Jump to content

Do I need a motion to enter discovery?


Recommended Posts

Sorry if this question is remedial...I've been searching all day for the answer and just can't figure it out.

So, I was hoping someone here would know the answer.

I'm in NJ special civil court.

Can I send interrogatories immediately after submitting my answer?

Or do I need to put in  a Motion to Enter Discovery first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be helpful if you stated what type of proceeding in which you're presently involved. Discovery typically begins immediately after the Defendant files their Answer.  Also, you need not file a "Motion" to initiate discovery. It is accomplished extra-judicially (i.e., outside of court, between the parties)). You just submit your Interrogatories, Request for Admissions or Request for Production of Documents directly to the opposing party. They then have typically 30 days within which to respond. It looks like time varies in NJ depending on the action. I'm also new here and not that familiar with NJ but, I can direct you after a cursory analysis to the rules.  See the PART VI -- RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE IN THE LAW DIVISION, SPECIAL CIVIL PART under 6:4 at https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/part6toc.html

Once there scroll down to  Rule 6:4-3 Interrogatories; Admissions; Production or just click this link: https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/rule_6_4.pdf .

Note: Discovery Motions are usually confined to a need for the trial court to compel a response, issue an order of protection, or request an enlargement discovery time to complete such proceedings. See for example Rule 6:4-5. "Time for Completion of Discovery Proceedings."  Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Litigo Man said:

Note: Discovery Motions are usually confined to a need for the trial court to compel a response, issue an order of protection, or request an enlargement discovery time to complete such proceedings. See for example Rule 6:4-5. "Time for Completion of Discovery Proceedings."  Hope this helps.

Thank you for the help! 

It makes more sense now.   I really don't want to mess up on a technicality.

 

I'm the defendant in a finance lease deficiency lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're Welcome.

As you can see, under R. 6:4-5, you have 90 days to complete discovery from the date of your Answer. By the way, on a lease deficiency lawsuit, I suggest you consider first attacking ownership of the subject lease. Typically, these leases are sold to third parties and securitized; thus the party suing you may not be the real part interest and has no right to sue you, regardless if it is the original creditor suing you. Therefore, first, with a request for production of documents, seek a copy of the original, wet ink promissory note/contract with your wet ink signature. Not a copy.  In request for admissions, request that they admit or deny that the lease has been securitized. If the lease has been securitized the obligation has been liquidated and it technically is not longer a valid  lease. If the lease has been sold and you're being sued by a third party request a chain of assignments to validate the claims of the alleged owners. You likely will  need more than 90 days to to complete discovery when you pursue this line of attack, as opposing counsel will know the jig is up and seek to stall. Be ready with a motion to the trial court to both compel discovery and expand discovery time beyond 90 days for cause. Happy hunting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

whether or not leases are lumped together in an asset back security, that would not invalidate the underlying lease. And, while I have heard of this happening in car leases, I highly doubt that it is 'typical.' It is probably more of an exception than the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect Mr. Moderator, whether or not you think effectively converting  a debt instruments into a security is a valid process, it is really an aside to my central point. And that central point is, challenge the chain of title.  I fail to ascertain the motive of your post, other than just sniping.

Moreover, if there is anything that the mortgage crisis has illustrated more, just like the mortgage-backed security (MBS) , the typical asset-backed security (ABS), is bottomed in as many fraudulent transfers as the MBS. Effectively, converting an MBS or ABS into into a security and cutting into millions of pieces an selling it to unwitting investors, and making homeowners and credit/lease holders, etc., unwitting third parties to these fraudulent investment contracts; then later, taking these securitized instruments an attaching them to a pleading is simply a fraud.  It's like juicing a carrot. Once juiced, I can't very well reassemble the pulp back into a carrot. In any event, these securitized debt instruments provide a perfect foundation from which to mount a legal defense.   In my experience I have yet to find any MBS or ABS in the USA that is not bottomed in a fraud and can be legally substantiated. Unfortunately, the U.S. has long validated fraud, as long as it is originated by a national bank. 

Lastly, using this defense of challenging the chain of title, I have argued cases in several jurisdiction to dismissal and some to standstill. That's a winning strategy in my book. Your success all depends on the degree the judicial corruption is that you confront. Determined vigilance and a taking no prisoners attitude is required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore,  Mr. Moderator, FYI, "Securitization* is the process of creating securities by pooling together various cash-flow producing financial assets" (See , e.g., http://www.investinginbonds.com/learnmore.asp?catid=11&subcatid=56&id=130 

Are you averring here that a "finance lease" is not a "cash-flow producing financial asset"?

Before you respond, know that a "finance lease" can be an arrangement related to not only "equipment, vehicle, or software ", but just about anything you can rent or lease. You've already admit that a car lease can be securitized. Ergo, if a finance lease produced a monthly cash flow, it can be securitized.  In fact the banksters even securitize residental rental income. See, e.g., "Wall Street figured out how to securitize your rent. Should you worry?"  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/08/wall-street-figured-out-how-to-securitize-your-rent-should-you-worry/?utm_term=.d342902ecf5c. 

Also, "about 15 years ago, Wall Street figured out how to securitize commercial loans."These banksters generate bonds known as Commercial Mortgaged Backed Securitization (CMBS) .

Let us not forget Student Loan Assest Back Securites, or (SLABS).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I further propose that every alleged claim involving a securitzed asset is  vulnerable to attack and should be answered with the appropriate affirmative defenses and a verified negative averment. (It should be noted that negative averments are actually affirmative in substance and the party asserting negative averment carries the burden of proof).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interesting thoughts.

Finance leasing for buisnesses and Jdbing sure are a shady industries.  

We ended up hiring a lawyer. And i must say, he made it seem that here in nj, the assignment would be taken as valid based on the paperwork we've seen.  But the jdb wouldnt send a witness, so it could be probably be dismissed if we get that far.

Thanks again for your help...and interesting disscusions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DiggingNJ said:

the assignment would be taken as valid based on the paperwork we've seen

This is pretty much the way it goes most places these days, and to hear a consumer lawyer tell you this should be pretty telling. Courts at these lower levels usually aren't interested in novel claims of conspiracy. They weigh the evidence presented and decide the most likely scenario.

Even though the JDB may not send a witness, the court could allow them to have the witness appear telephonicly, so even that's not a slam dunk. Having a lawyer will help in persuading the court to require an in-person witness, though. 

Best of luck! 

  • Like 1
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.