bluewraith

Cach vs Me in Indiana

Recommended Posts

 

Interrogatory No. 13:

Identify all persons whom you intend to call as witnesses at trial, other that rebuttal or impeaching witnesses the necessity of whose testimony cannot reasonably be anticipated before trial.

Interrogatory No. 14:

Identify all persons whom you may call as expert witnesses at trial and state the subject matter of each such person's anticipated testimony and the opinions of each such person concerning the subject matter of this litigation.

Request for Production No. 10:

With regard to each expert identified in response to Interrogatory No 13. please produce:

a. the expert's resume or curriculum vitae;

b. all non-priviledge notes pertaining to the expert's opinions in this action;

c. any reports prepared by such expert;

d. all documents and materials reviewed or relied upon by such expert in preparing the report; and

e. all correspondence between you or your attorneys and each such expert.

Request for Production No. 11:

With regard to each person identified in response to Interrogatory No. 14 please produce:

a. the person's resume or curriculum vitae;

b. all notes of such person that were reviewed by any expert identified in response to Interrogatory No. 13;

c. any reports prepared by such person that were reviewed by any expert identified in response to Interrogatory No. 13;

d. all documents and materials reviewed or relied upon by such person in preparing any such report; and

e. all correspondence between you or your attorneys and each such expert.

 

 

RFP 10 and 11 seem to have been flipped regarding witness vs. expert witness. I double checked the original discovery package just to make sure that I typed everything down right. How would I word the response to let them know that RFP 10 and 11 erroniously call for documents that don't pertain to their respective Interrogatory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the discovery sent to me, and my answers so far. Highlighted areas I am still working on, or think they need worked on better. (Rogs 3, 5, 6, 9, and 12, and RFP 3).

Please look at Admissions 15, 16, and 18 carefully. I'm not sure if those would be proper answers or not.. they make a lot of sense in my head, but I get a strange feeling in my gut when I do a solid admit on things.

 

Interrogs 16 and 17 are still a work in progress. Other then that, I think I'm getting close to finishing this up. Sorry for making you guys read through 12 pages of this junk. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding post 49: I am not a fan of objections either. Just because you can make one doesn't mean you have to. However I would object to #24: "OBJECTION:CALLS for legal conclusion.

Find some of your other objections that you can answer instead of object if you have too many objections.

I'll read these next post when I get some time, soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read of it so far; if it were mine, on RFA's 15,16, & 18,  ALL would be: OBJECTION: Calls for legal conclusion. Regardless if I ended up with a lot of objections.

 

On the RFP (I forgot the number) when you object, and say they should have the documents they sent you, the language is: OBJECTION: Equally Available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read of it so far; if it were mine, on RFA's 15,16, & 18,  ALL would be: OBJECTION: Calls for legal conclusion. Regardless if I ended up with a lot of objections.

 

On the RFP (I forgot the number) when you object, and say they should have the documents they sent you, the language is: OBJECTION: Equally Available.

 

I've been trying to find how legal conclusion would be applicable to these admissions for a couple of days though. The only references I can find for a legal conclusion objection would be if they were asking me to define a law or come to a conclusion that only a judge or jury could find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluewraith

 

Just for the record, did you open this account with the OC?  If your bank records were to be compelled, would they show payments to the OC that could be matched up with payments on credit card statements?

 

 

I've been trying to find how legal conclusion would be applicable to these admissions for a couple of days though. The only references I can find for a legal conclusion objection would be if they were asking me to define a law or come to a conclusion that only a judge or jury could find.

 

I don't think those admissions call for a legal conclusion.  If this was your account, you know whether or not you disputed or made no more payments after a certain date.  That doesn't call for a ruling by a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluewraith

 

Just for the record, did you open this account with the OC?  If your bank records were to be compelled, would they show payments to the OC that could be matched up with payments on credit card statements?

 

 

 

I don't think those admissions call for a legal conclusion.  If this was your account, you know whether or not you disputed or made no more payments after a certain date.  That doesn't call for a ruling by a judge.

@BV80

I did have a BoA card back then, but I have no personal records of anything back in that time. At the time, I was working a traveling job and had a few bank accounts, all of which have been closed for a few years. At least one of the banks I was with has closed its doors as well. I don't remember which banks I would have made payments out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluewraith

 

The reason I asked is because, in your responses, you included "an account he does not have established."   I wondered about that just in case they might be able to produce credit card statements that would show charges and payments that you couldn't outright deny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluewraith

 

The reason I asked is because, in your responses, you included "an account he does not have established."   I wondered about that just in case they might be able to produce credit card statements that would show charges and payments that you couldn't outright deny.

@BV80

Right now, they have only submitted 2 cc statements. One to attest to the balance claimed, and another showing a phone payment on a date that does not match the date of last payment stated in the affidavit of claim. Both of those statements were attached to the complaint, and again in the discovery package.

 

 

Looking back at these statements, they list an APR of 7%. I can bet ya that these were created in-house at CACH.. because I know my APR was never that good. The account was in default. That would be an awfully friendly APR for a defaulted account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluewraith

 

You're right.  That would be a very friendly rate.  Do you happen to know if IN's judgment rate of interest is 7%?  If it is, that could be an indication that the statements were, indeed, created by Cach.  Do they have the OC's header on them?

 

Does the amount of the phone payment match the amount of the last payment stated in the affidavit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you admit or deny those admissions it calls for the legal conclusion that it is your account. The conclusion does not have to come from a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The requests alone do not call for a legal conclusion.   Just because a legal conclusion might result from a particular response doesn't mean the request itself calls for the defendant to make a legal conclusion.  Also, it appears IN allows such requests that do call for legal conclusions.

 

This difference makes the Indiana rule more expansive than the federal rule and permits a request for admission regarding an opinion, a contention, or a legal conclusion, if the request is related to the facts of the case. General Motors Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 573 N.E.2d 885, 888 (Ind.1991).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you Admit or Deny the request it is an admission to the account. I would state the objection then answer that I denied the account.

Good luck on your case,keep pressure on them and you may be able to get them to dismiss at some point. I don't know your rules, but if you want my opinion on something PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluewraith

 

Personally, I would hesitant to use the "legal conclusion" objection, whether or not the admission calls for such a conclusion, considering the fact that the IN Supreme Court has stated that admissions that call for a legal conclusion are allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says they allow them If it is related to the FACTS of the case. It has not been determined this is his account YET, therefore it is not a FACT of the case.
You are pretty much hesitant to agree with any post I make anyway; so it kind of goes without saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not it's his account has nothing to do with the "legal conclusion" objection in the context of the requests.   That's a different objection.  If it hasn't been shown that the account is his, a possible objection would be "assumes facts not in evidence".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty good as well, and would accomplish the same thing (not admitting to the account). It almost would have made sense to say that in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defendant objects as the document/request # 24 speaks for  itself. Further, after a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made,  and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable the Defendant  to admit the matter.

 
Defendant objects as the document speaks for itself. Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, Defendant object to each and every Request for Admission.
 
or
 
Defendant objects as vague as to the term "----"(i.e payment, application, card) as term is not specific enough. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies.
 
Defedant has not yet completed its discovery or trial preparation in this action.
 
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. : Defendant incorporates by reference its objections to Special Interrogatory No. . Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not “separate and complete” and is not “full and complete in and ofitself,” as required by Code of Civil Procedure (i don't know your civil code) and in that it refers to another interrogatory. Defendant also objects to the this request on the grounds that it violates Code of Civil Procedure § (i don't know your civil code), particularly because one or more of the defined terms incorporated in this interrogatory is compound, conjunctive and/or disjunctive. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive. In addition, Defendant objects that this interrogatory is duplicative of Request for production No. , which requests that Defendant produce the documents described in response to this Special Interrogatory. Defendant further objects on the grounds that this request is beyond the scope of permissible discovery in that it seeks information which is, at least in part, neither relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant, therefore, objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is propounded merely to annoy, harass or vex Defendant. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Finally, Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the rights of privacy under the Constitutions of the United States or the State of Indiana.
 
or
 
Defedant objects to the interrogatory by use of the word “card” and incorporation of the definition of the form interrogatories of “card” including other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding. As such, Defedant objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, as vague and ambiguous, as compound, as not adequately tailored to the party to whom it is propounded, and as not describing the nature of this dispute, the breadth of which could not possibly be a single “account.” 
 
 
I don't know if you can either define the following under GENERAL OBJECTONS;
 
Defendant also objects generally to the request for production of documents to the extent it seeks information or materials not presently in the possession of Defendant due to the fact that they have not yet completed their own investigation of the facts related to this case, or completed its discovery, or its preparation for trial. Defendant’s investigation, discovery and preparation for trial are continuing and may produce information relevant to these requests. The following responses are given without prejudice to Defendant’s right to produce any evidence subsequently discovered.
 
Defendant objects to each and every request for admission to the extent any or all of the requests are confusing, overboard, unduly burdensome and/or oppressive.
or 
Defendant objects to each and every request for admission and the Request for Production to the extent that any or all of the requests call for information or documents protected from disclosure by rights of privacy under the Constitutions of the United States or the State of Indiana or any other applicable privileges. 
 
Defendant objects to each and every request is ambiguous, states fact not in evidence, and seeks an expert opinion on an issue of law and is therefore improper. Defendant is not the percipient witness.
 
OR you can change "each and every" to "this Request" if using  the above within in lines.
 
Objections.The Request is ambiguous, states fact not in evidence, and seeks an expert opinion on an issue of law and is therefore improper. Without waiving such objections, deny.
 
Request for Production No. 3:
Objection. This demand is oppressive, burdensome and harassing because it calls for information and documents that are equally available to the Plaintiff.
 
any request that asks for production of statement, correspondent or such, i would use the above line. 
 
Request for Admission No. 16:
Objection. Defendant has denied the alleged account. (Don't (ever) admit anything related to the account, unless you know they can prove, via expert witness or someone with first hand knowledge).
 
 
word "Objection(s)" looks weird on paper but i would say in legal world it's totally acceptable, and you basically telling them that you are not denying or admitting, simply objecting what they are saying, make them back up what they are saying with an admissible evidence. unless @BV80 thinks differently.
 
 
instead of saying, "No response is needed." my suggestion would be to incorporate the said Admission #, like this see Response to Interrogatories/Admission Nos. 2, 4 and 3, above. or simple as Not Applicable
 
Less is better, i would say take anything extra you might have typed, like this, "Defendant further states he did not authorize any one to use any card"
 
I hope the above words help and BEST OF LUCK!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80 @Anon Amos

 

Beed a few days since my last update, but here is what I've come up with.

 

I changed the admits to denys because I don't want them somehow turning it around on me. I'm feeling better with the RFAs and ROGS, the RFP still needs a little work though. I want to somehow make note on RFP 10 and 11 referencing the wrong interrog for the documents requested as a goodwill effort.

Kill 'em with kindness, ya know? And let them know I'm studing every single word thats sent.. lol

Admissions.pdf

Documents.pdf

Interrogs.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better. Now at least you are not going on record admitting it's your account, which (in my opinion) would defeat the whole purpose.

 

I think you have, but if not: I would send them discovery request of your own. RFP's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better. Now at least you are not going on record admitting it's your account, which (in my opinion) would defeat the whole purpose.

 

I think you have, but if not: I would send them discovery request of your own. RFP's.

 

@Anon Amos

I have sent my discovery to them. Theirs is due back to me the day after mine is due to them, still a couple of weeks away. I'm not really expecting to get it back from them in a timely manner though. I've already got my Meet and Confer letter printed up and ready to drop in the mail the day after they are late.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got their answers to my Discovery back on Friday, still trying to find time to go through everything though. POD got me 2 years worth of statements, and the "Schedule 1" section of the forward flow agreement though. Its still not a complete document, and they don't have the contract/original agreement. They won't be calling any OC witnesses though, and admit to the amount including interest and legal fees.

 

Of course, they didn't send responses in electronic format.. I might send them a letter on that. Not sure yet.

 

Been working way too much lately, so I've not had any real time to sit down and go over all of the package they sent me, but what should I be looking forward to next? Reading up on Opposition to the Summary Judgement? They've not filed anything with the court yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest update.. The Courts sent out a letter a couple weeks ago getting ready to dismiss the case under T.R. 41E. Of course, that poked the bear. Now I have a response from CACH stating that they never received my discovery answers (hah!) and a MFSJ.

 

They did include a new document, an Affidavid of Sale and Certification of Debt from one Cristina Ordonez, dated May 2014. This is new to me, since it didn't come in with my POD request last year. It looks dated around the time they would have been fulfilling my discovery requests, so I'm not too sure why it wasn't included before.

 

Looks like my first step is to dissect this MFSJ and get a reply off for it. I was really hoping they would just let it go, but looks like they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluewraith

 

Stubborn little buggers, aren't they?  :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.