UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

___________________________________________

LINDA HUDSON :

and :

STEPHANIE HUDSON :

Plaintiffs :

v. :

:

WILIBERTO GONZALEZ : DOCKET NO.: 02-4365

& :

DOLLAR RENT A CAR SYSTEMS, INC. :

& :

RENTAL CAR FINANCE CORP. :

Defendants :

__________________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____ day of __________, 2003, upon consideration of the Motion to

Compel filed by Defendants, Wiliberto Gonzalez, Dollar Rent A Car Systems, Inc. And Rental

Finance Corp., 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel

Plaintiff Stephanie Hudson’s Diary is DENIED.

 

J.

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 19 Filed 01/31/2003 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

___________________________________________

LINDA HUDSON :

and :

STEPHANIE HUDSON :

Plaintiffs :

v. :

:

WILIBERTO GONZALEZ : DOCKET NO.: 02-4365

& :

DOLLAR RENT A CAR SYSTEMS, INC. :

& :

RENTAL CAR FINANCE CORP. :

Defendants :

__________________________________________:

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

PLAINTIFF STEPHANIE HUDSON’S DIARY

Plaintiffs Linda and Stephanie Hudson, through their attorneys, Frank & Rosen, hereby

respond to Defendants Order to Compel Stephanie Hudson’s diary pursuant to the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure as follows:

1. Admitted.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Denied as stated.

5. Admitted.

6. Admitted.

7. Denied as stated. Defense counsel only requested production of diary entries

concerning “how or why the accident happened” and did not specifically request

that the entire contents of the diary be produced.

8. Admitted.

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 19 Filed 01/31/2003 Page 2 of 7
9. Admitted only that Defendants, through their counsel, have never made a good

faith effort to resolve the instant discovery dispute and in fact, filed a Motion to

Compel on January 15, 2003, that was never served on Plaintiffs.

10. Admitted only that the damages claimed in this action are for substantial physical

injuries caused to Plaintiff Stephanie Hudson as well as for damages for mental

distress and anxiety.

11. Denied for all of the reasons set-forth in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law.

12. Denied for all of the reasons set-forth in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law.

13. Admitted only that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that a substantial need

exists to compel the production of the subject diary either in portion or in its

entirety.

14. Denied.

15.-16.Admitted.

17. Denied.

18. Admitted. 

19. Denied. Defendants are not entitled to the production of the subject diary because

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that a substantial need exists for the

production of the diary and that the Defendants would sustain substantial hardship

to obtain the purported subject matter of the materials by any alternative means. 

Defendants must first meet this burden in order to obtain this diary and have failed

to do so. Further, Defendants have only requested diary entries concerning how or

why the accident happened and should be limited in meeting their burden as to

these portions of the diary.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant an Order to deny that

Plaintiff Stephanie Hudson produce her diary.

FRANK & ROSEN

BY:______________________________________

DANIEL L. MOSS, ESQ.

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 19 Filed 01/31/2003 Page 3 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

___________________________________________

LINDA HUDSON :

and :

STEPHANIE HUDSON :

Plaintiffs :

v. :

:

WILIBERTO GONZALEZ : DOCKET NO.: 02-4365

& :

DOLLAR RENT A CAR SYSTEMS, INC. :

& :

RENTAL CAR FINANCE CORP. :

Defendants :

__________________________________________:

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I, Daniel L. Moss, Esquire hereby certify that on this date I served Plaintiffs’ Response to

Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff Stephanie Hudson’s Production of Her Diary via first

class mail to the following:

Joseph Goldberg, Esquire

Robert MacMahon, Esquire

Margolis Edelstein

The Curtis Center, 4th Floor

Independence Square West

Philadelphia, PA 19106

FRANK & ROSEN

BY:: 

 DANIEL L. MOSS

8380 Old York Road, Suite 410

Elkins Park, PA 19027

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

DATED: January 31, 2003

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 19 Filed 01/31/2003 Page 4 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

___________________________________________

LINDA HUDSON :

and :

STEPHANIE HUDSON :

Plaintiffs :

v. :

:

WILIBERTO GONZALEZ : DOCKET NO.: 02-4365

& :

DOLLAR RENT A CAR SYSTEMS, INC. :

& :

RENTAL CAR FINANCE CORP. :

Defendants :

__________________________________________:

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

At her deposition on November 20, 2002, Plaintiff Stephanie Hudson testified that, inter

alia, she kept a personal diary in which she from time-to-time recorded personal reflections

concerning her life’s events. She also testified that on at least one instance she made a diary

entry concerning the subject accident. Subsequent to that deposition, on November 26, 2002, 

Defendants informally requested specific information concerning the diary. Specifically, in letter

correspondence, Defendants stated “let me know if you would voluntarily turn these entries over

to us regarding how or why the accident happened.” (See Exhibit “B” of Defendants’ Motion to

Compel). Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a formal response to the Defendants request asserting an

objection based, inter alia, on confidentiality and burdensomeness. 

Thereafter, and without any communication to counsel for Plaintiffs, on January 15,

2003, Defendants apparently filed a Motion to Compel the production of the entire contents of

the diary. Significantly, however, that Motion was never served on counsel for the Plaintiffs and

was filed without a Certificate of Good Faith Effort as required by the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 19 Filed 01/31/2003 Page 5 of 7
Procedure. Plaintiffs only learned about the Motion when it received a copy of this Court’s

Order on January 21, 2003, denying the Defendants’ Motion. (See copy of Order attached

hereto). Upon receipt of this Court’s Order, Plaintiffs contacted defense counsel to attempt to

discuss this issue. (See correspondence from Plaintiffs’ counsel dated January 21, 2003 attached

hereto). Nevertheless, the Defendants filed a second Motion containing a Certificate of Good

Faith Effort that they had attempted in good faith to resolve the discovery dispute with counsel

for Plaintiffs. They did so despite learning that Plaintiffs had never received the first Motion and

without attempting to make a good faith effort to consult in an effort to resolve the issue. Given

this outrageous procedural history, for that reason alone, Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff

Stephanie Hudson’s diary should be denied.

Moreover, notwithstanding the aforesaid procedural background and Defendants patent

breaches of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs believe that there are substantial

reasons why the diary should not be produced. At the outset, Defendants have not demonstrated

that they are entitled to the subject diary or any portions thereof. Specifically, Defendants have

failed to show any substantial need for the production that outweighs the substantial privacy

interests concerning the confidential nature of a personal diary of the 22 year old female Plaintiff. 

Defendants have had ample opportunity to obtain substantial and probative information from

Stephanie Hudson including, but not limited to, a protracted deposition and detailed and

voluminous responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.

Further, Defendants merely asserted in broad brush fashion that since the Plaintiff claims

that she has suffered mental distress and anguish stemming from the alleged accident, they are

entitled to review her entire diary. Defendants should not be entitled to embark on a “fishing

expedition” into Stephanie’s personal and inter-most thoughts maintained over periods of time

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 19 Filed 01/31/2003 Page 6 of 7
that have nothing to do with this case. In making their request, Defendants conveniently omitted

to the Court that Plaintiff Stephanie Hudson has not treated with any specialists for a mental

illness or psychological condition arising from the accident. The thrust of Stephanie’s claims for

damages concern numerous and severe trauma related injuries sustained in this single vehicle

roll-over accident, as well as her being caused to undergo a traumatically induced premature

delivery of her infant daughter. Having now reviewed the diary, Plaintiffs do not believe that the

Defendants’ position, with respect to relevancy as to mental anguish and anxiety is a ruse for

merely securing information irrelevant to the issues in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs submit

that Defendants have not carried their burden of demonstrating that a substantial need exists to

merit production of the diary.

For all of the afore-stated reasons, Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff Stephanie

Hudson’s diary should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted,

FRANK & ROSEN

BY:______________________________________

DANIEL L. MOSS, ESQ.

8380 Old York Road, Suite 410

Elkins Park, PA 19027

(215) 935-1000

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 19 Filed 01/31/2003 Page 7 of 7