Need help answering supplemental interrogatory against Midland

[frfpatty]

This is the question that I need help with

Please state if you ever had a credit account with (store name). If your answer to this question is in the affirmative, please state the time frame in wich you had the account and the current status of the account (open, closed, charged off). Please attach any and all documentation in support of your answer.

Just as a little background on this question. First plaintiff sent me 3 question, nj allows 5 rogs in special civil part, I answer the 3 question and then they sent me the above supplemental rog. I sent them a letter with nj court rule stating that supplemental rogs are only allowed with a court order. They replied that they only sent me 3 questions before so this supplemental question is within the 5 rogs allowed by the court and they give me ten days to answer or they will file a motion to compel.

Anybody have an opinion on this matter and a way to answer the question

[racecar]

"Do not know" but subject to duty of reasonable inquiry or Specify and offer the records from which the answer can be ascertained

Give them nothing thats what they will give you,dont help them make their case against you.If you do not know state you do not know.In your answer ask them to offer the records so you can answer the question they have asked.

[KentWA]

I quickly looked over your previous posts and can not determine who the OC was on this.

For the purposes of getting you some answer, lets say it is CAP1 for a Worst Store card. Well you never had credit with the store, you had it with CAP1, so the answer would be something like: Objection, irrelevant and not calculated to lead to discoverable facts. Worst Store is not party to the instant action nor subject of facts in dispute.

If your facts are not as above you need to provide some additional details so we can answer.

[legaleagle]

I'm assuming that Midland wants her to admit to having the account they now supposedly own. If that's the case, the request makes no sense. This is information they should already have, and it seems irrelevant since the OC is out of the picture like Kent said. I would answer this way:

OBJECTION The information sought is irrelevant to the instant action, as the creditor named is not an interested party. Additionally, information concerning any account allegedly purchased by MCM is assumedly already known to the plaintiff through its business records. Therefore, the request is beyond the bounds of permissible discovery.

[frfpatty]

Thank you guys for your well of knowledge. I will answer the way you advise .

[frfpatty]

Hey guys , I just realized another fact. Please let me know if I am correct.
Here in nj special civil part cases the time for rogs is limited to 30 days as pr rule 6:4-3.
So I filed my answer to the complaint on 11/10 and the supplemental rog is dated 12/13. That is to my calculations 33 days. Would that question be considered OUT OF TIME as per the court rule?
So if it is out of time , I dont have to answer and I can excuse my self citing that rule or should I answer it they way you are telling me on the previous post.

Thanks again.