+ All Categories
Home > Documents > 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

Date post: 27-Jul-2015
Category:
Upload: jillian-sheridan
View: 1,587 times
Download: 3 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
JILL SHERIDAN http://www.jilliansheridan.comIN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIAEXHIBIT EMIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ASSIGNEE OF CHASE BANK (USA), N.A.,Plaintiff,vs. JILL SHERIDAN CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 10-7271-4Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIESCOMES 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 parag
Popular Tags:
10
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.
Transcript
Page 1: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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.

jill
Typewritten Text
EXHIBIT E
Page 2: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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.

Page 3: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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.

Page 4: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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.

Page 5: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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

Page 6: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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

Page 7: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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)

Page 8: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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.

Page 9: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

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.

Page 10: 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan

This ( :; day of ----l---f'----+--I---f-' 2010.

FREDERICK J. ATTORNE

Daniel A. Greene, Esq. Georgia Bar No. 105227


Recommended