Confused about Discovery Deadline

[GeneralTso]

Hi guys,

Longtime lurker and now I am in need of some assistance. I am being sued in Maine by a JDB, First Resolution investment corporation.

Plaintiff: First Resolution Corporation

Law Firm:XXXXXXXX

Amount:$9700

OC: Chase

Served 12/16/2012

Served by Sheriff's Deputy. Super nice guy actually.

Service was legal

Correspondence by phone

Sagadahoc County, Maine

I do not know the last payment date

SOL in Maine=6 years.

Discovery Phase

I have not disputed the case with credit bureau

I have not validated the debt

I now have 4 days to answer discovery

Evidence:

2 bills of sale without an account number on them. Two statements with payments and charges, a generic card member agreement and statement of account dated 7/2009

The court sent me a letter stating that the discovery deadline is April 12th, 2012. They sent me interrogatories and requests for documents Mar 20th and stated that I had 30 days to answer. My question is, can I still file discovery for documents for them? The court document states;

"Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown, discovery shall be completed in this matter by April 12, 2012.

Discovery shall be initiated so as to enable the opposing party to serve a response within the period allowed by the rules but in advance to this deadline.No extensions of the discovery period will be granted except on motion demonstrating that discovery was timely and diligently conducted in good faith, and that there is good cause for the extension. Counsel shall not assume that agreements to conduct discovery beyond this deadline will be accepted by the court. Such agreements shall not delay hearing on the merits of this action."

Does the sentence "discovery shall be initiated so as to enable the opposing party to serve a response allowed by the rules but in advance of this deadline" mean I can send them discovery by the deadline but give them 30 days to answer? Thank you in advance.

Edited April 9, 2012 by GeneralTso

[usagi555]

That depends on whether or not their requests were timely. If theirs aren't, then you can't send them.

The kicker is the sentence you noticed: "Discovery shall be initiated so as to enable the opposing party to serve a response within the period allowed by the rules but in advance to this deadline."

From Maine's Rule 33 (rogs): The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories,

From Maine's Rule 34 (PODs): The party upon whom the request is served shall serve a written response within 30 days after the service of the request,

So, as they stated, you have 30 days to answer, as per the rules. But, the court set a deadline that means discovery will be done by April 12. Done, as in they propounded discovery requests upon you and you have responded by April 12. That does not allow you the 30 days as allowed by the rules. They goofed, and if I were in your shoes, I would be sending them a letter stating that their discovery requests were untimely and they were SOL.

Anyway, that's the way I interpret it, and if I'm off base here, I hope somebody speaks up.

[GeneralTso]

I should not bother submitting discovery? Kinda bummed here. All they have admitted is a couple of statements, a card agreement, a bill of sale to another JDB.

[usagi555]

I should not bother submitting discovery? Kinda bummed here. All they have admitted is a couple of statements, a card agreement, a bill of sale to another JDB.

Sounds like you can object to everything and completely demolish their chain of title.

[Coltfan1972]

Simple solution, ask for a continuance of the discovery deadline. I got three. Your first one should be granted for just about any reason.

[GeneralTso]

Thanks guys, two different things here. How do I object to everything to demolish chain of title? A simple letter? Is that to the court and the plaintiff? If they broke the rules, I would imagine that carries weight.

Coltfan, does an extension mean that I have to answer to the interrogatories? Which would be a better way to go? Move with their mistake or take the chance of getting tangled up in my own?

[GeneralTso]

Hmm...so they broke the rules for timely response. That means that they get no admissions, no documents, and no interrogatories. What do they have left after that?

[1stStep]

You would file a motion to preclude based on the fact that statements are not authenticated, affidavits are hearsay...

[GeneralTso]

You would file a motion to preclude based on the fact that statements are not authenticated, affidavits are hearsay...

Thank you. At this point, it seems they would have difficulty proving ownership at trial. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Edited April 9, 2012 by GeneralTso

[Coltfan1972]

Hmm...so they broke the rules for timely response. That means that they get no admissions, no documents, and no interrogatories. What do they have left after that?

Every bit of evidence they have unless you asked for it via discovery and then they did not provide it.

I don't see how objecting to their requests would derail their chain of custody. If you had sent them requests and then they did not answer, then you could file a motion to preclude.

USAGI,

It sounds like they included some prima facie evidence with the complaint. However, if the OP did not send discovery, how would that derail their chain of custody argument.

I realize it's somewhat moot as you can always object at trial and the JDB most likely won't be bringing a live witness, but how does it automatically derail the chain of custody argument?

[usagi555]

Every bit of evidence they have unless you asked for it via discovery and then they did not provide it.

I don't see how objecting to their requests would derail their chain of custody. If you had sent them requests and then they did not answer, then you could file a motion to preclude.

USAGI,

It sounds like they included some prima facie evidence with the complaint. However, if the OP did not send discovery, how would that derail their chain of custody argument.

I realize it's somewhat moot as you can always object at trial and the JDB most likely won't be bringing a live witness, but how does it automatically derail the chain of custody argument?

I'm just talking about the near certainty that they won't bring anything showing OP's account number linked to a bill of sale from the first JDB to the second JDB, nothing linking the account number to the bill of sale from the OC to the first JDB, the lack of witnesses, and the fact that OP can object at trial to all the hearsay.

Edited April 9, 2012 by usagi555

[legaladvice]

I'm just talking about the near certainty that they won't bring anything showing OP's account number linked to a bill of sale from the first JDB to the second JDB, nothing linking the account number to the bill of sale from the OC to the first JDB, the lack of witnesses, and the fact that OP can object at trial to all the hearsay.

You never know what they will bring. Dont count your chickens . . .

[Coltfan1972]

I'm just talking about the near certainty that they won't bring anything showing OP's account number linked to a bill of sale from the first JDB to the second JDB, nothing linking the account number to the bill of sale from the OC to the first JDB, the lack of witnesses, and the fact that OP can object at trial to all the hearsay.

Okay, that is what I thought you meant.

[Coltfan1972]

You never know what they will bring. Dont count your chickens . . .

While I can't dispute anything is possible, I've yet to hear of any case in all of the U.S. where a junk debt buyer brought in live witnesses from each subsequent owner and those witnesses had actual first hand knowledge of the records.

They always win by default, or summary judgement with an error by a pro-se Plaintiff. nine times out of ten that error is not challenging the affidavit or other hearsay evidence and therefore consenting to its admissibility.

The second most common is pleading a ton of affirmative defenses and flipping the burden to themselves.

They don't do the two of those above, I know of not one case a junk debt buyer then brought actual witnesses to authenticate the financial records.

Of course I could be wrong, but I've been asking and looking for months and can't find one case.

[usagi555]

You never know what they will bring. Dont count your chickens . . .

They would not only have to get the actual records from the OC, which costs a significant amount of money as the OCs do charge for that stuff, they would also have to fly their own witness in, a witness from the previous JDB and a witness from the OC in order to properly authenticate all of the records. All of those witnesses would either need to have personal knowledge of the account, or be actual records custodians. Now you are talking major $$ to win when there is no certainty that those costs will be recouped. On top of all that, the OC has quit suing over CC debt due to some "irregularities" in their records.

However, if OP doesn't properly object, all of that is moot.

Edited April 9, 2012 by usagi555

[Coltfan1972]

They would not only have to get the actual records from the OC, which costs a significant amount of money as the OCs do charge for that stuff, they would also have to fly their own witness in, a witness from the previous JDB and a witness from the OC in order to properly authenticate all of the records. All of those witnesses would either need to have personal knowledge of the account, or be actual records custodians. Now you are talking major $$ to win when there is no certainty that those costs will be recouped. On top of all that, the OC has quit suing over CC debt due to some "irregularities" in their records.

Yep, and why I said I know of no case where this has happened.

However, if OP doesn't properly object, all of that is moot.

And unfortunately I know of numerous of examples where this happened.

[legaleagle]

We should look into this. Is there some law that requires the OC to keep records once they sell the account? If so, for how long? And if so, why is it that the OCs never seem to have these records, even when they bring suit? What kinds of agreements are there between JDBs and OCs connected to records? Do the JDBs just accept a minimal amount of records when they buy these accounts? If so, that could be very damaging to them. You could argue that the JDB indeed had an opportunity to obtain a full record of the account but declined to do so for financial reasons. Now the JDB wants the court to "take our word for it" and issue a judgment. We need to have all the posters dealing with JDBs start asking for this information.

[GeneralTso]

Alright gents. I've chosen to object to everything based on their breaking the rules. What would be the next step? This is a 2nd JDB by the way. 2 bills of sale, neither have my account number on them. There was precedent set late last year in Maine vacating a summary judgement based on the same evidence they have. Do I motion to preclude evidence ahead of time?

[Seadragon]

check the rules of court and local rules about the deadlines for this I would have to say you have some time to do this then spring it before trial the allowed amount of time.

Then make sure you have complied with all pretrial procedures, If they have Identified a witness subpoena them before the deadline. and check for exchange of evidence at trial requirements for Maine.

Now would also be a good time to find out how the court rules on these cases.

Everything you can do to limit the courts discretion is a good thing.

This all might help:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/1122217-post91.html

Edited April 11, 2012 by Seadragon
adding shtuff