IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDREA CONSTAND, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 05-CV-05-CV-1099

:

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant :

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND TO STRIKE OBJECTIONS 

TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

Plaintiff served Defendant with her second set of interrogatories on March 27, 2006. 

Defendant’s responses were due on April 26, 2006. When timely responses were not served,

Plaintiff requested responses from Defendant’s counsel on May 8, 2006, and again on May 15,

2006 (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). Defendant’s responses were not received until May 19,

2006, and contained objections. Defendant’s objections are untimely. Further, Defendant has

refused to respond to an interrogatory which would provide critical, relevant information to

Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff moves herein to compel a specific response.

Interrogatory No. 12 and Defendant’s response to it are as follow: 

Provide each of the telephone numbers and respective

telephone services (e.g., Sprint, Verizon) you contracted with

or utilized for the telephone calls you made to Plaintiff and/or

her mother during the period from the date you met Plaintiff

through January, 2005.

Answer to Interrogatory No. 12:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds set forth

in his General Objections. Defendant further objects to this

Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is not

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Defendant

further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is

overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant further

objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information

already in Plaintiff’s possession.

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 85 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 4
2

First, Defendant objects to providing the very information he himself seeks from

Plaintiff. See, Defendant’s Motion to Issue International Letters of Request, filed April 12,

2006. Not only are Defendant’s respective telephone services and numbers relevant to

establishing phone calls that he made to Plaintiff, he has sought the same information from her,

and has thus conceded the relevance of the inquiry. Second, Defendant’s objections were not

received until May 19, 2006, more than thirty (30) days after the date he was served with

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, nor was there any court order or agreement between counsel allowing

an extension of time. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s counsel had twice requested responses. See,

Exhibit “A”. Thus, any objections are untimely, and should be stricken. F.R.C.P. 33(3), (4).

Most important, the information Plaintiff seeks is critical to establish the phone calls

Defendant initiated to Plaintiff, including the telephone call he made to Plaintiff offering her

financial compensation -- at a time when he did not realize that she had already reported the

sexual assault to the Toronto Police Department. Plaintiff is also entitled to establish the pattern

of additional phone calls Defendant initiated to Plaintiff during the course of their friendship.

For all of the above reasons, Plaintiff requests that Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s

Second Set of Interrogatories be stricken, and Defendant be ordered to respond in full to

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 12.

Respectfully submitted,

Troiani/Kivitz, L.L.P.

_____________________________

Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire

Attorney I.D. No. 30253

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 85 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 4
3

Dolores M. Troiani, Esquire

Attorney I.D. No.I.D. No. 21283

38 North Waterloo Road

Devon, PA 19333

(610) 688-8400 (610) 688-8426 fax

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Andrea Constand

Dated: May 22, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 85 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 22, 2006, the undersigned were served in the following manner, a

true and correct copy of : Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Specific Responses and to Strike

Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories. 

 

 NAME MANNER

Patrick J. O’Connor, EsquireVia First Class Mail

Cozen O’Connor

1900 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Andrew D. Schau, Esquire Via First Class Mail

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P.

 By:_________________________

Bebe H. Kivitz

I.D. No. 30253

Dolores M. Troiani

I.D. No. 21283

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

38 North Waterloo Road

Devon, Pennsylvania 19333

(610) 688.8400

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 85 Filed 05/24/06 Page 4 of 4