3kids4bc

Discover Bank via Suttell CCP 96 Response no name for witness

Recommended Posts

Case going to trial soon in California, LA county

 

Discover Bank now via Suttell response to CCP 96 only described witness as "Custodian of records of plaintiff" care of the law firm P.O. Box in WA. No CCP 98 Dec. - does anyone have any case law or legal authority to cite in a Motion in Limine to exclude this "witness" ? They never served or filed a CCP 98 so don't know if Target v Rocha will apply? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome.

 

I did a sample letter in post number 35 of this thread:  http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/324635-ccp-96-answered-and-i-have-big-questionstrial-date-coming/page-2

 

 

The nice thing about writing a letter is that  If plaintiff doesn't respond, you can say in your objection that you wrote plaintiff to point out its failure and plaintiff did not respond.

 

If plaintiff does respond, you can point to the language of CCP 96 which says, "No additional, amended or late statement is permitted except by written stipulation or unless ordered for good cause on noticed motion."

 

You win either way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They list an address in WA for service of this no name "witness"? So they're WAY outside the 150 mile limit???? Done deal

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome.

 

I did a sample letter in post number 35 of this thread:  http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/324635-ccp-96-answered-and-i-have-big-questionstrial-date-coming/page-2

 

 

The nice thing about writing a letter is that  If plaintiff doesn't respond, you can say in your objection that you wrote plaintiff to point out its failure and plaintiff did not respond.

 

If plaintiff does respond, you can point to the language of CCP 96 which says, "No additional, amended or late statement is permitted except by written stipulation or unless ordered for good cause on noticed motion."

 

You win either way.

 @Anon Amos @calawyer @sadinca I will be paying attention to this case, we have the same law firm that Discover hired 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except this is a CCP 96 response not a CCP 98 declaration.  They can list anyone they want.  Whether they bring that witness is another matter.

  • 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.