Bob Fletcher

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bob Fletcher

  1. Thanks Flyerfan!! It does makes sense and I know I need to object, but what would be the best caption for the Motion? MIL to Preclude and then form the Objections in the memorandum? This may seem basic, but for some reason I am trying to piece this together and and am stumped. Maybe I am making it more complicated than it is. I feel this is an important Motion and I want to put my best foot forward!
  2. Working on my motion (MIL) to deal with the affidavit and bill if sale, but have a question. I have tried to meet and confer, so that is done, Should I file an Objection to these pieces of evidence or file a Motion to Preclude or combine the two? It is a bit confusing at this point. Thanks!!
  3. Good point, sent off a meet and confer regarding striking the pre-trial conference or sanctions!
  4. Excellent, thank you very much!! Very informative!! I also think I will finish my MIL to preclude certain documents, Thanks to your previous input!!!, and submit in advance of the Deposition. Maybe put some pressure back on them.
  5. I called the Clerk this morning. She said there would be no physical file, but they have a computer room to look up the file. I will have to get in there in the next couple of days! This is what I figure! I cannot afford an attorney, so will have to print out a list of objections and study. I believe it is also possible to say I do not understand the question. I spoke with the latest attorney on the case this Morning. She received her license in May of this year. She tried to tell me they had no number before yesterday to contact me. I had to tell her the number was provided in my initial disclosures and I had been putting at the top of my pleadings. She gave me 3 dates from which to choose for the Depo and it will be in the County and City in which I live. I told her I would check my schedule and get back to her. Not until tomorrow though!! Thanks Shellie
  6. So I responded with opposition to JM's request for a pretrial conference to set a time for a deposition. In my opposition I cited 2 efforts on my behalf to meet and confer including copies of the Signature confirmation. These were exhibits to the memorandum. I also pointed out that they had never tried to meet and confer at either my service address or the phone number I included in my initial disclosures and put at the top of all my pleadings and my meet and confer letters. Low and behold, they received my opposition in this mornings mail and I finally received a call from them. Of course, I let it go to VM, as I wanted to be able to digest what they had to say. Basically, they asked me to call them back, "on their toll free number" so we can simply work out these issues. This is of course after the Judge denied their effort to get a default Judgment against me. I will have to call them back, but want to be very careful in how I handle it. Naturally I do not trust them at all. What are they trying to accomplish still going for this deposition? Also it seems like it should not even be allowed as we are way past the 180 days period allowed, although the judge Ordered them to meet and confer to schedule.
  7. I also have requested a decision in my Motion for a security bond back in July and have heard nothing back from the Court. Would I submit a second request for a decision on unanswered Motions before the Court?
  8. Update - A little confused here, as I have several motions pending which I have asked for a decision on. I filed a motion to Quash a subpoena and for a protective order back in July. The request for a decision was the first part of August. I also file a Motion for Rule 37 sanctions and a protective order after the Plaintiff filed a Rule 37 sanctions and order for a default judgment after I did not appear for a deposition. They attempted to say I did not meet and confer before the deposition, but I was able to prove I actually had tried through a Certified Letter Return Receipt. Any way I asked for a decision on my motion for sanctions and a protective order around September 9th. To date, I have only received 1 communication from the Court, a Minute Entry dated September 16th. It reads: "Defendant filed with the court a Request to Submit for a Decision on or about September 9, 2013. The motion purports to submit for decision defendant's motion to Rule 37 Sanctions and protective order. However, the court denied that motion on August 30, 1013. Because the court already ruled on the motion, it was improper to submit it for a decision and the court hereby strikes the request to submit. Having reviewed the docket again, it appears the court has now ruled on all motions currently pending before it. If there is any pending motion that has been fully briefed, the parties must file a request to submit within 10 business days" So I never received any decisions from the Court before this Minute entry. Is this typical or is it a typical bureaucratic screw up?? I would not have filed a motion for a decision if I had received the decision from the Court. In fact, the briefs were not complete on this particular Motion on August 30, when the Courts decision was made. This is really confusing!! Also should I file a second request for a decision on the other Motion and request for a protective order that was never addressed or is it possible it was addressed and I never heard from the court. Finally, I received a just received a Motion from JM requesting a pre-trial conference so a deposition can be scheduled. Two things: The Court must have denied the Plaintiff's request for Rule 37 sanctions and request for a default judgment as they are trying to still schedule a deposition. What are they trying to accomplish with the deposition? I am sure it is an effort to trip me up. They have never respond to my requests for meet and confer.Any advise would be greatly appreciated!!
  9. Racecar is right!! Prepare your answer. In the meantime, begin calling the court each day after about 10 days to see if t it has been filed. If they do not file it, you are ahead of the game. If they do file, make sure you get your answer filed before 20 days of sewer service. Keep a log of time events If they file, they need to provide initial disclosures within 14 days. They tried to sewer serve me one time and I think it was a trick to try to get me to call them as they did not file in that instance. Call the Court and check with the Clerk every day after about day 10.
  10. This is not Utah ,law, but may be of some help in that it establishes CC debt as open ended accounts: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellant, v_ PAUL FERNANDES, Appellee_ Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 560a Contracts -- Credit agreement -- Limitation of actions -- No error in dismissal of statement of claim for breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment for debt incurred on credit card based on expiration of four-year statute of limitations -- Construction of conflicting statutory provisions establishing five-year limitations period to recover on contract founded on written instrument and four-year limitations period to recover on liability not founded on written instrument and on store accounts requires that store accounts be subject to four-year statute of limitations whether or not founded on written instrument -- Further, action is not founded on written instrument where evidence of liability consists partially of written cardholder account and security agreement but writing is incomplete to establish liability -- Accordingly, contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellant, v. PAUL FERNANDES, Appellee. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 502005AP000032XXXXMB, Division ‘AY'. March 6, 2006. Appeal from County Court, in and for Palm Beach County, Judge Nancy Perez. Counsel: Leslie Mark Schneider, Hayt, Hayt & Landau, Miami, for Appellant. Paul Fernandes, Boca Raton, pro se. (PER CURIAM.) Appellant, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Portfolioâ€), sued Appellee, Paul Fernandes, as the alleged assignee of a debt incurred by Fernandes to Sears National Bank on a Sears credit card. Portfolio filed a statement of claim under the Small Claims Rules for breach of contract (Count 1), account stated (Count 2), and unjust enrichment (Count 3), claiming $3,201.06 in damages. Fernandes orally moved to dismiss the claims as outside the statute of limitations at the pretrial conference. See Rule 7.090©, Fla. Sm. Cl. R. Portfolio argued that Florida Statute §95.11(2)(, which provides for a five year statute of limitations, governed because the statement of claim alleged a cause of action to recover on a contract founded on a written instrument. Fernandes argued that Florida Statute §95.11(3)(k), which provides for a four year statute of limitations, governed because the action was not founded on a written instrument or was on a store account. The trial court dismissed the case based on its finding that the credit card account was an open account subject to the four year statute of limitations.1 Portfolio argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed the statement of claim based on a finding that the claim was barred by the four year statute of limitations. We disagree.2 An order dismissing a complaint is reviewed de novo. See City of Hollywood v. Petrosino, 864 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The claim must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, subject to the trial court's ability to summarily dispose of small claims actions if no triable issue exists. See Bryant v. Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, Inc., 869 So.2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Rule 7.135, Fla. Sm. Cl. R. The nature of the claim, and not the specific form of action selected by a plaintiff to assert it, determines the applicable statute of limitations. See 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Credit Cards, §46 (2005). In Count 1, Portfolio alleged that Fernandes “by execution of the application and/or by use of the credit card, accepted the terms and conditions of the credit card holder agreement†attached as Exhibit A. Attached as Exhibit A was a copy of a document entitled “Sears Credit Card Account Sears Premium Card Account Cardholder Account and Security Agreement.†Section 95.11(2)(, Fla. Stat., provides that the statute of limitations on actions to recover on a contract founded on a written instrument is five years. Conversely, section 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat., provides that the statute of limitations to recover on a contract, obligation or liability not founded on a written instrument and on store accounts is four years. When construing statutes, the specific controls over the general. See Northwest v. Balkany, 727 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Thus, if a claim arguably falls within two contradictory subsections of the statute, the more specific controls. Even if Count 1 could be deemed an action founded on a written instrument, it can also be deemed an action on a store account. See 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Credit Cards, §46 (2005); Carte Blanche Corporation v. Pappas, 216 So. 2d 917 (La. 2d Cir. 1968).3 Store accounts have been subject to a separate statute of limitations since 1872. Laws of Florida 1872, c. 1869, §10; McClellan's Digest, §10, p. 733. “The provision is for the benefit of those who have stores, and keep goods therein for sale, and sell them, keeping accounts against the purchasers and relying upon their books of accounts in which the articles are charged as evidence in case of controversy,†and applies whether there is an express or implied agreement covering the charges. Saloman v. The Pioneer Co-operative Company, 21 Fla. 374, 385, 1885 WL 1777 (Fla. 1885). The current grammatical structure, which provides for the limitations period on actions “upon a contract . . . not founded upon an instrument of writing, including an action for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, and on store accounts,†has been used since 1919. (emphasis supplied). Laws of Florida 1919, c. 7838, §10, subd.9. “. . . ©lauses separated by commas are nonrestrictive clauses intended to introduce independent concepts.†Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 696 So. 2d 1103, 1108, footnote 6 (Fla. 1996) (Anstead concurring) (quoting brief); see, also, The Elements of Style, Struck and White, 3rd Ed., p. 5 (“(p)lace a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clauseâ€). Thus store accounts are subject to a four year statute of limitations whether or not founded on a written instrument. See Saloman, supra; Wagner v. Botts, 88 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 1956) (“(h)istorically, parliamentary enactments originally were not punctuated at all. However, the Legislatures of our country have consistently attempted to follow the rules dictated by grammar books with the result that statutes are now punctuated prior to enactment. The better rule now seems to be that punctuation is a part of the Act and that it may be considered in the interpretation of the Act but may not be used to create doubt or to distort or defeat the intention of the Legislature . . . We deem it proper to adhere to what now appears to be the better rule which is to treat the rules of punctuation on a parity with other rules of interpretation.â€); Broward Builders Exchange, Inc. v. Goehring, 231 So. 3d 513, 515 (Fla. 1970) (“(i)t cannot now be assumed that the Legislature was unfamiliar with this simple rule of punctuation . . .â€). Store accounts, of course, as a species of open accounts, may be based on either a written or oral agreement. See Robert W. Gottfried v. Cole, 454 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hawkins v. Barnes, 661 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Count 1 alleges that Fernandes bound himself to the terms of the Cardholder Account and Security Agreement either when he executed an application for a Sears card or when he used a Sears card. If the Cardholder Account and Security Agreement alone were introduced into evidence at trial, though, it would not be sufficient to establish Fernandes' liability. See Colorado National Bank of Denver v. Story, 261 Mont. 375, 862 P. 2d 1120 (Mont. 1993). By itself, it created no liability for Fernandes.4 Instead, it addressed the manner in which a liability which might be later created should be discharged.5 If evidence of liability is partially in writing but the writings are incomplete to establish liability, then the contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes. See ARDC Corporation v. Hogan, 656 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. den. 666 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1995); Multi-Line Claims Service, Inc. v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 739 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (four years statute of limitations for breach of oral contract applied to action on oral contract for adjusting services, though parties agreed to compensation based on a written fee schedule); Johnson v. Harrison Heardware Furniture Co., 119 Fla. 479, 472, 160 So. 878 (1935) (“(t)he writings attached to, relied on, and made a part of, the second amendment to plaintiff's replication do not on their face constitute a contractual acknowledgment of the loan of any money by plaintiff to defendant, which is the thing sued for, therefore such writings per se can avail nothing to plaintiff as a sufficient preclusion of the bar of the three-year statute of limitations [applicable to actions not founded upon an instrument in writing.] . . .â€); Gulf Life Inc. Co. v. Hillsborough County, 129 Fla. 98, 104, 176 So. 72 (1937) (“(i)n order that a contract be founded upon a written instrument, the instrument must contain a contract to do the thing for the nonperformance of which the action is brought.â€); Ball v. Roney, 112 Fla. 186, 150 So. 240 (1933); Schrank v. Pearlman, 683 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), rev. den. 691 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1997).6 The action is not founded on a written instrument for statute of limitations purposes.7 The legislative scheme makes sense. See Bush v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 834 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), rev. den. 847 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2003) (statutory provisions to be given reasonable and logical construction). “. . . (S)tatutes of limitations are designed to prevent undue delay in bringing suit on claims and to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from being asserted, to the surprise of parties or their representatives, when all the proper vouchers and evidence are lost, or the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of [a] witness.†Foremost Properties, Inc. v. Gladman, 100 So. 2d 669, 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958), cert. den. 102 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1958) (citation omitted). A review of the statute shows, consistent with common sense, that those actions on which proof is less likely to deteriorate over time are subject to longer limitations periods; those actions on which proof is more likely to deteriorate because of faulty memory or otherwise are subject to shorter limitations periods. Unlike a written contract containing all the terms sued on, proof of the balance due under a store credit card depends on the correctness of the store's books. We know, though, that record keepers come and go; purchased items are returned or exchanged; and partial payments are made. Proof of the amount due under a store credit card is simply not as secure as proof of the amount due on, for example, a promissory note that contains in writing all the terms of the parties' undertakings. See Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So. 2d 25, 36 (Fla. 1976), mod. on other grds., Tanner v. Hartog, 618 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1993) (unfair to allow one who has slept on his rights to sue a party “ ‘. . .who is left to shield himself from liability with nothing more than tattered or faded memories, misplaced or discarded records, and missing or deceased witnesses' â€); Allie v. Ionata, 503 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1987). Because Count 1 alleges a claim on a store account; because it does not allege a claim to recover on a contract founded on a written instrument; because under the Small Claims Rules the trial court properly inquired into undisputed facts at the pre-trial conference that would be dispositive of the claims; and because the trial court properly found that the claims raised in Counts 2 and 3 of the statement of claim were likewise subject to a four year limitations period, which Portfolio does not dispute, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. (SMITH, MAASS and STERN, JJ., concur.) __________________ 1Apparently the trial court summarily disposed of the statement of claim on being apprised of the last payment date. See Rule 7.135, Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 2On appeal from an order of dismissal an appellate court may consider only issues presented to the trial judge. See Sparta State Bank v. Pape, 477 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). This Court agrees with the trial court's decision to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the statement of claim. Neither party has taken issue with the trial court's decision to dismiss those counts. Portfolio concedes its claims are precluded if subject to the four year limitations period. 3Portfolio alleges it is the assignee of Sears National Bank, an affiliate of Sears, Roebuck and Co. See preamble to Cardholder Account and Security Agreement; 12 U.S.C. § 1841(k) (“. . .the term ‘affiliate' means any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company.â€) Under the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987, Sears could own a credit card bank without violating the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and thus charge a nationwide uniform rate of interest on credit card sales. See, also, Marquette Nat'l Bank v. First Omaha Serv. Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 99 S. Ct. 540 (1978). 4Portfolio implicitly recognized this when it incorporated elements of a claim for account stated in Count 1. See Paragraphs 8, 9, statement of claim; Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. “Corniche Expressâ€, 400 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). 5No statement of account was attached to the statement of claim. 6The cited cases are distinguishable from those where the written instrument obligated the debtor to purchase defined goods or services and pay for them at a contemporaneously determined or determinable rate. Compare, e.g., McGill v. Cockrell, 88 Fla. 54, 101 So. 199 (1924); Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Carr, 297 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. den. 307 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1974). 7For example, assume Smith agrees in writing with Jones that if Jones loans him money Smith will repay it with 10% interest. If Jones later sues Smith claiming Smith borrowed money and did not repay it, whether Smith is liable to Jones is dependent on whether and how much he borrowed. Suit to recover the money loaned is not founded on a written instrument. See Johnson v. Harrison Hardware & Furniture Co., supra.
  11. I would definitely supply some cost figures if possible, copy costs, application costs for xchange program, not sure if they allow mileage costs but every time I file papers at the Court, go to the P.O. I have Mileage of at least 15-20 miles. I would personally add in mileage fees. I think IRS allows 55.5 cents per mile. At least come up with some total of expenses to date and then list potential costs, exhibits for trial, deposition costs, etc. I would keep hitting them with Motions and keep them busy.
  12. My suggestion if you have time is to go for the cost bond just as a way to keep them busy. The key in my mind is to not let the JDA steer the conversation by saying the pro se is not entitled to attorney's fees. This is where I went wrong on my first attempt. In the Minute entry, the judge said if I could prove a need for costs it could be resubmitted, which I have done. Unfortunately Utah does not have a lot of recoverable fees for the pro se. Apply for an exchange account, talk about lots of exhibits for trial and maybe costs for mileage for filing mailing etc. Other than that I'm not sure what else there is. KentWA might add something. Admit in the motion you are not asking for attorney fees! I have filed a lot of motions to keep driving up the costs. Even if I lose, perish the thought, I will never ever pay the judgment. I have spent the last few years making myself judgment proof a I was really hit by a business deal gone bad and unable to recover. BK would be a last resort as I want to drive up their costs as much as possible in the meantime. With fees etc the alleged debt is well over 30K. It is amazing to me they pursue as BK is relatively cheap. I went through one in the late 80's and it took about 2 years to get through the effects of the BK, but I did not own a house at the time, which complicates things. Sold my house to pay off some debts this time so that takes away one big asset they like to go after.
  13. Might depend upon if the current employer challenges your claim! Might want to check out if they will or not. Try to get as much documentation as possible as to what and why? It sounds like they maybe trying to get you to quit and perhaps they will not challenge.
  14. TBG, FYI, might want to redact your name from PDF file above. It seems the fee is very legit. maybe KentWA can chime in. Maybe pay the fee or file an amended counter claim with fee?
  15. Did you file your opposition to motion for sanctions? If not I would request a hearing in the opposition document.
  16. Post the affidavit word for word, so it can be reviewed. You will need to file opposition to their motion. Check your Rules as there will be a time frame in which to file your opposition. Get your mil filed with your opposition.
  17. Thanks for the input! I was on a deadline with filing my opposition to their Motion for sanctions and wanted to submit own Motion for sanctions at the same time as filing the opposition. So, submitted this morning first thing.
  18. Yep!! Is that all JM proved in disclosure, credit card statements? No Bill of sale? No affidavits?
  19. Spikey said, @SickofdebtSLC If your court has a website with your case status, I'd recommend checking it regularly to keep on top of filings. Helps to keep you abreast of any filings by the opposition. SickofdebtSLC said, I haven't found one. Aren't they supposed to send me a copy of any filing they make? I have been unable to access court records in Utah without paying a good bit of money, so I have not done that. I think it helps disadvantage the pro se in Utah. Part of the culture. Kentwa can help!! You can visit the Court and ask to see the file. It sounds like it would be worth the trip. Johnson mark can and will say anything, it doesn't mean it is the truth.
  20. Duh, my bad! It does say Midland Funding in the title of the thread, Sorry about that!. Do not panic! Midland has to prove standing to sue. Without standing, the bank records mean nothing. They are probably trying to set you up for a quick MSJ and will use the statements to that end. What have they provided to prove standing?
  21. This is typical of Johnson Mark. Who is the Plaintiff, OC or JDB? If it is a JDB, they are trying to prove their case without proving standing. Make them go after the statements by subpoena, which they can do. Answer the order, but deny being able to access the records. They tried this with me and we went before the Judge to argue. The judge just told me to answer with I could not find the records and told them if they wanted them there were things such as subpoenas to the banks they could use. No sanctions for JM
  22. Sorry, apparently the emoticon comes up when you put a 2 between parenthesis.
  23. Below is a draft of my Motion for Sanctions and protective Order against the Plaintiff: Comes Now, pro se Defendant, xxxx xxxxx, and hereby moves for sanctions and a protective order due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Rules and failure to attempt to meet and confer with the Defendant. Pursuant to Rules 37( and 37(d) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant requests the following relief and sanctions against the Plaintiff. (1) A Protective Order against the Plaintiff to prevent further discovery attempts, which do not properly follow the Rules of Procedure pursuant to Rule 37((1); and (2) The Plaintiff be ordered to pay Defendant’s reasonable expenses and cost pursuant to Rule 37(d). STATEMENTS OF FACT 1. On or around June 1st, 2013, Defendant received a Notice of Deposition for July 17th, 2013. 2. Defendant sent a meet and confer letter via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested on July 15th, 2013 to Jacob Franklin who is an employee of Johnson Mark LLC. (See Exhibit A). 3. Meet and confer letter was delivered to P.O. Box 7811, Sandy, UT 84091 and signed for by a Mxxxxxxx Mxxxxxx an employee of Johnson Mark LLC on July 16th, 2013. (See Exhibit . 4. The Plaintiff’s attorneys received the letter 1 (one) day before the referenced Deposition. RULE 37 CERTIFICATION Defendant hereby certifies that he has in good faith attempted to confer with the Plaintiff regarding his inability to attend the deposition set for July 17th, 2013 at 2:00 PM. On July 15th, 2013 Defendant sent a letter (via certified mail return receipt requested), attempting to meet and confer stating his reasons for not attending the deposition and willingness to reschedule the deposition. See “Exhibit A”. Johnson Mark LLC signed for the letter on July 16th, 2013. See “Exhibit B”. ARGUMENT Defendant sent a documented letter in an attempt to meet and confer which the Plaintiff’s counsel received on July 16th, 2013 more than 24 hours before the scheduled deposition. The letter specifically referenced the deposition set for July 17th, 2013. Defendant clearly tried to work out the issues as indicated in his letter to the Plaintiff’s counsel and indicated by his willingness to reschedule according to the Rules. Plaintiff never responded to the Defendant’s good faith attempt to meet and confer. Defendant expected to hear back from the Plaintiff’s counsel on this issue but heard nothing from the Plaintiff’s counsel until he received their Motion for Sanctions. It is the belief of the Defendant; the Plaintiff is attempting to harass and oppress a pro se Defendant with Motions the Plaintiff knows is based on false premise. The Plaintiff made no earnest effort to meet and confer. There is no excuse for the Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Rules. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Rules and lack of a good faith attempt to meet and confer Defendant prays for the following order and sanctions: (1) For a protective order to be placed against the Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 37((1) so all further discovery efforts follow the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) That Plaintiff be ordered to pay Defendant reasonable expenses and costs pursuant to Rule 37(d). Respectfully Submitted Any input would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks in advance!!