Jump to content

My NJ Crap1 Case - Newbie - Help please!


Recommended Posts

Hello all,

P&P a NJ shark DC sent me a summons, saying Crap1 was suing me. I answered the summons with some affirmative defenses, but now they've sent me interogs. I don't know what to do at this point! I've been mailed a card saying they've set a court date for about a month from now. My original thread is "Credit Pains in NJ" in Collections section; I can't link because there is a post limit.

I need help answering my interogs. They sent me these 3 questions:

1. Set forth with specificity all facts in support of each defense and/or claim which the defendant in the above-entitled matter including dates, places, names and addresses of persons present or involved in any action and/or conversations.

2. Attach copies of all writings, documents, or any other records which relate to said account or in any way support any defenses or claims, including, but not limited to, correspondence, contracts, agreements, noticies, monthly statements, applications, and any letters sent to or received in connection with the subject account.

3. Attach any documentation evidencing defendants mailing address(es) between XDATE and YDATE, which should include, but is not limited to, copies of energy or water bills, telephone bills, lease(s) and/or deed(s)/mortgage(s) and drivers license(s). If said documentation is not in the possession of the defendant, please list each address at which the defendant received mail during the time period requested.

How do I answer these? They are really broad. Is there anyway I can brush this off? Also, what interogs should I send? Am I limited in the # I can send?

All documents say Crap1 v. Me, but am I really being sued by Crap1? I think it's really DC but they are playing some game.

I really don't know how to proceed from here. I'm in over my head. Any help would be great. In the mean time, I will try to do my own research. Thanks!

Edited by birrch0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello all,

P&P a NJ shark DC sent me a summons, saying Crap1 was suing me. I answered the summons with some affirmative defenses, but now they've sent me interogs. I don't know what to do at this point! I've been mailed a card saying they've set a court date for about a month from now. My original thread is "Credit Pains in NJ" in Collections section; I can't link because there is a post limit.

I need help answering my interogs. They sent me these 3 questions:

How do I answer these? They are really broad. Is there anyway I can brush this off? Also, what interogs should I send? Am I limited in the # I can send?

All documents say Crap1 v. Me, but am I really being sued by Crap1? I think it's really DC but they are playing some game.

I really don't know how to proceed from here. I'm in over my head. Any help would be great. In the mean time, I will try to do my own research. Thanks!

Check your credit report to see what the OC is reporting. If their entry does not state "transferred/sold", Crap1 still owns it.

Interrogatories

1. Did you give explanations for your defenses in your Answer? If so, I would state "See Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint".

If you didn't explain your defenses, that's what you have to do. Explain why you used each defense.

2. Do you have any documents that support your defenses? Also, your response can depend upon the defenses you claimed.

3. Unless you don't have your addresses or you've lived at too many places to name, I'd give the addresses...especially if you've only had a couple of addresses during that time period.

If you don't want to do so, you could state "Plaintiff's request overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant information."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their rog #2, don't give them anything to help them build their case against you. That's what they want you to do.

And in #3, don't give them copies of your bills or deeds, statements, blah blah blah. How ridiculous. Unless you really have something that supports YOUR affirmative defenses - which you probably don't. They will throw your documents back in your face as their evidence.

For the claim amount you state, you can only send 5 rogs.

What do you mean when you say "I think it's really "DC." What is "DC"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common problem pleading affirmative defenses. You just switched the burden from them to you by arguing affirmative defenses. Your also not supposed to plead an affirmative defense without knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.

Their asking you what is your knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.

If you have a legit affirmative defense, for example, statute of limitations, by all means it should be included. The laundry list of accord and satisfaction, assumption of risk, estoppel, latches, contract of adhesion not being enforcable, ussery, statute of frauds, ect... Should not be used without good reason. In fact in Federal Courts actually have a rule against using the laundry list (rule 11). Even a pro-se can have sanctions imposed if the violate rule 11.

A lot of states mirror their state rules of procedure. I'd come up with something for whatever you argued. The problem is that in a credit card case most defenses won't work. However, argue something but don't admit to the debt. I can't imagine even the strictest of judges ordering sanctions for a non-attorney pro-se litigant if they at least make some argument for their defenses. Even if it is a loser you can at least show they were not made in bad faith and can appear you had formed some justification for using them.

On the second interrogatory I would just put your still gathering the documents and information and will properly supplement the request per the rules of procedure.

On the last one, just tell them where you have lived. I would not provide bills or other proof. I'd just do it because they will get a judge to compel it. It actually can lead to legit evidence. I'm sure they will argue you got the bills so you disclosing where you lived and then them showing that is the address where the bills were sent, does have a little bit of legit value for the other side. It in no way makes their case but in my opinion, it is a legit question if they are going to try and set up an account stated argument.

Edited by Coltfan1972
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Objection. Overly broad and burdonsome. Defendant has not yet completed discovery and therefore is unable to answer plaintiff's reguest. Defendant reserves the right to amend his answer and information as it becomes available.

2. Objection. Plaintiff request information that is already in Plaiintiff's possesion or that of a third party.

3. Objection. Personal and confidentional and the request fails to lead to discoverable evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it.

1. Objection. Overly broad and burdonsome. Defendant has not yet completed discovery and therefore is unable to answer plaintiff's reguest. Defendant reserves the right to amend his answer and information as it becomes available.

2. Objection. Plaintiff request information that is already in Plaiintiff's possesion or that of a third party.

3. Objection. Personal and confidentional and the request fails to lead to discoverable evidence.

I think these need a little more fleshing out than that. what was th OP's original Affimative defenses? If it is the list then we can analyze the complaint for explainations.

I know a judge will like it better if you restate your affirmative defenses with some meat on them. this will help the judge to see if you are just riding it out. Lets look at this from the judges perspective. "Answered where he should, objected properly when he should, this seems like a real case here." You see when they try for summary judgment, which they will if you don't raise triable issues to prevent it, you need to have something the court can already look at before the SJ hearing and before you answer SJ to make a Tentative ruling.

So it needs a little fleshing out. If you add caselaw against them in the answers you will be sure they won't use them in court. Kinda like a trip wire.

They bring out the interrogs in court, and a big pointy stick flies out of the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common problem pleading affirmative defenses. You just switched the burden from them to you by arguing affirmative defenses. Your also not supposed to plead an affirmative defense without knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.

Their asking you what is your knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.

If you have a legit affirmative defense, for example, statute of limitations, by all means it should be included. The laundry list of accord and satisfaction, assumption of risk, estoppel, latches, contract of adhesion not being enforcable, ussery, statute of frauds, ect... Should not be used without good reason. In fact in Federal Courts actually have a rule against using the laundry list (rule 11). Even a pro-se can have sanctions imposed if the violate rule 11.

A lot of states mirror their state rules of procedure. I'd come up with something for whatever you argued. The problem is that in a credit card case most defenses won't work. However, argue something but don't admit to the debt. I can't imagine even the strictest of judges ordering sanctions for a non-attorney pro-se litigant if they at least make some argument for their defenses. Even if it is a loser you can at least show they were not made in bad faith and can appear you had formed some justification for using them.

On the second interrogatory I would just put your still gathering the documents and information and will properly supplement the request per the rules of procedure.

On the last one, just tell them where you have lived. I would not provide bills or other proof. I'd just do it because they will get a judge to compel it. It actually can lead to legit evidence. I'm sure they will argue you got the bills so you disclosing where you lived and then them showing that is the address where the bills were sent, does have a little bit of legit value for the other side. It in no way makes their case but in my opinion, it is a legit question if they are going to try and set up an account stated argument.

I agree with that we have seen judges time after time rule for motions to compel and for summary judgment. They do this because defendants did not adequately build a wall of defense.

Also sticking caselaw in their gives good reason to deny the allegations or for not giving address information. Privacy statutes can be used especially when their is no evidence for giving the personal identifying information to them. If you have a good reason not to answer it tells the judge, That not only did you deny having business dealings with plaintiff's, but you are reasonably trying to protect your personal information to prevent misuse by plaintiff's.

Number one for example, you can use the attorney work product protection bit, also you can let them have it by giving them some authorities to support your affirmatives. If you make it good they may go away or you can use it in a motion to dismiss. If you stated them in your answer flesh them out a little and add at the end discovery is ongoing and you reserve the right to amend at any time.

Number two. You can say after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, defendant does not have any documents responsive to the request. The plaintiff's allege that they are in possesion of documents responsive to the request but failed to attach same to the complaint. Defendant requests that plaintiff preserve all documents in it's possesion on the date of the complaint and prepare a log of any other documents added since the date of the complaint. Defendant lacks information of any other sources of responsive documents.

and finally number three. I would look up privacy statutes for your state and use those in the response as a reason why you don't want to give those. also you can say it is overly burdensome and irrelevant for plaintiff's to request all those other documents as it would release personal information to the public domain and can be used for improper purposes. That is the angle you can take with that.

generally you should develop your case now. and let it out generally so the court can see if they should intervene or allow motions against you.

So I hate to say if you want to win you are going to have to say goodbye about going to movies, barhopping, and other fun stuff for awhile while you right now research and develop your position. Your answer was general to allow you time to get up to speed. That time has come. we can help all we can but if you don't develope your position on this all future things are going to be difficult to assist with.

Any questions just ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all. Thanks for the replies. On checking my credit report, it says "Charged off account, Account closed by credit grantor". I don't want to publish too much information regarding my answers because I'm paranoid P&P sharks will be on here.

@BV80

1. I did give explanations for my answers. Do you mind if I PM them to you? In all fairness, I didn't go AD-crazy and send a million, and when I did, I said "to the knowledge of the defendant".

2. I don't have any documents to use in my defense really... I only have my letters from P&P, and P&P should have those as they sent them.

3. I will give my address; I've only lived at one location. Can I still say their request is overly burdensome even if I do give my address?

--------------

@Patz By DC I mean debt collector; in this case, P&P. And how can I respond without giving them docs? I don't know if a wishy-washy response will suffice.

-----

@Coltfan1972. Do you mind if I send you my answer in order for you to look at it? I will PM you if thats cool. Thanks.

-----

@Seadragon, can I also PM you my answers? Thanks.

And regarding the court date set. What happens at this court date? Is it a day just to deny or admit allegations? Or will I actually have to make a defense? Btw, I am banking on the fact that my debt amt is so small that they will just drop it, because it will probably cost them more to litigate; is that likely?

edit2: after looking at their interogs, I just noticed the amt they put as my balance differs from that of the complaint. does this matter?

Thanks

Edited by birrch0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all!

I have been suggested by some members to amend my answers, because my ADs put the burden of proof on me, as it was too early for ADs. What do you all think?

If I want to amend my answer, do I have to answer these interogs first, or amend first then answer? How would I even justify an amendment and would it even be taken seriously?

If I don't amend, how should I proceed? I know I should answer these interogs, and I've drafted my answers already, but what interogs should I send them? I'm limited to 5.

Thanks for the help everyone. I am researching as much as I can and trying to wrap my head around this -- its not easy, but I'm figuring it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before anybody can help you with ROGs, you have to tell us what your REAL defense to this complaint is going to be, not just a list of defenses you found on the internet and do not thoroughly understand. For instance, I see usury mentioned quite a bit on the forum. (usually misspelled) Forget this defense, the National Bank Act, 12 USC 85, gives national banks the authority to apply the interest rate of their home state to any state in which they do business. They are all located in states where there is no interest rate limit, unless you want to get into Citibank, which does not apply here. Judges appreciate a good theory of law and a good argument. They do NOT like boilerplate, mindless repetition of defenses that do not have anything to do with the case. They read right through this stuff and determine that you are just jerking the court around because you do not want to pay your credit crd bill, whether that is the case or not. First rule of any argument is to give the judge a good reason to rule in your favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legaleagle, thanks for the reply. That's the reason I'm here. I don't know how to build a defense yet. I'm looking for help doing this. I'm trying to figure out a few things, but it's not the easiest thing. If you have any advice of your own, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

PS: It looks like I might have to amend my answer because people are telling me my ADs suck. How can I justify my amending... I mean, I don't know how saying I am pro se would stand up in court as justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this here:

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

RULE 4:6. Defenses And Objections: When And How Presented; By Pleading Or Motion; Motion For Judgment On Pleadings

4:6-1. When Presented

(a) Time; Presentation. Except as otherwise provided by Rules 4:7-5© (crossclaims), 4:8-1(B) (third-party joinder), 4:9-1 (answer to amended complaint), and 4:64-1(i) (governmental answer in foreclosure actions), the defendant shall serve an answer, including therein any counterclaim, within 35 days after service of the summons and complaint on that defendant. If service is made as provided by court order, pursuant to R. 4:4-4(B)(3), the time for service of the answer may be specified therein. Service of the answer shall be complete as provided by R. 1:5-4. A party served with a pleading stating a counterclaim or crossclaim against that party shall serve an answer thereto within 35 days after the service upon that party. A reply to an answer, where permitted, shall be served within 20 days after service of the answer.

(B) Time; Effect of Certain Motions. Unless the court fixes a different time period, the time periods prescribed in paragraph (a) of this rule are altered by the filing and service of a motion under R. 4:6 or for summary judgment under R. 4:46 or R. 4:69-2 as follows: (1) if the motion is denied in whole or part or its disposition postponed until trial, the responsive pleading shall be served within 10 days after notice of the court's action; (2) if a motion for a more definite statement is granted, the responsive pleadings shall be served within 10 days after the service of such statement. If notice is given a nonresident party demanding security for costs and the nonresident gives notice of the filing of the bond or the making of the deposit, the party making the demand shall then have the same time to plead as may have remained at the time of the service of the notice demanding the security.

© Time; Extension by Consent. The time for service of a responsive pleading may be enlarged for a period not exceeding 60 days by the written consent of the parties, which shall be filed with the responsive pleading within said 60-day period. Further enlargements shall be allowed only on notice by court order, on good cause shown therefor.

(d) Certificate of Service. The party filing the responsive pleading or the party's attorney shall certify thereon, or in an acknowledgment, proof or certificate of service, that the pleading was served within the time period allowed by R. 4:6 or other rule specified in the certificate.

Note: Source - R.R. 4:12-1(a)(B)©(e), 4:96-2©; paragraph (a) amended July 29, 1977 to be effective September 6, 1977; paragraph (a) amended November 1, 1985 to be effective January 2, 1986; paragraph (a) amended November 5, 1986 to be effective January 1, 1987; paragraph (a) amended June 29, 1990 to be effective September 4, 1990; paragraph (a) amended July 14, 1992 to be effective September 1, 1992; paragraphs (a) and (d) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraphs (a) and © amended June 28, 1996 to be effective September 1, 1996; paragraph © amended July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; paragraph (a) amended August 1, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006.

4:6-2. How Presented

Every defense, legal or equitable, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint shall be asserted in the answer thereto, except that the following defenses, unless otherwise provided by R. 4:6-3, may at the option of the pleader be made by motion, with briefs: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (B) lack of jurisdiction over the person, © insufficiency of process, (d) insufficiency of service of process, (e) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (f) failure to join a party without whom the action cannot proceed, as provided by R. 4:28-1. If a motion is made raising any of these defenses, it shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is to be made. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses in an answer or motion. Special appearances are superseded. If, on a motion to dismiss based on the defense numbered (e), matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided by R. 4:46, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material pertinent to such a motion.

Source - R.R. 4:12-2 (first, second and fourth sentences); amended July 23, 2010 to be effective September 1, 2010.

4:6-3. Required Motions; Preliminary Hearings

Defenses (a) (e) and (f) in R. 4:6-2, whether made in an answer or by motion, shall be heard and determined before trial on application of any party, unless the court for good cause orders that the hearing and determination thereof be deferred until the trial. Defenses (B) © and (d) in R. 4:6-2 shall be raised by motion within 90 days after service of the answer, provided that defense has been asserted therein and provided, further, that no previous motion to which R. 4:6-6 is applicable has been made.

Note: Source-R.R. 4:12-4.

4:6-4. Motion for More Definite Statement or to Strike or Dismiss for Impropriety of Pleading

(a) More Definite Statement. If a responsive pleading is to be made to a pleading which is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court not complied with within 10 days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court fixes, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems appropriate. The statement shall become a part of the pleading which it supplements.

(B) Impropriety of Pleading. On the court's or a party's motion, the court may either (1) dismiss any pleading that is, overall, scandalous, impertinent, or, considering the nature of the cause of action, abusive of the court or another person; or (2) strike any such part of a pleading or any part thereof that is immaterial or redundant. The order of dismissal shall comply with R. 4:37-2(a) and may expressly require, as a condition of the refiling of a pleading asserting a claimor defense based on the same transaction, the payment by the pleading party of attorney's fees and costs incurred by the party who moved for dismissal.

Note: Source-R.R. 4:12-5. Caption amended, former rule redesignated paragraph (a) caption provided and paragraph (B) adopted November 2, 1987 to be effective January 1, 1988; paragraph (a) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994.

4:6-5. Motion to Strike for Insufficiency

On motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, on motion made within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any defense insufficient in law.

Note: Source-R.R. 4:12-6. Caption and text amended November 2, 1987 to be effective January 1, 1988; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994.

4:6-6. Consolidation of Defenses

A party making a motion under R. 4:6 may join with it the other motions herein provided for and then available. If such motion omits therefrom any defense or objections then available which R. 4:6 permits to be raised by motion, the party shall not thereafter make a motion based on any such omitted defenses or objections, except as provided in R. 4:6-7.

Note: Source-R.R. 4:12-7; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994.

4:6-7. Waiver or Preservation of Defenses

Defenses (B) © and (d) in R. 4:6-2 are waived if not raised by motion pursuant to R. 4:6-3 or if omitted from a previously made motion to which R. 4:6-6 is applicable. Defenses (e) and (f) and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered, or by motion for summary judgment or at the trial on the merits. Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the matter except as otherwise provided by R. 1:13-4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

P&P a NJ shark DC sent me a summons, saying Crap1 was suing me. I answered the summons with some affirmative defenses, but now they've sent me interogs. I don't know what to do at this point! I've been mailed a card saying they've set a court date for about a month from now. My original thread is "Credit Pains in NJ" in Collections section; I can't link because there is a post limit.

I need help answering my interogs. They sent me these 3 questions:

How do I answer these? They are really broad. Is there anyway I can brush this off? Also, what interogs should I send? Am I limited in the # I can send?

All documents say Crap1 v. Me, but am I really being sued by Crap1? I think it's really DC but they are playing some game.

I really don't know how to proceed from here. I'm in over my head. Any help would be great. In the mean time, I will try to do my own research. Thanks!

1. Objection. The request is overbroad, burdensome, and as a preliminary matter the Interrogatory requests information that is presently being researched and compiled for trial. Additionally the information requested would compromise the attorney work product priviledge. As a threshold matter the request is premature as discovery is just starting and plaintiff's have not attached relevant documents to the complaint nor have provided same to date to defendant. preserving defendants objection, defendant states that at the present time defendant is in the process of diligent search and reasonable inquiry into the matter and will supplement this response when the information is reasonably available.

2. Objection. The request is overbroad, burdensome, and as a preliminary matter the Interrogatory requests information that is presently being researched and compiled for trial. Additionally the information requested would compromise the attorney work product priviledge. As a threshold matter the request is premature as discovery is just starting and plaintiff's have not attached relevant documents to the complaint nor have provided same to date to defendant. preserving defendants objection, defendant states that at the present time defendant is in the process of diligent search and reasonable inquiry into the matter and will supplement this response when the information is reasonably available.

3.Objection. Objection. The requests demands peronally identifiable information which must be protected from disclosure. Defendants personal records are not related to the case at issue. The Plaintiffs request is overbroad, and burdensome, and not calculated to lead to discoverably information. Plaintiff should be in possesion of the requested information in their alleged records or can state for the record why the information is needed. The law protects persons personally identifiable information as to their personal financial or billing records from being disclosed to third parties.

defendant states without waiving objection that<insert a reason you don't have it>

that should do it. maybe #3 needs some work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Objection. The request is overbroad, burdensome, and as a preliminary matter the Interrogatory requests information that is presently being researched and compiled for trial. Additionally the information requested would compromise the attorney work product priviledge.

There is no attorney work privilege unless an attorney is directly involved. This would not be a good objection for a pro se, it implies there is a "shadow counsel" working with you.

There is also no privilege for "personally identifiable information", they are attempting to identify you as the cardholder.

Discovery responses need to be a balancing act, giving information and documents that will benefit you or at worst will not harm you, while objecting to what you can.

Blanket objections, no matter how craftily worded, will likley lead to a Motion to Compel, and could include sanctions for failure to cooperate. The sanction is normally the noncooperative party being required to pay the attorney's fee's of the party that files the Motion to Compel. If you are not careful, this could be a much as the initial claim.

Having sat in a 3 hour deposition where I was not even a party to the suit, and having an attorney representing me tell me I needed to provide not only personal information, but documents and emails, I have a whole new perspective on discovery.

They even challenged my attorneys objection to "attorney work privilege". He had to explain what the nature of the work was without divuldging the work itself to prove it was privileged.

The court expects cooporation by both sides during discovery. If they have to get involved, it may not bode well for the non-cooperating party, so learn to walk the line instead of standing defiantly on one side of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that...I virtually refused to answer the interrogatories. I responded, but refused to provide answers based on their failure to provide evidence that the account was mine.

They filed a "Motion for more responsive answers" as a result. I filed an objection to the motion and won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that...I virtually refused to answer the interrogatories. I responded, but refused to provide answers based on their failure to provide evidence that the account was mine.

They filed a "Motion for more responsive answers" as a result. I filed an objection to the motion and won.

Your input is appreciated Hepcat, but your case was dismissed by the plaintiff before the hearing. They did file a Motion to Compel and I think you may have filed one against them, but there was a settlement reached.

It is only a problem if you lose a Motion to Compel against you that you could be liable for the attorney's fees of the plaintiff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, you missed the part that says I won the motion hearing.

The judge ruled in my favor.

It was ruled on before I entered mediation.

And they were the exact same interrogatories that were sent to birrch0.

I filed a separate Motion to Compel because P&P was refusing to respond to the interrogatories I sent them. That Motion was not ruled on because the plaintiff agreed to dismiss with prejudice before it became necessary.

Edited by Hepcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll add my two cents worth. Here is how I would answer if I was going to deny any responsibility for this debt. Use these at your own discretion, I am not a lawyer. However, I watched every episode of L.A. Law!

I am assuming that these ROGs are word for word exactly the way they propounded them, because there are a few gaps in the language.

1. Set forth with specificity all facts in support of each defense and/or claim which the defendant in the above-entitled matter including dates, places, names and addresses of persons present or involved in any action and/or conversations.

OBJECTION: Overly broad, burdensome, and vague. The blanket nature and convoluted, indecipherable language of the request makes it impossible to respond to it in any manner. The term "any action" is not defined. The term "defendant in the above-entitled matter including..." is incomplete and does not state what the defendant is alleged to have done. The term "persons present" is vague, undefined, and makes no sense. "Places" cannot be "present or involved."

2. Attach copies of all writings, documents, or any other records which relate to said account or in any way support any defenses or claims, including, but not limited to, correspondence, contracts, agreements, noticies, monthly statements, applications, and any letters sent to or received in connection with the subject account.

OBJECTION: Vague, burdensome, and oppressive. Such a blanket request for undefined documents cannot be responded to. Additionally, the majority of the information which seems to be requested in this convoluted request is assumedly already known to the plaintiff through its business records, specifically any applications, statements, or contracts connected to the account which is the subject of the instant action. Therefore the request is beyond the bounds of permissible discovery.

3. Attach any documentation evidencing defendants mailing address(es) between XDATE and YDATE, which should include, but is not limited to, copies of energy or water bills, telephone bills, lease(s) and/or deed(s)/mortgage(s) and drivers license(s). If said documentation is not in the possession of the defendant, please list each address at which the defendant received mail during the time period requested.

So much of the request is responded to as set forth herein; defendant lived at ______ during the time period specified. The remainder of the request is objected to as irrelevant, unlikely to lead to any admissible evidence, and immaterial. Certainly the defendant's address is known to plaintiff through its business records. Defendant's personal bills and driver's license have no bearing upon the instant action. If plaintiff wishes to challenge the validity of any address at which defendant claims to have resided, let them set forth a separate request stating their reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your input is appreciated Hepcat, but your case was dismissed by the plaintiff before the hearing. They did file a Motion to Compel and I think you may have filed one against them, but there was a settlement reached.

It is only a problem if you lose a Motion to Compel against you that you could be liable for the attorney's fees of the plaintiff.

In my first case, They filed a motion to compel but their discovery had aa different name on it. I used that as 1 excuse and the court ruled the motion moot as they received the discovery and no sanctions for me.

So If they only send a letter and no call and f their chances to get sanctions before they dismiss without prejudice.

Edited by Seadragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no attorney work privilege unless an attorney is directly involved. This would not be a good objection for a pro se, it implies there is a "shadow counsel" working with you.

There is also no privilege for "personally identifiable information", they are attempting to identify you as the cardholder.

Discovery responses need to be a balancing act, giving information and documents that will benefit you or at worst will not harm you, while objecting to what you can.

Blanket objections, no matter how craftily worded, will likley lead to a Motion to Compel, and could include sanctions for failure to cooperate. The sanction is normally the noncooperative party being required to pay the attorney's fee's of the party that files the Motion to Compel. If you are not careful, this could be a much as the initial claim.

Having sat in a 3 hour deposition where I was not even a party to the suit, and having an attorney representing me tell me I needed to provide not only personal information, but documents and emails, I have a whole new perspective on discovery.

They even challenged my attorneys objection to "attorney work privilege". He had to explain what the nature of the work was without divuldging the work itself to prove it was privileged.

The court expects cooporation by both sides during discovery. If they have to get involved, it may not bode well for the non-cooperating party, so learn to walk the line instead of standing defiantly on one side of it.

I was looking on this website:Work Product Privilege/ Civil Discovery

And found this:

Dowden v. Superior Court(1999), 73 Cal.App.4th 126 [ Court held work product could be asserted by pro per functioning as an attorney. Without deciding the work product issues the appellate court remanded the matter for the trial court to conduct an in camera review of a diary compiled pursuant to attorney instructions to determine if it contained work product stating "An in camera review is the proper method for determining whether specific items are subject to a work product privilege."]

Mack v. Superior Court (1968), 259 Cal.App.2d 7at p.10 [ "... the work product privilege was created for the protection of the client as well as the attorney...." Client asserted privilege re former attorney consultation with expert]

Petterson v. Superior Court (1974), 39 Cal.App.3d 267 at p. 273 [privilege may attach to client upon attorney death or resignation from the case; attorney had waived privilege while alive and could not be reinstated by client; injustice would result since object of test not available]

Fellows v. Superior Court (1980), 108 Cal.App.3d 55, at p. 63-64 [" The Attorney's Work-product Privilege May Be Claimed by the Client Although the Privilege Belongs to the Attorney

Defendants assert that the plaintiffs had no standing to claim the attorney's work-product privilege for documents in their possession--documents received by them from Kottler, their former attorney, and claimed to constitute the "work product" of Kottler. It is the thesis of defendants that the attorney's work-product privilege belongs to the attorney only and that only the attorney--not the client--may claim the privilege to preclude disclosure of the privileged information. For this view, defendants rely upon Lohman v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 90 [146 Cal.Rptr. 171]. We conclude that Lohman is neither controlling nor persuasive with respect to the erroneous view espoused by defendants. In Lohman, the deposition of the plaintiff's former attorney was being taken by the defendant. The defendant sought to get from the attorney testimony as to certain opinions formed by him while representing the plaintiff. The plaintiff objected, asserting both the lawyer-client privilege and the attorney's work-product privilege. The deponent-attorney indicated that he was willing to testify with respect to the opinions requested. The Lohman court held that, since the attorney's work-product privilege belongs to the attorney and he, as holder of the privilege, was willing to waive it, the former client could not validly assert the privilege to prevent the attorney from so testifying.

The Lohman court recognized that Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7 [66 Cal.Rptr. 280], had held that, although Code of Civil Procedure section 2016--which creates the attorney's work-product privilege--does not set forth the persons who are entitled to claim the privilege, it would adopt a rule of law that the client as well as the attorney may claim this privilege. The Lohman court criticized the Mack case because of the latter's statement that "[t]he work product privilege was created for the protection of the client as well as the attorney ...." (Mack, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d 7, 10.) In disagreeing with Mack, the Lohman court makes the observation that "it appears that the whole thrust of the work product privilege was to provide a qualified privilege for the attorney preparing a case for trial and protecting the fruits of his labor from discovery." (Lohman, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d 90, 101; fn. omitted.)

The Lohman court is subject to criticism for its misreading of the holding of Mack. The Mack court does not hold that a client is a holder of the attorney's work-product privilege. The Mack court simply determines that, in the absence of the attorney, the client has standing to assert the privilege on behalf of the attorney, the only holder of the privilege. The language of Mack to the effect that the privilege was created in the interest of protecting the client as well as the attorney provides a basis for a judicial interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016 to permit a client to claim the attorney's work-product privilege whenever the attorney is not present to claim it himself. In Mack, the attorney was not present to claim the privilege while the client was present.

The Lohman decision itself is sound however. Since the attorney's work-product privilege belongs to the attorney, the attorney may waive it. This the attorney in Lohman did by agreeing to answer the questions [108 Cal.App.3d 65] posed to him at his deposition. Since the attorney, as the holder of the privilege, was willing to waive it, the former client could not object.

But in the case at bench, the situation is more analogous to Mack than to Lohman. Here plaintiffs were present, in possession of the documents belonging to their former attorney, Kottler, and, in his absence, had standing to claim the attorney's work-product privilege on his behalf. (See Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook (1972), The Attorney's Work-Product Privilege, § 41.1, p. 702.) This judicial interpretation of the attorney's work-product privilege makes this privilege comparable to the rules governing the various privileges set forth in the Evidence Code. Thus, under the lawyer-client privilege, the client is the holder of the privilege but the lawyer is also entitled to claim the privilege for the client (Evid. Code, §§ 953, 954); under the physician-patient privilege, the patient is the holder of the privilege but the physician is entitled to claim the privilege for the patient (Evid. Code, §§ 993, 994); and under the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the patient is the holder of the privilege but the psychotherapist is entitled to claim the privilege for the patient (Evid. Code, §§ 1013, 1014)."

Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter v. Superior Court (1985), 172 Cal.App.3d 264, at page 278. [beneficiary proceeding to remove trustee; uncommunicated absolute work product sought from attorney. Attorney is exclusive holder of privilege citing numerous cases. Client may assert protection. Attorney for trustee can assert against trustee-client; trustee's fiduciary duty to beneficiary does not affect attorney protection for absolute privilege; case decided before statutory provision re malpractice cases was adopted]

Cf. Lohman v. Superior Court (1978), supra at p.101 [questioned Mack case re suggestion that work product protection may be privilege for client but consistent with client right to assert protection]

I will look further for other states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking on this website:Work Product Privilege/ Civil Discovery

Great resource. I bookmarked it.

The problem with even the case quoted with the Pro Per claiming Attorney Work privilege, is that the court needed to examine the diary in this case, "in camera", or in private chambers, to determine if it was privileged work. So if they challenge your assertion of Attorney Work Privilege, the court could compel you to produce the documents for the judge to review to determine if they are privileged or not.

Only if you can convince the judge that they are to be protected as attorney work, then you get the privilege. I would stick with more traditional ways to object to discovery request that don't involve a judicial review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all. First let me thank you all for the help!

I'm almost done drafting some answers, which I might shoot out to some of you to look over, if you're willing, but I have a few questions at this point.

1) There is a lot of mention of dropping case law. Is that too premature at this point, just for answering these interogs?

2) Someone mentioned using privacy statues to object to rog 3. What do you all think?

3)On their rogs, the balance they put differs from that on the complaint. Does this matter at all? Can I use this against them in any way?

Thanks all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.