xavi72

Plaintiff's Discovery returned With full of objections

Recommended Posts

I recently propounded discovery on the Plaintiff (OC) on 10/31/12 for a limited civil case and received their response within a timely manner (12/5/12).  I propounded them with Form Interrogatories, POD, and RFA.  However, I received what I think are incomplete responses.  They wrote extensively as I received a total of 12 pages worth of responses but all were objected in one way or another referencing to the account statements (originals are no longer available), that my request are burdensome, oppressive, over broad, vague and ambiguous in phrasing, and seek to harass the responding party, request for production of documents is based upon facts not evidenced nor contained in Plaintiff's complaint for Money and thus such requests are irrelevant.

 

They responded with the following to most of all my requests:

 

Ojection:  Responding party objects to this request as it is in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure 2033.060(d)  Responding party objects to this request on the grounds the this request for admission is compound and/or disjunctive in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure 2033.060(f)  Responding party objects to this request as it is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.  

 

It is difficult to summarize 12 pages worth of responses to my 30 discovery request but from what I've read, they objected to most of the discovery using the above statement with only a slight degree of variation in their responses to the discovery.  I asked for the typical things that are frequently asked from other members on here (e.g. for POD, application, documents establishing communication with user of the account, tangible items they intend to introduce at court, etc).

 

I previously received the BOP from them which they included statements again.  So for all my discovery requests and BOP, I basically got a copy of about 2 years worth of statements, copies of the card agreement and no new information I can use to defend this case.  So to me it seems, I'm back at square one.  This information is vital since I'm truly defending that the account was not opened, used, signed, agreed upon or anything by me but by the other person named in the lawsuit.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you received is typical from collection attorneys representing OCs or JDBs. Hopefully CAlawyer responds to your thread to give you a suggestion. CA laws and rules are completely different than here in Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't unexpected.

 

I received about 100 pounds of BS for each request I made - none of it actually making any sense.

 

I think they roll a Magic 8 Ball when they do their answers and just print whatever shows up on the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you could do one of two things:

 

1) YOu might have to confer with the Plaintiff before doing these if you can resolve the issues outside of court in good faith.

 

A) File a Motion to Compel - try to get the court to force them to answer.

B) File a Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send a meet and confer - be sure to work in "good faith basis to file suit." Give them 10 days to amend then hit them with the motions - motion to deem admitted and motion to compel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are hard playing folks....they have also filed a notice for a deposition which is scheduled in the next couple days so this will be interesting to see how it goes (it's me being deposed not them, just to clarify).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be interesting if they produce documents that they claim are destroyed...

 

I'd do the same - depose the person who ascertained the documents were destroyed... watch them object like crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you can do several things...

I do not practice in Cali they have so many rules,./

 

In my state,

I can file an order to show cause, and have them explain to the judge why they objected to each and every question and why they do not want to participate in discovery.

 

I can file a motion to compel discovery. 

 

i can send defendant second set of interogs and discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try: "Effective use of objections in responding to interrogatories", on www.CAALA.ORG. Explanations of objections, Cal. case cites, etc.

 

Or: "Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Fed. Rule Civ. P. 26[2][C].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello xavi72,

 

At this point, you will need to determine which of the Discoveries you want to m&c, which if after they still don't respond which discovery you want to mtc further response.

 

Here's a very good writeup by calawyer: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/309078-motions-to-compel-bop-vs-written-discovery-in-cal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this is not "out of line" and if I'm totally off somebody will pin my ears back I'm sure. (be gentle)

 

I don';t know if this would apply in a Civil Litigation case, but I was up to my neck against DHS in Colorado a few years back (these are civil cases) and when the other side pulled shenanigan's I listed everything they did then pulled law out to show they were trying to run around the court and pull something in violation of CO statutes.

 

I submitted and filed with the Court Clerk, as a Report to the Court on the Case of ************ as believe it or not they do every chance they get, got no fllak over it and got a chance to glance at the Judges case file at one of many court appearance's and each and everyone of them was in there for the Judge to review. Its kind of like when something is said in front of a jury and the judge tells them to disregard it, its too late and most of the jury has that in their mind regardless. I just made sure to send DHS a "cutesy copy" also. Gotta follow procedure, some.

 

That's one of the reason's they put so much crap and language in their opposition........if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull***t.

 

You could file another Discovery Request and cut them down to 10 days or so, making sure you repeat where you did it earlier and they responded with evasion and nonsense for evidence and make sure to file it with the Court Clerk and send a '"curtesy copy of 2nd request for discovery to the Court" (Include a copy of your original request to the court along with it)

 

Even if it's not technically needed or if its really not right, you can bet it will still be in the file that the judge has to look at. Even if they blow it off, by law they can't take it out of the file. That's one of the ways I started trying to paint them into a real tight corner.

But then I don't play entirely fair if I can slide it in.

 

I know that it helped some as the initial case was decided against us, but I filed motion for a retrial (and brought up the information in the "reports" along with some good case law) and the Judge granted a new hearing.

 

That's the advantage of pro se. You still have to "sort of" follow procedure and be respectful, but you usually get a little more play room than the Licensed attorney, as he is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorney's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xavi72,

 

 Can you post just a few of your requests on here? Just curious if they may be warranted objections. I don't mean any offense but if you could post just some of them, it might help determine just how "out of line" they are.

 

These are what they're referencing. If you referred to other admissions in an admission or had instructions to admit or deny and then just posted a statement, etc.

 

 

d) Each request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set of admission requests unless it has been approved under Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 2033.710).

f) No request for admission shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive request unless it has been approved under Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 2033.710).

 




			
		

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.