Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'ccp section 1987'.
Found 1 result
Short Summary: 1 - Plaintiff: Citibank, South Dakota (N.A.) 2 - Plaintiff's Attorney: The Moore Law Group 3 - State: California 4 - Limited civil case - sued for in the neighborhood of $17K 5 - The debt is not past statute of limitations 6 - Served by substituted service 7 - Complaint answered (Complaint was unverified) 8 - Long period of inactivity on both sides 9 - No discovery propounded on either side 10 - Plaintiff filed CMC Statement 12 - Trial got set 13 - Defendant (me) sent a CCP96 request and a request for BOP 14 - Plaintiff sent response to BOP and a response to CCP96 statement and the CCP98 declaration in lieu 15 - Defendant sent a certified letter stating that Plaintiff got their case # wrong on their CCP96 response. Also, Defendant objected in that same letter that the Plaintiff used Plaintiff's counsel PO Box for the witnesses' address on their CCP96 response (out of compliance) 16 - Plaintiff corrected their CCP 96 response and send the amended version. with the fixed case # and now the actual address for the potential witnesses instead of the PO Box (mind you, the new address is still the Plaintiff Lawyer's address, and they did not ask me for a stipulation to amend their CCP 96 response) 17 - Defendant filed an objection to Plaintiff's Declaration in Lieu with Court and had a copy served on Plaintiff 18 - Defendant then did some more research on this forum and found MIL is a better way to attack a declaration, so he created a MIL to preclude the admission of their Declaration in Lieu, and refashioned his objection so that it could be an objection in support of my MIL. This was served on the Plaintiff's Counsel. And today, I get a surprise from the Plaintiff's counsel in the mail in the form of: "Notice to Appear At And Attend Trial And Produce Documents (CCP Section 1987)" "Request For Statement of Witnesses and Evidence (CCP96, DISC-015 form)" Right off the bat, I can tell their CCP96 request is untimely. It has a postmark of Aug 22nd, 2013, and I've received it on August 24th, 2013. The trial is on September 13th, which basically means they're giving me less than 30 days (21 days only) to respond. Now, do I just ignore their CCP 96 as untimely and object at trial, do I send them a letter saying they are untimely or do I serve an objection on them, saying they're untimely? As far as the notice to appear goes, I am unsure how to handle their production of documents request. Shouldn't have they asked for all my CC statements (and they're asking for years and years of them) in the request for production of documents during discovery? Discovery is closed now. Are they trying to find a back door to do the discovery? Can I object on the grounds that they have missed their Discovery window and now have no right to ask for the documents? Furthermore, they have not included any of the CC statements they're asking from me on their CCP 96. Do I still have to bring any docs with me (if I have any) and then object to the judge that these are inadmissible as evidence since they're not listed on Plaintiff's CCP 96 response?. Or can I just say that their request for production of documents under CCP 1987 is oppressive, burdensome, Plaintiff is on a fishing expedition, burden of Proof is on Plaintiff, etc.? Also, the way I understand it, the deadline for requesting documents under CCP1987 is 25 days before trial (since they served me by mail, 5 days added), and I have received it only 21 days before the trial Should I just object to their CCP1987 as being untimely? Any help is greatly appreciated. I am at the point where I can clearly see some of the Plaintiff's screw-ups, but I still do not know the best way how to deal with their screw-ups to my advantage