IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ANDREA CONSTAND, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : No. 05-cv-1099 

 v. : 

 : 

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND TO STRIKE 

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Specific Responses and to Strike Objections to Plaintiff’s 

Second Set of Interrogatories (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel”) serves only to reveal her 

disregard of this Court’s rules and her refusal to cooperate in discovery. Defendant served 

Plaintiff with his Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories on May 

19, 2006. He objected to Interrogatory 12, concerning telephone numbers, and indicated that he 

wished to confer with Plaintiff’s counsel further about the subject. In the May 19, 2006 cover 

letter to Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant’s counsel asked, “Please let me know when you would be 

available for a telephone call about the subject of telephone records.” (See Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s 

counsel never responded to this request. 

Rather, on May 22—the very next business day—Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel. 

In other words, Plaintiff not only ignored Defendant’s specific request to discuss Interrogatory 

12, but she also disregarded Local Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1(f), which requires “a 

certification of counsel that the parties, after reasonable effort, are unable to resolve the dispute.” 

Loc. R. Civ. P. 26.1(f). Of course, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel contains no such certification. 

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 87 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 3
 2 

After Plaintiff filed her motion, Defendant’s counsel again asked for a conference about 

Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Plaintiff’s counsel did not return those calls, either. She responded 

for the first time early today, stating in a voicemail that she would not be available to discuss the 

matter until this evening—i.e., after this opposition brief is due. (See Ex. B.) 

If Plaintiff had responded to Defendant’s request for a conference, followed the local 

rules, or even timely returned telephone calls, the dispute over Interrogatory 12 likely would now 

be resolved. As her Motion to Compel now reveals, Plaintiff propounded Interrogatory 12 so 

that she could establish the telephone calls that occurred between Plaintiff and Defendant. As 

Defendant’s counsel would have explained in the required “meet and confer,” Plaintiff already 

possesses her own mobile telephone records—which Defendant obtained via subpoena and 

provided to her—that show telephone activity between Plaintiff and her mother and Defendant, 

including the numbers used for those calls. In addition, Defendant is willing to produce his own 

records of telephone calls with Plaintiff and her mother. In other words, Defendant is offering to 

produce the records that establish what Plaintiff seeks to establish. Defendant asks, in exchange, 

that Plaintiff produce the Canadian telephone records that are now the subject of Defendant’s 

Motion for Issuance of Letters of International Request. 

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 87 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 3
 3 

For these reasons, Defendant requests the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 

Dated: June 7, 2006 s/ Patrick O’Connor 

Patrick J. O’Connor 

George M. Gowen III 

COZEN O’CONNOR 

1900 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

215.665.2000 

Andrew D. Schau 

PATTERSON BELKNAP 

 WEBB & TYLER LLP 

1133 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-6710 

212.336.2000 

Attorneys for Defendant

 

Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 87 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3