Post on 27-Jul-2015
description
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ASSIGNEE OF CHASE BANK (USA), N.A.,
Plaintiff,
vs. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 10-7271-4
JILL SHERIDAN
Defendant.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES
COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and responds to
Defendant's First Interrogatories, as set forth in the following manner below:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff generally objects and responds to the Interrogatories on the
grounds set forth in paragraphs "A" through "R" below. All general objections
shall be deemed to be continuing and shall be construed as supplementing each
specific objection and/or response to the Interrogatories. No specific objection
and no response contained herein shall be interpreted as limiting in any way the
scope or effect of any general objection. Plaintiff objects generally to the
Interrogatories to the extent they exceed the scope permitted by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-
26 and § 9-11-33.
A. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they exceed the scope permitted by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26 and § 9-11-33.
B. Each response is subject to all objections as to relevance and
materiality or any other objections that would require the exclusion of any
statement herein if such statement were to be made by a witness present and
testifying in Court.
C. A response to any Interrogatory is not intended and should
not be construed to be a waiver by Plaintiff of all or any part of any objection to
any Interrogatory.
D. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they assume facts that are inaccurate.
E. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are argumentative.
F. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are defective in form.
G. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are overly broad.
H. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are unduly burdensome.
1. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are oppressive.
J. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
K. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they impose on it an unreasonable burden of inquiry.
L. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege, work
product privilege, or any other privilege or legal protection. The inadvertent or
mistaken production of information and/or documents subject to the protections
of the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, or any other privilege or
legal protection shall not constitute a general, inadvertent, implicit, subject
matter, separate, independent, or other waiver of such privilege or protection and
does not put in issue or constitute the affirmative use of the advice of counselor
of any privileged communications. All such inadvertently produced information
and/or documents shall be returned to Plaintiffs attorneys, along with any copies
made thereof.
M. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek information that is of a confidential, proprietary, or trade secret nature.
N. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek information that was prepared in anticipation oflitigation.
O. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are not properly limited as to time.
P. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek documents not in its possession, custody, or control.
Q. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek conclusions or request opinions or contentions that relate to the
application of law to facts.
R. Plaintiff reserves its right to supplement its objections and
responses to the Interrogatories to the extent necessary and appropriate.
of:
RESERVATIONS
1. These responses are made without waiver of, and with preservation
(a) The right to object to all Interrogatories as to competency,
relevancy, materiality, confidentiality, privilege, and admissibility of the
responses, or the subject matter thereof, as evidence for any purpose in
any further proceeding in this action (including the trial of this action) or
in any other action;
(b) The right to object to the use of any such responses, or the
subject matter thereof, on any ground in any further proceeding in this
action (including the trial of this action) or in any other action;
(c) The right to object on any ground to any Interrogatory
revised by Defendant in response to any objection herein that an
Interrogatory, or any part thereof, is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, or
unduly burdensome; and
(d) The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, supplement
or clarify any of the responses contained herein.
2. The following responses, and any further responses to the
Interrogatories, or to their subject matter, are made expressly without
acknowledgment of materiality or relevance of information requested by the
Interrogatories, or that the Interrogatories seek information, not privileged, that
is relevant to the subject matter of the above-captioned action.
3. The disclosure by Plaintiff of any information, the request for which
is objected to herein, shall not constitute waiver of any applicable objection.
4. Plaintiff reserves its right to supplement, clarify, revise, correct,
and/ or amend any or all of its objections and responses to the Interrogatories to
the extent necessary and appropriate.
SPECIFIC OBJECfIONS AND RESPONSES
1. Daniel Adam Greene, esq. 1427 Roswell Road, Marietta GA, 30062.
(770 )-988-9055. Attorney at Law Direct assignee.
2 . Midland Funding, LLC
3. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
4. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
5. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be '
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
6. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is not
limited in scope, is overbroad and confusing, and places a substantial burden
upon the Plaintiff because of Defendant's failure to limit the request; and on the
ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the
Georgia Civil Practice Act. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same,
Plaintiff is in the process of gathering evidence and will provide information
responsive to this request when it becomes available. Subject to such objections,
and without waiving same, Plaintiff will produce an O.C.G.A. § 9-11-3o(b)(6)
witness if so requested. For its further answer, Plaintiff identifies a
representative of Washington Mutual, who will have knowledge regarding
Defendant's opening of, and default on, the subject credit card, as well as the sale
of the account to Plaintiff; a representative of Plaintiff will testify regarding the
sale of the account to Plaintiff and the account information supplied to Plaintiff
by Washington Mutual; and Defendant, who has knowledge regarding his
opening of and default on the subject credit card account. None of these
witnesses will be tendered as an expert witness.
7. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is not
limited in scope, is overbroad and confusing, and places a substantial burden
upon the Plaintiff because of Defendant's failure to limit the request; and on the
ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the
Georgia Civil Practice Act. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same,
Plaintiff is in the process of gathering evidence and will provide information
responsive to this request when it becomes available. Subject to such objections,
and without waiving same, Plaintiff will produce an O.C.G.A. § 9-11-3o(b)(6)
witness if so requested. For its further answer, Plaintiff identifies a
representative of Washington Mutual, who will have knowledge regarding
Defendant's opening of, and default on, the subject credit card, as well as the sale
of the account to Plaintiff; a representative of Plaintiff will testify regarding the
sale of the account to Plaintiff and the account information supplied to Plaintiff
by Washington Mutual; and Defendant, who has knowledge regarding his
opening of and default on the subject credit card account. None of these
witnesses will be tendered as an expert witness.
8. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
9. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is not
limited in scope, is overbroad and confusing, and places a substantial burden
upon the Plaintiff because of Defendant's failure to limit the request; and on the
ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the
Georgia Civil Practice Act. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same,
Plaintiff is in the process of gathering evidence and will provide information
responsive to this request when it becomes available. Subject to such objections,
and without waiving same, Plaintiff will produce an O.C.G.A. § 9-11-3o(b)(6)
witness if so requested. For its further answer, Plaintiff identifies a
representative of Washington Mutual, who will have knowledge regarding
Defendant's opening of, and default on, the subject credit card, as well as the sale
of the account to Plaintiff; a representative of Plaintiff will testify regarding the
sale of the account to Plaintiff and the account information supplied to Plaintiff
by Washington Mutual; and Defendant, who has knowledge regarding his
opening of and default on the subject credit card account. None of these
witnesses will be tendered as an expert witness.
10. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
11. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
12. Plaintiff objects because the information sought is equally available
to, or already in the possession of, Defendant. Subject to said objection and
without waiving same, Plaintiff has no record of any confirmed telephone
contacts between Plaintiff and Defendant.
13. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
14. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
15. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
16. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be
irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil
Practice Act.
This ( :; day of ----l---f'----+--I---f-' 2010.
FREDERICK J. ATTORNE
Daniel A. Greene, Esq. Georgia Bar No. 105227