less is more in discovery or not? how much should one ask for in discovery?

[drummer55]

Recent discussions on paring down affirmative defenses and focusing on chain of assignment got me thinking about discovery. Here in oregon we dont get interrogatories so I'm stuck with doc requests and requests for admissions.

I'm wondering what the boards thoughts on this are.

• Ask for everything under the sun at once. Wait for response then send requests for admissions.
  
• Ask for little bits of information spread over a number of weeks. Wait till the end then send requests for admissions.
  
• Ask only for chain of assignment documentation and then send requests for admissions.
  

[Coltfan1972]

All depends on your rules. In my state we get unlimited and unlimited rounds (unless one party can get a protective order for abuse).

So I had the time of my life with discovery. I'd send a round, they would send b.s. back, I'd fire off a cooperation letter, then the ones they did answer, I generated more requests based on their answers.

In other words I just kept finding more and more info I needed to "discover" based on what they sent, while at the same time arguing what they did not answer they should be compelled to answer (on a few of them, never about standing would I compel anything).

So just when they would have to answer discovery they were compelled to answer (on a side note, if you want to see a collection attorney blow their top in the hallway, have a judge compel them to produce something against a pro-se non-atty litigant), that would generate another round with the answers they provided.

In other words a complete nightmare. However, if I was in the border state of Oklahoma, I would have only gotten 10 requests for interrogatories, admissions, documents, and would have asked the court every time for permission to send out more discovery.

So it all depends on your strategy and rules.

[drummer55]

All depends on your rules. In my state we get unlimited and unlimited rounds (unless one party can get a protective order for abuse).

So I had the time of my life with discovery. I'd send a round, they would send b.s. back, I'd fire off a cooperation letter, then the ones they did answer, I generated more requests based on their answers.

In other words I just kept finding more and more info I needed to "discover" based on what they sent, while at the same time arguing what they did not answer they should be compelled to answer (on a few of them, never about standing would I compel anything).

So just when they would have to answer discovery they were compelled to answer (on a side note, if you want to see a collection attorney blow their top in the hallway, have a judge compel them to produce something against a pro-se non-atty litigant), that would generate another round with the answers they provided.

In other words a complete nightmare. However, if I was in the border state of Oklahoma, I would have only gotten 10 requests for interrogatories, admissions, documents, and would have asked the court every time for permission to send out more discovery.

So it all depends on your strategy and rules.

ha. In Oregon our rule 36 seems to give us unlimited discovery/questions..not sure bout the time period.

whats a cooperation letter?

I can see the reasoning behind your method and agree with it...make em pay every step of the way.

At the same time as I agree with your method I wonder about just cutting to the chase. Mostly what I've seen is JDB's not answering discovery or giving a lot of flim flam.... why not ask for only one thing in the first round of questions? Chain of assignment. If they dont answer that then compel and if they dont follow the compel then motion to dismiss.

[usagi555]

At the same time as I agree with your method I wonder about just cutting to the chase. Mostly what I've seen is JDB's not answering discovery or giving a lot of flim flam.... why not ask for only one thing in the first round of questions? Chain of assignment. If they dont answer that then compel and if they dont follow the compel then motion to dismiss.

Because you want them to bleed money and singling in on that one issue like that would tip them off that you're going to push it really hard. I'd ask for everything relevant that I could think of.

If I received a summons over a CC debt today, I would immediatly start drafting some discovery requests asking for every single piece of evidence that I did not want them to present and I would send those with my response. Once I got their crap objections or they failed to respond, I would ask the court to preclude everything. After that, I would start sending requests that I did want them to respond to, and I would be compelling answers after their failures to respond.

You want the clock to start ticking immediatly on their evidence, and by separating the stuff you want compelled vs the stuff you want precluded, it will make things much cleaner when you have to deal with their non-responses.