Jump to content

JDB filed for PROTECTION order from my interrogs


Vark
 Share

Recommended Posts

I didn't quite followed Florida CR books, that interragatories cannot be over 30 parts INCLUDING subparts, I did 25 total, but some of them had multiple questions (subparts) inside, so attorneys for JDB motioned for protective order from these interragatories based on that.

1.Hearing is soon, what should I expect at hearing?

2.Can I send them another set of interrogs, that is within the rule? Do I call them second set or amended set?

3. If that protective order is granted, they don't have to answer those particular interrogs, or ANY possible interrogs in the future?

4.Can I still send them Request for Admissions? I didn't send it together, because I wanted to see what documents they produce after request for production. They were able to dig up a copy of original application with my signature, it wasn't notarized or anything, so I wanted to try to discover a chain of custody on that application and possibly strike it off record, but that's next.

5. At the hearing can they file other motions, like MSJ or something like that? or is it strictly about interrogs and nothing else?

4. Is there anything that can help me to fight that protective order from being granted?

thank you.

oh, btw, with the help of this forum, another case against me was voluntary dismissed after Interrogs and Request for Production of documents and things 8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.Can I send them another set of interrogs, that is within the rule? Do I call them second set or amended set?

No, unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn. No takebacks.

That being said, simply because an interrogatory has multiple "subparts" does not necessarily mean it counts as more than one interrogatory.

If the subparts are so related that they can reasonably be interpreted to request the same subject matter, they may be counted as one.

For example, an interrogatory that requests name, address, phone number and employer, etc., would normally be considered a single interrogatory for purposes of counting.

On the other hand, an interrogatory that asks the responding party to identify the automobile they were driving on a certain date and whether they have been convicted of any crime involving dishonesty would likely be considered two interrogatories, even if couched in the same question.

Hope that helps some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did you send ROGs to a JDB? They are a waste of itme. You win these cases with documentation, 99% with standing to sue. You get that with document production. Orders of protection usually protect one party from being bombarded with ROGs etc from the other party. This looks like a cheap tactic on their part to prevent you from sending requests for documents.

I would suggest that when you go to the hearing, ask the judge for a little leniency. Tell him you tried to comply with the rules but opposing counsel is picking you to death with minor details and technicalities. He'll be there, challenge him. (never address opposing counsel directly, you speak only to the judge) Tell the judge what you think he's trying to do. Maybe you'll catch a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROGs had important questions to help to strike affidavit from evidence.

I went to the hearing, the judge granted protective order, but told me I can resend the ROGs, or strike a few at the end to fit in the rule, I decided to resend.:twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROGs had important questions to help to strike affidavit from evidence.

I went to the hearing, the judge granted protective order, but told me I can resend the ROGs, or strike a few at the end to fit in the rule, I decided to resend.:twisted:

Study the Protective Order closely. It will likely impose strict limitations on how you can use the evidence subject to it. Don't give the other a free shot at you by violating the Order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you resend these ROGs, post them here. We will give you our opinion as to the answers you'll get, which won't be what you're looking for. Again, this is just my opinion, but ROGs are a waste of time and will just lead to a protracted battle which will produce little.

If you want to challenge an affidavit, there are ways to deal with it. You can file a motion to strike it, or you can just let it go if you feel it is defective. Have your argument ready. Then when the JDB lawyer strolls into court waving this garbage at the judge, you can eviscerate him. That way, he has no time to respond.

It's up to you to formulate a strategy you are comfortable with, which may include going to court and arguing in front of a judge. It all comes down to strategy. I do not favor alerting the other side as to their mistakes through motions, objections, etc. I let them live or die by what they put in front of the court. It isn't my job or yours to correct their mistakes, only to profit by them.

Just rememeber one thing. Opposing cousel represents one of the most unethical, scurrilous industries known to man. He'll take the fillings out of your teeth and sell them with no remorse whatsoever, just to satisfy the needs of his client, another low life who profits from the misery of others. Treat him accordingly, albeit with decorum and respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just rememeber one thing. Opposing cousel represents one of the most unethical, scurrilous industries known to man. He'll take the fillings out of your teeth and sell them with no remorse whatsoever, just to satisfy the needs of his client, another low life who profits from the misery of others. Treat him accordingly, albeit with decorum and respect.

Well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have put an end to the automatic service

of voluminous interrogatories by limiting parties to 25

interrogatories each (including sub parts) absent a court

order or stipulation authorizing a greater number.

In addition, much of the information once sought through

interrogatories is now exchanged automatically, pursuant

to the mandatory disclosure provisions of Rule 26(a).

In a decision filed in Clean Earth Remediation and

Construction Services Inc. v. American International

Group Inc.,3 Southern District Magistrate Judge Henry

Pitman relied on this rule to compel the plaintiff to respond more fully to defendant’s interrogatories, and suggested that the work product

doctrine may impose additional limitations on

interrogatories aimed at uncovering evidentiary support

for specific claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. We do agree once in a while, don't we? Altho I won't hold my breath until the next time. Just kidding, all controversy aside, I respect your opinons and knowledge.

Don't take it personally. I think the folks who have been around here for awhile will tell you that I try not to give anyone any information or suggestions that will land them in a worse situtation than they're already in. I happen to believe the "credit terrorist" strategies, more often than not, do result in folks being worse off than they started. And more often than not, the ones who advocate those tactics are simply repeating something they read somewhere else. I'm fully aware that there are those who disagree.:)%

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.