Do Discovery Answers Really Need To Be Notarized?

[Lionsheart]

Hello All

I'm currently in the middle of a civil suit that was brought against me by Unifund earlier this year, and just the other day I received their first set of Discovery requests. It's essentially the standard "admit this, admit that" and "give us documents to prove our case" nonsense, but the very last page of the packet contains a section that is supposed to be signed and notarized.

Is this common procedure? And does Unifund have the right to demand I enter my answers as sworn testimony? And when I serve Unifund with my Discovery packet, do I ask that their answers be notarized as well?

[montanatim]

Check your Ohio RCP, your answer should be there.

[Lionsheart]

Check your Ohio RCP, your answer should be there.

Well I checked the Ohio civil rules and I really couldn't find anything about swearing to Discovery requests...unless they somehow count as a deposition.

[trueq]

And its an answer that may incriminate you....

Answer: "I can neither admit or deny, therefore deny."

OR "I assert my 5th Amendment priviledge." (Only used this one in nonsense arbitration with NAF.)

And notorize that.

Discovery should be treated as cross-examination testimony. It will be a fact on record. So don't answer anything in a way to incriminate yourself.

[Lionsheart]

And its an answer that may incriminate you....

Answer: "I can neither admit or deny, therefore deny."

OR "I assert my 5th Amendment priviledge."

And notorize that.

Discovery should be treated as cross-examination testimony. It will be a fact on record. So don't answer anything in a way to incriminate yourself.

I've read some of your posts on here and you go absolutely BALLISTIC in court, so I respect your opinion.

Is it common for a JDB's attorney to ask for sworn Discovery though, or does this guy just think I'm too dumb to stonewall him? It looks like he wants a sworn "oopsie."

[Debt Guy]

Discovery should be treated as cross-examination testimony. It will be a fact on record. So don't answer anything in a way to incriminate yourself.

But you must still answer truthfully. I've never heard of a civil court judge allowing someone to invoke the 5th amendment in refusing to answer an interrogatory. Have you?

I confess that I don't get the notarized part. I've never heard of answers being notarized.

Seems to me that when you file your responses to the discovery and sign your name you are effectively affirming the accuracy of your statements.

Besides, I assume you will have your own discovery requests and will expect the Plaintiff to answer truthfully. Right?

Why is a truthful answer unfair?

[Lionsheart]

Discovery should be treated as cross-examination testimony. It will be a fact on record. So don't answer anything in a way to incriminate yourself.

But you must still answer truthfully. I've never heard of a civil court judge allowing someone to invoke the 5th amendment in refusing to answer an interrogatory. Have you?

I confess that I don't get the notarized part. I've never heard of answers being notarized.

Seems to me that when you file your responses to the discovery and sign your name you are effectively affirming the accuracy of your statements.

Besides, I assume you will have your own discovery requests and will expect the Plaintiff to answer truthfully. Right?

Why is a truthful answer unfair?

I have no intentions of lying nor did I ever say I did. I was asking if anyone here thought that this particular attorney was looking for a mis-statement or something of the ilk to exploit by asking the Interrogs be sworn to.

As for my stonewall statement, I meant that I will ofcourse refuse to have the burden of producing non-existent documents dumped on me and I will refuse all requests for privileged information.

Also, I am fully aware that the 5th is only to be invoked in criminal matters.

And as for expecting the truth from a JDB? I'm neither brain-damaged nor naive, so no, I don't expect much in the way of honesty or document production from them, Discovery is simply a formality in most of these cases.

[mcb11902]

Florida requires answers to interrogatories to be notarized so it's possible that it's required where you are too.

[trueq]

I just had a judge admonish an opposing lawyer for not notorizing my discovery I sent him for a firsthand witness to sign and swear to.

Lawyer answered, did not sign or notorize.

Lawyer cannot sign and swear to BECAUSE HE CANNOT, WITH RARE EXCEPTION, BE BOTH WITNESS AND COUNSEL FOR SAME CAUSE!

Discovery answers, rogs, admission should be notorized, it is a common abuse in our court system by debt lawyers NOT to have them notorized as testimony.

So don't be surprised if you are asked to do the same!

I only used the 5th Amendment thing on a farcical NAF arbitration. They railroaded a Rule 18 motion to compel discovery through without considering my opposition to the motion. I answered all questions originaly "I have insufficient info to admit or dent, therefore deny." I revised all my answers just to be difficult.