidents during which he or 

other employees were instructed to record incorrect information regarding 

nonconformance issues and anomalies in the batch records. (See Dkt. 88 at 6) For 

example, on March 19, 2008, Ramirez contends that he was ordered by his supervisor, 

Valerie Gordon (“Gordon”), to record only two defective units in the batch records when 

A. 10 

6


there were actually more than two defective units. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 51; Dkt. 77-3 at P. 20- 

21) Also, on May 13, 2008, Ramirez contends that he observed Gordon instruct his 

colleague, Deccia Edwards, to ignore seven rejected units and to record zero 

nonconforming units in the batch record. (Dkt. 88 at 7; Dkt. 88-3 at P. 12-13) Each 

manufactured lot is assigned an Acceptable Quality Level (“AQL”), which denotes the 

number of variances that the lot may have before a more complicated and timeconsuming 

inspection must be conducted. (Dkt. 77 at 8-9) Ramirez contends Gordon 

instructed him to record a number of nonconforming units that was below the AQL despite 

the presence of a number of nonconforming units that exceeded the AQL in order to avoid 

the more work-intensive inspection from being invoked. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 61) 

These incidents, if true, would constitute a violation of the federal regulations, 

which require full and detailed batch records, including a record of any deviations and 

defects found during the manufacturing process. 21 C.F.R. §§ 211.100, 211.122, 

211.188. Although B&L contends that Gordon’s instructions to Ramirez were the result 

of her own independent conclusion as to the number of nonconforming units in each 

batch, this only demonstrates that a disputed issue of material fact exists as to whether a 

violation of law actually occurred. (Dkt. 77-8 at 5) Notwithstanding B&L’s contention, 

Ramirez has presented evidence, which if believed by a jury, would establish that an 

actual rather than a perceived violation of the law occurred in these instances. 

Furthermore, from this evidence and the evidence of Ramirez’s comments to 

Callejas and Mujagic about supervisors downgrading his defects findings and issues with 

nonconformance documents, a jury could reasonably conclude that Ramirez was 

objecting to an actual violation of law, specifically, Gordon’s ordering him to record an 

A. 11 

7


incorrect number of nonconforming units in the batch records, during the November 3, 

2008 meeting. Ramirez’s objection at this meeting was not simply a renewed “stale” 

objection because there is no evidence that Ramirez objected at the time that he was 

allegedly instructed by Gordon to record the incorrect information. Rather, Ramirez 

testified that at the time of the incident he followed his supervisor’s orders and did not 

make any kind of report regarding the incident. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 51, 58-59) 

A very close temporal proximity between the employer’s knowledge of a protected 

activity and an adverse employment action is sufficient to meet the causal connection 

prong to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Ramirez, 546 F. App’x at 832 (citing 

Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007)). Here, Ramirez’s 

protected activity was the voicing of his issues with his employer’s alleged unlawful action, 

which occurred in the meeting on November 3, 2008. Ramirez was terminated just eight 

days later, on November 11, 2008. (Dkt. 77-20) Thus, Ramirez has presented 

evidence demonstrating a close temporal proximity between his employer’s knowledge of 

his protected activity and his termination, which is sufficient to satisfy the causal 

connection prong. See Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating 

that “as much as one month between the protected expression and the adverse action is 

not too protracted” to establish a causal connection). Accordingly, Ramirez has 

presented enough evidence to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FWA 

according to the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting analysis. 

b. Pretext and “But For” Causation 

Because Ramirez has established a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden now 

shifts to B&L to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged 

employment action. Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 970 (11th Cir. 2008). B&L 

A. 12 

8


contends that Ramirez was terminated for an incident of insubordination that occurred on 

November 4, 2008. (Dkt. 77-21) During the meeting on November 3, 2008, Mujagic 

gave Ramirez a list of SOP’s to read. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 66; Dkt. 86-9) Pursuant to SOP 

80-010, Ramirez was required to review only current revisions of certain SOP’s upon his 

return to work. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 28) Ramirez reviewed seven SOP’s on November 3, 

2008 and seven SOP’s on November 4, 2008. (Dkt. 86-12) On November 4, 2008, 

Ramirez was asked to start up line 8. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 26) Ramirez refused to start up 

the line and would not give any explanation for his refusal. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 26-27; Dkt. 

77-18; Dkt. 86-15; Dkt. 86-15; Dkt. 88-2 at P. 8) Mujagic and Callejas were notified 

regarding the incident. (Dkt. 77-18, 77-19) Ramirez did not explain his reasoning for 

refusing to start up the line until he met with Callejas the next day. At that meeting, 

Ramirez told Callejas that he refused to start up the line because he had not completed 

reading all of the SOP’s on the list that Mujagic had given to him at the meeting on 

November 3, 2008. (Dkt. 88-2 at P. 4-5; Dkt. 86-7) Callejas subsequently investigated 

the incident and determined that prior to being asked to start up line 8, Ramirez had read 

all of the SOP’s required for him to be able to start up the line. (Dkt. 88-2 at P. 5) 

B&L’s disciplinary records indicate that Ramirez was terminated for 

insubordination. (Dkt. 77-21) Callejas testified that he made the ultimate decision to 

terminate Ramirez and that this decision was solely based on Ramirez’s insubordinate 

action of refusing to carry out an order of a supervisor. (Dkt 77-20 at P. 4, 7-8) Mujagic 

also testified that Ramirez was terminated for his act of insubordination on November 4, 

2008. (Dkt. 88-6 at P. 2) According to B&L’s Corrective Action Policy, “insubordination 

is cause for immediate discharge without using the progressive discipline approach.” 

A. 13 

9


(Dkt. 77-21) Thus, B&L has articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Ramirez’s 

termination. 

Ramirez argues that his termination due to insubordination was neither legitimate 

nor non-retaliatory because his refusal to start up the line on November 4, 2008 was 

actually protected activity under the FWA because he was refusing to participate in a 

violation of SOP 80-010. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 12) However, as determined by this Court in 

the original Order on B&L’s Motion for Summary Judgment, requiring Ramirez to start up 

line 8 was not an actual violation of any SOP or GMP. 3 (Dkt 155 at P. 10-12) It is 

undisputed that Ramirez had read all of the applicable SOP’s in accordance with SOP 

80-010 required for him to start up line 8. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 66-67; Dkt. 77-4) The fact 

that Ramirez mistakenly believed that starting up the line would be a violation of the law 

does not make his refusal protected activity, nor does it make B&L’s termination of him 

for insubordination based on this incident retaliatory. See White, 369 F. Supp. 2d at 

1337. Furthermore, it is also undisputed that Ramirez refused to start up the line and 

that he refused to give his supervisor a reason for his refusal. (Dkt. 77-1 at P. 26-27; 

Dkt. 77-18; Dkt. 86-15; Dkt. 86-15; Dkt. 88-2 at P. 8) Either the refusal to start up the 

line after having read the requisite number of SOP’s or the refusal to explain the refusal 

to start up the line is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination. 

Because B&L has advanced a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Ramirez’s 

termination, the burden shifts back to Ramirez to establish by a preponderance of the 

3 

Ramirez contends that the Circuit Court overturned this determination, but the Court disagrees. The 

Circuit Court did not determine that Ramirez’s refusal to start up the line was protected activity, nor 

did it direct the Court to reconsider its determination. If the Circuit Court had determined that 

Ramirez’s refusal to start up the line was in fact protected activity under the FWA, that finding alone 

would have been enough to meet the causal connection prong and there would be no need for this 

Court to perform a new causation analysis. 

A. 14 

10


evidence that B&L’s reason is merely pretext. Crawford, 529 F.3d at 970. To establish 

pretext, Ramirez must rebut B&L’s proffered reason for terminating him by demonstrating 

that “the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision.” 

Jackson v. Ala. State Tenure Comm'n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Additionally, under the Supreme Court’s holding in University of Texas Southwestern 

Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013), Ramirez has the ultimate burden of 

proving that “but for” his protected activity he would not have been terminated. See 

Ramirez, 546 F. App’x at 833, n. 2 (indicating that Ramirez’s FWA retaliation claim is 

subject to the “but for” standard articulated in Nassar, but also noting that the Supreme 

Court did not “clarify the role of ‘but for’ causation in a plaintiff's prima facie case.”); see 

also Mealing v. Georgia Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 564 F. App'x 421, 427 (11th Cir. 2014) 4 

cert. denied, No. 14-7401, 2015 WL 232052 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2015) (analyzing “but for” 

causation at the same stage as pretext). 

The only argument Ramirez has made to rebut B&L’s proffered reason is his 

argument that insubordination was not a truly legitimate reason for his termination 

because his refusal to start the line on November 4, 2008 was actually protected activity. 

(Dkt. 95 at P. 21-22) For the reasons stated above, that argument fails and therefore 

Ramirez has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that B&L’s termination 

of him for insubordination was pretext. Furthermore, even considering all of the evidence 

offered by Ramirez to establish his prima facie case, Ramirez’s claim still fails under the 

heightened causation standard established in Nassar. Given the unequivocal evidence 

4 

“Although an unpublished opinion is not binding on this court, it is persuasive authority. See 11th 

Cir. R. 36-2.” United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2000). 

A. 15 

11


on the record establishing that B&L terminated Ramirez in accordance with its Corrective 

Action Policy for his insubordinate action of refusing to start up line 8 on November 4, 

2008, an action that Ramirez has admitted occurred, the Court finds that Ramirez has 

failed to prove that his comments made at the November 3, 2008 meeting termination 

were the cause in fact of his termination. 

IV. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Ramirez has failed to establish that B&L’s proffered 

reason for his termination was pretext or that his termination would not have occurred 

“but for” his alleged protected activity. Therefore, his claim for retaliation under the FWA 

fails as a matter of law, and B&L’s renewed request for summary judgment is accordingly 

GRANTED. The CLERK is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of B&L and CLOSE 

this case. 

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd day of April 2015. 

Copies furnished to: 

Counsel of Record 

Any Unrepresented Person 

A. 16 

12

Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 1 of 1 


versus 


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

For the Eleventh Circuit 

______________ 

No. 12-14679 

______________ 

District Court Docket No. 

8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

__________________________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida 

__________________________________________ 

JUDGMENT 

It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion issued on this date in this appeal is 

entered as the judgment of this Court. 

Entered: October 22, 2013 

For the Court: John Ley, Clerk of Court 

By: Djuanna Clark 

A. 17




IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 


________________________ 

No. 12-14679 

Non-Argument Calendar 

________________________ 

D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW 

versus 

________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida 

________________________ 

(October 22, 2013) 

Before HULL, MARCUS and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM: 

[DO NOT PUBLISH] 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Carlos Ramirez appeals the grant of summary judgment to Bausch & Lomb, 

Inc. (“B&L”) in his suit brought pursuant to the Florida Whistleblower Act 

(“FWA”), Fla. Stat. Ann. § 448.102. In his suit, Ramirez alleged that he was fired 

A. 18


after reporting various violations of B&L’s standard operating procedures 

(“SOPs”) and applicable federal regulations issued by the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration. Ramirez, a quality control inspector for B&L, alleged a number of 

different incidents that occurred from March to July 2008 as protected activity. 

Ramirez took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in August and 

returned to work on November 3, 2008. On that date, he had a meeting with his 

direct supervisor and a representative from human resources, in which Ramirez 

complained both of various perceived SOP and regulatory violations and that he 

had been placed on a black list for whistleblowers. On November 4, 2008, 

Ramirez refused to start a manufacturing line because he had not been retrained on 

the applicable SOPs, as he believed the SOPs and regulations required. B&L fired 

him for insubordination based on this incident. Ramirez sued, and the district court 

granted B&L’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Ramirez had not 

established a prima facie case of retaliation. On appeal, Ramirez argues that the 

district court erred by granting summary judgment to B&L because: (1) he had 

presented other evidence to establish a causal connection -- that he was on FMLA 

leave during the relevant three months -- and had not relied solely on the temporal 

proximity between his protected activity and his termination; (2) he had engaged in 

protected activity under the FWA; and (3) the district court erroneously relied on 

2 

A. 19


an affidavit submitted by B&L’s Director of Quality Assurance. After thorough 

review, we vacate and remand for further consideration in light of this opinion. 

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment and view the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Crawford v. City of Fairburn, 

Ga., 482 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2007). We can affirm on any ground 

supported by the record. Cuddeback v. Fla. Bd. of Educ., 381 F.3d 1230, 1235-36 

(11th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Crawford, 482 F.3d at 1308; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). 

We apply the state’s substantive law in cases involving diversity jurisdiction. 

Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Nevertheless, where there is no controlling state law, FWA claims are analyzed 

under the Title VII retaliation framework. See id. For retaliation claims based on 

circumstantial evidence, we apply the burden-shifting analysis established in 

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of 

Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1181 (11th Cir. 2010). Under Title VII, a plaintiff can 

make out a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that (1) he engaged in 

statutorily protected expression; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and 

(3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. Crawford 

3 

A. 20


v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 970 (11th Cir. 2008). 1 Once a plaintiff establishes a 

prima facie case of retaliation, the employer has an opportunity to articulate a 

legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged employment action. Id. At 

that point, the plaintiff then has the ultimate burden of establishing by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s proffered explanation is pretext. 

Perryman, 698 F.2d at 1142. To prove pretext, the plaintiff must show that the 

employer’s proffered reasons were “a coverup for a . . . discriminatory decision.” 

Rojas v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). 

1 

The FWA provides that a form of expression is statutorily protected if an employee (1) 

disclosed or threatened to disclose to a governmental agency that the employer’s activity, policy, 

or practice was “in violation of a law, rule, or regulation”; (2) provided information to a 

government agency investigating an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the 

employer; or (3) “[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the 

employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 448.102. The 

FWA defines “law, rule, or regulation” as “any statute or ordinance or any rule or regulation 

adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer 

and pertaining to the business.” Id. § 448.101(4). Florida courts have determined that the 

following are insufficient to sustain a FWA claim: the Federal Communications Commission’s 

(“FCC”) “news distortion policy,” which was based on a series of administrative opinions issued 

in response to complaints filed with the FCC; federal injunctions and a mandatory executive 

order issued by the state governor; and a letter in which the plaintiff failed to identify the 

relevant law, rule, or regulation in question. New World Commc’ns of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 866 

So.2d 1231, 1233 34 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (FCC policy); Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 760 

So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (injunction); Gillyard v. Delta Heath Grp., Inc., 

757 So.2d 601, 602-03 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (mandatory evacuation order); Schultz v. 

Tampa Elec. Co., 704 So.2d 605, 606 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1997) (letter). In contrast, Florida 

courts have determined that both regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (“OSHA”) and Florida statutes requiring hospitals to establish various procedures 

can constitute a law, rule, or regulation under the FWA. Diaz v. Impex of Doral, Inc., 7 So. 3d 

591, 594-95 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (OSHA regulations); Taylor v. Mem’l Health Sys., 

Inc., 770 So.2d 752, 753-54 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (Florida statutes forbidding sexual 

misconduct in the practice of medicine). 

Under the statute, termination is a “retaliatory personnel action.” Fla Stat. Ann. § 

448.101(5). To bring action based on a violation of this statute, the employee must notify the 

employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice. Id. §§ 448.102(1), 448.103(1)(c). 

4 

A. 21


Here, the district court determined that Ramirez had not established a prima 

facie case of retaliation because he had not submitted evidence demonstrating a 

causal connection between his alleged protected activity and his termination. The 

district court refused to consider Ramirez’s protected activity that occurred before 

his FMLA leave, as it believed that it could only consider protected activity within 

the three months preceding his termination. The district court also determined that 

Ramirez’s refusal to start the line on November 4 was not protected activity since 

requiring Ramirez to start the line was not a violation of any SOP or regulation. 

Thus, causation is at issue in this case. We’ve said that a plaintiff may be 

able to rely solely on the temporal proximity between an employer’s knowledge of 

protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of 

causality, but the temporal proximity must be “very close.” Thomas v. Cooper 

Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing with approval nonbinding 

cases rejecting three- to four-month gaps between the allegedly protected 

activity and the alleged retaliation). Nevertheless, where a plaintiff can establish a 

causal connection through “other evidence tending to show causation,” a delay 

between the allegedly protected activity and the adverse activity is not fatal. See 

id.; see also Wascura v. City of S. Miami, 257 F.3d 1238, 1248 (11th Cir. 2001) 

(emphasizing that a plaintiff had introduced “virtually no evidence of a causal 

connection” aside from the temporal proximity). 

5 

A. 22


Applying the case law, we are compelled to vacate and remand the district 

court’s decision so that the district court may perform a new causation analysis. 

As we see it, the district court’s prima-facie causation analysis improperly failed to 

include all of the events proffered by Ramirez to establish a causal connection 

between the allegedly protected activity and his termination. For instance, the 

district court did not consider the November 3 meeting Ramirez attended, which 

occurred only one day prior to the incident that led to his termination. In that 

meeting, Ramirez expressed his concerns that B&L was not in compliance with 

various SOPs and Good Manufacturing Practices (“GMPs”), and his belief that he 

was on a black list for whistleblowers. The district court should have considered if 

these remarks constituted protected activity that was sufficiently close in time to 

Ramirez’s termination to meet the causal connection prong. 

It should also consider that even if the incidents solely within the three 

months prior to Ramirez’s termination did not sufficiently establish a causal 

connection, Ramirez did not rely on temporal proximity alone to establish 

causation. Rather, he presented other evidence that the district court should have 

considered, including: (1) Ramirez’s work journal and the e-mail from the 

manufacturing manager stating that Human Resources needed to become involved 

because the manager could no longer tolerate Ramirez’s interruptions to the line; 

(2) the fact that Ramirez was on FMLA leave for the three months immediately 

6 

A. 23


prior to his termination, (3) the multiple instances of allegedly protected activity 

both prior to and immediately after his return to work at B&L, and (3) his 

termination nearly immediately after returning to work. Indeed, because Ramirez 

did not rely solely on temporal proximity, the district court could have considered 

the allegedly protected activity that occurred before Ramirez went on FMLA leave 

as evidence of causality. See Thomas, 506 F.3d at 1364. 

In short, the district court failed to consider relevant evidence that could 

support Ramirez’s claim of causality. Accordingly, we vacate and remand, which 

will allow the district court the opportunity to determine in the first instance if 

Ramirez’s additional evidence and the other incidents of alleged protected activity 

are sufficient to establish the causal connection prong. 2 

Finally, we do not 

consider Ramirez’s argument about the district court’s consideration of the 

2 We also note that the United States Supreme Court recently has said that a plaintiff must 

demonstrate “but for” causation when making a Title VII retaliation claim: 

Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for 

causation . . . . This requires proof that the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred 

in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer. 

Univ. of Tex. Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2533 (2013). However, the 

Court did not clarify the role of “but for” causation in a plaintiff’s prima facie case. Thus, when 

considering the expanded group of allegedly protected activity on remand, the district court may 

need to consider whether Ramirez has sufficiently satisfied “but for” causation in this case. See 

Nassar, 133 S. Ct. at 2533. Moreover, now that the district court will consider the additional 

incidents of alleged protected activity (and not just events occurring within a narrow three-month 

window that largely was comprised of Ramirez’s protected FMLA leave), it may need to 

determine if that activity was indeed protected. 

7 

A. 24


affidavit because that issue has been rendered moot by our decision to vacate and 

remand the summary judgment order. 

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

8 

A. 25


A. 26


A. 27

§ 610. Courts defined, 28 USCA § 610 

United States Code Annotated 

Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (Refs & Annos) 

Part III. Court Officers and Employees (Refs & Annos) 

Chapter 41. Administrative Office of United States Courts 

28 U.S.C.A. § 610 

§ 610. Courts defined 

Currentness 

As used in this chapter the word “courts” includes the courts of appeals and district courts of the United 

States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, 

the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of 

International Trade. 

CREDIT(S) 

(June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 915; Oct. 31, 1951, c. 655, § 44, 65 Stat. 725; July 7, 1958, Pub.L. 85-508, § 

12(e), 72 Stat. 348; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub.L. 95-598, Title II, § 226, 92 Stat. 2665; Oct. 10, 1980, Pub.L. 96-417, 

Title V, § 501(15), 94 Stat. 1742; Apr. 2, 1982, Pub.L. 97-164, Title I, § 120(a), 96 Stat. 33; Oct. 29, 1992, 

Pub.L. 102-572, Title IX, § 902(b)(1), 106 Stat. 4516.) 

28 U.S.C.A. § 610, 28 USCA § 610 

Current through P.L. 114-254. Also includes P.L. 114-256 to 114-280, 114-282 to 114-288, 114-290 to 

114-314, 114-316, 114-318 to 114-321, 114-324 to 114-326. Title 26 current through 114-329. 

End of Document 

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 

A. 28 

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

§ 951. Oath of office of clerks and deputies, 28 USCA § 951 




Chapter 57. General Provisions Applicable to Court Officers and Employees (Refs & Annos) 

28 U.S.C.A. § 951 

§ 951. Oath of office of clerks and deputies 

Currentness 

Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon 

their duties: “I, _____ _____, having been appointed _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly 

and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will 

faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and 

understanding. So help me God.” 

CREDIT(S) 

(June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 925.) 

28 U.S.C.A. § 951, 28 USCA § 951 





A. 29 


§ 956. Powers and duties of clerks and deputies, 28 USCA § 956 





28 U.S.C.A. § 956 

§ 956. Powers and duties of clerks and deputies 

Currentness 

The clerk of each court and his deputies and assistants shall exercise the powers and perform the duties 

assigned to them by the court. 

CREDIT(S) 

(June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 926.) 

28 U.S.C.A. § 956, 28 USCA § 956 





A. 30 


§ 963. Courts defined, 28 USCA § 963 





28 U.S.C.A. § 963 

§ 963. Courts defined 

Currentness 

As used in this chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise, the words “court” and “courts” include the 

Supreme Court of the United States and the courts enumerated in section 610 of this title. 

CREDIT(S) 

(June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 927.) 

28 U.S.C.A. § 963, 28 USCA § 963 





A. 31 


§ 1254. Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions, 28 USCA § 1254 



Part IV. Jurisdiction and Venue (Refs & Annos) 

Chapter 81. Supreme Court (Refs & Annos) 

28 U.S.C.A. § 1254 

§ 1254. Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions 

Currentness 

Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by the following methods: 

(1) By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case, before or 

after rendition of judgment or decree; 

(2) By certification at any time by a court of appeals of any question of law in any civil or criminal case 

as to which instructions are desired, and upon such certification the Supreme Court may give binding 

instructions or require the entire record to be sent up for decision of the entire matter in controversy. 

CREDIT(S) 

(June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 928; June 27, 1988, Pub.L. 100-352, § 2(a), (b), 102 Stat. 662.) 

28 U.S.C.A. § 1254, 28 USCA § 1254 





A. 32 


§ 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe, 28 USCA § 2072 



Part V. Procedure 

Chapter 131. Rules of Courts 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2072 

§ 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe 

Currentness 

(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules 

of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges 

thereof) and courts of appeals. 

(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules 

shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect. 

(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 

1291 of this title. 

CREDIT(S) 

(Added Pub.L. 100-702, Title IV, § 401(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4648; amended Pub.L. 101-650, Title 

III, §§ 315, 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5115, 5117.) 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2072, 28 USCA § 2072 





A. 33 





ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING 

56 Forsyth Street, N.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Amy C. Nerenberg 

Acting Clerk of Court 

For rules and forms visit 

www.ca11.uscourts.gov 

April 20, 2016 

Sheryl L. Loesch 

U.S. District Court 

801 N FLORIDA AVE 

TAMPA, FL 33602-3849 

Appeal Number: 15-11914-BB 

Case Style: Carlos Ramirez v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. 

District Court Docket No: 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW 

The enclosed copy of the Clerk's Entry of Dismissal for failure to prosecute in the above 

referenced appeal is issued as the mandate of this court. See 11th Cir. R. 41-4. Pursuant to 11th 

Cir. R. 42-2(c) and 42-3(c), when an appellant fails to timely file or correct a brief or appendix, 

the appeal shall be treated as dismissed on the first business day following the due date. This 

appeal was treated as dismissed on 04/12/2016. 

Counsel and pro se parties are advised that pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 25(a)(2)(A), a motion to set 

aside the dismissal and remedy the default "is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers 

within the time fixed for filing." 

Sincerely, 

AMY C. NERENBERG, Acting Clerk of Court 

Reply to: Carol R. Lewis, BB 

Phone #: (404) 335-6179 

Enclosure(s) 

DIS-2CIV Letter and Entry of Dismissal 

A. 34




ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING 

56 Forsyth Street, N.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Amy C. Nerenberg 

Acting Clerk of Court 

For rules and forms visit 

www.ca11.uscourts.gov 

April 20, 2016 

Carlos Ramirez 

General Delivery 

TAMPA, FL 33675 

Appeal Number: 15-11914-BB 

Case Style: Carlos Ramirez v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. 

District Court Docket No: 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW 

RETURNED UNFILED: Unopposed motion of extraordinary circumstances received on April 

15, 2016, filed by Carlos Ramirez is returned unfiled due to Clerk's dismissal order issued on 

April 20, 2016. 

Sincerely, 

AMY C. NERENBERG, Acting Clerk of Court 

Reply to: Carol R. Lewis, BB 

Phone #: (404) 335-6179 

MOT-11 Motion or Document Returned 

A. 35


A. 36


A. 37


A. 38


A. 39


A. 40

A. 41 

Case: 15-11914 Date (758 Filed: of 2011) 04/20/2016 Page: 6 of 7


A. 42

The following cover and index of the corrected appendix appear on the Eleventh 

Circuit’s docket on June 2, 2016, but show a clerk’s date-stamp of April 15, 2016. 

A. 43

Case: 15-11914 Date (788 Filed: of 06/02/2016 2011) Page: 1 of 264 

A. 44


A. 45


A. 46

* * * 

(Other Pages of the Corrected Appendix Omitted) 

A. 47

Selected docket entries for case 15−11914 

Generated: 02/04/2017 08:09:52 

Filed Document Description Page Docket Text 

04/30/2015 CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by 

Civil Appeal Docketed − Notice of 6 Appellant Carlos Ramirez on 04/30/2015. Fee Status: Fee 

Appeal 

Not Paid. Awaiting Appellant's CIP Due on 05/19/2015 as 

to Appellant Carlos Ramirez 

DE #190 usdc judgment 7 

DE #189 usdc order 9 

DKT−2 Notice to Counsel/Parties 21 

05/04/2015 Appearance of Counsel Form Filed 23 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Lara Joanne 

Peppard for Bausch & Lomb, Inc. and Kevin Douglas 

Zwetsch for Bausch & Lomb, Inc.. (ECF: Kevin Zwetsch) 

05/05/2015 E−filed Appearance of Counsel processed for Attorney 

Kevin Douglas Zwetsch for Appellee Bausch & Lomb, Inc. 

in 15−11914. 

05/13/2015 (Paperless) USDC order granting IFP as to Appellant 

Carlos Ramirez was filed on 05/04/2015. Docket Entry 

194. 

05/21/2015 Transcript Order Form Filed − No 

Hearings 

24 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION form filed by Party 

Carlos Ramirez. All necessary transcript(s) are on file. 

05/21/2015 Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate 

Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez. 

Appellant's CIP Filed 25 

envelope 27 

05/22/2015 BR−1CIV Notice to 

Counsel/Parties 

28 Briefing Notice issued to Appellant Carlos Ramirez. The 

appellants brief is due on or before 06/15/2015. The 

appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the 

appellant's brief. 

05/28/2015 JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION issued as to Carlos 

Ramirez. 

JQ Issued 30 

JUR−1 Notice to Counsel/Parties 31 

06/01/2015 Appellant's motion for extension 

to file brief 

(1 of 2011) 

33 MOTION for extension of time to file appellants brief to 

07/13/2015 filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez. Opposition 

to Motion is Unknown [7486628−1] 

06/04/2015 Certificate of Interested Persons 38 Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure 

Statement filed by Attorney Lara Joanne Peppard for 

Appellee Bausch & Lomb, Inc.. On the same day the CIP is 

served, the party filing it must also complete the court's 

web−based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here 

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web−based−cip or on the 

court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1−2(b). (ECF: Lara 

Peppard) 

06/09/2015 ORDER: Motion for extension to file appellant brief filed 

Court Order Filed 43 by Appellant Carlos Ramirez is GRANTED. [7486628−2] 

Appellants brief due on 07/13/2015. WHP 

A. 48

EXT−1 Notice to Counsel/Parties 44 

06/11/2015 Response to Court's Order 

regarding Jurisdictional Question 

45 Response to Jurisdictional Question filed by Lara Joanne 

Peppard for BOL pursuant to court order dated 

05/28/2015.−−[Edited 06/17/2015 by CRL] (Corrected by 

Clerk's Office, incorrect event selected). (ECF: Lara 

Peppard) 

06/12/2015 JQ Response Filed 72 Response to Jurisdictional Question filed by Appellant 

Carlos Ramirez.−−[Edited 06/19/2015 by CRL] 

06/29/2015 Appellant's second motion for 

extension to file initial brief 

77 MOTION for second extension of time to file appellant's 

brief to 08/12/2015 filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez. 

Opposition to Motion is Unknown [7515067−1] 

07/09/2015 ORDER: Appellant's second motion for an extension of 

Court Order Filed 84 time for filing the following documents is GRANTED. 

Appellant's brief is due August 12, 2015, with the 


Appellant's appendix due no later than seven days from the 

filing of the appellant's brief. [7515067−2] RSR 

07/09/2015 JUR−3 Notice to Counsel/Parties 86 PROBABLE JURISDICTION noted after issuance of a 

Jurisdictional Question as to Appellant Carlos Ramirez. 

07/20/2015 RETURNED UNFILED: Appellant's amended second 

Motion or Document Returned 87 motion for extension filed by Carlos Ramirez is returned 

Unfiled 

unfiled due to this Court's order filed on July 09, 2015. 

MOT−11 Notice to 


07/27/2015 Appellant's third motion for 

extension to file initial brief 

(2 of 2011) 

94 

95 MOTION for third extension of time to file appellants brief 

to 09/11/2015 filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez. Motion is 

Unopposed [7534240−1]−−[Edited 07/28/2015 by CRL] 


EXT−1 Notice to Counsel/Parties 104 by Appellant Carlos Ramirez is GRANTED. [7534240−2] 

Appellant's brief is due on 09/11/2015. AJ 

Court Order Filed 105 

09/14/2015 STRICKEN *** Appellant's brief filed by Carlos Ramirez. 

Service date: 09/11/2015 [15−11914] Attorney for 

Appellee: Clay − email; Attorney for Appellee: Peppard − 

email; Attorney for Appellee: Zwetsch − email. (See Order 

issued on 01/29/2016)−−[Edited 01/29/2016 by CRL] 

09/25/2015 STRICKEN *** Appendix filed [1 VOLUME − 1 set] by 

Party Carlos Ramirez. Service date: 09/09/2015 US mail − 

Attorney for Appellees: Peppard, Zwetsch.−−[Edited 

10/15/2015 by MSB] (See Order issued on 

01/29/2016)−−[Edited 01/29/2016 by CRL] 

09/28/2015 MOTION FILED 106 MOTION for extension of time to file appellees brief to 

11/16/2015 at 11:59 pm filed by BOL. Motion is 

Unopposed. [7585087−1] (ECF: Lara Peppard) 

10/16/2015 ORDER: Motion for extension to file appellee brief filed 

Court Order Filed 113 by Appellee BOL is GRANTED. [7585087−2] Appellees 

brief due on 11/16/2015. SM 


11/02/2015 MOTION FILED 115 MOTION for extension of time to file appellees brief to 

12/04/2015 at 11:59 pm filed by BOL. Motion is 

Unopposed. [7615243−1] (ECF: Lara Peppard) 

A. 49

11/18/2015 ORDER: Appellee’s motion for an extension of time for 

Court Order Filed 122 filing the following documents is GRANTED. Appellee’s 

brief is due December 4, 2015. An appendix, if any, is due 


no later than seven days from the filing of the Appellee’s 

brief. [7615243−2] SM 

12/04/2015 MOTION FILED 124 MOTION to strike Motion to Strike Portions of Appellant's 

Appendix and Brief filed by BOL. Motion is Opposed. 

[7642775−1] (ECF: Lara Peppard) 

12/04/2015 STRICKEN *** Appellee's Brief filed by Appellee BOL. 

(See Order issued on 01/29/2016)−−[Edited 01/29/2016 by 

CRL] (ECF: Kevin Zwetsch) 

12/07/2015 Received paper copies of EBrief filed by Appellee BOL. 

12/10/2015 Motion for extension to file reply 

brief 

12/10/2015 Motion for extension of time to 

response to Motion to Strike 

137 MOTION for extension of time to file reply brief to 

02/19/2016 filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez. Motion is 

Unopposed [7654945−1] 

142 MOTION for extension of time to file response to Motion to 

Strike to 12/31/2015 filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez. 

Motion is Unopposed [7654968−1] 

12/11/2015 Supplemental Appendix [2 VOLUMES] filed by Appellee 

Appellee Supplemental Appendix 

Filed − 1 

147 BOL. (ECF: Lara Peppard) 

Appellee Supplemental Appendix 

Filed − 2 

379 

12/14/2015 Received paper copies of EAppendix filed by Appellee 

BOL. 2 VOLUMES − 2 SETS 

12/15/2015 Appearance of Counsel Form Filed 619 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Lara Joanne 

Peppard for BOL. (ECF: Lara Peppard) 

12/16/2015 E−filed Appearance of Counsel processed for Attorney 

Lara Joanne Peppard for Appellee BOL in 15−11914. 

12/29/2015 ORDER: Motion for extension to file response to motion 

Court Order Filed 620 filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez is GRANTED. 

[7654968−2] Response due on 12/31/2015.; Motion for 

MOT−2 Notice to Counsel/Parties 621 

extension to file reply brief filed by Appellant Carlos 

Ramirez is GRANTED. [7654945−2] Reply brief due on 

02/19/2016. JEC 

01/05/2016 Response Filed 622 RESPONSE to Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of 

Appellant's Appendix and Brief, Construed as a motion to 

supplement the record on appeal has been filed by 

Appellant Carlos Ramirez to Motion to strike filed by 

Appellee BOL in 15−11914 

[7642775−2].[7665241−1]−−[Edited 01/29/2016 by CRL] 

01/07/2016 Reply to Appellant's Opposition to 

Defendant's Motion to Strike 

(3 of 2011) 

638 Reply to response filed by Appellee BOL. (ECF: Lara 

Peppard) 

01/29/2016 ORDER: Before the Court is Appellee’s “Motion to Strike 

Court Order Filed 649 Portions of Appellant’s Appendix and Brief.” To the extent 

that Appellant’s “Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to 


Strike Portions of Appellant’s Appendix and Brief” may be 

construed as a motion to supplement the record on appeal, 

the motion is DENIED. Appellee’s motion to strike is 

A. 50

(4 of 2011) 

GRANTED to the extent that the Court hereby STRIKES, 

in their entirety, both Appellant’s appendix and initial brief. 

On the Court’s own motion, Appellee’s response brief is 

likewise STRICKEN. Appellant is directed to file, within 

thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, a corrected brief 

and appendix, which shall omit all references to documents 

that are not part of the district court record on appeal. The 

documents contained in the appendix shall be tabbed to 

correspond to the original document numbers assigned by 

the district court and noted on the district court docket 

sheet. Appellee is directed to file, within thirty (30) days of 

the service of Appellant’s corrected initial brief, a corrected 

response brief that shall omit all references to Appellant’s 

original brief and original appendix and the related 

documents that are not part of the record on appeal. 

[7665241−2]; [7642775−2] AJ 

01/29/2016 RETURNED UNFILED: Appellant's unopposed motion 

Motion or Document Returned 652 for extension of time to file appellant's reply brief and 

Unfiled 

supplemental appendix filed by Carlos Ramirez is returned 

unfiled due to this Court's order filed on January 29, 2016. 


658 


02/16/2016 Motions Filed 659 MOTION for extension of time to file appellants corrected 

brief and appendix to 03/30/2016 filed by Appellant Carlos 

Ramirez. Motion is Unopposed [7702568−1] 


Court Order Filed 667 by Appellant Carlos Ramirez is GRANTED. [7702568−2] 

Appellants CORRECTED brief and appendix are due on 


03/30/2016. RSR 

03/18/2016 Motions Filed 669 SECOND MOTION for extension of time to file appellants 

corrected brief and appendix to 04/11/2016 filed by 

Appellant Carlos Ramirez. Motion is Unopposed 

[7731523−1]−−[Edited 03/23/2016 by CRL] 

03/30/2016 ORDER: Motion for extension to file corrected appellant 

EXT−1 Notice to Counsel/Parties 677 brief and appendix filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez is 

GRANTED. [7731523−2] Appellant's corrected brief and 


appendix are due on 04/11/2016. RSR 

04/04/2016 Returned Mail was received for Party Carlos Ramirez. 

Returned Mail Received 679 Address has been verified and NOT updated, and mail has 

been re−sent. IN RE: February 23, 2016, Extension Letter. 

MP−1 Notice to Counsel/Parties 683 

04/14/2016 ***SEE CORRECTED BRIEF*** Appellant's brief filed 

by Carlos Ramirez. Deficiencies: Missing page numbers. 

Service date: 04/11/2016 [15−11914] Attorney for 

Appellee: Peppard − US mail.−−[Edited 05/04/2016 by 

MSB] 

04/14/2016 Corrected Brief 684 Corrected Appellant brief filed by Appellant Carlos 

Ramirez. Service date: 04/11/2016 US mail − Attorney for 

Appellee: Peppard. All deficiencies have been corrected. 

04/15/2016 BR−8A Notice to Counsel/Parties 750 Notice of deficient Appellant brief filed by Party Carlos 

Ramirez.Deficiencies: Missing Page Numbers. 

A. 51

04/20/2016 DIS−2CIV Notice to 


751 ENTRY OF DISMISSAL: Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R. 

42−2(c), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of 

prosecution because the appellant Carlos Ramirez failed to 

file CORRECTED appendix within the time fixed by the 

rules 

04/20/2016 RETURNED UNFILED: Unopposed motion of 

Motion or Document Returned 753 extraordinary circumstances received on April 15, 2016, 

Unfiled 

filed by Carlos Ramirez is returned unfiled due to clerk's 

dismissal order issued on April 20, 2016. 


760 


06/02/2016 MOTION to reinstate appeal filed by Appellant Carlos 

Ramirez. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [7807412−1] 

Motion to Reinstate 761 

Appendix 788 

Mailing Info 1052 

06/13/2016 Response to Motion Filed 1053 RESPONSE to Motion to reinstate appeal filed by 

Appellant Carlos Ramirez in 15−11914 [7807412−2] filed 

by Attorney Lara Joanne Peppard for Appellee BOL. (ECF: 

Lara Peppard) 

06/20/2016 Reply to Response 1067 Reply to response to Motion to Reinstate Appeal filed by 

Appellant Carlos Ramirez. 

07/14/2016 ORDER: Motion to reinstate appeal filed by Appellant 

Carlos Ramirez is DENIED. [7807412−2] FMH and JEC 



08/01/2016 MOTION for reconsideration of a panel order entered on 

Motions Filed 1077 07/14/2016 filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez. Opposition 

to Motion is Unknown [7879837−1] 

Exhibit − Appendix Vol. 1 1237 



08/11/2016 MOTION FILED 1983 MOTION to strike Appellant's Motion to Set Aside 

Dismissal and/or to Reconsider filed by BOL. Opposition 

to Motion is Unknown. [7880181−1] (ECF: Lara Peppard) 

08/17/2016 Response Filed 1992 RESPONSE has been filed by Appellant Carlos Ramirez to 

Motion to strike filed by Appellee BOL in 15−11914 

[7880181−2]. 

09/07/2016 ORDER: Appellant’s “Motion to Reinstate the Appeal 

Court Order Filed 2008 Under the Extraordinary Circumstances Rules and or 

Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal and Remedy the Default 


and or to Reconsider” is DENIED. Appellee’s “Motion to 

Strike, or, Alternatively, for Extension of Time….” is 

DENIED AS MOOT. This Court shall accept no future 

filings in this closed appeal. The Clerk is directed to 

discard any future submissions received from either party. 

[7879837−2]; [7880181−2] FMH and JEC 

12/09/2016 Extension for Filing Certiorari 

Granted 

(5 of 2011) 

2010 Extension for filing certiorari GRANTED by U.S. Supreme 

Court as to Appellant Carlos Ramirez. aPPLICATIONS 

nO. 16a532 

A. 52



A. 53







Plaintiff, 



Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

Decision by Court. 

This action came before the Court and a decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

Judgment is entered in favor of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. and against Carlos Ramirez. 

SHERYL L. LOESCH, CLERK 

s/R. Korb, Deputy Clerk 

A. 54

Case: 8:10-cv-2003 As of: 09/03/2016 06:28 PM EDT 1 of 14 

U.S. District Court 

Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:10−cv−02003−MSS−TGW 

CLOSED, SL DOC 

Ramirez v. Bausch &Lomb, Inc. 

Assigned to: Judge Mary S. Scriven 

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson 

Case in other court: State Court − filed 5/26/2010, 

10−CA−11240 

11th Circuit, 12−14679−E 

11th Circuit, 15−11914−B 

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity−Employment Discrimination 

Date Filed: 09/10/2010 

Date Terminated: 08/10/2012 

Jury Demand: Plaintiff 

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs 

Jurisdiction: Diversity 

Date Filed # Docket Text 

09/10/2010 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in 

and for Hillsborough County, FL, case number 10−CA−11240 filed in State Court 

on 5/26/2010. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number T057103 filed by Bausch &Lomb, 

Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Adverse Parties of Filing of Notice of Removal to 

Federal Court, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Civil Cover 

Sheet)(CD) (Entered: 09/14/2010) 

09/10/2010 2 COMPLAINT against Bausch &Lomb, Inc. with Jury Demand filed by Carlos 

Ramirez. (Originally filed in state court 5/26/3020.)(CD) (Entered: 09/14/2010) 

09/10/2010 3 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 2 Complaint by Bausch &Lomb, 

Inc.(Originally filed in state court 7/30/2010.)(CD) (Entered: 09/14/2010) 

09/14/2010 4 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − 

track 2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 9/27/2010. Signed by Judge 

Richard A. Lazzara on 9/14/2010. (MSS) (Entered: 09/14/2010) 

09/17/2010 5 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re 4 Related case order and notice of 

designation of track 2 per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. Related 

case(s): yes (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 09/17/2010) 

09/17/2010 6 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 

Related case order and notice of designation of track 2 by Bausch &Lomb, Inc. 

identifying Corporate Parent WP Prism LLC, Other Affiliate Warburg Pincus LLC 

for Bausch &Lomb, Inc... (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 09/17/2010) 

11/02/2010 7 Unopposed MOTION to amend/correct 2 Complaint (Unopposed Motion to File 

First Amended Complaint) by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document 

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order 

Granting Unopposed Motion to File First Amended Complaint)(Meyers, Richard) 

(Entered: 11/02/2010) 

11/03/2010 8 ENDORSED ORDER granting 7 Plaintiff';s Unopposed Motion to File First 

Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 11/3/2010. (SKH) 

(Entered: 11/03/2010) 

11/11/2010 9 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead re 

First Amended Complaint [7−1] by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Ballard, Amanda) 

(Entered: 11/11/2010) 

11/12/2010 10 ENDORSED ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 

Complaint up to and including 12/10/2010. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 

11/12/2010. (CCB) (Entered: 11/12/2010) 

11/19/2010 11 Unopposed MOTION for Eric A. Welter to appear pro hac vice by Bausch 

&Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Pro Hac Vice Application Mailed to 

Clerk of Court)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 11/19/2010) 

A. 55


11/19/2010 12 ENDORSED ORDER granting 11 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Signed by Judge 

Richard A. Lazzara on 11/19/2010. (CCB) (Entered: 11/19/2010) 

11/19/2010 13 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 11/19/2010) 

11/19/2010 14 ENDORSED ORDER: Upon due consideration, the clerk is directed to vacate the 

order entered at docket 12 and to term the underlying motion. Signed by Judge 


11/22/2010 15 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due 

by 2/1/2011, Joinder of Parties due by 2/1/2011, Discovery due by 9/1/2011, 

Dispositive motions due by 10/3/2011, Pretrial statement due by 2/27/2012, 

Plaintiff disclosure of expert report due by 7/1/2011, Defendant disclosure of 

expert report due by 8/1/2011, Pretrial Conference scheduled for 3/5/2012 at 10:30 

AM in Tampa Courtroom 12 A before Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson, Jury 

Trial scheduled for 4/2/2012 at 9:00 AM in Tampa Courtroom 15 B before Judge 

Richard A. Lazzara. This trial term shall include the entire month of April. 

Estimated length of trial: 60 Hours. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 

11/22/2010. (MSS) (Entered: 11/22/2010) 

11/23/2010 16 MOTION for Thad M. Guyer to appear pro hac vice by Carlos Ramirez. (CD) 

(Entered: 11/24/2010) 

11/24/2010 17 ENDORSED ORDER granting 16 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Signed by Judge 


12/09/2010 18 *DOCUMENT TERMINATED AND IMAGE REMOVE BY REQUEST FROM 

COUNSEL AND APPROVAL BY CHAMBERS. SEE 19 ANSWER.* ANSWER 

and affirmative defenses to Complaint First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7−1) by 

Bausch &Lomb, Inc..(Ballard, Amanda) Modified on 12/10/2010 (CD). (Entered: 

12/09/2010) 

12/10/2010 19 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint Firrst Amended Complaint (Doc. 

7−1) (corrected due to scrivener's error) by Bausch &Lomb, Inc..(Ballard, 

Amanda) (Entered: 12/10/2010) 

06/24/2011 20 MOTION to extend time to complete expert discovery by Carlos Ramirez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Meyers, Richard) (Entered: 06/24/2011) 

06/27/2011 21 ORDER ATTACHED granting 20 Motion to Extend Dates for Expert Disclosure 

and Discovery. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 6/27/2011. (CCB) 

(Entered: 06/27/2011) 

08/13/2011 22 Joint MOTION for extension of time to complete discovery and file summary 

judgment by All Parties. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 08/13/2011) 

08/15/2011 23 ORDER ATTACHED granting 22 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by 

Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/15/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 08/15/2011) 

08/15/2011 Reset scheduling order deadlines: Discovery due by 10/3/2011, Dispositive 

motions due by 10/17/2011, Defendant disclosure of expert report due by 

9/19/2011, all experts to be deposed no later than 10/7/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 

08/15/2011) 

08/17/2011 24 MOTION to strike Plaintiffs Expert Report and Exclude any Testimony from 

Expert and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Zwetsch, Kevin) Motions referred to 

Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 08/17/2011) 

08/31/2011 25 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 24 

MOTION to strike Plaintiffs Expert Report and Exclude any Testimony from 

Expert and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) 

Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 08/31/2011) 

08/31/2011 26 ENDORSED ORDER granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response 

to Motion to Strike on or before 9/2/2011. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 

8/31/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 08/31/2011) 

A. 56


09/02/2011 27 *DOCUMENT TERMINATED. COUNSEL NOTIFIED TO REFILE USING 

PROPER EVENT CODE AND LINKING BACK TO RESPONSE THE 

DECLARATION IS BEING FILED IN SUPPORT OF.* RESPONSE in 

opposition re 24 MOTION to strike Plaintiffs Expert Report and Exclude any 

Testimony from Expert and Incorporated Memorandum of Law Declaration of 

Stephani L. Ayers filed by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) Modified on 9/6/2011 

(CD). (Entered: 09/02/2011) 

09/02/2011 28 RESPONSE in opposition re 24 MOTION to strike Plaintiffs Expert Report and 

Exclude any Testimony from Expert and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed 

by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 09/02/2011) 

09/06/2011 29 MOTION for leave to file Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Strike 

Expert Report by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 09/06/2011) 

09/06/2011 30 ENDORSED ORDER denying 29 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by 


09/06/2011 31 ORDER ATTACHED denying 24 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Richard A. 

Lazzara on 9/6/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 09/06/2011) 

09/06/2011 32 MOTION to compel inspection of Plaintiff's e−mail accounts, computers, 

hard−drives, and electronic devices, MOTION for sanctions by Bausch &Lomb, 

Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit 

"D", # 5 Exhibit "E", # 6 Exhibit "F", # 7 Exhibit "G", # 8 Exhibit "H", # 9 Exhibit 

"I", # 10 Exhibit "J", # 11 Exhibit "K")(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 09/06/2011) 

09/07/2011 33 ENDORSED ORDER directing Carlos Ramirez to respond to 32 Motion to 

Compel and for Sanctions on or before 9/22/2011. Signed by Judge Richard A. 


09/07/2011 34 NOTICE of Hearing on 32 Motion to Compel and for Sanctions set for 9/29/2011 

at 10:00 AM in Tampa Courtroom 15 B before Judge Richard A. Lazzara. (CCB) 

(Entered: 09/07/2011) 

09/09/2011 35 Notice of Filing Supplemental Exhibit by Bausch &Lomb, Inc. re 32 MOTION to 

compel inspection of Plaintiff's e−mail accounts, computers, hard−drives, and 

electronic devices MOTION for sanctions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A")(Ballard, 

Amanda) Modified on 9/12/2011 (BSN). (Entered: 09/09/2011) 

09/09/2011 36 MOTION to compel by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 09/10/2011) 

09/10/2011 37 Supplement re 36 MOTION to compel Deposition Excerpts From Wendy Gould by 

Carlos Ramirez ((Guyer, Thad) Modified on 9/12/2011 (BSN). (Entered: 

09/10/2011) 

09/12/2011 38 ENDORSED ORDER directing Bausch &Lomb, Inc. to respond to 36 Plaintiff's 

Motion to Compel Production of Audits, Audit Related Materials, and Food and 

Drug Administration Correspondence. Responses due by 9/22/2011. Motion 

Hearing scheduled 9/29/2011 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 

9/12/2011. (SKH) (Entered: 09/12/2011) 

09/12/2011 39 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 36 Motion to Compel: Motion Hearing set for 

9/29/2011 at 10:00 AM in Tampa Courtroom 15B before Judge Richard A. 

Lazzara. (SKH) (Entered: 09/12/2011) 

09/13/2011 40 MOTION to compel Better and More Complete Answers to Plaintiff's Third 

Interrogatories by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Meyers, 

Richard) (Entered: 09/13/2011) 

09/14/2011 41 ORDER ATTACHED denying 40 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Richard A. 


09/16/2011 42 MOTION for protective order against production of audit reports and related 

documents and information by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 

"A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit "D", # 5 Exhibit "E", # 6 Exhibit 

"F", # 7 Exhibit "G", # 8 Exhibit "H", # 9 Exhibit "I", # 10 Exhibit "J", # 11 

Exhibit "K", # 12 Exhibit "L")(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 09/16/2011) 

A. 57


09/16/2011 43 NOTICE by Bausch &Lomb, Inc. re 42 MOTION for protective order against 

production of audit reports and related documents and information Notice of 

Filing Deposition Excerpts (Attachments: # 1 Ramirez July Depo., # 2 Ramirez 

Aug. Depo., # 3 Guadalupe Depo.)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 09/16/2011) 

09/19/2011 44 ORDER ATTACHED denying as unnecessary 42 Motion for Protective Order. 

Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 9/19/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 09/19/2011) 

09/22/2011 45 Unopposed MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 32 

MOTION to compel inspection of Plaintiff's e−mail accounts, computers, 

hard−drives, and electronic devices MOTION for sanctions, 33 Order directing 

response to motion (9 Hour Extension) by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Text 

of Proposed Order)(Guyer, Thad) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. 

Wilson. (Entered: 09/22/2011) 


to Motion to Compel on or before 9/23/2011 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Richard 

A. Lazzara on 9/22/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 09/22/2011) 

09/22/2011 47 Joint MOTION to extend time to depose experts and file summary judgment 

motions by All Parties. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 09/22/2011) 

09/22/2011 48 Amended MOTION to extend time to depose experts and file summary judgment 

motions by All Parties. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 09/22/2011) 

09/22/2011 49 ENDORSED ORDER: The Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines (Dkt. 47) is denied 

without prejudice. The Court will discuss with counsel extending deadlines at the 

conclusion of the hearing scheduled in this case for September 29, 2011, at 10:00 

a.m. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 9/22/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 

09/22/2011) 

09/23/2011 50 Second MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 32 MOTION to 

compel inspection of Plaintiff's e−mail accounts, computers, hard−drives, and 

electronic devices MOTION for sanctions, 46 Order on motion for extension of 

time to file response/reply (5 Hour Extension) by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 

1 Text of Proposed Order)(Guyer, Thad) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge 

Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 09/23/2011) 

09/23/2011 51 NOTICE by Carlos Ramirez re 50 Second MOTION for extension of time to file 

response/reply as to 32 MOTION to compel inspection of Plaintiff's e−mail 

accounts, computers, hard−drives, and electronic devices MOTION for sanctions, 

46 Order on motion for extension of timeSecond MOTION for extension of time to 

file response/reply as to 32 MOTION to compel inspection of Plaintiff's e−mail 

accounts, computers, hard−drives, and electronic devices MOTION for sanctions, 

46 Order on motion for extension of time NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION TO 

SECOND MOTION (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 09/23/2011) 

09/23/2011 52 ENDORSED ORDER: The Amended Motion to Extend Time to Depose Experts 

and File Summary Judgment Motions (Dkt. 48) is denied without prejudice. The 

Court will discuss with counsel extending the deadlines at the conclusion of the 

hearing scheduled in this case for September 29, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. Signed by 


09/23/2011 53 ENDORSED ORDER granting 50 Motion for extension of time to file response. 

Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 9/23/2011. (SKH) (Entered: 09/23/2011) 

09/23/2011 54 RESPONSE in opposition re 32 MOTION to compel inspection of Plaintiff's 

e−mail accounts, computers, hard−drives, and electronic devices MOTION for 

sanctions filed by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of 

Stephani Ayers, Esq., # 2 Exhibit Attachment A, # 3 Exhibit Attachment B)(Guyer, 

Thad) (Entered: 09/23/2011) 

09/26/2011 55 NOTICE by Bausch &Lomb, Inc. re 32 MOTION to compel inspection of 

Plaintiff's e−mail accounts, computers, hard−drives, and electronic devices 

MOTION for sanctions Second Notice of Filing Supplemental Exhibit 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A")(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 09/26/2011) 

A. 58


09/26/2011 56 ORDER ATTACHED denying 32 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions 

and denying 36 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 

9/26/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 09/26/2011) 

09/26/2011 57 NOTICE canceling hearing scheduled for 09/29/2011 at 10:00 a.m. (CCB) 

(Entered: 09/26/2011) 

09/26/2011 Reset scheduling order deadlines: Dispositive motions due by 11/17/2011; Depose 

expert witnesses by 11/7/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 09/26/2011) 

10/12/2011 Deadlines terminated. discovery deadline past. (BSN) (Entered: 10/12/2011) 

10/24/2011 58 MOTION to strike Plaintiff's Expert Report and Supplemental Expert Report and 

to Exclude Any Testimony From Expert by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 

Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit "D", # 5 Exhibit 

"E")(Zwetsch, Kevin) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. 

(Entered: 10/24/2011) 

10/25/2011 59 ORDER ATTACHED directing expedited response to Defendant's Motion to 

Strike (Dkt. 58) and setting expedited hearing. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara 

on 10/25/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 10/25/2011) 

10/25/2011 60 NOTICE of Hearing on 58 Motion to Strike set for 11/3/2011 at 01:30 PM in 

Tampa Courtroom 15 B before Judge Richard A. Lazzara. (CCB) (Entered: 

10/25/2011) 

11/01/2011 61 NOTICE Changing Hearing Time on 58 Motion to Strike for 11/3/2011 at 02:30 

PM in Tampa Courtroom 15 B before Judge Richard A. Lazzara. (CCB) (Entered: 

11/01/2011) 

11/01/2011 62 *IMAGE REMOVED PER 64 ENDORSED ORDER.* RESPONSE in opposition 

re 58 MOTION to strike Plaintiff's Expert Report and Supplemental Expert Report 

and to Exclude Any Testimony From Expert filed by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, 

Thad) Modified on 11/2/2011 (CD). (Entered: 11/01/2011) 

11/02/2011 63 MOTION to amend/correct 62 Response in opposition to motion (TO REMOVE 

DOCUMENT 62) by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 REFILED OPPOSITION 

TO SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT)(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 

11/02/2011) 

11/02/2011 64 ENDORSED ORDER granting 63 Motion to Remove Document Number 62 and 

to Refile Plaintiff's Opposition. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 11/2/2011. 

(CCB) (Entered: 11/02/2011) 

11/02/2011 65 RESPONSE in opposition re 58 MOTION to strike Plaintiff's Expert Report and 

Supplemental Expert Report and to Exclude Any Testimony From Expert filed by 

Carlos Ramirez. (CD) (Entered: 11/02/2011) 

11/02/2011 66 NOTICE by Bausch &Lomb, Inc. re 58 MOTION to strike Plaintiff's Expert 

Report and Supplemental Expert Report and to Exclude Any Testimony From 

Expert Notice of Filing Supplemental Exhibit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 

"A")(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 11/02/2011) 

11/02/2011 67 MOTION to allow electronic equipment, specifically Computer by Carlos 

Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 

11/02/2011) 

11/02/2011 68 ORDER granting 67 Motion to allow electronic equipment. Signed by Judge 

Richard A. Lazzara on 11/2/2011. (SKH) (Entered: 11/02/2011) 

11/03/2011 69 ENDORSED ORDER that the Court having been advised the parties have resolved 

their differences with regard to Plaintiff's expert disclosures and will be filing a 

stipulation with the Court in the near future, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Report and Supplemental 

Expert Report and Exclude any Testimony from Expert (Dkt. 58) is denied as 

moot. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 11/3/2011. (SKH) (Entered: 

11/03/2011) 

A. 59


11/03/2011 70 NOTICE canceling Motion hearing scheduled for 11/3/2011. (SKH) (Entered: 

11/03/2011) 

11/07/2011 71 STIPULATION Regarding Plaintiff's Expert Witness, Dr. Robert West by Bausch 

&Lomb, Inc., Carlos Ramirez. (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 11/07/2011) 

11/10/2011 72 MOTION for leave to file under seal by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 

Exhibit "A" − Confidentiality Agreement, # 2 Exhibit "B" − Declaration of Wendy 

Gould)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 11/10/2011) 

11/10/2011 73 ENDORSED ORDER granting 72 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Richard A. 


11/11/2011 74 Consent MOTION to dismiss Counts I, II, III and IV of Plaintiff's Amended 

Complaint with prejudice by Bausch &Lomb, Inc., Carlos Ramirez. (Ballard, 


11/14/2011 75 ENDORSED ORDER granting 74 Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice 

Counts I, II, III and IV of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard 

A. Lazzara on 11/14/2011. (CCB) (Entered: 11/14/2011) 

11/17/2011 Sealed document S−1. (CD) (Entered: 11/17/2011) 

11/17/2011 76 NOTICE of compliance re 15 Case management and scheduling order by Bausch 

&Lomb, Inc. (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 11/17/2011) 

11/17/2011 77 STATEMENT of undisputed facts by Bausch &Lomb, Inc... (Attachments: # 1 

Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit "D", # 5 Exhibit "E", # 6 

Exhibit "F", # 7 Exhibit "G", # 8 Exhibit "H", # 9 Exhibit "I", # 10 Exhibit "J", # 

11 Exhibit "K", # 12 Exhibit "L", # 13 Exhibit "M", # 14 Exhibit "N", # 15 Exhibit 

"O", # 16 Exhibit "P", # 17 Exhibit "Q", # 18 Exhibit "R", # 19 Exhibit "S", # 20 

Exhibit "T", # 21 Exhibit "U", # 22 Exhibit "V", # 23 Exhibit "W")(Ballard, 


11/17/2011 78 MOTION for summary judgment by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 

Attachment 1)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 11/17/2011) 

11/27/2011 79 Consent MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 78 MOTION 

for summary judgment to December 16, 2011 by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 




to Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 12/16/2011. Signed by Judge 



for summary judgment to December 19, 2011 by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 



12/12/2011 82 ENDORSED ORDER granting 81 Plaintiff's consent motion for extension of time 

to file response as to 78 motion for summary judgment. A filing extension is 

granted until December 19, 2011. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 

12/12/2011.(DMB) (Entered: 12/12/2011) 


for summary judgment (Extension to December 20, 2011 at 830 A.M.) by Carlos 

Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Guyer, Thad) Motions 

referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 12/19/2011) 


to Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 12/21/2011. Signed by Judge 


12/19/2011 85 Case Reassigned to Judge Mary S. Scriven. New case number: 

8:10−cv−2003−T−35TGW. Judge Richard A. Lazzara no longer assigned to the 

case. (BSN) (Entered: 12/19/2011) 

A. 60


12/20/2011 86 DECLARATION of Thad M. Guyer re 78 MOTION for summary judgment by 

Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PEX #1, # 2 Exhibit PEX #2, # 3 

Exhibit PEX #3, # 4 Exhibit PEX #4, # 5 Exhibit PEX #5, # 6 Exhibit PEX #6, # 7 

Exhibit PEX #7, # 8 Exhibit PEX #8, # 9 Exhibit PEX #9, # 10 Exhibit PEX #10, # 

11 Exhibit PEX #11, # 12 Exhibit PEX #12, # 13 Exhibit PEX #13, # 14 Exhibit 

PEX #14, # 15 Exhibit PEX #15)(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 12/20/2011) 

12/21/2011 87 RESPONSE in opposition re 78 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Carlos 

Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 12/21/2011) 

12/21/2011 88 STATEMENT of undisputed facts re: 87 Response in opposition to motion by 

Carlos Ramirez.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix A, # 2 Appendix 

Appendix B, # 3 Appendix Appendix C, # 4 Appendix Appendix E, # 5 Appendix 

Appendix F, # 6 Appendix Appendix I, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Guyer, Thad) 

(Entered: 12/21/2011) 

12/22/2011 89 Consent MOTION for leave to file under seal BLSOPS by Carlos Ramirez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 12/22/2011) 

12/22/2011 90 Consent MOTION to amend/correct 87 Response in opposition to motion by 

Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Corrected Opposition to 

Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Guyer, Thad) 

(Entered: 12/22/2011) 

12/27/2011 91 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file a reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants 

Motion for Summary Judgment by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Ballard, Amanda) 

(Entered: 12/27/2011) 

12/30/2011 92 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 90 Plaintiffs Agreed Motion for Leave to File 

Corrected Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. The Corrected Opposition 

to Motion for Summary Judgment attached to Plaintiffs Motion as Exhibit 1 is 

timely filed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Exhibit 1 on the docket as 

Plaintiffs Corrected Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by 

Judge Mary S. Scriven on 12/30/2011. (KWH) (Entered: 12/30/2011) 

12/30/2011 93 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 89 Plaintiffs Agreed Motion for Leave to File 

Confidential and Proprietary Documents Under Seal in Support of Its Opposition to 

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to accept such 

filings UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 12/30/2011. (KWH) 

(Entered: 12/30/2011) 

12/30/2011 94 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 91 Defendants Motion for Leave to File a 

Reply Memorandum. Defendant shall have up to and including January 23, 2012 to 

file a reply with the Court. The reply shall not exceed ten (10) pages. Signed by 

Judge Mary S. Scriven on 12/30/2011. (KWH) (Entered: 12/30/2011) 

01/03/2012 95 RESPONSE in opposition re 78 MOTION for summary judgment filed by Carlos 

Ramirez. (CD) (Entered: 01/03/2012) 

01/20/2012 Sealed document S−2. (CD) (Entered: 01/20/2012) 

01/23/2012 96 REPLY to response to motion re 78 MOTION for summary judgment filed by 

Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 

01/23/2012) 

01/26/2012 97 MOTION to extend time to pretrial deadlines and trial date by Bausch &Lomb, 

Inc.. (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 01/26/2012) 

02/10/2012 98 ENDORSED ORDER denying 97 Motion for extension of pretrial deadlines and 

trial date. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 2/10/2012. (APV) (Entered: 

02/10/2012) 

02/17/2012 99 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 78 MOTION for summary judgment by 

Bausch &Lomb, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 

02/17/2012) 

02/21/2012 100 Joint MOTION for extension of time to file document joint pretrial statement and 

motions in limine through February 29, 2012 by All Parties. (Zwetsch, Kevin) 

(Entered: 02/21/2012) 

A. 61


02/22/2012 101 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 100 the parties Joint Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Joint Pretrial Statement and Motions In Limine. The parties shall have 

up to and including February 29, 2012, to file their Joint Pretrial Statement and 

Motions In Limine. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 2/22/2012. (JDG) 

(Entered: 02/22/2012) 

02/26/2012 102 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Document confidential and proprietary documents 

used as exhibits at trial by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 

02/26/2012) 

02/27/2012 103 MOTION in limine by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 

Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, 

# 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 

02/27/2012) 

02/29/2012 104 *DOCUMENT TERMINATED. DOCUMENT IS NOT SIGNED. COUNSEL TO 

REFILE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.* 

MOTION to allow electronic equipment, specifically Two Laptop Computers for 

Thad M. Guyer, Esq. and Stephani L. Ayers by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 

Text of Proposed Order)(Guyer, Thad) Modified on 3/1/2012 (CD). (Entered: 

02/29/2012) 

02/29/2012 105 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to file Motions in Limine by Bausch &Lomb, 

Inc.. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 02/29/2012) 

02/29/2012 106 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Bausch &Lomb, Inc., Carlos Ramirez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiff's Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit B − Defendant's 

Exhibit List)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 02/29/2012) 

03/01/2012 107 ORDER granting 102 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven 

on 3/1/2012. (JDG) (Entered: 03/01/2012) 

03/01/2012 108 MOTION to allow electronic equipment, specifically Two Laptop Computers by 

Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Guyer, Thad) 

(Entered: 03/01/2012) 

03/01/2012 109 Second MOTION in limine regarding (1) any testimony by Deccia Edwards, 

Uttarrah Grimsley, Charles Nichols, Rhionna Widener or Jo Gallo; (2) any portion 

or version of Plaintiffs journal entries; and (3) any letters or drafts of letters 

authored by Plaintiffs former counsel by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 

Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, 

# 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Ballard, 


03/02/2012 110 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 105 the Defendants Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Motions In Limine. The parties shall have up to and 

including March 2, 2012, to file their Motions In Limine. Signed by Judge Mary S. 

Scriven on 3/2/2012. (JDG) (Entered: 03/02/2012) 

03/02/2012 111 MOTION in limine regarding limine by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 ATT 

A, # 2 ATT C)(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 03/03/2012) 

03/03/2012 112 APPENDIX re 111 MOTION in limine regarding limine Attachment B by Carlos 

Ramirez (filed separately). (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 03/03/2012) 

03/05/2012 113 EXHIBIT LIST (First Amended) by Carlos Ramirez.. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 

03/05/2012) 

03/05/2012 114 WITNESS LIST by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 03/05/2012) 

03/05/2012 115 ORDER granting 108 Motion to allow electronic equipment for pre−trial 

conference on 3/5/12. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 3/5/2012. 

(CAW) (CAW). (Entered: 03/05/2012) 

03/05/2012 116 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson: 

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 3/5/2012. Governed by joint pre−trial 

statement; no objection to lack of name, address or telephone number of witness; 

waived any objection that exhibit was not seen; no likelihood of settlement; trial to 

last 5 days: Order to follow. (10:40−11:07) (CAW) (Entered: 03/05/2012) 

A. 62


03/05/2012 117 PRETRIAL ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 3/5/2012. 

(CAW) (Entered: 03/05/2012) 

03/06/2012 118 Joint MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically For Date Certain For Trial 

After April 9, 2012 Or, In The Alternative, For Protective Order From Trial Dates 

Between April 2 and April 9, 2012 by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed 

Order)(Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 03/06/2012) 

03/07/2012 119 MOTION to strike 114 Witness list and exclude the testimony of the belatedly 

identified witnesses by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 

Exhibit B)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 03/07/2012) 

03/10/2012 120 MOTION to compel Documents Improperly Withheld by Carlos Ramirez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Appendix, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Appendix, # 5 

Appendix)(Guyer, Thad) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. 

(Entered: 03/10/2012) 

03/12/2012 121 MOTION for protective order from trial during first two weeks of April 2012 trial 

docket by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, Kevin) Motions referred to Magistrate 

Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 03/12/2012) 

03/12/2012 122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Carlos Ramirez re 111 MOTION in limine 

regarding limine Corrected as to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Guyer, Thad) 

(Entered: 03/12/2012) 

03/12/2012 123 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 103 Motion in limine from Defendant to 

Exclude Plaintiff's Protected Disclosures Evidence and Evidence of CEO Resume 

Falsification filed by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 03/12/2012) 

03/12/2012 124 APPENDIX re 123 Memorandum in opposition by Carlos Ramirez (filed 

separately). (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix)(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 

03/13/2012) 

03/15/2012 125 Amended MOTION for protective order from Trial Dates by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. 

(Zwetsch, Kevin) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. 

(Entered: 03/15/2012) 

03/15/2012 126 RESPONSE in opposition re 125 Amended MOTION for protective order from 

Trial Dates filed by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 03/15/2012) 

03/15/2012 127 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 109 Motion in limine (to Second Motion in 

Limine) filed by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 03/15/2012) 

03/15/2012 128 DECLARATION of Stephani L. Ayers re 127 Memorandum in opposition by 

Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 

03/16/2012) 

03/16/2012 129 DECLARATION of Stephani L. Ayers [Corrected as to Erroneous Attachment B] 

re 127 Memorandum in opposition, 128 Declaration by Carlos Ramirez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Exhibit Attachment B 

[Corrected])(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 03/16/2012) 

03/19/2012 130 RESPONSE in opposition re 111 MOTION in limine regarding limine filed by 

Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 

4 Exhibit D)(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 03/19/2012) 

03/20/2012 131 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 118 Joint Motion for Date Certain for 

Trial on or after April 9, 2012 or, in the Alternative for Protective Order from Trial 

Dates between April 2, 2012 and April 9, 2012.The trial in this case is set for the 

June trial term. This Order shall reconcile the Motions filed on March 6, 2012 118 

and on March 15, 2012. 125 Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 3/20/2012. (JDG) 

(Entered: 03/20/2012) 

03/21/2012 132 RESPONSE in opposition re 119 MOTION to strike 114 Witness list and exclude 

the testimony of the belatedly identified witnesses filed by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, 

Thad) (Entered: 03/21/2012) 

03/21/2012 133 DECLARATION of Stephani L. Ayers re 132 Response in opposition to motion by 

Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Guyer, 

A. 63


Thad) (Entered: 03/21/2012) 

03/27/2012 134 RESPONSE in opposition re 120 MOTION to compel Documents Improperly 

Withheld filed by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 03/27/2012) 

04/02/2012 135 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byCarlos Ramirez from June 4−8, 2012 to 

and from June 25−29, 2012. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 04/02/2012) 

04/09/2012 136 NOTICE of HEARING: Oral Argument on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 

Production of Documents (Doc. 120) is set for 4/26/2012 at 2:30PM in Tampa 

Courtroom 12A before Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (KMM) (Entered: 

04/09/2012) 

04/26/2012 137 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson: 

Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2012 re 120 MOTION to compel Documents 

Improperly Withheld filed by Carlos Ramirez. Oral argument by parties; motion to 

be denied and order will follow. (2:41−3:07) (CAW) (Entered: 04/26/2012) 

04/26/2012 138 ORDER denying 120 Motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. 

Wilson on 4/26/2012. (CAW) (Entered: 04/26/2012) 

05/18/2012 139 Unopposed MOTION for protective order from trial dates between June 4th and 

June 8th, 2012 by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Ballard, Amanda) Motions referred to 


05/24/2012 140 ENDORSED GRANTING 139 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Protection 

from Trial Dates Between June 4 and June 8, 2012. With the press of the civil 

docket and the constitutional mandates of speedy trial for the Court's felony 

criminal docket, the Court deems it necessary to continue trial in this matter. The 

Court sets this case on the July 2012 term. Jury trial to commence on July 16, 2012 

at 9:00 a.m; five (5) days have been set aside. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 

5/24/2012. (APV) (Entered: 05/24/2012) 

05/24/2012 141 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING JURY TRIAL : The Jury Trial previously 

scheduled for the June 2012 trial term is rescheduled. The Court sets this case on 

the July 2012 term. New scheduling date and time: Jury Selection and Trial set to 

commence on 7/16/2012 at 09:00 AM in Tampa Courtroom 10 B before Judge 

Mary S. Scriven. (APV) (Entered: 05/24/2012) 

06/04/2012 142 NOTICE of HEARING: Oral Argument on Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 

Amended Witness List (Doc. 114) and Exclude the Testimony of the Belatedly 

Identified Witnesses (Doc. 119) is set for 6/20/2012 at 10:30AM in Tampa 

Courtroom 12A before Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (KMM) (Entered: 

06/04/2012) 

06/07/2012 143 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 78 MOTION for summary judgment by 

Bausch &Lomb, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A")(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 

06/07/2012) 

06/08/2012 144 Joint MOTION to Appear Telephonically For Hearing or Reschedule Hearing by 

All Parties. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 06/08/2012) 

06/14/2012 145 ORDER granting 144 Motion to Appear Telephonically to the extent that the 

hearing on Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Witness List and 

Exculde the Testimony of the Belatedly Identified Witnesses (Doc. 119) scheduled 

on June 20, 2012, at 10:30a.m., is hereby RESCHEDULED at 3:00p.m. on July 5, 

2012, in Courtroom 12A. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 

6/14/2012. (CD) (Entered: 06/14/2012) 

06/22/2012 146 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term : July 2012. Jury Trial set for 7/16/2012 at 

09:00 AM in Tampa Courtroom 10 B before Judge Mary S. Scriven. See calendar 

for further details. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 6/22/2012. (APV) 

(Entered: 06/22/2012) 

06/24/2012 147 Joint MOTION to allow electronic equipment, specifically laptops and smart 

phones by All Parties. (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 06/24/2012) 

A. 64


06/25/2012 148 TRIAL BRIEF by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 06/25/2012) 

06/25/2012 149 MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically SCHEDULE A STATUS 

CONFERENCE AND TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE PENDING A 

RULING ON DEFENDANTS POTENTIALLY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 

06/25/2012) 

06/25/2012 150 TRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 

06/25/2012) 

06/25/2012 151 STATEMENT of the case for trial by Bausch &Lomb, Inc., Carlos Ramirez. 

(Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 06/25/2012) 

06/27/2012 152 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING IN PART 149 Defendant's Motion to Schedule 

a Status Conference and to Continue the Trial Date Pending Ruling on Defendant's 

Potentially Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial in this matter is 

hereby cancelled pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment. A status 

conference will not be scheduled at this time. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 

6/27/2012. (APV) (Entered: 06/27/2012) 

06/27/2012 153 ENDORSED ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 147 Joint Motion to Bring 

Electronic Equipment into the Courtroom for Trial. The trial in this matter has been 

cancelled pending resolution of the Defendant's Motion for summary judgment. 

Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 6/27/2012. (APV) (Entered: 06/27/2012) 

06/28/2012 154 ORDER re 119 MOTION to strike 114 Witness list and exclude the testimony of 

the belatedly identified witnesses filed by Bausch &Lomb, Inc. Hearing on 7/5/12 

at 3 PM CANCELLED in light of Order cancelling trial pending resolution of the 

motion for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 

6/28/2012. (CAW) (Entered: 06/28/2012) 

08/10/2012 155 ORDER granting 78 Motion for summary judgment. The CLERK is directed to 

ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of the Defendant, TERMINATE any pending 

motions and CLOSE the case. The Court, however, retains jurisdiction to rule on 

the motion for attorneys' fees. Defendant is directed to file a separate motion for 

attorneys' fees within twenty−one (21) days of this Order setting forth its basis for 

entitlement of fees under the statute. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 

8/10/2012. (ESG) (Entered: 08/10/2012) 

08/10/2012 156 JUDGMENT in favor of Bausch &Lomb, Inc. against Carlos Ramirez (Signed by 

Deputy Clerk) (ARB) (Entered: 08/13/2012) 

08/23/2012 157 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to File Bill of Costs and Attorneys Fee 

Motion by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, Kevin) Motions referred to Magistrate 

Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 08/23/2012) 

08/30/2012 158 ENDORSED ORDER granting 157 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension 

of Time to File Bill of Costs and Attorneys' Fee Motion. Defendant shall have up 

to and including September 10, 2012 to file the Bill of Costs and Attorneys' Fee 

Motion. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 8/30/2012. (ESG) (Entered: 

08/30/2012) 

09/04/2012 159 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 156 Judgment, 155 Order on motion for summary 

judgment by Carlos Ramirez. Filing fee not paid. (BSN) (Entered: 09/06/2012) 

09/04/2012 160 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Carlos 

Ramirez. (BSN) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. 

(Entered: 09/06/2012) 

09/06/2012 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice 

of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable 

to USCA re 159 Notice of appeal. (BSN) (Entered: 09/06/2012) 

09/06/2012 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice 


to USCA re 159 Notice of appeal. (BSN) (Entered: 09/06/2012) 

A. 65


09/10/2012 161 MOTION for attorney fees by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 

A)(Ballard, Amanda) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. 

(Entered: 09/10/2012) 

09/10/2012 162 PROPOSED BILL OF COSTS with itemization and documentation attached by 

Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Ballard, Amanda) (Entered: 09/10/2012) 

09/12/2012 163 ORDER granting 160 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of 

indigency. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 9/12/2012. (CAW) 

(Entered: 09/12/2012) 

09/24/2012 164 DECLARATION of Thad M. Guyer by Carlos Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 

1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 

Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 09/24/2012) 

09/24/2012 165 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 161 MOTION for 

attorney fees, 162 Bill of costs − proposed by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) 

(Entered: 09/24/2012) 

09/25/2012 166 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 161 Motion for attorney fees filed by Carlos 

Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 09/25/2012) 

09/25/2012 167 NOTICE by Carlos Ramirez re 166 Memorandum in opposition Notice of 

Defendant's Non−Opposition to Motion (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 09/25/2012) 

10/04/2012 168 ENDORSED ORDER DENYING as moot 165 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Date 

by One Day for Opposition to Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Attorneys 

Fees, which was filed on September 25, 2012 (Dkt. 166), is deemed timely, and the 

motion is rendered Moot. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 10/4/2012. (ESG) 

(Entered: 10/04/2012) 

11/06/2012 Mail returned as Undeliverable re: 155 Order on motion for summary judgment, 

159 Notice of appeal, 156 Judgment, 163 Order on motion for leave to appeal in 

forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Mail resent to Carlos Ramirez at new 

address. (BSN) (Entered: 11/06/2012) 

11/06/2012 169 BILL OF COSTS taxed against Plaintiff in the amount of $12,816.84. Signed by 

Deputy Clerk. (APV) (APV). (Entered: 11/06/2012) 

11/07/2012 Mail returned as Undeliverable re: 168 Order on motion for extension of time to 

file response/reply. "unable to forward" (ARB) (Entered: 11/07/2012) 

11/19/2012 TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding Order granting Motion to Proceed on 

Appeal In Forma Pauperis re 159 Notice of appeal USCA number: 12−14679−E. 

(BSN) (Entered: 11/19/2012) 

11/27/2012 Mail returned as Undeliverable (Unable to forward) re: 169 Bill of costs. Mail 

NOT resent to Carlos Ramirez. (BSN) (Entered: 11/27/2012) 

12/17/2012 170 ORDER of USCA: Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R. 42−2(c), this appeal is DISMISSED 

for want of prosecution as to 159 Notice of appeal filed by Carlos Ramirez. EOD: 

12/17/12; USCA number: 12−14679−EE. (JNB) (Entered: 12/17/2012) 

02/11/2013 171 ORDER of USCA reinstating appeal as to 159 Notice of appeal filed by Carlos 

Ramirez. EOD: 2/11/13; USCA number: 12−14679−E. (JNB) (Entered: 

02/11/2013) 

04/04/2013 RECORD on appeal sent to USCA re 159 Notice of appeal. Transmittal includes 

copy of docket sheet, volume of pleadings: 5 (1 Sealed volume) USCA number 

12−14679−E (BSN) (Entered: 04/04/2013) 

08/16/2013 172 ORDER denying 161 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven 

on 8/16/2013. (ESG) (Entered: 08/16/2013) 

08/28/2013 Mail addressed to Carlos Ramirez, returned as Undeliverable, marked, "Return to 

Sender. Not Deliverable as Addressed. Unable to Forward," re: 172 Order on 

Motion for Attorney Fees. (DG) (Entered: 08/28/2013) 

A. 66


10/22/2013 173 OPINION/ORDER of USCA. VACATED AND REMANDED as to 159 Notice of 

appeal filed by Carlos Ramirez. EOD: 10/22/13; Mandate to issue at a later date. 

USCA number: 12−14669−E. (JNB) (Entered: 10/22/2013) 

11/08/2013 174 Unopposed MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, 

Kevin) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 

11/08/2013) 

11/13/2013 175 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 174 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for 

Substitution of Counsel. Attorney Lara J. Peppard of the law firm of Ogletree, 

Deakins, Nash, Smoak &Stewart, P.C. shall be substituted as counsel of record for 

Defendant Bausch &Lomb, Inc. Attorney Amanda E. Ballard of the law firm 

Jackson Lewis, LLP shall be relieved from representing Defendant Bausch 

&Lomb, Inc. The Clerk is directed to remove Attorney Amanda E. Ballard from 

the CM/ECF service list on this case. The Clerk is also directed to add Attorney 

Lara J. Peppard as counsel for Defendant. All future notices from this Court are to 

be sent to Attorney Lara J. Peppard. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 

11/13/2013. (ESG) (Entered: 11/13/2013) 

11/20/2013 Mail addressed to Carlos Ramirez returned as Undeliverable, marked, "Return to 

Sender," re: 175 Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney. (DG) (Entered: 

11/20/2013) 

11/20/2013 176 NOTICE of Continuing Appearance by Thad M. Guyer on behalf of Carlos 

Ramirez (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 11/20/2013) 

11/21/2013 177 MANDATE of USCA. VACATED AND REMANDED as to 159 Notice of appeal 

filed by Carlos Ramirez Issued as Mandate: 11/21/13 USCA number: 

12−14679−EE. (JNB) (Entered: 11/21/2013) 

04/08/2014 178 ORDER directing Parties to provide a status of this case. Signed by Judge Mary S. 

Scriven on 4/8/2014. (ESG) (Entered: 04/08/2014) 

04/15/2014 179 STATUS report by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, Kevin) (Entered: 04/15/2014) 

04/25/2014 180 ORDER GRANTING 179 the Parties' request for supplemental briefing and 

DENYING without prejudice Defendant's request for oral argument. Signed by 

Judge Mary S. Scriven on 4/25/2014. (ESG) (Entered: 04/25/2014) 

04/28/2014 Mail addressed to Carlos Ramirez, returned as Undeliverable, marked, "Return to 

Sender. Not Deliverable as Addressed. Unable to Forward." re: 178 Order pdf. 

(DG) (Entered: 04/28/2014) 

05/09/2014 Mail addressed to Carlos Ramirez, returned as Undeliverable, marked "Return to 

Sender," re: 180 Order pdf. (DG) (Entered: 05/09/2014) 

05/15/2014 181 Joint MOTION to extend time to file supplemental memorandum and response 

memorandum by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, Kevin) Motions referred to 


05/20/2014 182 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 181 Joint Motion for Extension of Time for 

Parties to file supplemental memoranda. Defendant shall have up to and including 

June 10, 2014 to file its supplemental memorandum and Plaintiff shall have up to 

and including June 24, 2014 to file his response. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven 

on 5/20/2014. (ESG) (Entered: 05/20/2014) 

06/10/2014 183 MEMORANDUM in support re 155 Order on motion for summary judgment, 182 

Order on motion to extend time, 180 Order pdf Defendant's Supplemental 

Memorandum Regarding Causation filed by Bausch &Lomb, Inc.. (Zwetsch, 

Kevin) (Entered: 06/10/2014) 

06/23/2014 184 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 183 

Memorandum in support by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 06/23/2014) 

06/25/2014 185 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 184 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extend 

Time to File a Response to Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum Regarding 

Causation. Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 1, 2014 to file his 

memorandum. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 6/25/2014. (ESG) (Entered: 

06/25/2014) 

A. 67


07/01/2014 186 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 183 

Memorandum in support by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 07/01/2014) 

07/02/2014 187 ENDORSED ORDER GRANTING 186 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Two 

Day Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum 

Regarding Causation. Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 3, 2014 to file 

his memorandum. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 7/2/2014. (ESG) (Entered: 

07/02/2014) 

07/03/2014 188 RESPONSE in Opposition re 186 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File 

Response/Reply as to 183 Memorandum in support PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING CAUSATION 

filed by Carlos Ramirez. (Guyer, Thad) (Entered: 07/03/2014) 

04/02/2015 189 ORDER granting Defendant, Bausch &Lomb, Inc.'s renewed request for 

summary judgment 183 . The CLERK is directed to enter judgment in favor 

of Defendant and CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 

4/2/2015. (KMS) (Entered: 04/02/2015) 

04/03/2015 190 JUDGMENT in favor of Bausch &Lomb, Inc. against Carlos Ramirez (Signed by 

Deputy Clerk) (RFK) (Entered: 04/03/2015) 

04/17/2015 Mail addressed to Carlos Ramirez, returned as Undeliverable re: 189 Order, 

marked "Returned for Additional Postage." Mail resent to Carlos Ramirez. (DG) 

(Entered: 04/17/2015) 

04/30/2015 191 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 189 Order, 190 Judgment by Carlos Ramirez. Filing 

fee not paid. (DG) (Entered: 04/30/2015) 

04/30/2015 192 MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Carlos 

Ramirez. (DG) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson. (Entered: 

04/30/2015) 

04/30/2015 193 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice 


to USCA re 191 Notice of appeal. (DG) (Entered: 04/30/2015) 

05/04/2015 194 ORDER granting 192 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit 

of indigency. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 5/4/2015. 

(Wilson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/04/2015) 

05/05/2015 TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding certified copy of endorsed order 194 

granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal re 191 Notice of appeal. 

USCA number: 15−11914−B (DG) (Entered: 05/05/2015) 

05/18/2015 ACKNOWLEDGMENT by USCA of receiving certified copy of Order 194 

granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal on 5/7/15 re 191 Notice 

of appeal. USCA number: 15−11914−B (DG) (Entered: 05/18/2015) 

05/18/2015 195 TRANSCRIPT information form filed by Carlos Ramirez re 191 Notice of appeal. 

USCA number: 15−11914−B. (DG) (Entered: 05/18/2015) 

12/09/2015 Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 11(c), the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District 

of Florida certifies that the record is complete for the purposes of this appeal re: 

191 Notice of appeal. All documents are imaged and available for the USCA to 

retrieve electronically. USCA number: 15−11914−BB (DG) (Entered: 12/09/2015) 

04/20/2016 196 ORDER of USCA: Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R. 42−2(c), this appeal is DISMISSED 

for want of prosecution because the appellant Carlos Ramirez failed to file 

CORRECTED appendix within the time fixed by the rules as to 191 Notice of 

appeal filed by Carlos Ramirez. EOD: 4/20/16; USCA number: 15−11914−BB. 

(JNB) (Entered: 04/20/2016) 

A. 68


A. 69


A. 70


A. 71


A. 72


A. 73




APPEAL NO. 15-11914-BB 

CARLOS RAMIREZ 

Appellant 

vs. 

BAUSCH & LOMB, INC. 

Appellee 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

PORTIONS OF APPELLANT’S APPENDIX AND BRIEF 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TAMPA DIVISION 

HONORABLE MARY S. SCRIVEN, PRESIDING 

DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW 

A. 74 

Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq. 

Florida Bar Number 0962260 

kevin.zwetsch@ogletreedeakins.com 

Lara J. Peppard, Esq. 


lara.peppard@ogletreedeakins.com 

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak 

& Stewart, P.C. 

100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3600 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Tel No.: (813) 289-1247; 

Fax No.: (813) 289-6530 

Attorneys for Appellee


A. 275 

15-11914-BB 

Carlos Ramirez v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. 

C-1 of 2 

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS 

AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

The undersigned counsel for Appellee, Bausch & Lomb, Inc., certifies that 

the following is a complete list of the trial judge, all attorneys, persons, 

associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations that have an interest 

in the outcome of the above case: 

Ayers, Stephani , Esquire 

Bausch & Lomb, Inc. a division of Valeant Pharmaceuticals 

International, Inc. (VRX) 

Government Accountability Project 

Guyer, Thad M., Esquire 

Meyers, Richard F., Esquire 

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 

Peppard, Lara J., Esquire 

Ramirez, Carlos 

Scriven, Mary S., United States District Judge 

T.M. Guyer and Ayers & Friends, P.C. 

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (VRX) 

Zwetsch, Kevin D., Esquire


15-11914-BB 

Carlos Ramirez v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. 

C-2 of 2 

Respectfully submitted by, 

/s/ Lara J. Peppard 











Telephone No. (813) 289-1247 

Fax No. (813) 289-6530 

Attorneys for Appellee 

A. 376



Plaintiff/Appellant, 



vs. 

BAUSCH & LOMB, INC. 

Appeal No. 15-11914-E 

Defendant/Appellee. 

/ 

APPELLEE BAUSCH & LOMB, INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

PORTIONS OF APPELLANT’S APPENDIX AND BRIEF 

Appellee, Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“Bausch & Lomb”), by and through its 

undersigned counsel, moves to strike those portions of Appellant Carlos Ramirez’s 

(“Ramirez” or “Appellant”) Appendix which are not contained in the record on 

appeal, as well as the corresponding portions of the brief which rely on these 

documents: 

1. On April 30, 2015, Ramirez appealed the decision by the United 

States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“district court”) which 

granted Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all issues in the 

case. (Dkt. 189). 

2. Appellant filed a brief in support of his appeal to this Court on 

September 14, 2015. 

A. 177


3. On September 25, 2015, Appellant filed an Appendix with this Court, 

which is required by FRAP Rule 30(a)(1) and Eleventh Circuit Rule 30-1. 

Per 

these Rules, the appendix must set forth: 

“the relevant docket entries in the 

proceeding below; the relevant portions of the pleadings, charge, findings, or 

opinion; the judgment, order, or decision in question; and other parts of the record 

to which the parties wish to direct the court’s attention.” 

4. Evidence not before the district court was impermissibly included in 

the Appendix and referenced in the Appellant’s Brief (see infra, pgs. 7 – 9 for a 

discussion of the impermissible specific appendix and brief references). 

5. Consequently, Appellee requests this Court strike the abovereferenced 

portions of the Appendix and Brief which were not before the district 

court. 

6. On December 2, 2015, Bausch & Lomb’s undersigned counsel 

contacted Mr. Ramirez by telephone and e-mail, and on December 3, 2015, Mr. 

Ramirez informed Mr. Zwetsch that he does not consent to the relief sought and 

opposes this motion. 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

It is axiomatic that appellate review is limited to consideration of the factual 

record as established in the lower court. See Munoz v. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical 

Stage Employees, 563 F.2d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 1977) (“[m]aterials not presented to 

A. 278


the district court for consideration of a motion for summary judgment are never 

properly before the reviewing court on appeal.”); see also Jackson v. Equifax Info. 

Servs., LLC., 167 F. App'x 144 (11th Cir. 2006) (refusing to consider credit denial 

letters not included in record below); Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 

949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009) (refusing to consider documents introduced on appeal 

but not referred to in the motion to dismiss). 1 

While this Court has the inherent authority to supplement the record on 

appeal, it will grant motions to strike where the information at issue will not 

establish any adjudicative facts. 

Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Systems 

Technology, Inc., 2010 WL 4008789 (11th Cir. 2010). Similarly, this Court will 

grant motions to strike where the interests of justice will not be served by 

supplementing the record with materials which could have been but were not 

presented to the district court. Id. 

Finally, granting the motion to strike supplemental evidence is particularly 

appropriate where the Appellant has failed to request leave of this Court or has 

appended material to an appellate brief by surprise without filing a motion to 

1 Even pro se pleadings, which are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings 

drafted by attorneys, “do not give courts license to serve as de facto counsel or to 

rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Shuler v. 

Ingram & Associates, 441 F. App’x 712, 717 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting GJR Inv., 

Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled 

on other grounds as recognized in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 

2010). 

A. 379


supplement. Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553, 1555 (citing Ross v. 

Kemp, 785 F.2d 1467, 1474-75 (11th Cir. 1986). 

In this case, Appellant submitted information in the Appendix and Brief 

which were not before the lower court. Specifically, the following information was 

impermissibly included in the Appendix and Brief and should be stricken: 2 

A. APPENDIX NO. 11, P. 120-25 (P.2) 

Appellant references Dkt. 101-2 in his appendix, but no such docket entry 

exists in the district court documents. Appellant also references Dkt. 32-2, p. 2-3 as 

a document produced by him and bates numbered “CR F. 7 6/25 – 7 11/25.” Dkt. 

32-2 is actually Plaintiff’s written responses to Defendant’s First Request for 

Production and it only references “CR. F. 7 6/25 – 7 11/25” (Job Description of 

Quality Inspector 1), which is not contained in the record. These Bausch & Lomb 

job descriptions are not relevant and certainly do not establish any adjudicative 

fact. 

B. APPENDIX NOS. 13, P. 131-35 (P. 2); 28, P. 164-65 (P. 7), 83, P. 

232 (P. 19), 84, P. 233 (P. 20) 

Appellant references pages of the deposition transcript of Pamerly Thomas. 

The deposition transcript of Pamerly Thomas is not in the record of the district 

court, and Appellant should not be permitted to submit portions of a deposition that 

clearly was available to him and could have been submitted to the district court, as 

2 Bausch & Lomb will cite to the Appendix as follows: Appellant Appendix No.; 

Eleventh Circuit Page ID No. (Page No. of Appellant’s Initial Brief). 

A. 480


it was taken on July 13, 2011. Further, the testimony contained in this excerpt is 

nothing more than a vague and conclusory statement that is insufficient for 

purposes of summary judgment. 

See Sun v. Girardot, 237 F. App'x 415, 417 (11th 

Cir. 2007) (this court has consistently held that conclusory allegations without 

specific supporting facts have no probative value, and are legally insufficient to 

defeat summary judgment) (citing Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 

1217 (11th Cir.2000); Sammons v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1533, 1544-45 & n. 5 (11th 

Cir.1992)). 

C. APPENDIX NOS. 14, 15, 16, P. 136-38 (P. 4), 70, P. 216 (P. 17), 

73, P. 220 (P. 17), 85, P. 234-35 (P. 20) 

None of these documents are in the record. The first four documents are 

related to Ramirez’s FMLA leave and return to work. Appellant then references 

documents produced by Defendant in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for 

Production, (bates numbered DEF000459, DEF000643, DEF000681, DEF000174, 

DEF000660-661). The last of these pages appear to be notes of Pamerly Thomas. 

D. APPENDIX NO. 20, P. 145-46 (P.4), 24, P. 155-56 (P. 6), 59, P. 

202-03 (P. 13), 65, P. 209 (P. 14) 

Appellant references several pages (50, 51, 24, 25, 38, 64, and 13) of Anita 

Mujagic’s deposition transcript (pages 145-46, 155-56, 202-03, and 209 of the 

Appendix) that are not contained in the record of the district court. 

Although 

excerpts of Mujagic’s deposition transcript are contained in the record below (Dkt. 

88-6), these particular pages are not in the record. 

A. 581


E. APPENDIX NO. 23, P. 150-57 (P. 5) 

Appellant references p. 22 (page 154 of the Appendix) of the transcript of 

Wendy Gould’s deposition. Although part of Wendy Gould’s deposition transcript 

is part of the record (Dkt. 37), page 22 is not in the record. 

F. APPENDIX NO. 25, P. 158-161 (P. 7) 

Appellant references p. 29 (page 161 of the Appendix) of the transcript of 

Jose Hernandez’s deposition. Although part of Hernandez’s deposition transcript is 

part of the record (Dkt. 124-1), page 29 is not in the record. 

G. APPENDIX NO. 34, P. 171 (P. 9) 

Appellant references “Def’s Sealed Exhibits [209] Document responsive to 

Plaintiff’s First Request #1.” 

DEF000209 is part of the Defendant’s Sealed 

Exhibits that were filed with the district court on 11/17/11, but in his initial brief, 

Appellant references DEF000219. However, he quotes part of SOP 80-007 

(“Standard Operating Procedures”), which is nowhere in the Defendant’s sealed 

documents or anywhere else in the record. 

H. APPENDIX NOS. 43, P. 179-80 (P. 11), 63, P.207 (P. 14), 79, 80, 

81, 82, PP. 228-31 (P. 19) 

Appellant references pages 13, 20, 25, 26, 27 (pages 179-80, 207, 228-31 of 

the Appendix) of the transcript of Valerie Gordon’s deposition. Although part of 

the Gordon deposition transcript is part of the record (Dkt. 88-5), those pages are 

not in the record. 

A. 682


I. APPENDIX NO. 57, P. 199 (P. 13) 

Appellant references page 9 of the transcript of Javier Callejas’s deposition. 

Although part of the Callejas deposition transcript is contained in the record below 

(Dkt. 88-2), that page is not in the record. 

J. APPENDIX NO. 69, P. 214-15 (P. 16) 

Appellant references document bates numbered “CR F. 26 p. 274-275” (Job 

Posting) in the appendix. This document is one of the documents produced by 

Appellant in response to “Defendant’s Request to Produce” and is not in the record 

or in the sealed documents filed with the district court. 

K. APPENDIX NO. 72, P. 218-19 (P. 17) 

Appellant references “DEF000462-463 Document responsive to Plaintiff 

First Request #17” in the appendix, and in the brief he states they were “Def’s 

sealed documents.” 

These are not in the record or in the Defendant’s sealed 

documents. 

L. APPENDIX NO. 73, P. 220 (P. 17) 

Appellant references “DEF349 Sealed Exhibits Document responsive to 

Plaintiff’s First Request #1” in the Appendix. 

This document is not the record 

below or in the Defendant’s sealed documents. 

It is clear based on the foregoing Eleventh Circuit authority, each document 

impermissibly included in the Appellant’s Brief and the Appendix fails to 

establish any adjudicative fact and should be stricken. Similarly, the interests of 

A. 783


justice will not be served by supplementing the record with materials Appellant 

could have presented to the district court, but failed to do so. 

None of these 

documents is related to subject matter jurisdiction. See Cabalceta, supra. Nor is 

it a situation where the district court had an incomplete picture of the material 

facts because of a party’s misrepresentation. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota 

Sportswear, Inc. 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993). Rather, the Appellant in this 

case is seeking to introduce for the first time documents and information that are 

irrelevant and ancillary to the issues before this Court. Finally, granting the 

motion to strike is particularly appropriate in this case because the Appellant 

failed to request leave of this Court or appended material to his brief without first 

filing a motion to supplement. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Appellee Bausch & Lomb 

respectfully requests this Court strike the above-listed evidence in the Appendix 

as well as references and arguments related to such evidence contained in the 

Appellant’s Brief, as such evidence was not properly before the district court. 

Respectfully submitted by, 










A. 884




Telephone No.: (813) 289-1247 

Fax No.: (813) 289-6530 

Attorneys for Appellee 

CERTIFICATE OF FILING 

I hereby certify that I have electronically filed a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk of Court via the 

CM/ECF system on this 4th day of December, 2015. 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk 

56 Forsyth Street NW 

Atlanta, Georgia 303003-2289 


Lara J. Peppard 

Attorney for Appellee 

A. 985


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 4, 2015, a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing has been served by E-mail and U.S. Mail to: 

Carlos Ramirez 

General Delivery 


scoobyrx790@yahoo.com 

Appellant, Pro Se 


Attorney 

23171885.1 

A. 1086


A. 87


A. 88


A. 89


A. 90


A. 91


A. 92


A. 93


A. 94


A. 95


A. 96


A. 97


A. 98


A. 99


A. 100


A. 101


A. 102


A. 103


A. 104


A. 105


A. 106


A. 107


A. 108


A. 109


A. 110


A. 111

A. 112 

Case: 15-11914 Date (786 Filed: of 06/02/2016 2011) Page: 26 of 27


A. 113

RAMIREZ_Appendix_Writ_Certiorari_2_6_2017

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?