Need help with response to Motion for Summary Judgment!

[goodsoldier]

I am in the process of being sued by a CA representing the OC on a defaulted credit card agreement in Ohio.

Here is the sequence of events:

- I was served complaint by regular mail

- I answered complaint and sent opposing council a request for production of documents

- I received Plaintiff's request for Interrogatories, Admissions, and Production of Documents

- I received Plaintiff's answer to my request for production of documents which only added a few more photocopies of statements that were not attached to the original complaint

- I answered Plaintiff's requests for Interrogatories, Admissions, and Production of documents

- I offered settlement of around 50% with the request that all negative reporting be removed from my credit report

- The settlement was rejected and settlement offer of around 85% was offered by Plaintiff

- At pre-trial, opposing council again stated that my settlement offer was rejected and that her office did not deal with credit reporting. I then informed her that I would have to continue with the process. No settlement was reached and trial was scheduled

- Received Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment including affadavit of a supposed employee of OC

I am now seeking advice on my response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

My response to the claims all along has been that the Plaintiff violated Ohio Civil Rule 10(d) by not attaching proper accounting, that Plaintiff is asking for more than statutory amount of interest allowed without attaching a signed contract, and that fees for Payment Protection were added without my consent.

In essence, I have not denied that I in fact do owe something to Plaintiff but that the amount Plaintiff is requesting is indeed incorrect and false.

My questions are as follows:

Can I move to have the judge not allow the affidavit because they did not include it with their response to my initial request for production of documents?

What else do I need to say in order to prove that there are still material issues of fact in question and that the MSJ should be denied?

Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated.