Ask a Business Lawyer. Get Business Law Questions Answered ASAP.
I hope you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT and/or the HAPPY SMILEY FACE button above for my answer. This is necessary for me to be paid for my work and so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!
If you have additional questions, please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
PLEASE NOTE WELL, LEGAL ANSWERS TAKE MORE THAN “MINUTES” TO PUT TOGETHER AS WE ARE DEALING WITH LAWS OF 50 STATES PLUS FEDERAL LAWS, AS WELL AS DEALING WITH OTHER CUSTOMERS, SO PLEASE BE PATIENT IT WILL BE MORE THAN “MINUTES” IN SOME CASES BEFORE YOU GET A RESPONSE, BUT BE ASSURED YOU ARE NOT BEING IGNORED.
There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be helping other customers or taking a break.
You can always request me through my profile at http://www.justanswer.com/law/expert-paulmjd/ or beginning your question with “For PaulMJD…”
The initial disclosure requirements, as set forth in Rule 26(a)(1), currently are:
Except in categories of proceedings specified in Rule 26(a)(1)(E) Footnote , or to the extent otherwise stipulated or directed by order, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties:
(A) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of the information;
(B) a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things Footnote that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment;
(C) a computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and
(D) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.
Pre-trial disclosures are witnesses, experts, reports and a list of evidence that you intend to introduce in your case, which typically comes from your discovery throughout the process.
I hope you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT button above for my answer. This is necessary for me to be paid for my work and so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!
The Guy is trying to obtain a Default Judgment against the Corporate defendants and Corproate RELIEF Defendants. Claiming that I can only represent my self and my Answers and defenses doesn't apply to the Companies, THAT IS TRUE (I can NOT represent a company) I know since they are dissolved I shouldnt worry too much.
However its matter of principle. I want to FILE a motion to vacate, under FRCP 60 and argue that:
A- He never served the PROPER party at the correct address HIS declaration and SUMMONS are DEFECTIVE.
B- Because this entire compalint alleges and accuses me, a PARTIAL Judgment could NOT be had. FIRST he needs to prove IF I violated anything.
QUESTION: IF I cite FRCP 19 TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT in "B" will it apply?
C- My Motion for Summary Judgment for RELIEF from this case is pending.
D- As such Judgment against RELIEF defendant can NOT be had, because they FIRST need to establish if those Corporate RELIEF defendant received any money from me?
QUESTION: Is there any FRCP or Rules, you can Cite, so I can cite in support of my arguments in "B" C" and "D" or as to my overall argument TO CONVINCE THE JUDGE TO AT LEAST WAIT TO HEAR MY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT for RELIEF, or any case law, REALY NEED YOUR GUIDANCE, SINCERELY, RYAN
Thanks Paul, you are awesome
Though he is claiming that I better read Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) before I make any demands on him, I still can make this Motion under Rule 34 correct!
What do you suggest in general I should say so he cant tell the court that he is NOT under the general rues obligated and decided NOT to produce the actual material.
Because he claims that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires him to make disclosures as to list or location where they have custody, BUT producing them is at his discretion!!!! and I am sure this will be his respond to my Motion, THEREFORE I want to be ahead and close the loop hole.
Yes I did, in my initial disclosure, I also made demand for productions under Rule 34 and gave 14 days, as you told me.
The above was his respond when I followed up that I am still waiting its more than 14 days, he said [he opted on that latter] because he is only obligated to disclose the list and location, and therefore he doesnt need to produce any thing. NOW he send me a revised JSR draft saying that party agree to destroy any privileged material that was unwittingly collected!!!
what do you think? do the motion to compel, and what should I argue if he claims he is NOT obligated?
Yes, I also filed my request with the court on May 23, 2012, its on docket, now He says he decided not to, because he is not obligated.
So I will do the the motion to compel under 34.
He will probabely claim that he is under rule 26(f) subsections NOT obligated.
He will probabely claim that he is under rule 26(f) subsections NOT obligated to produce and decided to opt out the latter!!
(1) on its own; or
(2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.
If you moved to strike his computations before you filed your answered whatever pleading it was in, which I thought you said you did, then you are fine, if not you need to withdraw that motion and you would fight the computation by forcing him to present evidence of it in your discovery.
I found this in the library, can you please read it and see if its a correct citation and will it be in my benefit that I need to use in my Objection and motion for protective order
Vincent & Vincent, Inc., v. Spacek establishes the necessary good cause. Vincent & Vincent,Inc., v. Spacek, 102 Wis.2d 266, 306 N.W.2d 85 (Ct. App. 1981). In that case, plaintiff servedinterrogatories and the defendant requested a protective order which the trial court denied, concluding that the defendant had "deliberately made the requested information relativelyinaccessible to parties seeking discovery." Id.at 270. The court of appeals reversed and stated thatthe trial court had "abused its discretion in ordering the discovery . . . ." Id. at 269. Wisconsin Stat.§ 804.01(3) provides authorization for a trial court to issue a protective order to "protect a party fromdiscovery that would result in annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The burden of establishing good cause for the protective order is upon the party seeking the protective order." Vincent, 102 Wis.2d at 271-72.
Ok I try to find one but couldnt
HOWEVER, is this THE RIGHT one I mean the decision in general?
I just want to know if I understand the lnguage and do NOT cite something that might befits them.
Thank you Yes Sir, will do, I ll run it by you before I cite it.
By the way because the court wants parties to first hold conferences to resolve any discoveries disputes I wrote the following, which I ll want to use as basis for my motion too, please see if you like it:
In respond to your email dated August 16, 2012, hereby “I” as the defendant submitting our [objection] to your request to conduct duplicative and cumulative depositions, and since your request for a duplicate deposition follows Rule 26 and Rule 33 in this matter, pursuant to local Rule 7-6 I am “attempting” to resolve this matter through having a formal conference with you to make sure parties do all efforts to address the matter, before [wasting] Courts resources as follows.
As such your request for second deposition is improper and burdensome, to create inconsistencies, (i.e. Any demand for duplicative and cumulative depositions on allegations, which may have occurred “several years” earlier it is an attempt against all legal statutes because memories changes or fades away, such action or demand it’s an improper scheme for entrapping the party or to create inconsistencies, confusion etc.).
Under the federal rules of procedure Rule 30 "Pursuant to subdivision” (f)(2), as under the prior rule, any other party is entitled to secure a copy of the deposition from the designated party to take the deposition; accordingly, a copy of the first deposition in 2009 was never produced by you for our review and corrections, prior to it was used as basis for your “Injunctive Relief” that was filed on December of 2012.
Your request for duplicative and cumulative depositions contravenesFRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(i), the [second] deposition sought is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative, and is obtainable from other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) “YOU” the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought “since 2008”;(iii) the burden or the expense of the proposed duplicative and cumulative depositions outweighs its likely benefit, taking into the account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues was “Produced and deposed between 2008 and 2009”.
Your request for duplicative and cumulative for 2nd depositions contravenes Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), pursuant to our “Three” (“3”) months long Joint Status conference, and the Status report that you prepared NO such duplicate deposition was mentioned nor was agreed upon. Furthermore your request to continue defendant’s MSJ to pursue JSR conference under Rule 26 neither requests nor was the reason for “Plaintiff” to adduce for a 2nd deposition, NEED to emphasize that your initial disclosure doesn’t contain a list of any deposition testimony demand (by page and lines) pertaining a 2nd depositions.
Your request for duplicative and cumulative for 2nd depositions contravenesFRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(i), since the taking of the last deposition in 2009 the request for a “Second” deposition is being sought now to annoy, embarrass or harass, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any new admissible evidence, as such is improper.
Now it is realized that when questioning a “Debtor” under the [protection] of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a); Under 11 U.S.C. § 702, within the “Deadline” under 11 U.S.C. §§ 502(b)(9), a [“Propounding Government unit or Agency”] under Sec.1102(b)(3) (2005) requires to enter into an stipulation and [obtain] courts approval to access a “debtor” information or conduct depositions, As such NO such process was sought by you, and because under 362 the U.S. Bankruptcy Court retains jurisdiction forever, “I” as the former officer of the defendant [cannot] and should have NOT gave any depositions what so ever, prior to have met all legal requirements and satisfied the alternate court legal custodian.
Your request for duplicative and cumulative depositions for second depositions is being sought now to annoy, embarrass or harass, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any new admissible evidence, and therefore its in improper.
As I mentioned this letter is to resolve and address the objection to [avoid] wasting the courts resources, “IF” you feel “defendant’s” objection is unfounded, I have prepared a “Motion” [Objection to Plaintiff’s demand for Duplicate depositions and request for protective order] “avail hearing date October 1, 2012 (NOT yet filed pending to hear your response) FURTHER need to inform you that “IF” we disagree and the trial court disagrees with defendant’s motion for [protective order,] defendant shall seek an appeal in the 9th Circuit court of appeal. (See Cal. Statute for protective order and 9th circuit Instruction Memoranda on duplicative and cumulative depositions).
laintiff's objection in this case is not sufficiently particularized to advise the Court to what extent the interrogatories propounded to him are a duplication of matters previously covered in the taking of his deposition. The fact of the deposition proceeding alone does not justify a blanket objection to all written interrogatories. And while I believe that the voluminous interrogatories here propounded are unnecessarily detailed in their content, the peculiar facts of the case do not permit the objection to be sustained on that basis. The complaint states a claim based upon a large number of separate but related demands, and some detail in posing interrogatories is probably inevitable under the circumstances." Id.Schotthofer was discussed in Richlin v. Sigma Design West, Ltd. where the district court upheld the Magistrate's decision "in not compelling the plaintiffs to answer numerous boilerplate variety interrogatories which are well demonstrated to be substantially duplicative of information already discovered . . . ." Richlin v. Sigma Design West, Ltd., 88 F.R.D. 634, 637, 31 Fed.R.Serv.2d 698 (E.D. Cal. 1980).In Richlin, plaintiffs were deposed over three days with transcripts exceeding three hundred pages. Subsequently, defendants served interrogatories upon the plaintiffs which were objected to. The defendants filed a motion to compel, and plaintiffs responded and supplemented their opposition with a "deposition interrogatory comparison" which provided a synopsis of the deposition testimony, including page and line numbers, as it related to each interrogatory. Id. at 636.The court began its analysis by stating that "the various methods of discovery as provided for in the Rules are clearly intended to be cumulative, as opposed to alternative or mutually exclusive." Id. at 637. The court then looked at the various discovery methods and the advantages of each. "As to the respective advantages of interrogatories and depositions and thus their appropriate usages, Wright and Miller advise as follows: The obvious advantage of interrogatories over a deposition is that they are much less expensive. There is not significant expense for the party sending the interrogatories except for the time spent in preparing the questions. In addition, interrogatories are a much simpler device. There are none of the details that must be taken care of in arranging for a deposition, such as obtaining a court reporter and fixing the time and place for the examination. On the other hand, depositions are preferable if a searching interrogation of the other party is desired. At a deposition the examining party has great flexibility and can frame his questions on the basis of answers to previous questions. Moreover, the party being examined does not have the opportunity to study the questions in advance and to consult with his attorney before answering, as he does if interrogatories are used. Attempts at evasion, which might be met by a persistent oral examination, cannot be easily dealt with by interrogatories." Id.The court discussed how this case differed from Schotthofer. "In Schotthofer, the court refused to sustain the objection of the litigant on the ground that it was not sufficiently particularized to advise the court of the extent to which the interrogatories propounded him were a duplication of those matters previously covered during the course of his deposition. The objections of the plaintiffs at bar, however, (as carefully augmented by their supplemental opposition to the defendants' motion to compel) stand in stark contrast to those depicted in Schotthofer. Herein, the plaintiffs have diligently undertaken to compare each and every interrogatory propounded to them with the relevant portions of the transcripts of their prior deposition testimony. The objections are therefore sufficiently particularized to advise this Court of the extent of the duplication at issue." Id. at 639.The court then addressed several cases relied upon by the parties. "In attempting to reconcile these seemingly, at first blush, irreconcilable cases, the following becomes clear: while Taylor, [(objection to only five interrogatories)], B. & S. Drilling, Hornung and Anderson [(failure to demonstrate undue burden)], impose an additional requirement to the effect that the objecting party must demonstrate that "hardship or injustice" will result if he/she is forced to duplicate prior answers, the interrogatories at issue in those cases do not appear to be particularly voluminous, nor do they appear to be requiring of minute factual detail. On the other hand, Schotthofer, Kensington, [(the court had to sift through many pages)], Kainz [(interrogatories were not repetitious because as they covered an additional period of time)], and Krantz [(1500 interrogatories requiring minute details)], stand for, at the minimum, the proposition that when voluminous and all-inclusive interrogatories are demonstrated with particularity to be substantially duplicative of material already within the proponent's grasp, the objector's burden of demonstrating that they are annoying, vexatious or oppressive beyond the limits of justice is discharged." Id. at 639-40.The Richlin court upheld the Magistrate's ruling stating that "the decision appears to be consistent with the case law from other jurisdictions, and does not contravene any controlling precedent within the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, as a general principle it is incumbent upon a court to balance the burden on the interrogated party against the benefit which would inure to the interrogator in making a determination whether a given set of interrogatories are so broad and all inclusive as to be overly burdensome." Id. at 640.A few other federal cases may offer some support: Spector Freight Systems v. The Home Identity Company, 58 F.R.D. 162 (N.D. Ill. 1973) (granting a protective order when all of the interrogatories seek information which is already to the defendant when defendant had previously taken depositions and audited plaintiff's claims and records); Banana Distributors v. United Fruit Company, 19 F.R.D. 493 (S.D. N.Y. 1956) (defendants may not have to answer interrogatories which are unduly oppressive or may duplicate volumes of work); David J. Frank Landscape Contracting v. La Rosa Landscape, 199 F.R.D. 314 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (no entitlement to protective order when parties have not shown good cause or even provided a reason why they are requesting a protective order).Please tell me which one suits my argument.Thank you
He claims in his reply to my motion that a Motion for summary Judgment is NOT a pleading?
how did he come up with this argument?
Its a "Motion" isnt it as such is a pleading?
Then why he says defendants Motion for a summary Judgment is NOT a pleading?
Thank you, XXXXX XXXXX this following ORDER in adition to Richi please let me know if its proper to cite this:
"Given the preference for liberal discoveries under the rule, the burden is on the party seeking Rule 26(c) protective order to establish good cause and to show necessity of its issuance (See In Terra Int’l Inc., 134 F.3d302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998): Federal Trade commission V U.S. Grant Resources, LLC 2004 WL. 14444951, at *7(E.D. L.a. 2004)
Because IN THIS CASE in 2004 at the end the Judge denied the Government on this motion asserting privilege work
Is this above language referring to a cause that a good cause exist or referring that a good cause must exist?
SO I better just cite Richi that you said you liked most?
Because the Judge finished by saying exactly and citing: See Federal Trade commission V U.S. Grant Resources, LLC 2004 WL. 14444951, at *7(E.D. L.a. 2004) GOOD Cause exist
I am NOT sure should I cite it or not?
got it thanks
You saw the causes on friday above here that you liked, I am using the same exact in my motion, should I add more?
The above are all I could think of
Thank you very much
Thank you, XXXXX XXXXX question on this, IS THAT he has scheduled the depositions for 2 weeks from today, and for me to set up a hearing to obtain the protective ORDER, I must in complaince with California local rules give aminimum of 28 days NOTICE in order to Calendar a hearing date.
Can I issue a Notice of Stay?
IF YES, Under which Rule?
Can I issue a Cease of Desist? (Under FRCP 403 or any other rules under)
IF YES, under which Rule?
To STOP his attempt to depose the TWO former clients?
Interestinglingly 1 of the 2 that he wants to depose, came to the Court and dismissed all his claimes against me or the Companies "WITH-PREJUDICE" in the BK Court in 2009, stating that the Attorney who filed the proof of claim on his behald and objection to discharge, had used his Name on the FACE Page as Plaintiff without his permission or retainer, testified that the Attorney told him that this Guy (me) is toast and he can get him a quick Judgment. But he refused to retain him.
I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.
If you did not get all of the information you may have wanted PLEASE USE THE REPLY TO EXPERT LINK IF YOU HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AND NOT THE FEEDBACK BUTTON FOR BAD SERVICE. PLEASE CLICK ON “OK,” “GOOD” or “EXCELLENT” SERVICE. Kindly remember to ONLY rate my answer when you are fully satisfied. If you feel the need to rate anything less than OK, please stop and reply to me via the or REPLY TO EXPERT button with whatever issue or clarification you may need.
PLEASE NOTE WELL WE ARE DEALING WITH LAWS OF 50 STATES PLUS FEDERAL LAWS, AS WELL AS DEALING WITH OTHER CUSTOMERS, SO PLEASE BE PATIENT AND BE ASSURED YOU ARE NOT BEING IGNORED.
But this in a Federal District court
Is it possible to submit the MSJ and evidence in support thereof asking the 9th District Panel to issue a Relief?
I don't think this Judge will be happy and or will grant a fair Judgment after this, thus far he has kept kicking me in the gut, like non of my motions and pleadings matter like its Gov Lawyer and a Gov court, Its mostly that because I am in Pro Se yet my MSJ was very powerful, so IF its granted its bad a pro se wins!! took 2 years to hear and its 9 months no order..
Thank you Paul,
One last question: IF you recall I filed for protective order argued that he already deposed us and discoveries were completed in 2008-2009
The Court as usual Denied my Motion, Stated that I must follow Local Rule 37-2 which is to meet and prepare a Joint conference to resolve disagreements on Discoveries
The guy dis appeared for 4 months, and now suddenly he on the letter head of his Agency issuing Notices of Depositions and RFA etc.
I know why he is doing it, he is trying to create inconsistencies so he can amend his injunction to get out of the MSJ which is I suspect that they delayed the order on my MSJ giving him time to do so.
I reminded him that by the order we must hold a conference, he insists that I must agree to cumulative deposition and LR 37-2 doesn't apply here.
And threatens to file for Relief etc. if I don't show up
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).