Jump to content

Request for Admissions reply question, Admit but deny


Recommended Posts

General question on Admissions responses.

 

I revecived discovery responses from the other side, all with boilerplate objections, and lots of them, of course.

 

Specifically on the Request for Admissions, the request was:
 

"Admit that in YOUR ‘DECLARATION’ you state that PLAINTIFF “..confirmed...last known residence was listed as 'X'."

 

Their response after several lines of objections, was: 

 

"Deny. Cross-Defendant's Declaration ...states..."using a common skip trace system called Accurint, ...confirmed by using the Defendant's social scurity number that defendant's last known residence was listed as 'X'."

 

 

So they said exactly what I said (confirmed...last known residence), but are denying instead of admitting.

 

As a general concept, how should one think about, what should one do about, a response that is obviously a lie.   I get all the objections and the vague non-responses, but when their response includes the exact same words I used, and they say deny instead of admit......?

 

Perhaps they can actually say that because I shortened the actual phrase?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Learnin

 

Your post isn't that clear because you didn't include the entire admission request or their entire denial.  I know you included the relevant phrases, but without the entire admission request and response, we could take their response out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks BV80.

 

 

Request for Admissions No. 5

Admit that in YOUR ‘DECLARATION OF (redacted) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’s OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION’ you state that PLAINTIFF “confirmed..last known residence was listed as 2443 Fillmore St. #259 in San Francisco, California 94115” [emphasis added]

 

 

Response to Request for Admissions No. 5

 

     Objection, the request is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, irrelevant and not reasonalbly calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to Cross-Defendant's libability for the causes of action alleged in the Cross-Complaint.  Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Cross-Defendant states: Deny.  Cross-Defendant's Declaration In Support of Plaintiff's Opposiiton to Defendant's Motion to Transfer states at P. 4 paragraph 8 that "using a common skip trace system called Accurint, which is password protected, the Plaintiff confirmed by using the Defendant's social security number that the Defendant's last known residence was listed as '1234 WhereIGetMail St.'.  This address was listed as current prior to filing suit and accessed through their website which is: (Accurint's website).  To date, the address is listed as current for the time period from January 2007-2010.  See redacted Accurint search for Defendant attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it reads like you are the plaintiff and you are asking them to admit that YOU are the one that confirmed your address was "X".  (It probably reads that way because you filed a cross-complaint)

 

They are saying that they never said "you" told them the address, but that they acquired the information thru skip tracing software (called Accurint). Unless I am missing something here.

 

Either way; I would have to imagine that there is something more relevant to attack, that would serve you better. Just my opinion. Good Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plaintiff originally brought suit in the wrong county (which I've since had transferred to a different venue).  I have a business post office box there at a UPS store (I travel and move around a lot).

 

I later put in a cross-complaint vs the plaintiff, law group, and two attorneys, which includes a FDCPA violation for bringing suit in jurisdiction other than where defendant resides.

 

This is discovery to/from the lawyer that filed a Declaration stating under penalty of perjury that Plaintiff verified my address of residence via Accurint. It's kind of fun, all their documents/discovery actually make the case for the address being my last known 'address', but then via slight of hand (with the Declaration), magically switch that to 'residence'.

 

 

For the record, I'm aware that this is a relatively minor thing, and as far as I understand it FDCPA doesn't care WHY they brought suit in the wrong county so I don't really need to prove anything, and I'm happy to make them work as much as possible for all the fun reasons to do that, including allowing me the opportunity to learn all about discovery and cross-complaints and evidence and court etc.

 

They're trying to mix 'address' and 'residence' and avoid admitting that they knew it wasn't a residence when the Accurint report clearly shows it's a 'mail service/letter acceptance' mail account.

 

 

 

Along those lines, specifically my question here revolves around them 'deny'ing what to me appears like it MUST be an 'admit', since we use the same quote from their Declaration.  Granted, I didn't spell it out completely so that may give them some wiggle room, but their declaration says what it says, I asked them to admit that's what it says, they denied that that's what it says.

 

So I'm curious how that all works and how to think about this specific scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Learnin

 

Wow.  Unless one speaks "legalese", it's almost as clear as mud.  :-)

 

 

Yeah really.  Some of their Discovery responses are 10 lines of objections with no actual answer/response at all.  (Which has me think that those are the ones to go after.....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could I hate you @BV80?  You're so beautiful!

 

Nothing received at residence, from anybody, at residence address, until after I started the Motion To Transfer Venue process and gave them my residence address.

 

So the answer to your two questions are:
No.

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Learnin

 

I agree with willingtocope.  Regarding a possible FDCPA counterclaim, if you can get an attorney, do so.

If you can't, here's my take on their admissions.

It appears their claiming they didn't have a residence address where they could send the complaint.  That's why I asked if they had any cc statements from the OC that showed a residence address.  Instead, they had to rely upon skip tracing to determine an address.

Unless you can show that they had your home address or that they were negligent in some way, I'm just not sure the admission response would help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It appears their claiming they didn't have a residence address where they could send the complaint.  That's why I asked if they had any cc statements from the OC that showed a residence address.  Instead, they had to rely upon skip tracing to determine an address.

Unless you can show that they had your home address or that they were negligent in some way, I'm just not sure the admission response would help you.

 

They're claiming that Accurint told them where I resided, when it only gave the last known address, which was a mail box business.

 

In hindsight, I didn't need to waste an Interrogatory on it, since there's no reason to ask them to admit something that their paperwork/documents already says.  Lesson learned.   So I agree, an admission won't help me.

 

I'm really just trying to ask how they can deny stating something their own declartion states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK now I see where you are going with this.  Their argument will be that they took necessary steps to insure the information was correct and that Accurit's neck should be on the line for the actual confirmation (which is probably no big deal) However if you are doing it to make them spend time on the case, then it's perfect. 

Nice job getting the cross-complaint in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that that will be their argument because A.  Accurint gave them information that last known address was a letter service/mail box location, and Plaintiff is then and therefor calling that a 'residence'.

 

Which makes sense why they're denying that they said what they said in their Declaration.

 

 

And thanks.  Cross-complaint in, beat their motion to strike, on to the next thing.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you use this "mail box?" if you use it to receive certain mail and do not use your residence, as I do for legal things, than the court can consider that an address. This will cause a lot of ruff, what address did you give to the OC?

 

What they are saying is that because of their soft ware they are not libel, they filed in the county where "as far as they were notified" where they thought was correct. Are you claiming they violated section 811 of the fdcpa? where was the original contract signed?

 

As you stated, you move around a lot, maybe this was the only address they could find on you since you "move around a lot" If you state this in court or in writing on a court doc you will kill your case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In hindsight, I didn't need to waste an Interrogatory on it, since there's no reason to ask them to admit something that their paperwork/documents already says.  Lesson learned.   So I agree, an admission won't help me.

 

 

 

You hit the nail on the head.  You have a declaration which is an admission and is signed under penalty of perjury.  A discovery response is never going to be better than the declaration itself.

 

THey denied it because you did not quote the statement accurately.  You truncated it.  I would have advised you to respond in a similar fashion.

 

But no harm done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you use this "mail box?" if you use it to receive certain mail and do not use your residence, as I do for legal things, than the court can consider that an address. This will cause a lot of ruff, what address did you give to the OC?

 

What they are saying is that because of their soft ware they are not libel,

 

As you stated, you move around a lot, maybe this was the only address they could find on you since you "move around a lot" If you state this in court or in writing on a court doc you will kill your case.

 

It's one of a couple mail boxes I use.

 

I agree, that's what they're saying, partially.  They're saying that, but they're saying the Accurint report gives them the 'last known address', which is a letter service/ups store, and then calling that a residence and declaring that I live there.   But yes, I get what you're saying and will factor that in.  Thanks.

 

I notice that I say 'I move around a lot', and I do get to various places, but I've resided where I've resided non-stop for the last couple of years, and previous to the filing of the suit by a fair margin,.   Thanks, I'll clarify/manage my language better.

 

 

@calawyer  No truncating.  Makes sense, and I see it was just me being lazy as far as typing it all out.   Lesson learned, thanks.

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.