JDB introduced documents NOT asked for in discovery

[Coffee_before_tea]

I recently sent my Request for Admissions & Request for Production of Documents to the JDB.  They responded to with a General Objection, but then went on to answer the Request for Admissions with a denial of each question presented to them.  Also, for every document requested they either Objected or stated "currently searching for, and will amend response when/if available."

 

Here is my first question:  The JDB attached an affidavit that doesn't relate to any of the Requested documents.  Is this proper/admissible?   

 

My second question:  The JDB's denials of admissions catches them flat out lying.  (Admission:  Admit that you are not the legal owner or title holder of alleged account).  In the assignment agreement, it clearly states that the ownership & title are retained to a different JDB.   What is the best way to attack this?

[TomnTex]

In a way that's good that they sent you the doc's. At least now you will know part of what they have on you and can be prepared.

[Clydesmom]

As long as they disclose the affidavit to you they can try to use it.  Part of defending is attacking their legal right to use it and its admissibility.  So if they try to admit it to evidence your first statement is:  "objection.  There is no relevance for an affidavit on the recipe for banana pudding."  or what ever it is about.

 

 

My second question:  The JDB's denials of admissions catches them flat out lying.  (Admission:  Admit that you are not the legal owner or title holder of alleged account).  In the assignment agreement, it clearly states that the ownership & title are retained to a different JDB.   What is the best way to attack this?

 

When they testify they own the account make sure you get them to admit that more than once.  i.e. "you are clearly stating for the record of the court that the Plaintiff (JDB1) is the owner of this account?"   Ask several different ways.  Then when it is YOUR turn to present evidence you state "At this time I would like to admit into evidence the affidavit provided by the Plaintiff clearly stating that the owner of the debt portfolio that they account as alleged in the complaint to belong to me is actually owned by (JDB2)"  and then move on from there because they will object but that is when you point out to the court that they admitted on the record they owned the debt but the affidavit they supplied indicates they do not.  Absent clear evidence they have standing to sue (which they don't according to their own affidavit) they are not the plaintiff/owner legally and therefore they cannot benefit from the litigation.

[Coffee_before_tea]

As long as they disclose the affidavit to you they can try to use it.  Part of defending is attacking their legal right to use it and its admissibility.  So if they try to admit it to evidence your first statement is:  "objection.  There is no relevance for an affidavit on the recipe for banana pudding."  or what ever it is about.

 

 

 

When they testify they own the account make sure you get them to admit that more than once.  i.e. "you are clearly stating for the record of the court that the Plaintiff (JDB1) is the owner of this account?"   Ask several different ways.  Then when it is YOUR turn to present evidence you state "At this time I would like to admit into evidence the affidavit provided by the Plaintiff clearly stating that the owner of the debt portfolio that they account as alleged in the complaint to belong to me is actually owned by (JDB2)"  and then move on from there because they will object but that is when you point out to the court that they admitted on the record they owned the debt but the affidavit they supplied indicates they do not.  Absent clear evidence they have standing to sue (which they don't according to their own affidavit) they are not the plaintiff/owner legally and therefore they cannot benefit from the litigation.

 

The JDB did not disclose the affidavit in their disclosures.  That's why I was surprised to see they tossed it in their discovery response.  I would gather this is not admissible (not to mention it's a weak affidavit).

 

Thanks for the direction to take the questioning at trial.  

[Clydesmom]

The JDB did not disclose the affidavit in their disclosures.  That's why I was surprised to see they tossed it in their discovery response.  I would gather this is not admissible (not to mention it's a weak affidavit).

 

Thanks for the direction to take the questioning at trial.  

if they gave it to you in their discovery answer they can try to use it.  The time when it would be prohibited is if you requested it in discovery and they refused to disclose it.  Or if they never served you with it with the complaint.  Then it is barred.  

 

A reverse example is if a Plaintiff suing you for a debt you owed asked for cancelled checks showing payment in their discovery.  You don't have checks but you just so happen to have the money order receipts showing you paid the account in full you could answer denying the existence of checks but submit copies of the money order receipts showing a separate method of payment that answers the question.  The court would allow that.

[BV80]

@Coffee_before_tea

 

If the affidavit references personal knowledge, it might be the affidavit they'd use in support of summary judgment.  If it references  "regular course of business", they're using it to authenticate documents.  Either way, affidavits are required for those things.

[Anon Amos]

I would look and see what your local rules say about affidavits.

[Anon Amos]

 In the assignment agreement, it clearly states that the ownership & title are retained to a different JDB.   What is the best way to attack this?

You would challenge the plaintiff's legal standing to sue you. The debt has not been assigned to them so they lack standing. In MOST states (check your rules to make sure) Standing can be challenged at anytime, and if the plaintiff lacks standing to sue then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Most people challenge standing at the beginning of trial, but it may also be referenced in motions.

[shellieh98]

@Coffee_before_tea  I know you have a thread about your case, it would be most helpful to you if you kept everything going on in your case to 1 thread, then others will know what has gone on up to the point you have a question.

[BV80]

@Coffee_before_tea

 

I agree with @shellieh98.  If this about your Unifund thread, the bill of sale didn't show that the account was sold to Unifund?  Please answer in your other thread.