DOCSLIB.ORG

K.4 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Answers in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of PENNSYLVAN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
K.4 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Answers in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of PENNSYLVAN K.4 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Answers IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA [plaintiff][CONSUMER], on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, [vs] [defendant]AMERICAN GENERAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY, Defendant. [action]NO. 97- MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, EXPERT INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. INTRODUCTION This is a consumer class action arising out of the Defendant’s unconscionable lending practices. American General “flips” lower rate loans into additional high rate loans and packs the loans with unnecessary, extravagantly priced insurance products issued by affiliated insurance companies. Plaintiff sues for violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. and common law fraud and unconscionability. Initially, Defendant objected to 100% of Plaintiff’s interrogatories. After a lengthy telephone conversation, Defendant’s counsel still objected to over 37 Interrogatories and to date all Interrogatories remain unanswered and the Document Request has been answered insufficiently. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On August 13, 1997, Plaintiff served Defendant with Interrogatories (First Set) and Request for Production of Documents (First Set). A. DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (FIRST SET) On or about September 12, 1997, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Request for Production. During an extended telephone conversation between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant, Defendant’s counsel agreed to produce documents responsive to Document Requests Nos. 1–18. See, Flitter November 7, 1997 letter and Bryce reply letter of November 21, 1997. On January 6, 1998, Defendant submitted un-indexed bate-stamped documents D0001–D0345. Defendant admits that these documents represent some, but obviously not all of Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding lending and insurance. Review of the documents indicates that they refer to additional policies and procedures not produced. As discussed below, all responsive documents must be produced. The unlabelled responses to the Document Requests are non-responsive as they fail to adequately identify the attached documents and the fail to identify which, if any, are responsive to the individual document requests. B. UNANSWERED INTERROGATORIES During the extended telephone conversation concerning discovery, Defendant, through counsel, agreed to answer Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 15, 17–28, 42–43, 55–62. See, Flitter letter of November 7, 1997. By Mr. Bryce’s letter dated November 21, 1997, Defendant reconsidered and withdrew objections to Interrogatories nos. 19–23 and 61. (See Bryce letter, Exhibit “H”) [not reprinted herein]. Though the Plaintiff allowed an additional month, until December 15th, no supplemental responses have been forthcoming whatever. On January 29, 1998, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another reminder letter to Defendant that Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories were outstanding. To date those Answers have not been provided. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. UNOBJECTIONABLE INTERROGATORIES MUST BE ANSWERED FORTHWITH As noted, although Defendant originally objected to every Interrogatory on some basis, an extended telephone conference resulted in Defendant’s agreement to withdraw objections to Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 15, 18, 42, 43, 55, 58–60, 62 and agreed to provide partial responses to Interrogatories 17, 24–28, 56 and 57. See, Flitter letter of November 7, 1997 and Bryce reply letter of November 21, 1997. Two weeks later Defendant agreed to withdraw other objections, and agreed to answer Interrogatories Nos. 19–23 and 61. See, Bryce letter, November 21, 1997. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of objections, Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, submitted in August 1997, have still not been answered at all. As to Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 15, 17–28, 42–43, 55– 62, the Court should Order that they be answered forthwith. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). As to the remaining Interrogatories, for the reasons set forth below, the objections should be stricken. B. DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE INTERROGATORIES MUST BE STRICKEN Interrogatory Numbers 1 and 2. Interrogatory 1 asks: Identify each person Defendant may call as a witness in this case. Interrogatory 2 asks: Identify each document which Defendant may introduce into evidence in this case. Defendant responded: See General Objections. American General further objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is premature. These interrogatories are not premature. Interrogatories seeking the identity of witnesses and other tangible evidence may be sought, even if a case is in its infancy. Fischer and Porter Co. v. Tolson, 143 F.R.D. 93 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Answers are needed to help focus discovery in the case and to prepare to refute Defendant’s defenses. This case was removed to this Court on August 15, 1997. Defendant’s objections should be stricken and Defendant ordered to answer the interrogatories. Interrogatory Number 6. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 6 asks: Provide the following information for all persons who were involved in any manner in the adoption or drafting of the forms represented by Appendices A and B hereto; full name, present or last known home and business addresses and telephone numbers; whether presently employed by Defendant; all job title(s) and dates during which each job was held; if not presently employed by Defendant, Social Security Number and exact date of birth. Defendant objected claiming: See General Objections. American General further objects on the ground that the information sought is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. General, unspecified objections to interrogatories are insufficient and improper. Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985 (3rd Cir. 1982); Stabilus, A Div of Fichtel, Baldwin, Johnson and Greaves, 144 F.R.D. 258 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Relevance in the context of discovery is construed more liberally than at trial. Fort Washington Resources, Inc. v. Tannen, 153 F.R.D. 78, 79 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Information which is reasonably likely to lead to “other matter which could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case” is relevant. Id. (citing Leksi, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 129 F.R.D. 99, 104 (D.N.J. 1989)). The answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is relevant to determine who prepared Defendant’s documents and whether Defendant’s employees deliberately attempted to deceive Defendant’s customers. It may lead to information about the number of such forms in use by Defendant, which is relevant to issues of numerosity and commonality. Interrogatory Numbers 7 to 13. Defendant objected to Interrogatories 7–13 although they directly address the numerosity and commonalty issues involved in this class action. These Interrogatories were amended during the November 6, 1997 telephone conference, for Defendant to provide the number of borrowers and the state of each in lieu of a full answer at this time. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 7 asks: Identify by state, the number of all customers of Defendant from July 1991 through the present who obtained additional loans or refinancings and purchased credit insurance from you substantially similar to Appendix “C”. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 8 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold credit life insurance policies to, from July 1991 until present in a form substantially similar to Appendix “B”. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 9 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold credit disability policies to, from July 1991 until present in a form substantially similar to Appendix “C”. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 10 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold collateral protection policies to, from July 1991 until present in a form substantially similar to Appendix “D”. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 11 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold nonfiling insurance policies to, from July 1991 until present. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 12 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons who refinanced their loans with you from July 1991 through the present who did not purchase any insurance from you. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 13 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold term life insurance policies from July 1991 until present in a form substantially similar to Appendix “D”. Defendant objected to these interrogatories claiming: See General Objections. American General further objects to [these] interrogator[ies] on the grounds that, since a class has not been certified, the names and addresses of its customers are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; providing such names and addresses would be unduly burdensome; and providing such names and addresses would invade the privacy of American General’s customers. The information is relevant especially regarding the issue of whether the class action should be certified. Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the proponent of a class action demonstrate that “the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). The answers to these interrogatories are appropriate to prove numerosity. These interrogatories are also relevant and probative on this issue of commonality because the greater number of Defendant’s customers who underwent purchases similar to Plaintiff evidences Defendant’s concerted effort to pack loans with high priced insurance. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). See Robinson v. Countrywide Credit Industries, No. 97-2747, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15712 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 1997) (common issues included whether the Defendant lender purchased unauthorized coverage for the consumer borrowers, inflated the amount of forced placed insurance and improperly inflated commissions). These limited interrogatories only seek the number of customers, not their finances.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • May 2 8 2019
    Case 3:17-cv-01127-WQH-KSC Document 142 Filed 05/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 50 1 FILED 2 MAY 2 8 2019 3 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTi'lcRN DISi'RICT OF ~)~1.IFORNIA 4 B'f _0:!:. OEP~!JY. 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH J. MOSER, individually, and Case No.: 17cvl 127-WQH(KSC) --~ _ on behalf of all others similarl:x situated,,_.1_________________ 1 __ 12 ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY v. DISPUTE RE INTERROGATORIES 14 AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS HEALTH INSURANCE 15 SERVED ON PLAINTIFF BY INNOVATIONS, INC., a Delaware DEFENDANT DONIS! JAX, INC. 16 corporation, et al., 17 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 97 and 98.] 18 19 20 Before the Court are: (1) a 76-page Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 21 Dispute [Doc. No. 97] addressing interrogatories served on plaintiff by defendant Donisi 22 Jax, Inc.; and (2) a 151-page Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute 23 addressing document requests served on plaintiff by defendant Donisi Jax, Inc. [Doc. No. 24 98.] In these two Joint Motions, defendant Donisi Jax, Inc. seeks an order compelling 25 plaintiff to provide further, substantive responses to certain interrogatories and document 26 requests. The subject interrogatories and documents requests at issue are interrelated as 27 they seek documents and information on the same topics. These two Motions are the fifth 28 and sixth discovery disputes in this case [Doc. Nos. 75, 83, 84, 87, 99, 100, 101, 102, 118], I .
    [Show full text]
  • DISC-001 Form Interrogatories
    DISC-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO. (Optional): E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SHORT TITLE OF CASE: FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL CASE NUMBER: Asking Party: Answering Party: Set No.: Sec. 1. Instructions to All Parties (c) Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as (a) Interrogatories are written questions prepared by a party to an the information reasonably available to you, including the action that are sent to any other party in the action to be information possessed by your attorneys or agents, permits. answered under oath. The interrogatories below are form If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it interrogatories approved for use in civil cases. to the extent possible. (b) For time limitations, requirements for service on other parties, (d) If you do not have enough personal knowledge to fully and other details, see Code of Civil Procedure sections answer an interrogatory, say so, but make a reasonable and 2030.010–2030.410 and the cases construing those sections. good faith effort to get the information by asking other (c) These form interrogatories do not change existing law persons or organizations, unless the information is equally relating to interrogatories nor do they affect an answering available to the asking party. party’s right to assert any privilege or make any objection. (e) Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to Sec. 2. Instructions to the Asking Party a document, the document may be attached as an exhibit to (a) These interrogatories are designed for optional use by parties the response and referred to in the response.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Civil Practice Guide
    Practice Series Illinois Civil Practice Guide Andrew W. Vail Colleen G. DeRosa © 2012 JENNER & BLOCK LLP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED www.jenner.com ABOUT JENNER & BLOCK Founded in 1914, Jenner & Block is a national law firm of approximately 450 attorneys. Our Firm has been widely recognized for producing outstanding results in corporate transactions and securing significant litigation victories from the trial level through the United States Supreme Court. Companies and individuals around the world trust Jenner & Block with their most sensitive and consequential matters. Our clients range from the top ranks of the Fortune 500, large privately held corporations and financial services institutions to emerging companies, family-run businesses and individuals. OFFICES 353 North Clark Street 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500 Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456 Los Angeles, California 90071 Firm: 312 222-9350 Firm: 213 239-5100 Fax: 312 527-0484 Fax: 213 239-5199 919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor 1099 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 New York, New York 10022-3908 Washington, D.C. 20001-900 Firm: 212 891-1600 Firm: 202 639-6000 Fax: 212 891-1699 Fax: 202 639-6066 © 2012 Jenner & Block LLP. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide general information on legal matters. Transmission is not intended to create and receipt does not establish an attorney- client relationship. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication. The attorney responsible for this publication is Andrew W. Vail. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING 1 AUTHOR INFORMATION Andrew W. Vail is a partner in Jenner & Block’s Litigation Department and a member of the Firm’s Complex Commercial and Antitrust Litigation Practice Groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Actions (Successful Partnering Between Inside and Outside Counsel)
    Chapter 60A Class Actions by David G. Leitch, Gary L. Sasso, and D. Matthew Allen1 § 60A:1 Scope note § 60A:2 Objectives, concerns, preliminary considerations § 60A:3 —Objectives § 60A:4 —Concerns § 60A:5 —Preliminary considerations § 60A:6 — —Media relations § 60A:7 — —Insurance coverage § 60A:8 — —Financial reporting § 60A:9 — —Customer relations § 60A:10 — —Government relations § 60A:11 — —Business or technical expertise § 60A:12 — —Authority § 60A:13 — —Document preservation § 60A:14 — —Selection of outside counsel § 60A:15 — —Discovery and investigation issues § 60A:16 — —Venue and jurisdiction § 60A:17 — —Related proceedings § 60A:18 — —Early assessment § 60A:19 Eective partnering § 60A:20 —Planning is crucial § 60A:21 —Discussions should be conrmed in writing § 60A:22 —Introductions § 60A:23 Strategies in class action engagement 1The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation of the follow- ing attorneys in the preparation of this chapter. From Ford: John F. Mellen, Associate General Counsel — Litigation and Regulatory, Donald J. Lough, Assistant General Counsel — Product Litigation, and Michael J. O'Reilly, Counsel — Products Liability. From Carlton Fields: Chris S. Coutroulis, chair of the Business Litigation and Trade Regulation Practice Group, and Wendy Lumish, chair of the Appellate Practice Group. K 2010 Thomson Reuters/West, 2/2010 60A-1 Successful Partnering § 60A:24 —Elements of claims and defenses; classwide proof § 60A:25 — —Understand the nature of the claims § 60A:26 — —Focus on elements that defeat predominance
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice
    MIDDLE DISTRICT DISCOVERY A HANDBOOK ON CIVIL DISCOVERY PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Rev. 6/05/15 Introduction The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida, and existing case law cover only some aspects of civil discovery practice. Many of the gaps have been filled by the actual practice of trial attorneys and, over the years, a custom and usage has developed in this district in frequently recurring discovery situations. Originally developed by a group of trial attorneys, this handbook on civil discovery practice in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, updated in 2001, and again in 2015, attempts to supplement the rules and decisions by capturing this custom and practice. This handbook is neither substantive law nor inflexible rule; it is an expression of generally acceptable discovery practice in the Middle District. It is revised only periodically and should not be relied on as an up-to-date reference regarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida, or existing case law. Judges and attorneys practicing in the Middle District should regard the handbook as highly persuasive in addressing discovery issues. Parties who represent themselves (“pro se”) will find the handbook useful as they are also subject to the rules and court orders and may be sanctioned for non-compliance. Judges may impose specific discovery requirements in civil cases, by standing order or case-specific order. This handbook does not displace those requirements, but provides a general overview of discovery practice in the Middle District of Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to Interrogatories This Guide Includes Instructions and Sample Forms
    Sacramento County Public Law Library & Civil Self Help Center 609 9th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 saclaw.org (916) 874-6012 >> Home >> Law 101 DISCOVERY Responding to Interrogatories This Guide includes instructions and sample forms. Links to download the fillable forms are at the end of this Guide. Additional copies of this Guide can be accessed at: saclaw.org/respond-rogs BACKGROUND Interrogatories are written questions sent by one party to another, which the responding party must answer under penalty You may also need… of perjury. Interrogatories allow the parties to ask who, what, when, where and why questions, making them a good method Step-by-Step Guides on for obtaining new information. Responding to Discovery There are two types of interrogatories: form interrogatories and • Responding to Requests for special interrogatories. You may receive one or both types of Admissions interrogatories in your case. If you receive both, they will need • Responding to Requests for to be answered separately. Production Although these interrogatories look very different, the responses to both are similar. Your answers must be as Step-by-Step Guides on Making complete and straightforward as possible (California Code of Discovery Requests Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2030.220), and be accurate to the best • Form Interrogatories of your knowledge. In addition, your responses must be • “verified,” meaning that you must sign under penalty of perjury Request for Production of that your responses are true and correct (CCP § 2030.250). Documents and Things You have 30 days after the form or special interrogatories were • Requests for Admission served to you (35 days if served by mail from within California) • Special Interrogatories to serve your responses to the interrogatories.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 – Civil Case Procedures
    GENERAL DISTRICT COURT MANUAL CIVIL CASE PROCEDURES Page 6-1 Chapter 6 – Civil Case Procedures Introduction Civil cases are brought to enforce, redress, or protect the private rights of an individual, organization or government entity. The remedies available in a civil action include the recovery of money damages and the issuance of a court order requiring a party to the suit to complete an agreement or to refrain from some activity. The party who initiates the suit is the “plaintiff,” and the party against whom the suit is brought is the “defendant.” In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove his case by “a preponderance of the evidence.” Any person who is a plaintiff in a civil action in a court of the Commonwealth and a resident of the Commonwealth or a defendant in a civil action in a court of the Commonwealth, and who is on account of his poverty unable to pay fees or costs, may be allowed by the court to sue or defendant a suit therein without paying fees and costs. The person may file the DC-409, PETITION FOR PROCEEDING IN CIVIL CASE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS . In determining a person’s ability to pay fees or costs on account of his/her poverty, the court shall consider whether such person is current recipient of a state and federally funded public assistance program for the indigent or is represented by legal aid society, including an attorney appearing as counsel, pro bono or assigned or referred by legal aid society. If so, such person shall be presumed unable to pay such fees and costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Rules of the Superior Court for Pierce County
    PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT LOCAL RULES Effective as Amended September 1, 2019 The Local Rules are located on the Pierce County Superior Court website: www.co.pierce.wa.us/superiorcourt ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ TABLE OF RULES ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (PCLR) P. 12 GENERAL RULES (PCLGR) P. 18 CIVIL RULES (PCLR) P. 20 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS RULES (PCLSPR) P. 40 MANDATORY ARBITRATION RULES (PCLMAR) P. 54 CRIMINAL RULES (PCLCRR) P. 59 ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES P. 60 APPENDIX OF CIVIL RULE FORMS P. 75 ■ADMINISTRATIVE RULES - PCLR 0.1 Citation - Scope 0.2 Court Organization (a) Judicial Departments (1) Judicial Department Location (2) Judicial Department Hours (b) Court Staff (c) Divisions of the Superior Court (1) Juvenile Court (2) Criminal Divisions (3) Civil Divisions 0.3 Court Management (a) Authority (b) Duties - Responsibilities of the Judges of the Superior Court (1) Executive Committee (2) Policies (3) Court Organization (4) Meetings (c) Office of Presiding Judge (1) Duties (2) Selection of Presiding Judge (3) Selection of Assistant Presiding Judge (d) Executive Committee (1) Policy Decisions (2) Policy Recommendations (3) Committees (4) Advisory Capacity (5) Procedure (6) Meetings (7) Selection (8) Unexpired Term 0.4 Commissioners (a) Duties (1) Civil Divisions A, B, C, D, and Ex Parte (2) Juvenile Division (3) Civil Mental Health Division (4) Criminal Division (b) Direction (c) Rotation of Commissioner Duties 0.5 Court Administrator (a) Selection (b) Powers and Duties (1) Administrative (2) Policies (3) Supervisory 2 (4) Budgetary (5) Representative (6) Assist (7) Agenda Preparation (8) Record Preparation and Maintenance (9) Recommendations 0.6 Standing Committees (a) Establishment (b) Selection of Members 0.7 Legal Assistants (a) Authorized Activity (b) Qualifications of Legal Assistant (c) Presentation by Out-of-County Legal Assistants ■ GENERAL RULES – PCLGR 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Depositions You May Also Need… This Guide Includes Instructions and Sample Forms
    Sacramento County Public Law Library & Civil Self Help Center 609 9th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 saclaw.org (916) 874-6012 >> Home >> Law 101 DISCOVERY Depositions You may also need… This Guide includes instructions and sample forms. Links to download the fillable forms are at the end of this Guide. Step-by-Step Guides on Additional copies of this Guide can be accessed at Responding to Discovery saclaw.org/deposition-guide. • Responding to Interrogatories BACKGROUND • Responding to Requests for Admissions A deposition is the taking of a statement of a witness or party • Responding to Requests for under oath. The deposing party (the “asking” person) may ask Production the deponent (the “responding” person) questions to obtain information, to discover what the party knows about a Step-by-Step Guides on Making situation or event, and to determine what their testimony Discovery Requests would be at trial. Although depositions may be written or oral, this guide will only discuss the taking of oral depositions. • Form Interrogatories Each party may conduct one deposition of each other party. • Request for Production of This limit is imposed to prevent parties from using the Documents and Things deposition process as a tool of harassment, and to make each • Requests for Admission party effectively use their deposition. Parties may also conduct depositions of any relevant witnesses in the case. A • Special Interrogatories party may only conduct one deposition of any individual, though. Other Guides on Discovery Taking an oral deposition is very expensive and time- • Exchange of Expert Witness consuming. The party requesting a deposition is responsible Information for paying all costs and fees related to the deposition.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERROGATORIES to DEFENDANT (Slip/Trip/Fall)
    INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT (Slip/Trip/Fall) 1. Please state your full name, your present home address, your employer’s name and business address, and the title you hold with the named defendant, or the capacity in which you are associated with said defendant. Answer: 2. State the names and addresses of all persons known to you or to your insurance company or attorney who witnessed any part of the incident, or have knowledge of the events leading up to said incident, and give a brief description of all witnesses whose names or addresses are not known. Answer: RevaComm 508 Certified 1 3. Were any statements concerning the incident made to any police officer, private investigator, insurance company agent or adjuster, or anyone else? If so, state: a) The name, address and employer of the person to whom the statement was made; b) The date of each statement; c) Whether the statement was oral or written, and if oral, whether it was recorded; d) The name and address of the custodian(s) of each statement. Answer: 4. Describe any photographs, movies, videotapes, diagrams or drawings taken or made by you or on your behalf of the scene, if any, the plaintiff(s), or anything related to the events alleged in the Complaint. Answer: RevaComm 508 Certified 2 5. Other than this incident, has any person reported slipping and/or tripping and/or falling in the area where this incident occurred during the five-year period prior to the date of this incident and/or during the two-year period subsequent to the date of this incident? If so, as to each such reported
    [Show full text]
  • Part Iv. Mandatory Arbitration Rules (Sclmar) 1. Scope and Purpose Of
    Snohomish County Superior Court Local Court Rule Change Effective Emergent: January 1, 2019 PART IV. MANDATORY ARBITRATION RULES (SCLMAR) 1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF RULES RULE 1.1 APPLICATION OF RULES-PURPOSE AND DEFINITION (a) Purpose. The purpose of arbitration of civil actions under Chapter 7.06 RCW, as implemented by the Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR), is to provide a simplified and economical procedure for obtaining the prompt and equitable resolution of disputes involving claims under one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), exclusive of attorney fees, interest and costs, and claims in which the sole relief sought is the establishment, modification, or termination of maintenance or child support payments regardless of the number or amount of such payments. Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR) as supplemented by these Local Mandatory Arbitration Rules (SCLMAR) are not designed to address every question that may arise during the arbitration process, and the rules give considerable discretion to the arbitrator. The arbitrator should not hesitate to exercise that discretion. Arbitration hearings should be informal and expeditious, consistent with the purpose of relevant statutes and rules. [Amended effective September 1, 2007; Amended effective emergent January 1, 2019] (b) "Arbitration Coordinator" Defined. In these rules, "Arbitration Coordinator" means the Judicial Coordinator for the Snohomish County Superior Court assigned to facilitate arbitration actions. The appointment of the Arbitration Coordinator and other administrative matters
    [Show full text]
  • Special Interrogatories You May Also Need… This Guide Includes Instructions and Sample Forms
    Sacramento County Public Law Library & Civil Self Help Center 609 9th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 saclaw.org (916) 874-6012 >> Home >> Law 101 DISCOVERY Special Interrogatories You may also need… This Guide includes instructions and sample forms. Links to download the fillable forms are at the end of this Guide. Step-by-Step Guides on Making Additional copies of this Guide can be accessed at: Discovery Requests saclaw.org/special-rogs. • Form Interrogatories BACKGROUND • Request for Production of Interrogatories are written questions sent by one party in a Documents and Things lawsuit to another party in that same suit, which the • Requests for Admission responding party must answer under penalty of perjury. Interrogatories allow the parties to ask who, what, when, Step-by-Step Guides on where and why questions, making them a good method for Responding to Discovery obtaining new information. • Responding to There are two types of interrogatories: form interrogatories Interrogatories and special interrogatories. This Guide will discuss special • Responding to Requests for interrogatories; for information about form interrogatories, see Admissions the Step-by-Step guide on Form Interrogatories on our website at saclaw.org/form-rogs. • Responding to Requests for Production Special interrogatory questions are written by the parties. Writing customized questions allows the parties to obtain the Other Guides on Discovery specific information needed in their case. Each question • Depositions should be written to establish a point the party needs to prove their case or to obtain information needed to disprove the • Exchange of Expert Witness other party’s case. Information In a limited civil case (cases less than $25,000) you may ask • Gather Information for your each party only 35 discovery questions total, whether they are Case form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for Related Videos admission, or requests for production of documents.
    [Show full text]