Jump to content

Judge ordered new answers to 3 interrogatories, what do we say now??


Recommended Posts

Being sued by Midland Funding. The lawyers asked for new answers to the following questions and the judge granted the request. Not sure what to say.

 

We were  to use a lawyer to deal with this but decided not to use the one we had because they lost the last case horribly. Because of this, we did not send our own interrogatories and the plaintiff is contending that we are no longer in discovery.

 

Here are the questions and the original answers.

 

  1. If it is your contention that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff in any amount as alleged in the Complaint, indicate the factual basis for such contention.

Objection, on the grounds that it is seeking information that is premature given that the parties are in the midst of discovery and pertinent documents have not yet been produced by the Plaintiff. Without waiving his objection, the Defendant reserves the right to update this answer to this interrogatory at a later time when that decision is made.

  1. If it is your contention that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff in any amount as alleged in the Complaint, indicate the legal basis for such contention.

Objection, on the grounds that it is seeking information that is premature given that the parties are in the midst of discovery and pertinent documents have not yet been produced by the Plaintiff. Without waiving his objection, the Defendant reserves the right to update this answer to this interrogatory at a later time when that decision is made.

  1. State whether you have ever used the credit card at issue in this case.

Objection, on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, cumulative and/or duplicative to the extent it seeks documents or records that are not within the current knowledge, possession, custody or control of the Defendant. Plaintiff’s request should be accessible to Plaintiff from Plaintiff's own files, from documents or information already in Plaintiff's possession. The Defendant leaves the Plaintiff to its proof.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being sued by Midland Funding. The lawyers asked for new answers to the following questions and the judge granted the request. Not sure what to say.

 

We were  to use a lawyer to deal with this but decided not to use the one we had because they lost the last case horribly. Because of this, we did not send our own interrogatories and the plaintiff is contending that we are no longer in discovery.

 

Here are the questions and the original answers.

 

  1. If it is your contention that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff in any amount as alleged in the Complaint, indicate the factual basis for such contention.

Objection, on the grounds that it is seeking information that is premature given that the parties are in the midst of discovery and pertinent documents have not yet been produced by the Plaintiff. Without waiving his objection, the Defendant reserves the right to update this answer to this interrogatory at a later time when that decision is made.

  1. If it is your contention that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff in any amount as alleged in the Complaint, indicate the legal basis for such contention.

Objection, on the grounds that it is seeking information that is premature given that the parties are in the midst of discovery and pertinent documents have not yet been produced by the Plaintiff. Without waiving his objection, the Defendant reserves the right to update this answer to this interrogatory at a later time when that decision is made.

Plaintiff has not presented enough evidence that will enable the defendant to strictly admit nor deny, defendant leaves the plaintiff to their proofs. Defendant must deny until any strict proof is presented by the plaintiff to prove that defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.

  1. State whether you have ever used the credit card at issue in this case.

Objection, on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, cumulative and/or duplicative to the extent it seeks documents or records that are not within the current knowledge, possession, custody or control of the Defendant. Plaintiff’s request should be accessible to Plaintiff from Plaintiff's own files, from documents or information already in Plaintiff's possession. The Defendant leaves the Plaintiff to its proof.

Defendant can neither admit nor deny and leaves the plaintiff to their proofs

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like BTO's responses, they are likely to get you sanctioned by the court.

I would answer more direct.

1. It is the defendants position that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff. the defendant has no business relationship to the plaintiff.

2. It is the defendants position that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff. the defendant has no business relationship to the plaintiff.

3. (You will need to answer this without perjuring yourself) Example: I have used the card referenced, but I dispute both the balance and the obligation to pay any of the balance to the plaintiff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being sued by Midland Funding. The lawyers asked for new answers to the following questions and the judge granted the request. Not sure what to say.

 

We were  to use a lawyer to deal with this but decided not to use the one we had because they lost the last case horribly. Because of this, we did not send our own interrogatories and the plaintiff is contending that we are no longer in discovery.

...

From what I have observed, the plaintiff is assumed by many to provide less than accurate, non-candid and/or dishonest information to consumers and courts, all without admitting wrongdoing. When they contend something like "we are no longer in discovery" I would check my rules of civil procedure and see if there was any truth to their "contention".

 

If discovery requests were still permitted by the rules, my discovery would go out ASAP via USPS CMRRR. If it is truly "no longer in discovery" I would be asking for the court for permission to send out belated discovery requests (rogs, RFD, and admissions). Clearly, opposing is still in the midst of discovery at this allegedly "late" date and would not seem to be prejudiced by taking time to get to the truth of the matter. Denial of an expansion of time to do discovery (should such a request be necessary) to defendant while granting an order for new answers to the plaintiff *might* be an issue for appeal in some jurisdictions FAIK.

 

Depending on the rules, time available, phase of the moon, and my abilities I might be propounding discovery requests on opposing and then asking the court for permission or arguing that they were timely (especially if the rules were unclear on a hard deadline) if/when opposing objects to timeliness. IDK There are a lot of moving parts that need to be guided by the rules and making an appealable record IMHO.

 

I am unclear if no discovery was propounded on the plaintiff or just the rogs were missing.

 

A bone-crushing defense is greatly aided by a bone-crushing offense IMHO.

 

When answering rogs I try to:

1.) assume nothing;

2.) answer honestly;

3.) answer in a way that leaves opposing deflated and wishing they had propounded more precise and targeted discovery requests (or leaves them wishing that they actually had any admissible evidence that could prove up every single required element of their cause of action).

 

The flip side is propounding precise discovery is no easy task but necessary IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I sent in answers and it is a whole new mess. 

 

We answered the: The  Pantiff has not presented enough evidence that will enable the defendant to stickily admit nor deny, the defendant leaves the plantifs to their proofs. Defendant must deny until any strict proof is presented by the plaintiff to prove tha the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.

 

​We immediately received a Motion for Sactiond for Failure to Respond to Interrogatories  sayn that we are in violation of the motion to compel answers. The are asking the judge to either:

1) That at trial, Defendant is prohibited from opposing Plaintiff's claims, supporting Defendants defenses, and is prohibited from submitting any evidence 

 

or 

2) That a default judge,met  is hereby entered against the Defendant in the amounts prayed in the complaint.

___________________________________________

 

 

What they have offered so far:

 

-Affidavit of Records ( hey can't use his in court as far as I know)

-A random piece of paper their office created with Name, date, etc. with most of the account number and telephone numbers redacted. It is nothing but an internal spreadsheet.

-A Closing Statement and Bill of sale from the purchase of a large group of accounts from Chase. The file number, number of counts, purchase price, wiring instructions,  final data file information and amounts due to the seller are all redacted. 

-One old statement from the account showing no purchases made and no payments made. It also has part of the account number and some other thing I can't even see redacted. 

-Another  random piece of paper their office created with Name, date, etc. with most of the account number and telephone numbers redacted. It is nothing but an internal spreadsheet.

 

 

Based on this information i actually feel the answers were real answers as there is not enough information to actual answer the questions.

 

______________________

 

The also filed a Notice of Intent to Offer Certified Records at Trail using Evidence Rule 5-902 ( B). They say the records are available at their office.

 

 

___________________________________

 

No one has ever fought me so hard on these before. They just accept it and move on.

 

__________________________________

 

It is my understanding that we can't send interrogatories anymore (we got behind the eight ball on this one and never sent any). I suppose we could send them anyway.

 

__________________________________

 

I can send in a motion to dismiss but felt I should deal with the sanction first. I couldn't find anything anywhere on how to deal with the Certified Records issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@playcare

 

In post #3, @lheart called it.  They weren't asking for an admission or denial.  They were asking for a specific answer and a reason for the answer.

 

For instance, to #2, you could have answered that you owe them nothing because they haven't proven ownership of the account and standing to sue you.  Nor have they shown that the billing statement is correct and that the amount owed is valid.  Something like that.

 

You need to oppose the motion, state your reasons, and include supporting case law.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

​We immediately received a Motion for Sactiond for Failure to Respond to Interrogatories  sayn that we are in violation of the motion to compel answers. The are asking the judge to either:

1) That at trial, Defendant is prohibited from opposing Plaintiff's claims, supporting Defendants defenses, and is prohibited from submitting any evidence 

 

or 

2) That a default judge,met  is hereby entered against the Defendant in the amounts prayed in the complaint.

...

Based on this information i actually feel the answers were real answers as there is not enough information to actual answer the questions.

...

No one has ever fought me so hard on these before. They just accept it and move on.

...

It is my understanding that we can't send interrogatories anymore (we got behind the eight ball on this one and never sent any). I suppose we could send them anyway.

...

I can send in a motion to dismiss but felt I should deal with the sanction first. I couldn't find anything anywhere on how to deal with the Certified Records issue.

There are usually specific requirements for answering a discovery request. There are often acceptable and not acceptable responses and form of responses. The specific requirements for MD is what I would be looking at if similarly situated.

The sanctions requested are draconian and awarding them against a pro se would seem over the top, but worse has happened in litigation.

 

I understand that in some jurisdiction it is proper to file something like a motion for an order to show cause prior to requesting sanctions. I would want to know how the court expects the procedure to play out in MD.

The court doesn't care that I "feel" something is "real". The court is only interested in the case law, rules, and procedures that they are required to follow. In some case they require a successful appeal before they will comply with law and rules.

 

I am never truly surprised that opposing is using different methods to prevail or they are very aggressive in pursuit of an uncollectable judgment (in my case). I am often amazed. Opposing is apparently truly shocked that I will not stop until I win. I am relentless. They will call me names in court filings. I always remain civil. It is "civil" law, isn't it? ;-)  If I was ever truly surprised that opposing is fighting "so hard" it is either time to step up my game or find myself a competent and winning hired gun attorney.

 

As for my "understanding" that I cannot send discovery, I would want to be able to cite the specific rule for that deadline as the reason I am barred from propounding discovery at this time. I would know the specific deadline and whether I had missed it, it was a future date, or I could extend it through some procedure.

If my response was in compliance with the discovery guidelines in MD then I might need to be firm in opposition to their frivolous and harassing over-the-top sanction request. If my response was not in compliance *I* would want to research if it was possible to amend/update my answers and meet the requirements. I would be looking to do ASAP. Of course I would also likely be opposing the motion for sanctions.

The purpose of discovery, as I understand it, is to reduce the number of disputed issues and make more efficient use of the court and litigant's time.

 

If I am not qualified to do my own plumbing work and I have a plumber mess things up, I would  find a competent plumber for my next plumbing job not do it myself (unless willing to educate myself on the wily ways of plumbing). If I was unable/unwilling to propound discovery I would not deem myself qualified to represent myself. That leaves me with four options:

1.) hiring competent winning counsel;

2.) working my butt off (research and study) to prevail in my case;

3.) defending weakly with less than desirable results; and

4.) just defaulting.

There may be other options that I am missing, but in the main, I believe these are the options I would typically have available to me. In my case, lacking funds, I went to war (option 2), accepted occasion battle losses, and won my wars.

 

If similarly situated I would regroup and focus on defending and staying in the game rather than dilute my efforts having to carry an MTD. Perhaps if it was not my first MTD and I had a successful MTD under my belt I might consider it (as the resources required to do it correctly and quickly would be very limited), but feeling a bit behind the game, my priority would likely be defense at this point. Once I was able to breathe a bit I would be considering any legitimate MTD filing. YMMV

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they want an answer like this.
 
1.If it is your contention that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff in any amount as alleged in the Complaint, indicate the factual basis for such contention.
Response:
(a) The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations because to the extent that the Defendant may have defaulted on the credit card agreement that is the subject of this lawsuit, that default occurred more than 3 years prior to the date the lawsuit was filed.
 
( b ) The Plaintiff has failed to state and cannot prove a claim on an account, either open,or account stated  because the Defendant never received, personally or for the benefit of any other person, any goods, wares or merchandise, personal services, labor, or labor and materials from the Plaintiff or its assignor(s).
 
( c ) The Plaintiff cannot prove a claim for breach of contract because it does not have evidence of the offer, acceptance and consideration given for the original contract between the Defendant and the card issuer and any amendments to that contract.
 
(d) The defendant denies owing any money to the plaintiff.
 
(e) The defendant has never had a contract with the plaintiff.
 
(f)  The defendant closed his account with Citi Bank(or who ever) and the balance was paid in full.
 
 
2.If it is your contention that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff in any amount as alleged in the Complaint, indicate the legal basis for such contention.
 
Response:
(a) The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations because to the extent that the Defendant may have defaulted on the credit card agreement that is the subject of this lawsuit, that default occurred more than 3 years prior to the date the lawsuit was filed.
 
( b ) The Plaintiff has failed to state and cannot prove a claim on an account, either open,or account stated  because the Defendant never received, personally or for the benefit of any other person, any goods, wares or merchandise, personal services, labor, or labor and materials from the Plaintiff or its assignor(s).
 
( c ) The Plaintiff cannot prove a claim for breach of contract because it does not have evidence of the offer, acceptance and consideration given for the original contract between the Defendant and the card issuer and any amendments to that contract.
 
(d) The defendant denies owing any money to the plaintiff.
 
(e) The defendant has never had a contract with the plaintiff.
 
3.State whether you have ever used the credit card at issue in this case.
Response: Defendant objects to interrogatory No. 3  because it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and seems to refer to material already in possession of the Plaintiff.         

 

 

 

 

You should have studied the rules of discovery.

 

Objection, on the grounds that it is seeking information that is premature given that the parties are in the midst of discovery and pertinent documents have not yet been produced by the Plaintiff. Without waiving his objection, the Defendant reserves the right to update this answer to this interrogatory at a later time when that decision is made.

 

Below is the trouble with your answers.

 

Interrogatories must be answered completely and specifically by you in writing and must be verified. The
fact that investigation is continuing or that discovery is not complete shall not be used as an excuse for
failure to answer each interrogatory as completely as possible.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the exact type of answers I have received in response to my interrogatories to the Plaintiff any time I was sued by an original creditor in the past. I also gave pretty much the exact same answers to their interrogatories and no one ever objected. 

 

We hired an attorney for the last lawsuit, as it was the first one from a collector and they lost the entire thing.(That is another post entirely as the rules were relaxed but I believe improperly because it was for $12,000.) I can lose for free.

 

At least I was able to settle for between 40% to 80% less than the original amount on my own. The trick was showing up at the courthouse because MD encourages mediation on the day of, they wouldn't talk to me before that and if I had they could have used what I said in court.

 

__________________________

 

I can not send Interrogatories here is the rule:

(B) Availability; number; time for filing. Any party may serve written interrogatories directed to any other party. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party may serve only one set of not more than 15 interrogatories to be answered by the same party. Interrogatories, however grouped, combined or arranged and even though subsidiary or incidental to or dependent upon other interrogatories, shall be counted separately. Each form interrogatory contained in the Appendix to these Rules shall count as a single interrogatory. The plaintiff may serve interrogatories no later than ten days after the date on which the clerk mails the notice required by Rule 3-307 (d). The defendant may serve interrogatories no later than ten days after the time for filing a notice of intention to defend.

 

 

The rule for what is considered an answer isn't all that specific. As I said, all I have ever given or received were non answers of some kind. Here is the rule:

(d) Response. The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall serve a response within 15 days after service of the interrogatories or within five days after the date on which that party's notice of intention to defend is required, whichever is later. The response shall answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath, or shall state fully the grounds for refusal to answer any interrogatory. The response shall set forth each interrogatory followed by its answer. An answer shall include all information available to the party directly or through agents, representatives, or attorneys. The response shall be signed by the party making it.

 

The answers are based based on all information available to the party directly or through agents, representatives, or attorneys

and since we have no information those are the answers.

 

I suppose I could argue that they were answers. I have always had a hard time finding case law, it always seems to be from another state or I just can't find anything. Anyone have a good way to search for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the first two rogs as asking for the factual basis and legal basis for the contention (which I believe the OP would agree to) that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff.

 

IMO racecar has posted a good start for a response. Reviewing that post in light of the MD rules for discovery would be where I would begin. Figuring out how to get these properly amended and before the plaintiff would be a priority (along with determining how and if there is any way I can propound discovery on opposing based on the rules) for me.

 

Rog No. 3, IMO, is not just overly broad (being unlimited as to time and scope), as well as being vague and/or ambiguous as to what specific card, but it would seem to me that the use of any card, inclusive of the one failed to be identified in interrogatory No. 3, is irrelevant as to any indebtedness of Defendant to Plaintiff and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence.

 

 

...

We answered the: The  Pantiff has not presented enough evidence that will enable the defendant to stickily admit nor deny, the defendant leaves the plantifs to their proofs. Defendant must deny until any strict proof is presented by the plaintiff to prove tha the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.

...

The OP's answer appears to be more of a response to a request for admissions rather than a response to an interrogatory.

 

 

These are the exact type of answers I have received in response to my interrogatories to the Plaintiff any time I was sued by an original creditor in the past. I also gave pretty much the exact same answers to their interrogatories and no one ever objected. 

...

I suppose I could argue that they were answers. I have always had a hard time finding case law, it always seems to be from another state or I just can't find anything. Anyone have a good way to search for it?

From my personal experience I would not rely on discovery responses by an OC's DC attorney as being a proper guide on how to do a discovery response. DC attorneys do not know how to do quality discovery from what I have seen. Discovery is part art and part science. I know great discovery when I see it. Propounding great discovery is tough for a pro se and rarely done by a DC attorney IMHO.

 

google scholar is pretty useful. For example, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22compel+discovery%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=4%2C21 produced 122 cases for a search of the keyword phrase "compel discovery" in MD state courts. Articles returned were a total of 2,460 (probably not just from MD). A favorite search engine is likely to provide good leads for case law and arguments.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I sent in answers and it is a whole new mess. 

 

We answered the: The  Pantiff has not presented enough evidence that will enable the defendant to stickily admit nor deny, the defendant leaves the plantifs to their proofs. Defendant must deny until any strict proof is presented by the plaintiff to prove tha the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.

 

​We immediately received a Motion for Sactiond for Failure to Respond to Interrogatories  sayn that we are in violation of the motion to compel answers. The are asking the judge to either:

1) That at trial, Defendant is prohibited from opposing Plaintiff's claims, supporting Defendants defenses, and is prohibited from submitting any evidence 

 

or 

2) That a default judge,met  is hereby entered against the Defendant in the amounts prayed in the complaint.

 

Forget all the silly arguments.  The court has ordered you to answer.  YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED.

 

There may be a question of what the sanction will be, but there will be one.  Just answer the questions and stop trying to be smarter than the court.

 

All the suggestions you are receiving are from persons who will not stand in front of the judge and try to explain why you cannot answer the simple questions posed.  The answers are not ones that should even hurt your defense.  Where you erred was not getting your own proper discovery.

 

Answer the questions with your own words and allow the case to move on without pissing off the judge.  I promise a pissed off judge will NOT be good for your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Iheart said it best

 

You can answer in law or in fact

You should argue that they were answers and that Plaintiff's complaint is utterly devoid of any factual information regarding the alleged debt and any agreement giving rise to the alleged debt and therefore defendant is having a hard time defending this case and having trouble answering the plaintiffs interrogatories due to lack of information provided in plaintiffs complaint.

 

With a good reason the judge might give you more time to answer the questions and get the case moving forward.

 

You can answer the discovery questions with out giving up anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playcare: Why don't you just send them an "AMENDED RESPONSE"  right away. This time just answer the q's. It will kill their motion for sanctions as there will be no need for it.

 

You are right (in post #14) it is exactly how they answer. Usually when the defendant files a motion to compel, the plaintiff will finally produce the evidence, so the motion gets cancelled.  Always use their own weapons against them and do the same. Amend the answers, answer the questions the correct way (deny everything / admit nothing) and send them to the lawyer

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objection to Plaintiffs motion for sanctions

It has long been held by courts in this country that a pro se litigant should be held to less stringent standards than those that have a professional license to practice law, see Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox,  456 2nd 233

Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.It is the defendants contention that since the defendant does not simply admit to plaintiffs continuous arguing over the way defendant answered a few questions in plaintiffs interrogatories, that they wish to harass and punish the the defendant who is a pro se litigant. Plaintiff wishes to put on a show of strength and use the courts to do this. This could be compared to the same issue as two detectives continuously wearing down a suspect just to get an admission of guilt.
Since the defendant did not just simply admit and make plaintiffs job easier, and give them evidence that they may not have in their case plaintiff is stalling the process of the case.

Even in a civil case the defendant enjoys the protections of the 5th amendment, see   Manes v Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 464, 95 S. Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d. 574, 587 (1975)
5th amendment rights may be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.

The right not to admit, self incrimination, whether or not the defendant has or has not done what he is accused of doing, is a protected right. Miranda v Arizona reinforced those rights. Even when a person is not sure, and the plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to allow the defendant to remember, has a right to deny the allegations against him without being punished for it.

If the plaintiff does not have enough evidence in a civil trial to prove his allegations he cannot rely on the defendant to give such evidence to him. Plaintiff filed the suit and should have the evidence needed to prevail, or plaintiff should not file the suit. Defendant contends that the plaintiff does not have the evidence in his possession to prevail in his case. Defendant contends the plaintiff is trying to force the defendant to admit to the allegations set forth in the complaint and make the plaintiffs job easy. Defendant is under no duty to do such.

Defendant is uncertain whether plaintiff is intentionally trying to violate defendant constitutional rights. Defendant does contend that it is the courts duty to make sure that plaintiff does not violate defendants constitutional rights see Boyd v United States; 116 U.S. 616 The court is to protect against encroachment of Constitutionally secured rights. Defendant would also state that the constitution is to be liberally construed in favor of the citizen see Byars v United States 273 U.S. 28. Defendant would also point out that the exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime see Miller v U.S., 230 F2d, 486, 489.
The defendant in this matter has tried to point out to the plaintiff and the court, in plaintiff interrogatories, that plaintiff lacks the evidence to prove their case. Defendant has not seen enough evidence submitted to the court to even prove plaintiff owns the debt, let alone has standing to bring this suit before the court. When the defendant tries to show this to the court plaintiff retaliates with objections and threats of sanctions. In stead of trying to impose as much pain on the defendant as plaintiff possibly can, the defendant would ask why doe the plaintiff not continue the suit and present the evidence he has and try to prove his case, and not rely on the defendant to do it for him?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BTO429

 

 

It has long been held by courts in this country that a pro se litigant should be held to less stringent standards than those that have a professional license to practice law, see Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox,  456 2nd 233

 

 

Responses to discovery requests are not pleadings.

 

 

 

5th amendment rights may be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.

The right not to admit, self incrimination, whether or not the defendant has or has not done what he is accused of doing, is a protected right. Miranda v Arizona reinforced those rights. Even when a person is not sure, and the plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to allow the defendant to remember, has a right to deny the allegations against him without being punished for it.

 

 

The first 2 interrogatories did not request that the defendant admit to anything.  They requested that the defendant offer the reasons he feels he is not indebted to the plaintiff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEFENDANT’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant's Amended Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories as follows:
                                   INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
The following discovery responses are based on current investigation and discovery and this responding party therefore reserves the right to amend or supplement these responses based on information resulting from further investigation and discovery, and to introduce at trial any and all such evidence. 
 
1.If it is your contention that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff in any amount as alleged in the Complaint, indicate the factual basis for such contention.
 
Response:
(a) The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations because to the extent that the Defendant may have defaulted on the credit card agreement that is the subject of this lawsuit, that default occurred more than 3 years prior to the date the lawsuit was filed.
 
( b ) The Plaintiff has failed to state and cannot prove a claim on an account, either open,or account stated  because the Defendant never received, personally or for the benefit of any other person, any goods, wares or merchandise, personal services, labor, or labor and materials from the Plaintiff or its assignor(s).
 
( c ) The Plaintiff cannot prove a claim for breach of contract because it does not have evidence of the offer, acceptance and consideration given for the original contract between the Defendant and the card issuer and any amendments to that contract.
 
(d) The defendant denies owing any money to the plaintiff.
 
(e) The defendant has never had a contract with the plaintiff.
 
 
 
2.If it is your contention that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff in any amount as alleged in the Complaint, indicate the legal basis for such contention.
 
Response:
(a) The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations because to the extent that the Defendant may have defaulted on the credit card agreement that is the subject of this lawsuit, that default occurred more than 3 years prior to the date the lawsuit was filed.
 
( b ) The Plaintiff has failed to state and cannot prove a claim on an account, either open,or account stated  because the Defendant never received, personally or for the benefit of any other person, any goods, wares or merchandise, personal services, labor, or labor and materials from the Plaintiff or its assignor(s).
 
( c ) The Plaintiff cannot prove a claim for breach of contract because it does not have evidence of the offer, acceptance and consideration given for the original contract between the Defendant and the card issuer and any amendments to that contract.
 
(d) The defendant denies owing any money to the plaintiff.
 
(e) The defendant has never had a contract with the plaintiff.
 

 

 
3.State whether you have ever used the credit card at issue in this case.
 
Response: Defendant has had many credit cards in his life time and after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made the defendant does not remember ever applying for or using this credit card.
 
 
There are many different ways to answer this and come out smelling like a rose.
I don't think you want to pay the junk debt buyer several thousand dollars for his time.
Make an amended answer and get it in ASAP.
 

 

 

 

.         

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racecar did a nice job with that.

 

If it were mine; Where it say's "is it your contention blah blah blah....." I would first answer "yes" then I would list the "a,b,c) as he has done for you.

 

Also, and in my opinion: on #3 "state whether you have used the credit card at issue" I would go with a firm denial, rather than not remembering.

 

"No I have not used the credit card at issue. After a diligent search of defendants records; no evidence to the contrary has been discovered"  And if it fits your case you might add something like "Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to prove it's allegations".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 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.