PLEASE HELP and Critique my Discovery Answers FILING in the morning!

[SingleDadJames]

I'm trying to wrap up my responses and answers to the Plaintiff's (N$DLAND FUND$ng) requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

I could REALLY use some help and feedback on whether I'm on the right track. These have to be answered in writing under oath in MI.

I DO NOT want to leave any chance of something bein misconstrued as perjury and I do NOT want to make the judge angry! I also want to want make sure any objections etc are allowable in MI since the Plaintiff seems pretty intent on threatening me with sanctions etc. any time she sees the chance.

I'll post the requests and my replies in smaller posts of about 5 requests and responses each to keep things more readable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a quick background to go with things:

Sued by N$DLand Fund$ing who apparently bought an alleged crapitalwon CC debt from Crap1 about a year ago with an apparent default debt of somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3 years ago. The alleged debt is under $1500. They provided no documentation with complaint.

I was contacted by a different out of state attorney representing the plaintiff in fall of 09. I immediately requested validation and didn't get squat, now a summons and their complaint from this in state lawyer.

Their complaint simply provided an account number, an alleged amount saying assignor "completed performance and rendered account stated" with a BS affidavit.

I was panicked and strapped for time so I pretty much answered with a general denial, pled some affirmative defenses and defenses and filed my answer along with the required counter affidavit/sworn denial of the debt. I also filed a not so great motion to strike their affidavit as hearsay, untimely etc. Hearing on that motion is still to come.

At the first pre-trial status conference the plaintiff whined I had too many AD's, some likely aren't based on fact etc. etc. Judge then said he knew one of the issues I addressed is proof of ownership/lack of a bill of sale. He asked plaintiff if she could provide that to me. She of course had absolutely no documentation with her and needed 30 days or so for Discovery.

They then promptly sent a joke fax copy of a generic bill of sale that has amounts whited out, doesn't list my name or the alleged account number and basically just says it its a bill of sale for accounts referenced in some mysterious "electronic file" of which they obscured the name of. The also attached two jokes of "crap 1 facsimile cycle statements" which are nothing more than my address, the alleged account number and showing an alleged balance due. Not even on letterhead just typed (manufactured?) on plain white paper Along with that were their discovery requests.

[SingleDadJames]

1. Do you admit that you applied to obtain a Crapitalwun Bank credit acount, account number 555555555555?

Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him at the present time is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request.

2. Admit that by applying for credit, you were granted credit privileges.

Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him at the present time is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request.

3. If this was not your intention, state why you applied for the credit.

OBJECTION: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and also objects to the request on the basis of relevancy. Subject to this objection, and without waiving same, Defendant responds as follows:

After a reasonable inquiry the information known and readily obtainable at this time is insufficient to allow the Defendant to answer this request. Plaintiff has provided no documentation showing when alleged account was opened.

The Defendant does not have any recollection of applying for credit relating to the alleged cc. The Defendant does recall having applied for credit cards in the past with the sole intent of receiving a free T-shirt or other promotional item.

4. Admit that you received goods and/or services, pursuant to the Crapital done Bank credit received by you?

Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him at the present time is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request.

5. Do you admit that a principal balance of $1,500 emains due and owing on said credit account?

DENIED. After a reasonable inquiry, the Defendant is not in possession or aware of any information readily obtainable by him at the present time to verify the alleged principal balance of $1,500.

In further response the Plaintiff’s alleged principal balance amount referenced here differs significantly from the alleged principal balance claimed due by the Plaintiff in their original complaint. In their original complaint the Plaintiff alleges a balance due of $1,000 and now asks the Defendant to admit to an increased alleged principal balance of $1,500.

[SingleDadJames]

6. If you deny a balance remains due and owing, state specific reasons why said balance is not due/owing.

Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him at the present time is insufficient to enable him to provide an answer to paragraph 6.

7. Do you admit any amount remains due/owing on said cc account?

Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him at the present time is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request. Defend responds as follows:

The Plaintiff has already provided two different alleged principal balances for the alleged debt but the Defendant has never been provided with any strict proof or authenticated documentation from the alleged original creditor or the Plaintiff as to how the alleged current balance they claim is owed was calculated.

The Defendant is aware of no readily available documentation or information in his possession or control to verify the alleged debt. Furthermore the Defendant has already made reasonable request for such documentation from the Plaintiff prior to this request in the Defendant's Answer to the complaint where request and demand for strict proof was made.

8. If so, what do your records reflect as the amount due and owed?

OBJECTION: Defendant objects on the basis of relevancy and because the request is not reasonably crafted to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to such objection and not waiving same, Defendant responds as follows:

After a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by the Defendant at the present time is insufficient to prove any amount is due and owing by the Defendant on the alleged account. Therefore the Defendant answers: $0.00.

9. Do you admit that you received statements from Capital One Bank, indicating the balance they claim as due and owing.

Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him at the present time is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request.

10. Do you admit that you made a payment on said account?

Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him at the present time is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request.

In further response the alleged “CrAPITullLWuN CYCLE STATEMENT REPORTS” allegedly provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant via their attorney reflect no credit or debit transactions on the alleged account.

[SingleDadJames]

11. Admit you failed to dispute any charges or fees on this account in writing to Crapitolwon Bank.

OBJECTION: Defendant objects on the basis of relevancy and because this Discovery request is not reasonably crafted to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to this objection, and without waiving same, Defendant responds as follows:

As he has informed the Plaintiff and the Court, the Defendant has previously disputed the validity of this debt with the Plaintiff and requested verification of this debt in writing pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (.

I don't really recall this alleged card and thus probably wouldn't have disputed charges/fees..particularly if they never sent me anything. Should I simply object or DENY?

12. If you deny the previous request for admissions, attach to your answers a copy of the letter(s) of dispute you sent to Crapitaldun Bank and a copy of any of their responses.

OBJECTION: Defendant objects on the basis of relevancy. Subject to such objection, and without waiving same, Defendant responds as follows:

Since Defendant objects to the previous request for admission the request made in here is not applicable, improper, and irrelevant. In further response the Defendant states he has previously disputed the validity of this debt with the Plaintiff in a letter sent via United States Postal Service, Certified Mail Service and via electronic fax to the Plaintiff’s previous attorney. A copy of which is attached. Furthermore, by the Plaintiff’s own admission Crapital dOne Bank is not a named party in this action and is no longer the party in interest.

INTERROGS:

13. Please set forth proof that each affirmative defense is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) Please list the names and addresses of all witnesses who will testify to the truth of these allegations and a summary of the witness’s factual knowledge regarding the defense.

I listed myself, Defendant in Pro Per

123 Main St.

Anytown, US 12345

:confused:

The Defendant will be at scheduled pre-trial hearings and conferences and present at Trial to state and summarize his factual knowledge surrounding the allegations in the complaint and this action. A summary of the Defendant’s factual knowledge regarding the defense includes but is not limited to:

DO I REALLY HAVE TO OUTLINE ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS IN THIS CASE AND OUTLINE MY INTENDED DEFENSES HERE?

:confused:

Also would I list the Plaintiff's affiant here if I have ANY interest in subpoenaing them as a witness etc?

( Pursuant to MCR2.31O, attach to your answers to these interrogatories a copy of any and all documentary evidence that Defendant or Defendant’s agents have that will tend to prove truth of this allegation.

OBJECTION: Defendant objects on the basis and to the extent that the information requested is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Subject to this objection and without waiving same, Defendant responds as follows:

The phrase “truth of this allegation” is vague and ambiguous as the Defendant does not understand what specific “allegation”, if any, the phrase “this allegation” is referring to. The request for “any and all documentary evidence” is also considered overly broad and burdensome.

© If the documents are not available, please state the factual basis for each defense.

OBJECTION: Defendant objects on the basis and to the extent that the information requested is overly broad and burdensome.

14. Provide every address for the Defendant from such and such date to the present and the also the dates Defendant resided at each address.

OBJECTION: The Defendant objects on the basis of relevancy and further objects because this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to such objection and without waiving same, Defendant responds as follows:

Defendant admits to currently residing at SUCH AND SUCH ADDRESS. Furthermore Defendant declares that to the best of his knowledge and belief the information requested is a matter of public record.

REQUEST FOR PROD. OF DOCS:

15. Please produce any and all documents in your possession or control that support any of the alleged affirmative defenses.

:confused::OBJECTION: Defendant objects on the basis and to the extent that the information requested is overly broad and vague in that it requests “any and all documents” that “support any of the alleged affirmative defenses.”

[debtorshusband]

Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him at the present time is insufficient to enable him to admit or deny this request.

I think this type of response will get you into trouble. Anything you do not deny, the plaintiff will move to have deemed admitted, and you certainly don't want that.

Either "Deny" or "Defendant lacks sufficient information and belief in order to admit or deny this request and on that basis denies same."

That underlined part is key.

Good luck,

DH

[SingleDadJames]

Those are their requests and a general idea of my drafted answers and responses. I could really use some help for the last few!

I'm not sure if this is going to look way too evasive or as if I'm not complying with discovery.

Should I cut out all the added response and just stick to one liners? I searched my records and don't have anything. As far as I'm concerned I've already requested all this stuff with a request for validation and in my answer by requesting and demanding strict proof how the account balance was calculated etc.

Should I send off a letter to Crapitaldone requesting info? I shouldn't have to but I want to make sure I show the court I've made a reasonable inquiry.

[SingleDadJames]

I think this type of response will get you into trouble. Anything you do not deny, the plaintiff will move to have deemed admitted, and you certainly don't want that.

Either "Deny" or "Defendant lacks sufficient information and belief in order to admit or deny this request and on that basis denies same."

That underlined part is key.

Good luck,

DH

I was just going to ask that. So I'll change all of those where I state I don't have sufficient info to specifically say I deny at the end. I got a little confused since I'm claiming I don't have info to admit or deny..so I figured I shouldn't deny. Also in my short little intro under the caption I state that all requests are denied unless expressly admitted to. Not sure if that helps.

[debtorshusband]

Also in my short little intro under the caption I state that all requests are denied unless expressly admitted to. Not sure if that helps.

I wouldn't depend on that.

The book Winning Your Lawsuit by Judge Roderic Duncan, Nolo Press, says this:

If you fail to deny requests for admissions on time, the court will consider them admitted, a potentially disastrous result for your case. Next to each statement, write one of the following notations:

Admit

Deny

Deny on information and belief

Deny because no information

He elaborates on the meanings of these four responses. But as you can see, they're all extremely straightforward and simple.

Good luck,

DH

[SingleDadJames]

Thanks so much DH! It's so great to see things spelled out so simple and clear for me. The more I look at everything the more I get paranoid and over analyze. I let fear paralyze me!!!

I think I'll have to try to get that book or check the local law library/library for something similar.

Thanks again DH.

Now if we can just get some others to chime in with some help on my other questions and some more feedback. The forum is eerily silent with help for me here in the last 48 hours. But it's been an immense help to this point so I cannot complain!

[Massive]

I think this type of response will get you into trouble. Anything you do not deny, the plaintiff will move to have deemed admitted, and you certainly don't want that.

Either "Deny" or "Defendant lacks sufficient information and belief in order to admit or deny this request and on that basis denies same."

That underlined part is key.

Good luck,

DH

Nonsense, if the Plaintiff hasn't proven a thing, especially a junk debt buyer, you can't possibly have sufficient knowledge to answer their bogus discovery requests. They need to bring the proof by way of an authenticated bill of sale identifying you, your account, the correct amount due and the amount they paid for the junk debt along with a signature from an Officer of the Original Creditor period. Until that happens it's impossible to have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny. I've never experienced any problem responding that way. It's the same as if some stranger knocked on your door saying you owe money. Prove it Junk Debt Buyer, Prove it Stranger. I'm not going to prove it for you!!

[SingleDadJames]

I recall reading somewhere that in your answer to the complaint it's best to specifically state you DENY even if you lack sufficient info etc.

I wasn't sure this applied to Discovery...but it does sound good

[SingleDadJames]

Nonsense, if the Plaintiff hasn't proven a thing, especially a junk debt buyer, you can't possibly have sufficient knowledge to answer their bogus discovery requests. They need to bring the proof by way of an authenticated bill of sale identifying you, your account, the correct amount due and the amount they paid for the junk debt along with a signature from an Officer of the Original Creditor period. Until that happens it's impossible to have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny. I've never experienced any problem responding that way. It's the same as if some stranger knocked on your door saying you owe money. Prove it Junk Debt Buyer, Prove it Stranger. I'm not going to prove it for you!!

I guess I'm being paranoid over the whole "after a reasonable inquiry" statement. I keep imaging some judge screaming at me and grilling me to describe what "reasonable inquiry" I made. It then turns into this long drawn out "Law and Order" debate of what constitutes a reasonable inquiry. The judge then screams at me again and threatens to throw me in jail because I didn't personally drive 2000 miles to the OC and knock on their door and request the documentation.

I checked for records...I don't have any. I requested validation of debt and never got it. I requested/demanded strict proof of everything in my answer to their complaint and never got it. To me that constitutes a reasonable inquiry. Not sure what a court would say though!

[debtorshusband]

Nonsense, ....

May I ask what part of my post is "Nonsense?"

DH

[debtorshusband]

I guess I'm being paranoid over the whole "after a reasonable inquiry" statement. I keep imaging some judge screaming at me and grilling me to describe what "reasonable inquiry" I made. It then turns into this long drawn out "Law and Order" debate of what constitutes a reasonable inquiry. The judge then screams at me again and threatens to throw me in jail because I didn't personally drive 2000 miles to the OC and knock on their door and request the documentation.

I checked for records...I don't have any. I requested validation of debt and never got it. I requested/demanded strict proof of everything in my answer to their complaint and never got it. To me that constitutes a reasonable inquiry. Not sure what a court would say though!

I think you're overthinking this. And I really don't think a judge is going to scream at you.

Here's the way I understand it:

The purpose of Discovery is for each side to show their evidence to the other. The court hopes that one side or the other will have such overwhelming proof, the other side will capitulate and agree to settle, and the judge will able to close the case without ever hearing it.

Requests for Admissions are intended to establish facts which are not in dispute. In the textbook example, a car accident, such facts which are not in dispute include: Main street runs North-South, Maple street runs East-West, Defendant was traveling North on Main, Plaintiff was traveling East on Maple. When asked, the other side will "Admit" to these facts. But when asked to admit that you were speeding, or that you ran a stop sign, you "Deny." Then they have to produce witnesses to testify to these "offenses."

In debt collection cases, debt collection attorneys have perverted the process, asking Defendants to admit to the things that they should have to prove.

- Admit you applied for a credit card: if you do, they don't have to produce an application

- Admit you owe $XXXX: if you do, they don't need to produce an accounting of the amount

- Admit we bought/own the debt: If you do, they don't need to produce a bill of sale

And in your case, I think the lawyers may be idiots: some of the "Requests for Admissions" are not "Requests for Admissions"; i.e, Numbers 3, 6, and 8. I think "Objecting" may be proper, on the grounds that it is not a RforA. Such questions are more properly "Interrogatories."

Oh, and wait until you see their responses to your Discovery requests; you won't believe how many "Objection, request is overbroad, burdensome, attorney-client privilege, etc...." you'll see.

One last thing about "Request for Production of Documents": the key here is, "What are you going to use for evidence at trial?" If you're not using any documents, you have nothing to produce. "Sorry, none." They may say "produce your copies of your credit card statements," but you don't need to produce them, unless you are going to use them as evidence. They need get their documents from their own sources, not from you.

Finally, I realize you probably need more specific advice than I am providing, but I am not really qualified, so I hesitate. I hope I've been a little helpful, and I wish you luck.

Regards,

DH

[SingleDadJames]

May I ask what part of my post is "Nonsense?"

DH

I think he/she meant "I respectfully disagree"

In all seriousness I don't think it was meant as hostile toward you.

I truly appreciate the help of DH, Massive and everyone who replies and helps with feedback here in the forum. It's invaluable!

[SingleDadJames]

I think you're overthinking this. And I really don't think a judge is going to scream at you.

Here's the way I understand it:

The purpose of Discovery is for each side to show their evidence to the other. The court hopes that one side or the other will have such overwhelming proof, the other side will capitulate and agree to settle, and the judge will able to close the case without ever hearing it.

Requests for Admissions are intended to establish facts which are not in dispute. In the textbook example, a car accident, such facts which are not in dispute include: Main street runs North-South, Maple street runs East-West, Defendant was traveling North on Main, Plaintiff was traveling East on Maple. When asked, the other side will "Admit" to these facts. But when asked to admit that you were speeding, or that you ran a stop sign, you "Deny." Then they have to produce witnesses to testify to these "offenses."

In debt collection cases, debt collection attorneys have perverted the process, asking Defendants to admit to the things that they should have to prove.

- Admit you applied for a credit card: if you do, they don't have to produce an application

- Admit you owe $XXXX: if you do, they don't need to produce an accounting of the amount

- Admit we bought/own the debt: If you do, they don't need to produce a bill of sale

And in your case, I think the lawyers may be idiots: some of the "Requests for Admissions" are not "Requests for Admissions"; i.e, Numbers 3, 6, and 8. I think "Objecting" may be proper, on the grounds that it is not a RforA. Such questions are more properly "Interrogatories."

Oh, and wait until you see their responses to your Discovery requests; you won't believe how many "Objection, request is overbroad, burdensome, attorney-client privilege, etc...." you'll see.

One last thing about "Request for Production of Documents": the key here is, "What are you going to use for evidence at trial?" If you're not using any documents, you have nothing to produce. "Sorry, none." They may say "produce your copies of your credit card statements," but you don't need to produce them, unless you are going to use them as evidence. They need get their documents from their own sources, not from you.

Finally, I realize you probably need more specific advice than I am providing, but I am not really qualified, so I hesitate. I hope I've been a little helpful, and I wish you luck.

Regards,

DH

Thanks for a great response DH. That helps immensely.

I know the judge isn't going to scream at me..but I do try to imagine what happens in the worst case scenario because inevitably that is what will happen to me! In all actuality the judge seems pretty cool and just from a 5 to 10 minute pre-trial he seemed to be more on my "side" and the side of the other defendants I saw there.

I was thinking the same thing you were thinking regarding how they formatted their "Requests for admissions". Many of them are actually interrogatories and not in fact any sort of statement to admit or deny.

I know I'm overthinking but I am mostly concerned with making a judge mad. I fully expect the plaintiff to object to everything I ask and request in discovery. I'm sure the judge expects it from a lawyer as well. I just don't want to tick him off by trying to "play the game" too much when I'm not a lawyer.