Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/5999441/Plrespcompelcert
Timestamp: 2017-11-22 06:35:16
Document Index: 343169691

Matched Legal Cases: ['§9', '§ 9', '§9', '§ 34', '§ 16', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§9', '§9', '§ 911', '§9', '§9', '§ 8', '§\n81', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9']

Plrespcompelcert | Discovery (Law) | Continuance
Description: Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9-8 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 36 -Exhibit A Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9-8 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 2 of 36 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF D...
Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9-8 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 36 -Exhibit A Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9-8 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 2 of 36 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA T ., " .~ JANET D. MCDONALD, JAMES B. STEGEMAN, PLAINTIFFS V ~~ . CIVIL ACTION ., FILE NO: 07CV11$-fi ._ ~ J 1 GEORGIA POWER CUNIPANY , et., al-, DEFENDANTS PLAINTS' C ONSOLIDATED' RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT GEORGIA POWER COMPAivY''S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND DEFENDA
FILE NO: 07CV11$-fi ._ ~
GEORGIA POWER CUNIPANY , et., al-,
PLAINTS' C ONSOLIDATED' RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT GEORGIA POWER COMPAivY''S
DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL'S CERTIFICATION OF
CUMPLAINCE WITH U.S.C.R b.4(B)
COMES NOW, Pro Se Plaintiffs Janet D. McDonald and J ames B. Stegeman and
file Plaintiffs' Responses, Objections To And Motions To Dismiss Defendant Georgia
Power Company's March 31, 2008 Motion To Compel Discovery and Defendant's
Counsel's Certification Of Compliance With U.S.C.R. 6.4(B).
Defendant's Motion To Compel is filled with fatsem . The am of the matter is
that Georgia Power could not defend against Plaiutiffi' Motion To Strike . Defendants
and their legal counsel have filed a fictitious Motion to Compel and Certification of
' Defendants and their Counsel filed Motion to Co mpel and Certification of Compliance
contemporaneously March 3 1, 2009 . Although Plaintiffs filed Motion to Stay Discovery All
Other Processes March 20, 2009 tthe Defindwu and their Coun sel have chosen to ignore the
Motion filed, and have file d Motion to Compel and Certification of Compliance
contemporaneously April 15, 2008 . Out of abundance for caution, Plai ntiffs address the Motion
and Certific ation of Compliance filed March 3 1, 2008 at this time. This in n o way indicates that
Plaintiffs withdraw or intend their Motion To Stay Lu be igored, but refuse to have Motion to
Compel found in Defendant's favor for lack of having filed opposition to same.
Compliance is hopes of having the case dismissed rather than address the fraud that
caused the Plaintiffs to bring this case to the Courts .
Plaintiffs requests an award of their litigation expenses and requests this
Honorable Court to find Defendants and their legal counsel in contempt and since Pro Se
litigants cannot be awarded attorney's fees, Plaintiffs request sanctions against the
Defendants and their counsel in the form of Striking Defendant's Verified Answers and
Dismissing their Counterclaim among the other reasons Plaintiffs have previously shown
this Court, the filing of this fictitious, frivolous Motion to Compel Discovery.
DEFENDANT'S FICTITIOUS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
1. As Plaintiffs have previously evidenced to this Court, Defendants and their legal
counsel have continually made statements to the Court are nothing more than falsum .
This Motion to Compel is just another in a long list of fraudulent conveyances in hopes of
having this case dismissed rather than either admit the have committed fraud upon the
Court or attempt to give legitimacy to a fraudulent document that by the act of
Defendants presenting as evidence of easement over Plaintiffs property itself is fraud
Defendants Motion to Compel , page 1 , 151¶:
"Plaintiffs have repeatedly refused to produce a copy of the
videotape , despite . . . have evaded . . . this vital evidence . . . offered
no excuse . . ."
Attorney Mr. Watt 's Certification, page 1 , 1" 1:
" . . . that he ha s in good faith attempted to confer w ith Plaintiffs. . .
in an effort to resolve . . ."
2. Georgia Power clearly knows what the suit is about see Motion to Compel, page 2,
15, ¶:
". . . alleging . . . from Georgia Power 's exercise of its easement. . ."
Plaintiffs have clearly shown that Georgia Power has no easement, they evidenced to the
Court a fraudulent easement document which they continue to refuse address and have
evaded addressing .
3. Upon reading Defendant's Motion to Compel, it appears that suddenly Georgia
Power and Attorney Watt have further conspired to cause even more fictitious claims for
either present or future Motions to Compel . See Defendant's Motion to Compel, page 5
under "Conclusion":
". . . (iii) directing Plaintiffs to produce to Georgia Power any other
documents in Plaintiffs' possession that are responsive to
Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents within ten
(10) days of entry of the Order . . ."
Plaintiffs have no idea what documents are being referenced, and if Defendants cannot
name and specify what the documents are, the statement has no place in the Motion to
4. As previously shown by Plaintiffs' March 28, 2008 "Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Reply to Georgia Power Company's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and
Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay and Responsive Objections to Defendant Georgia Power
Company's Motion For Continuance Pursuant to O .C.G.A. §9-11-56(x", "Plaintiffs'
Responsive Objection To and Motion To Strike Affidavits of Brian P . Watt", and
"Plaintiffs" Statements For the Record and Requests For Judicial Notice", the statements
by Defendants and their Counsel are fictitious and a frivolous attempt for having the case
Dismissed . Nevertheless, Plaintiffs will continue addressing the issues stated by
Defendants and their counsel .
5. Although Defendant's Discovery requests were in violation of O .C.G.A. § 9-1134, Plaintiffs put forth a good-faith effort to comply and provided Defendants with copies
of the documents, photographs, and map as requested by them .
U.C.G.A. -49-11-34
O.C.G.A. §9-11-34 . Production of documents and things and entry
upon land for inspection and other purposes ; applicability to
nonparties ; confidentiality
(a) Scope . Any party may serve on any other party a request :
(I) "To produce and permit the party making the request, or
someone acting on hi s behalf, to inspect and copy any designated
documents . ..,
(1) ". . .The request shall specify a reasonable time , place, and
manner of making the inspection and performing the related
* HISTORY: Ga. L. 1966, p. 609 , § 34 ; Ga. L. 1967, p. 226 , § 16;
Ga. L. 1972, p. 510, § 7; Ga. L. 1 979 , p. 1 041 , § 1 ; Ga. L . 1986, p.
1277, § 1 ; Ga. L. 1988, p. 375 , § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 152, § 1 ; Ga. L .
2006 , p. 494, § 2/HB 912
Defendant's Production requests, 0 page shows :
l st ¶: ". . . shall take place at the offices of Georgia Power 's counsel
of record, . . . or at any other date mutually agreed upon . . ., and
continuing from day to day thereafter until said inspection . . ."
Plaintiffs' did copy and mail the documents in their possession that could be
copied from their home. As shown by "Exhibit I» attached hereto, their responses
concerning the rest of the requested documents in their possession was :
"Communications should be directed to Plaintiffs concerning
copies and the expenses of copying";
"Should the request be for copies of documents, photographs, etc .
communications should be directed to Plaintiffs about viewing
and copying of same .";
"I believe that you will likely be contacting us concerning
copies of photographs, video, etc., we are open to negotiations
on a time and place with wh ich to meet . . ."
These phrases do not constitute an objection or refusal, it constitutes that Plaintiffs were
open to negotiate specifically when, where and the expenses to accomplish the task .
Further Plaintiffs cannot be construed as "the party making the request, or someone
acting on his behalf' as required by O .C .G.A. §9-1i-34(a)(i) . Attorney Watt has only
continually demanded that Plaintiffs copy and send to him, he was not about to leave his
office or send anyone anyplace to make inspection of anything .
Plainti ffs were open to allowing someone come and v iew the videotape, were open
to having it cop ied. Attorney Watt gave them bad informat ion on who could copy the
tape (Digital 8) to VHS or DVD . With full knowledge of who could and could not copy
the tape, Attorney Watt told Pla intiffs "Kinko 's".
st ¶:
"Exhibit 2"1 dated February 27 , 2008, page 2, l
"We also discussed the video recording . . . I suggested . . . Kinko 's
Defendant 's Motion to Compel , page 2, P ¶:
"Plaintiffs have continually refused . . . and rejected Georgia
Power 's offer . . ., if Plaintiffs were experiencing difficulties in
fording a vendor qualified to provide such a service ."
So either Attorney Watt needs to go take a break and start remembering what he has said
to Plaintiffs over the phone and in letters, or start remembering what he has filed to the
Court and make sure the two conveyances coincide with one another.
8 . Defendant ' s Motion to Compel under "Conclusion" on page 5 :
" . . .(i} . . . allow third-party vendor Legal Technology Services of
Loganv ille, Georgia. . ."
Suddenly it comes to light that all along Attorney Watt had full knowledge of "who"
could perform the task . Surely this Court sees that Plaintiffs' have shown that
Defendants and their counsel orchestrated a fictitious situation so that they could file this
Motion to Compel in hopes of causing undue hardship upon Plaintiffs or having the case
9. Defendant's Motion To Compel Discovery does not conform to the requirements
of O .C.G.A . §9-11-37 and or USCR 6 .4:
Rule 6.4. Failure to make discovery and motion to compel
(A) Motions to compel discovery in accordance with O .C.G.A. § 911-37 shall :
(1 ) Quote verbatim or attach a copy as an exhibit of each
interrogatory, request for admission, or request for production to
wh i ch objection is taken;
(2) Include the specific objection or response said to be
insufficient ;
(3) Include the grounds assigned for the objection (if not apparent
from the objection) ; and,
(4) Include the reasons assigned as supporting the motion . Such
objections and grounds shall be addressed to the specific
interrogatory, request for admission, or request for production and
may not be made generally .
1 0. The defendants make several frivolou s claims that "Plaintiffs have repeatedly
refused to produce a copy of the videotape , despite Defendant ' s explicit requests to do
so." See Defendant Georgia Power Company 's Motion To Compel Discovery, l 't page,
ls`¶. False statement.
Plaintiffs attach hereto Attorney Watt' s only letter to Plaintiffs ". . .written in
pursuant to mule b . 4(B). . ."2 as "Exhibit 3" . Although Defendants and their counsel
insist there i s request for a videotape in the letter, Plaintiffs say outright that is falsum and
Defendant' s legal counsel has falsely s worn in "Defendant ' s Counsel 's Certification of
C ompliance With U . S.C.R. 6.4(B)..
12. Not once have Plaintiffs refused Defendants a copy of the videotape as oppos ing
coun sel insists in the Motion To Compel , Consolidated Response To Plaintiffs Motion
To Strike. . ., Sworn Affidavit of Brain P . Watt and other documents that Defendants have
recently inundated thi s Honorable Court with .
All of the sudden the videotape is "vital evidence"3; "crucial; videotape-AA
"crucial evidence"5; "prompting thi s motion ,6 "giving rise to the lawsuit" 7. Plaintiffs
challenge Defendants and their counsel to support these fictitious statements . Plaintiffs
have never stated any of those things. Plaintiffs said that they have a videotape of the
incident of "cutting of the trees", and Plaintiff Stegeman "attempting to show State Patrol
' Letter dated February 19, 2008, 1s` sentence. NOTE : nowhere is a videotape mentioned .
3 Motion to Compel, pg. 1, 1 i ~
4 Motion to Compel, pg. 2,4h ~.
5 Motion to Compel, pg. 3, last sentence, Defendant's Counsel's Certification, pg . 3, ~6
6 Motion to Compel, pg . 2, 4th ¶ .
7 Defendant's Counsel's Certification . . . pg. 2, 13
Troopers the 1937 Georgia Power/Railway map" . Nothing more, nothing less. Plaintiffs
give the videotape perhaps less importance than they do the photographs, they show the
same thing, Destruction of Plaintiffs' property (without the extremely loud sounds of the
mechanical cutters and extra large chippers running) by entities that have no Legal right
14. Plaintiffs have never refused to allow inspection of the videotape, Attorney Watt
has only demanded that he be provided a copy of the tape . Plaintiffs are always home,
Attorney Watt or someone he designates has always been welcome to come here and
inspect the videotape . Plaintiffs challenge opposition to show evidence that Plaintiffs
refused inspection as shown in Defendant's Motion to Compel, page 3, last paragraph :
"Plaintiffs cannot justify . . . refusal to permit inspection . . ."
15. See Defendant's Motion to Compel pg . 1, ls` ¶; "Plaintiffs have evaded their
obligation to produce this vital evidence for over six weeks, and have offered no excuse
for their continuedd refusal to comply with Georgia's Discovery process ." This statement
is totally false, rather, Plaintiffs had stayed in contact with Defendant's legal counsel and
kept him advised at all times to things that were beyond Plaintiffs control, and worked
diligently with him to prevent any claims of failure to comply . See ¶17 below and
II. DEFENDANT'S LEGAL COUNSELS CERTMCAT'ION OF COMPLIANCE
WITH U.S.C.R. 6.4(B)
Through Plaintiffs' previously filings March 28, 2008 "Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Reply . . . Company's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and Plaintiffs' Motion to
Stay and Responsive Objections . . . Motion For Continuance . . . O.C.G.A. §9-11-56(f)",
"Plaintiffs' Responsive Objection To and Motion To Strike Affidavits of Brian P . Watt",
and "Plaintiffs' Statements For the Record and Requests For Judicial Notice", the
statements by Defendants and their Counsel are fictitious and a frivolous attempt to have
this case Dismissed. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs will continue addressing the issues stated by
Defendant's counsel .
Attorney Watt's Certification of Compliance falsely swears that that he has in a
good faith effort attempted to confer with Plaintiffs, 0 page under the document heading :
"Brian P. Watt . . . he has in good faith attempted to confer with
Plaintiffs . . . refusal to produce the videotape. . ."
The Certification as well as the statement is falsely sworn to. Plaintiffs were open to
allowing someone come and view the videotape, were open to having it copied, but
Attorney Watt gave them bad information on who could copy the tape (Digital 8) to VHS
or DVD . With full knowledge of who could and could not copy the tape, Attorney Watt
told Plaintiffs "Kinko's" . See "Eichibit 2", dated February 27, 2008, page 2, 1 st
"We also discussed the video recording . . . I suggested . . . Kinko's
Plaintiffs attach as "Exhibit 4" letter from Mr . Watt dated March 1 8, 2008,
Plaintiffs direct the Court's attention to the last paragraph :
". . . discussed the video record i ngs . . . At your earliest
convenience, please provide . . . date certain . . . Plaintiffs will
produce the videotape ."
18. Plaintiffs have shown that :
1) Plaintiffs have never claimed to have more than one videotape
2) Attorney Watt's February 19th letter mentioned nothing about
3) Attorney Watt's February 27 ' ' letter confirms that there was a
conversation that same day about the videotape and he mislead
Plaintiffs by telling them "Kinko's"
4) March 18, 2008 Attorney Watt's letter advises Plaintiffs "At
your earliest convenience" to let him know a date when they
will produce the videotape .
19. Although Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint, page 6 1fn* 13/ clearly stated that
Plaintiffs had a videotape of the August 30, 2007 incident :
"Plaintiff McDonald videotaped parts of the incident. There was a
lot of noise from the two bucket trucks and the limb chipper
causing the audio difficult to hear ."
Attorney Watt 's Certification page 2, ¶3 :
"Plaintiffs' responses to Georgia Power's written disc overy
revealed that they possess a videotape of the incident(s) giving rise
to this lawsuit ."
". . . written discovery revealed . . ." is an outright falsely sworn statement by Attorne y
Watt. And the claim "Giving rise to the lawsuit", is ludicrous. The facts clearly show
that Georgia Power Company ' s lack of easement and destruct ion of Plaintiffs' private
property, and violation of Plaintiffs ' Civil and Constitutional Rights is what thi s lawsuit
is about. It has nothing to do with what is shown in the videotape .
That which is pecu liar or proper to any person; that which belongs
exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights
which are guaranteed and protected by the government. More
specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exc lusive right to a
thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess
it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it .
*http://wwwgeocitie&conr/CapitotHillll9i7/lawdk-html#color%2
Oof'/2Draw From Black's Legal Dictionary unless so noted
Freedom; exemption from extraneous control . Freedom from all
restraints except such as are justly im p osed by law . ... The word
includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment .
*h&p://www geocitk-V. com/Ca0tolHilUZ9l 717awdie- html#color%2
Dof `/201aw From Black's Legal Dictionary unless so noted
20. Attorney Watt's Certification also states, page 2,13 :
". . . Plaintiff McDonald videotaping Georgia Power employee s and
attempting to interact with them during the events in question ."
"INTER. Between, among; as, inter vivo s, between living
persons;"
"ACT. Acts are general or special; public or private . A general or
publ ic act is a univer sal rule which binds the whole community; of
which the courts are bound to take not ice ex officio ."g
a A Law Dictionary Adapted to The Constitution And Laws of The United States of American
and of the Several States of The American Union With References to the Civil and Other
Plaintiff McDonald wonders how she could be videotaping herself interacting,
"videotaping Georgia Power employees and attempting to interact with them during the
events". Furthermore, State Patrol Troopers were hired for security because Matt Goff
had been told by one of the Plaintiffs that they would "kill him" and the Troopers admit
in their "Statements" that they would not allow Plaintiffs near Georgia Power's
employees . Georgia Power has alleged that Plaintiff McDonald is an extremely
dangerous person, that State Patrol Troopers had been hired due to Matt Goff's fear for
his life. Attorney Watt has falsely sworn .
21. Attorney Watt went out of his way to assure that Plaintiffs would be unsuccessful
at having the videotape copied by telling them Kinko's . Then it was agreed that Plaintiffs
would attempt to copy the video at their home . Plaintiffs attempted to copy the videotape
using Plaintiff McDonald's computer -first attempted to copy directly to a DVD from
camera using the computer, then attempted to download the video to the computer to try
to burn onto DVD from computer. Then Plaintiffs attempted to copy from camera to
VHS using a VCR, then tried to use the camera to play through their TV and copy onto
VHS Through VCR. When all failed, Plaintiffs began contacting third parties on their
own, the only response that Plaintiffs can show evidence of is in the form of an email
attached as "Exhibit 5"
22. It should also be noted that several times Mr . Watt was advised if he did not hear
back to contact them, he never contacted them back . Plaintiffs never refused to allow
inspection; Mr. Watt never suggested or discussed inspection, he only demanded that
Plaintiffs provide him a copy, which Plaintiffs attempted ; Mr. Watt told them to get
Kinko's to perform the copying knowing full well that Kinko's could not do so and
knowing the proper "lab" which could as shown by Motion To Compel . Attorney Watt
has falsely sworn.
Systems of Foreign Law by John Bouvier - Henry Sixth Edition, Revised, Improved and
Greatly Enlarged Vt3L .I, Philadelphia Cliids & Peterson, 124 Arch Street 1856
Although Plaintiffs have not found any cases where an attorney has given
misleading information to opposition in order to have them fail in discovery, Plaintiffs
did find where an attorney purposely caused other problems for opposition :
See Green v Green, (S. E. 2d 457) , (263 Ga . 437) 5511993 .
GA.2404 <http ://www.versuslaw .com>, (1993) :
"[ 101 :
Benham , Justice . All the Justices concur, except SearsCollins , J., who concurs specially , and Fletcher, J., who concurs in
the judgment only ."
"[16] : 2. In addition to the purely legal question . . ., the role
appellee' s coun sel played in procuring the judgment must be
"1 17]:
In recent years, on the federal and state level, courts
throughout this country have sought to encourage profe ssionali sm
among lawyers . . . years ago this court established the Chief
Justice's Comm ission on Professionalism . . . to maintain . . .and
establish . . ., a sense of civility and courtesy among lawyers.
. . .between professionalism and ethic s, Chief Justice Clarke ha s
often said that "ethics is that which is required and professionalism
is that which is expected .""
"[18] On one hand, the practice o f law is dependent . . . on
lawyers having respect for each other, honoring their promi ses,
cooperating with others, and according each other a high degree of
civility. On the other hand, lay persons sincerely believe that when
a justicable issue arises, . . . they will be accorded their day in
court." These expectations on the part of lawyers and lay persons
are reasonable and are fury contemplated by our system of
jurisprudence . Therefore, when these expectations are not fulfilled,
there is understandable discontent with our system of Justice. If the
bar is to maintain the respect of the community , lawyers must be
willing to act out of a spirit of cooperation and civility and not
wholly out of a sense of blind and unbridled advocacy."
"[20] . . . That spirit of cooperation and civility, with the notions of
fundamental fairness that lie at the heart of the princ iple of due
process of law, requires that attorneys , as officers of the court,
make a good faith effort to ensure that all parties *fn3 to a
controversy have a full and fair opportunity to be heard. *fn4 . . ."
"[21 ] Given all the circum stances of this case, and especially
the lengths to which appellee's counsel went to ensure that this case
was tried in the absence of appellant, we hold that the proper
exercise of the trial court's discretion established in Spyropoulos,
supra, required that the j udgment be set aside . The trial court's
denial of appellant's motion to s et aside was, therefore, an abuse of
that discretion."
"[40] . . . "due process " is "'flexible and calls for such
procedural protections as the particular situation demands,"
Mathews v Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 334 (96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L . Ed.
2d 18) (1976), and due regard must be given to the particularities
and practicalities of each case and to the effect the different type s
of notice may have on state interests , see Mullane, 339 U.S . at
3 14-315 ; Tulsa Professional Collection Svcs. v. Pope, 485 U.S.
478,489 (108 S . Ct. 1340,99 L. Ed. 2d 565) (1988)."
See Motion to Strike Affidavit of Brian P. Watt pgs. 11- 12 :
"All along Mr. Watt had been deciding what he deems necessary
and proper for both the Plaintiffs and Defendants ; when, where,
how, why, and what to include when confirming negotiation s and
verbal agreements to agree ; only what he wants to include in
letters, and Notices; picks out what he wants to use from
conversations ."
"In one instant, he cannot have a discovery conference or discuss
documents to be used at depositions because it would be unethical ;
the next instant he is making decisions on what is necessary and
proper on Plaintiffs behalf (advising Plrrinti, f_ fs), and he is making
decisions for Plaintiffs (representing PlaintYffs) . The facts clearly
show that the March 18, 2008 letter stated: "All other aspects of
Defendants notices will remain the same" which means no other
"Mr. Watt, attempting to have Plaintiffs trust him when he said " . .
I had already indicated my willingness to entertain further
discussion on the topic" was a lie . Mr. Watt should be found in
contempt, Defendant's Answers stricken, and Dismissal of
Counterclaim as sanctions for Defendants' legal counsel's
representation of both parties ."
Further, Defendant ' s counsel seems to complain that although Plaintiffs were
"working on it ", they obviously were not doing it fast enough for Attorney Watt 's
satisfaction although there had been no date agreed upon that Plaintiffs would produce
the videotape. See
Russell v. Wickes Lumber , (378, S .E.2d 148), (190 Ga. App. 16)
<http ://www.versuslaw .com>(1989) :
[12j : "1 . Appellant complains that the trial court erred in refusing
to grant his motion to compel Wickes to produce requested
documents , in refusing to impo se sanctions against Wickes for its
late production of the documents, and in denying appellant a 10day continuance to review the documents ." "' . . .The request did not
specify a date or time by which the documents were to be
produced. . . ." "The trial court was within its discretion to rule that
Wickes was in compliance with the request and to deny the
continuance to allow appellant to review the mater ial, inasmuch as
appellant's motion to compel did not conform to the requirements
set out in Uniform Superior Court Rules 6 .3 and 6.4, and his
request for a continuance did not comply with Rule 8 .5."
Although there has been no Order by this Court on Discovery, Defendants Move
for extreme sanctions which without an Order an failure to comply with the Order would
be unwarranted . Plaintiffs suggest this is further evidence of Defendant's and their
counsel's conspiracy to have the case dismissed rather than respond to their fraudulent
document and lack of easement.
1Vlotani et al v. Wallace Enterprises, InG (251 Ga. App . 384) (554
SE2d 539) {2001 ) :
". . . appeal the trial court's order . . . for failing to comply with the
court's order on a motion to compel . We find that the trial court
abused its discretion by imposing such a severe sanction in the
absence of any evidence of willfulness, bad faith or conscious
disregard of an order and remand . . ."
"Motani "was unable to provide a legal basis for his failure to
comply" with the order on the motion to compel"
"Before imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal or default
judgment, the court must first make a determination, after notice
and an opportunity for hearing, that the failure to comply with the
order was wilful ."
"We find no evidence that the failure was wilful, in bad faith or in
conscious disregard of the consequences of failing to comply wife
""We do not condone . . .discovery obligations, but we conclude
that the sanction chosen by the court was too severe for the facts
presented .""
Plaintiffs have sought a Protective Order through their Motion To Stay , which
apparently Defendants have chosen to ignore. Plaintiffs Move this court , for the reasons
shown previously for a Protective Order at least until such time as Plaintiffs ' Motion to
Stay is considered and beard dated for May 27, 2008. Plaintiffs have no other way to
unsure that Defendants will cease their harassment and falsely sworn statements against
Plaintiffs further move this Court for a protective Order for any further
permitted discovery throughout the life of this case due to the harassment , fraud , undue
burden sought by Defendants, and the fact that no matter how much Plaint iffs show they
are or have been attempting to comply, Defendants and their counsel w ill continue to
claim that Plaintiffs are refusing to comply .
O.C.G.A. §9-11-26(c) Protective Orders .
"Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is
sought and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is
pending or, alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the
court in the county where the deposition is to be taken may make
any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense, including one or more of the following :
(1) That the discovery not be had ;
(2) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and
conditions, including a designation of the time or place ;
(3) That the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery
other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
(4) That certain matters not be inquired into or that the scope of
the discovery be limited to certain matters ;
(5) That discovery be conducted with no one present except
persons designated by the court;
Clearly the February 19h letter upon which Defendants and their counsel so
heavily rely never stated anything about a videotape . The documents which the letter
refers to were all provided to Defendants, thereby the motion is clearly frivolous .
Attorney Watt's Certification cites several cases which he purports is relevant to
Defendant 's Motion to Compel . He is wrong .
Plaintiffs begin with Wills v . McAuley cited by Attorney Watt on page 3
referencing ". . .a party ' s total failure to supply answers. ., would be subject to immediate
sanctions" The same case also address willful perj ury which is what Plaintiffs have made
claim to numerous times about Defendants and their legal counsel in Motion to Strike ,
Motion to Strike Affidavits ofBrian P Watt and in conjunction with the current Motion to
Compel and Defendant 's Counsel's Certification .
Wills ei ox v. McArrley 65128 ., 166 Ga. App. 4 (303 SE2d 26)
"[ 13]
After discovery, . . . imposition of sanct ions . . .Plaintiffs
motion . . . assertion that defendant Wills had "knowingly perjured
himself' . . . prayed for the striking . . ., entry of judgment by default
against him and the award of reasonable e xpenses in ascertaining
facts made necessary by the alleged perjury ."'
"[141 The trial court . . . found that defendant Wills swore
falsely . . ." "The trial court found . . . Wills' false swearing was
deliberate, without excu se, in an attempt to s ecrete facts from the
trial court" "The trial court ordered the striking of the an swer . . .,
and entry of judgment by default, . . . "for costs of th is action plus
any and all damage s which may be as sessed . . ."
"[17j . . .In the case sub judice there has been no order compelling
discovery pursuant to Code Ann. § 8 ] A -] 37 (a), supra. Therefore ,
the imposition of sanctions was not authorized under Code Ann. §
81A- 137 (b), supra."
Petition for Cert. went before The Supreme Court of Georgia OS1i2/83, the Petition was
denied, but Justice Smith and Justice Hill's dissent on denial of Petition shows the
following concerning Perjury:
McAuley v. Wills, et of 1983 Ga. . 873 (305 S .E.2d 120), 251 Ga.
41(1983)
"[61
Application for certiorari to the Court of Appeal s of
Georgia -- 166 Ga. App. 4."
"[10] . . . application hereby denied "
"[12] SMITH, Justice, Dissenting."
"[131
I would grant the petition for certiorari. Although I agree
with the result reached by the Court of Appeals, I would grant and
write to emphasize . . . Remedies such as criminal prosecution for
penury . . . should be utilizedd in thi s and similar eases ."
The following cases reference "total failure" to perform or respond to discovery .
Plaintiffs have shown that there was no total failure and they have always been willing to
provide Defendants a copy of the videotape, unlike their claim, and Plaintiffs have further
shown that Attorney Watt stated on March 18 'J' "at your earliest convenience" when
commenting on letting him know a date .
ASAP Healrtkcare Network, Irra v, Southwest Hospital and
Medical Center, Ins, 270 Ga. App. 76 (606 S.E.2d 98), (2004) , the
trial court granted of Southwest Hospital and Medical Center' s (the
"Hospital") motion to dismiss for failure to respond to discovery,
the judgment was reversed and remanded .
"[15] : . . . [I]n determining the particular sanction s to be impo sed,
thi s discretion is not without limits. . .
"[2b] *fn7 . . . Furthermore, the court found that ASAP's failure
to participate in discovery wa s wilful based on the 17 months that
elapsed before ASAP responded to the discovery ."
Suchniek v Southern General Insurance Company 196 Ga . App.
687 (396 S.E.2d 609) (1990)
"ill) . . . OCGA § 9-11-37 (d) (1) authorizes a trial court to
dismiss an action, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) (2) (C), for
complete failure to respond to interrogatories . Mayer v. Interstate
Fire Ins. Co., 243 Ga. 436 (2) (254 S .E.Zd 825) (1979) ; Danger v.
Strother, 171 Ga. App. 607 (l) (320 S . E.2d 613) (1984) ."
The problem with Mr. Watt's citing of Smith to show "properly noted . . . take advantage
of their pro se status. . . penalized for being represented" is off mark as well .
Smith v. Adamson, et al, Smith v. Winder News., et, aL 226 Ga.
App. 698, (487 S.E.2d 3 86), (1997)
. . . Smith sued Judges . . . Adamson and . . .McWhorter , two
of the three Superior Court judges . . ."
"[1 3] . . . The case wa s assigned to Judge T . David Motes, who
dismissed the case"
"[16] . . . Smith had filed at least twenty -five lawsuits in the prior
eighteen years, . . . against public officials, enti ties, and employee s.
None had been successful , . . ."
"[26] . . . - at least one of wh ich was clearly court-ordered. See
OCGA § 9- 11-37 (b) & (d); Jarallah v. Pickett Suite Hotel, 193 Ga .
App. 3 25 (388 S.E.2d 333) (1989). Unl ike the trial court in Loftin
v. Gulf Contracting Co., 224 Ga. App. 210 (480 S .E.2d 604)
( 1997) " "The trial court repeatedly gave Mrs. Smith the benefit
of the doubt as a pro se litigant, but properly noted that such
litigants cannot be allowed to take advantage of their pro se statu s
to the point that their adversaries are effectively penalized for bein g
Throughout both Defendant's Motion to Compel and Defendant's Counsel's
Certification . . . repeated claims are made that Plaintiffs have refused to comply with
Discovery requests; that Georgia Power has easement rights concerning Plaintiffs'
property, that a "crucial" "critical" "giving rise to the lawsuit" videotape was "discovered
during Discovery"; that "February 19, 2008" letter to Plaintiffs indicates the videotape ;
"rejected Georgia Power's" "offer to have the videotape copied" ; "other documents" ; All
of these are falsely sworn to falsum statements made with bad-faith and an attempt to
prejudice this Honorable Court against Plaintiffs .
Plaintiffs have shown throughout the entirety of this lawsuit, beginning with the
filing of Defendant's Verified Answer and Counterclaim that Defendants and their
counsel have continually perjured themselves and or falsely sworn in every Verification,
Certification, Affidavit that has been filed with this Court .
Plaintiffs have shown that there has been no withholding of documents and the
statements made concerning the videotape and the alleged Plaintiffs' withholding of it
has turned into a fiasco. This Honorable Court must not allow these things to continue .
Defendants want to holler pro se this and pro se that, allege that these pro se
Plaintiffs expect and want preferential treatment . These are false statements as well .
Plaintiffs in this matter have diligently worked to prevent any of these kind of claims
being made . Plaintiffs acted as Pro Se Plaintiffs against Wachovia Bank/Wachovia
Securities and were never subjected to the kind of remarks by their attorneys that
Plaintiffs have had to endure from Georgia Power's attorneys and Wachovia's attorneys
were known as "Georgia's Super Lawyers" . Plaintiffs have a hard time believing that
this Honorable Court will allow such behavior to continue .
Plaintiffs Move this Honorable Court for an order DENYing Defendant's Motion
for Continuance, for and order GRANTing Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay and will ISSUE a
Protective Order to prevent further abuses by Defendants .
Plaintiffs Pray that this Honorable Court will GRANT their Motion to Strike
Defendant's Answers and Counterclaim, find Defendants in Default and GRANT
Plaintiffs Default Judgment against Defendants .
Having shown this Honorable Court that everything claimed in Defendant's
Motion to Compel and their Counsel's Certification is fictitious; and a bad faith attempt
to have this case dismissed rather than respond to the fraudulent document Defendants
evidenced as proving Easement ; Plaintiffs Janet D . McDonald and James B . Stegeman
Pray this Honorable Court sees that Plaintiffs' have been completely honest, their claims
against Defendants are true and this Court and will take the appropriate steps to end the
frivolous, fraudulent, falsely sworn to claims and abuses subjected upon Plaintiffs by
Plaintiffs Pray this Honorable Court will DENY Defendant's Motion to Compel
and STRIKE their Counsel's Certification for falsely sworn statements, and perjuries .
Respectfully submitted, this 3 e day of
ANET D. MCD NALD, Pro Se
0770) 879-5737
AIES B ` STEGF.K`Pro Se
821 Shepp`
Stone Mountain, GA 30093
CERTMCATE OF SERVICE
I hereby Certify that I have this 3 0' day of April, 2008 served upon Defendants
through their attorney on file PLAINTIFFS" CONSOLIDATED
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY AND DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL'S CERTIFICATION OF
COMPLAINCE WITH U .S.C.R 6.4(B) by causing to be deposited with U .S.P.S. a true
and correct copy with proper postage affixed as
Trnutmau Sanders, LLP
C/o Brian P . Watt
az 1 anegpara Ma
(770) 8 79-8737
821. Sheppard Rd
Pri nt } Close Window
Subject lamer Confirnting Extensions
"IIYaf#, Brian " cBtian.Waft@t r+oufmarssanders .coma
Tue . Mar 18, 2008 3:21 pm
yanet@he sven* 9lass-aflm>
"Fan-ow, Scott A" tSeMt
ders.com>
M s . McDonald & M r. Stegeman,
Thank you both for speaki ng with me today. I appreciate your cooperation and willingness to reso lve these
minor scheduling issues without court involvement .
Attached to this e-mail is a letter (also being sent First Class mail) confirming the agreements reached today
concerning the rescheduling of PiaintifFs ' deposi tions and the extension of time in wh ich Defendants will respond
to Plai ntiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Answers. Please review the attached letter and let me know if you' d
like to discuss further .
Please also confirm that you r ece ived this e-mail and the attached letter, and confirm in writing (by fax is fine)
that the letter contains an accurate memoriaiizatio n of the parties' agreement Thank you.
<<Stegeman LT Mar 1 8. pdf»
Brim P. Watt
Tioutman Sanders UP
600 Peachtree Street N E.
Adauta, Georga 3Q30$-27-iG
I3ttcct Line : (404) 885-32fl3
Fax Number (404) 962-6767
IRS Circu l ar 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirem ents imposed by the IRS, we inform you that
any tax advice that may be contained in th is communication ( including any attachment s) is not intended or
written to be used , and cannot be used , for the purpose of (i ) avoiding any penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or (ii) promoting , marketing or recommending to another party any transaction(s) or tax-related matter(s)
that may be addressed here in.
This e-mail communication (including any attachments) may contain legafty privileged and confidential
information intended solely for the use of the intended rec ipient. if you are not the intended recipient, you should
immediately stop reading th i s message and delete it from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution,
copying or other use of this communicat ion (or its attachments) is strictly prohibited .
Copyright 0 2803-2008 . AN rights resanred .
3rallet
. Akmotw1b
g7a) 879-8737
First Chiss Mail
600 Peachtree Street, N. E_ Suite 5200
Atlanta, GA 30306-2216
Y GA power CM, eL, al.
Civil Case File No.: O7-iw-1139&-fi
Yes , there was an understanding that (here would be rescheduling of Video Deposition
to the date of April 3, 2008_ tf you will remember, here was also a discussion on
poss ible location change, and transp~on difficulties on our end_ It was also
discussed that we were n ot waiving
g arty Right to Object to having the depositions .
Mr. Stegeman was told that we would be consulted on the questions that would be
asked at depositions and the scope of d isc~.
There was reaches an agreement that the due date for responding to Plaintiff's Motion
to Strike would be changed to Apri12 5, 2008 _
As we are diligently att+ernprting to copy the tape of the incident to VHS which you
requested, a lthough we do not have a date forr completion, wiff try to finish this as soon
as practically possible- Should you hear nothing by Friday March 2 1 , 2008, feel free to
call for update on this_
Should this not be your u
understanding of the conversation .
ndmg, Please call us a nd confer with your
Janet ~]r McDcmald
3'anet Al. . clDvrialb
yam.eg , motegeman
(770) 879-873
First Class Ma il
Bran P Watt
600 Peachtree Street , N. E. Su ite 5200
Atlanta, GA 30306 -2216
RE: JNcDvnald/Stegernan v. GA Power o_, et, atCivil Cas e File No.: OT-cv-1'f 3 98
Please be advised, the mail today delivered NOTICE TO TAKE VIDEO DEPOSIT IO N
as sent to the Court . As the understanding was that there could be a possible location
change and what has been filed with the Court does not mention this, or the fact that the
depositions would be back to back and that the scope of discovery has been omitted as
Your letter sent via small says Revised notices reflecting the new date will be filed with
the Court tomorrow, and you should receive your service copies soon thereafter."
We were told on the phone that you would send us the tether to confirm the conversation
before sending to the Court . Cefifi----- te of Service shows March 18 , 2008 . Therefore,
there is no agreement, period _
D. McDoi
TRQurmAN SANDERS LLP
N E V5
~ Lrr .cc s aI aErLJrr • .w yre .-a r fp
SANK O F AVM§t%CA PLAZA
SOB P EA C3'tS t£E S7'.fEEW'f. *'r- . WIT-6 ,S2OQ
lM"TA. 6EOap1w aosos-,sx1 a
W wwt. lf61,S1i6ASiIltl1YS,:V8M
TElEPM OMf_
IfacSIWL@
aM.ati.3000
app - g 6i-3310D
~3OanR 1lMan
Dfeect DW40i D6s* Fae 4448824767
March 20, 2M
VIA E-WAlL TO .tAJYt701fF-4 VZJl+t YGL AM COM
aNO FiXVt G ~.9 MAIL
Mr. James B. Stegeman,Prv se
Ms . Janet McDonWd, pro se
821 5hcppard Road
Stone Mountair4 GA 30W3
Janet McDanalrl arsdJa
SYegenuur v Georgia Paww Cv_, et a4
DeKalb Comity Superior Court, Case Na 07CV11-398-6
Dear Mr. S#cgeman and Ms. M cDonald_
I ainsn receipt ofova lc #ers `froiiu-ym both Aatcd Mash 19, 2009 . Inthe.fsis# , received
at or-around-4:15 p.m. via fax, you crnffi rrn
p iainM~ depoddow'have been rescheduled by
mutual agreement of the parties " for Ap~il 3, 2W8, and ffta#-the bmc ibr r ind to Plaintiffs'
Motion to-Strike I?e ftdar a' Answc rs was extmdcdthnNu& Apri I -25, 2W& ,4s i mentioned in
Ma tch 1 8, 2004, rrevised notices cifde x)sitian
our conversation yesterday and in my lever d
wera sent to the court for EIing reflecting the pw ties' ag =m=t to reschedule thedepwttons
I was in the pr~oc.ess afdrafaqg a response. _ta your fast letter to Tzar up a possible
misunderst andirtg whe n i received fur second lettcr, also sad via fsx,around=5,36 pm. Your
second co nduce purports to rescind tbc amt reached yestarda, appamdy because
revised noticcs of deposition reflecting the new elates {whicb iiiu requ ested) wem sent to the
court prior to yourresponse confirming they
talc of otr comrnsmiotian on March I&h- It is
unfortunate that you have taken this posMon.
m as as aced odatit~n to you -an
First-of all, I rescheduled your d
accommodation that you nom. Kctg -In mind that tip isle fond such ccommodation
we have consented to, the fit beings two week extension in the time for your response to
Cy orgia Peer's fustmund of wwritten disaomy. After Wending tbis tomtesy, I =ft g.ucsted an
extension in the tie for Georgia Power to respond to your emotion to Strike Odbndmt's
W mat C3 a Povi hWs- rWp 00se would be due by
knswot. After some discamvq you ate
ApnZ 25; 2008.
At the end of the colt, I informed you drat I Wotttd be p you a Ie wing our
agremcnE and that I would be filingrevised notic es ofdeposition -mfle cft the nm dates.
sed notices were filed
ApparontlY, you have attributed some importance #ar the fact that the re vi
L- E M [L
.4.TL R NTA Hd t4 G KONt3 - LOON NEW YriieW '-' NpFlt''-QL YC - K~~rr.C?ror~~ D _CB
~xGi~
Y'r~rGr~~~
.~va
TYSQNS
K,r~+~wo
ATTORNEY-8 AT S AW
A u w 1rc n LI . .I.rrr vaes rrws N3r
Mr. JSIIitS Stegeman
11b.J8tI2i McDonald
March 2% 2008
Page 2 ,of 2
before you responded to my tester. Your lever also W3-.s iss ue with the fact that the-deposition
notices omit rcfera ce to ``a possible location cha.nv," which we dimmsed on the phone on
March 1 8th- As you will T=l1, no agreement was reached to change the deposition ve nul~, in
part because you did not have another location to propose . T indicated that we would remain
apen to discussing a change in the location of the dcposifwnsy but that for now the most
important thing was to set the new dates for yam d tiojs and thb duc date fbt Georgia
Power's response to your motion, with we did. I did not dCCm it proper or necessary to put
such a contingency in a notice ca fdegosrtion, espaeiallywhsn I bad already indicated my
will ingness to entertain farther discussions an the topic.
efdrafrmg a tC spO)1'3G to your first letter to
As I Il7Cntt0mCd ?.aFfle[',_ I was in LhG
clear up what I perceived mighttae a xaismders#u~ In your lettii, you sate that "Mr .
5tegcman was told that we would be oo h on &e questions would be asked at the
depositions and the scope of disevvery ." This is not ac=am I did not, nor wed I ever, agree
that counsel for Georgia Power would consuft wither as to the questions that migbt be asked at
your depositions . In &ck as I told Ms . Mald, such communications would be improper
given our adverse positions and Plaintiffs-pro se s#atws.
As for the scope of discovery . Georgia Power "may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, which is relevant in ft . subject matter involved in the penfing action,
whether it relates to the claim or d of thee seeking discovery or party to the eiaiin-ar defense
of any other party, including the ice, des=ipficm, mtffe, custodK condition, and location
of any books, doeummt% or o#hertwgiblc things sxid'the identity and location ofpersons having
knowledge of any t#iscaverable matter . It is not gmund for objection tharthe infrnxnatictn sought
will be inadmissible at the trial if the information Wight appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissibleevidencr_" D .C.G,A: § 9-11-261 will stand by my commitment-to reschedule your depositions, for. April 3, 2aI$, as }you
rrgudsted . Please advise whether you intcad on honoring your Agr'ecrte~t to extend the time for
Ge~ Power to respond-to Plaiatift' Motion to Str&c~ or if we will be forced to . file a motion
I look forward to your resPbum
Brian P . Watt
cc Scott A. Farrvw, Esq.
Su bject MoDonetld/SAagema rt Y. Georgia Power Ca, CM Act No. 97-CV-1 1397.6
Dane ; Mon, Mar 31, 2008 B :O 6 pa
To: <j8~1@ N 19aM6I1ft"$ .C0141>. <n~b9 i11 .nG1>
Cc : "Farrow, Scott A." <soott.
Ms. McDonald & Mr. Stegeman,
I tried to contact you earlier today by phone but could not reach you at your home phone
number As I mentioned in the voicernail that I left on your answering machine, Judge
Backer's law clerk asked that t contact you this afternoon to see if you were available for a 9: 00
a. m conference cast hearing with Judge Becker regarding the pendi ng discovery dispute and
Plaintiffs ' depositions scheduled for this Thursday , April 3 , 2008 .
If you are available at 9: 00 a .m , April 1 , 2008, for a conference call w ith the Court, please
advise by responding to this e -mail and I wil l arrange with the calendar clerk first thing in the
rroutman Sanders LLP
b0U Peachune Street N .E.
Arlanm, Georgia 30308-2216
1?ucct imp (404) 885 - 3203
fax Number (404) 962- 6767
P r int I Close Window
Subject: April 2,20M Correspondence
From : " Watt, Brian" <8rian.Watt@troutrnaresanders.com>
Date : Wed, Apr Q2, 200$ 2:48 pin
To : <janet@hearenly glass.com?
Cc: "arrow, Scott A." <scatt famovr@troutmnsan ders .ca n>
Please see attached correspondence dated April 2 , 2008 .
« Stegeman LT Apr 2.PDF>>
Tcuut.min 5anden LLP
600 Peachtree Street lV E
Adaata, Georgia 30308-2216
Direct Enr: (404) 885-3203
IRS Circular 230 d isdosu re: To ensure compliance with requ irements imposed by the IRS , we inform you that
any tax advice that may be contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
wri tten to be used , and cannot be used , for the purpose of ( i) avoiding any penalti es under the Internal Revenue
Code or (ii) promoting , marketing or recommend ing to another party any trans action ( s) or tax-related matter(s)
that may be addressed here in .
This e-mail communication (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged and confidential
information intended solely for the use of the intended recipient . If you are not the intended recipient you should
immediately stop reading this message and delete it from your system . Any unauthorized reading, distribution,
copying or other use of this communication (or its attachments) is strictly .
Copyright 0 2403-2008. All rights reserved .
TROuI'M SANDERS LLP
u w rE S u .aI i I t r .w . i x e ea . IF
YANK OF wYE RtCA VtA71.
!Oa PE A CNTRleB 7RRTrN'r, x.E. - S UtTfc 5249
•!lwM7A.8EORSiA 9gSi-23 1 6
+.~, t aut riws~dsss_eos
reLePHa*G : sa.-easaaoa
FACS )1YkE:
bw3 liQ
gel rfl P. Wiu
tx.a amc v
pmt J%= aoe .ae¢ aTST
s-atRaa
Mr. J8rne3 B. Stageraan, pro se
ML Jaw* McDonaldpm Se
821 Sid Road
Stow Mountain, GA 30093
J McDomwld aiedJaxm ShWamm v. Georgia Power Co., et aL
DWQslb County SWenor Court, Case No. 07G`V1 1398-6
Dar Mr. Stegaman and Ms,11 cDo na1d:
As you wffl re=% y aw d ates we sci o blecl for Tlsusaay, April 3, ?.008.
Dekudmrt C
y properly noficed yowd og an Mamh 18, 2008,
to U.C.G.A. If 9-11-26,9-11-30, and 9-11-34, for Apri13, 2009. We lie arranged for
a court reporter and videographer to be present to teca~ad yam drpo d&m at 9:00 a m. in our
offices, winch we located m She 5200, 600 P 3trad NE, Ate, GA, 30308 .
In dw awe of a vie Order from d e Court. we expert your attendance for your
deposition at the sd~eduled tam . Should you W to appear for ytw depoodums, we will move
the Court fear an Order compelling your atbeird~ce md we will seek to recover all costs
with your failure to ', 8 tea' fees.
SmocrelY,
ATLANTA - BONG Korro - Laxaaty • New Ya sx • NQRFOLI C - R1 6 LS[ f3E{
Print I Close Window
Second Correspondence Dated April 2, 2 W8
From: "Watt, Brian" <Brian.M faU40tr+ou6n8nsantlerscom?
Daft: Wed, Apr 02. 2008 5:17 pm
To: <Jareet@heavetihl 9tass.cgm>
Cc: "Farrow, Scott A." <scdltfan+o~r~trnutrnansan ders.t~om~
<<Stegeman Second LT Apr 2 . pdf»
Troutman Sanders LIP
600 Peachtree Street %V . E SWtC 5200
Atlanta, C ;rvzpa 30308-2216
Direct I.tn r• (404) 88 5- 3303
IRS Circular 230 disclosure : To ensure co mpliance with requi rements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that
any tax adv ice that may be contained in this communication (including a ny attachments) is not intended or
written to be used , and cannot be used , for the purpose of (i) avoiding any penalties under the Internal Revenue
that may be addressed herein .
information intended snlePy for the use of the intended recipient if you are not the intended recipient you should
copying or other use of this communication (or its attachments) is strictly prohibited .
Copyright 0 20Q3-2008 . All rights reserved .
SANDERS Lr P
T T D R N E Y S
• LI u ITe e LI as MIrr . aa tK tKSw 1 •
6 00 P E/lCiiTREE STREET . N.E . - SUITE 5204
ATLANTA . GEORGIA 30306-221f
wm. .lrautm9n s vnA ers _aoIR
TEtEPMOME_
a0r-RB9-1flOq
FACS IUIL E: 104-9113 -390 0
Ed en P. IMid
COW Offal X01-3
O6aC FtiC AQ44MM 87bT
E&DI
April Z 2M
VU E- W& TO JAMMEM HMMAM CON
Mr. James 13. Stems, pro se
Ms. ]east McDonald, prose
Stone Moufftain, GA 30083
Janet McDariald and Jm res Steg ~ v Georgia Power tea.. et aL
DeKalb County Superior Cart, Cage No. D7CV I 1398-6
Dear Mr. Stegesnsu and Ms. 1VIcDaflsld:
This afternom at appzrnuimafely 4:00 p m., Ms. McDonald contacted me via telephone
9, the F
Call was in response to my ICON, also dated April , Z+ DOS, which I had
sent o ycmu via e-r='1 earlier day.
Yam beg, by staffing that you would be e to amend ft depositions sche&Aed for
tomorrow When I ash why you needled to rmfi.ednte, the tone, of tbe conv~itn~ became
quite hoes and I spent the remaindea of tie cxxivasatia~ struggling to undaztend you as Mr.
Stegernaudn shouted in the bac3~gran ncL
Ia short, you claimed that tomorrow was not convenient for you because of transportativa
pubims. I proceeded to arc why }m h$d wt cmtaftd me earlier Sivea MY at~p~ to contact
you this week . You a~da~vledg~ed receiving *e v l that I left Ear you as Monday, Marsh
31st, requesting that you cow me about a oa oe call with dxe Court the following
d that you did not return my call, but you immediately
morning. You also
`~no one called me day mand ng at 9 :00 a.ui_," as if tu imply that
the call, despi#e vledgi~g that you had not wed my calls to yow availability
As you lmaw, we eve bin trying to schedule yew depot once Febtvary. I have
eve you prided me
requested dates frm you on occasions, and not once mmcrons
ould make moves available for a depot. Aft several requests withdfayouw for sum
dates without any rye, we noticed yam dqxWfions for March 27,2W8 . In x+
requested that the depositions be rescheduled for some time is early Apn1 became March was
not convenient for you due to a brief that yea were wc daog on for another cage pending in the
1 ith Circuit Court of Appeals. We a~o~aada#~ct yes request, and z rescheduled your
deposits far April 3rd
. In fact, yam
u agreed to sit for your depositions on April 3rd, and you
confirmed such an agreement in writing .
ATLANTA - HONG Karrt0 LoKnors -N ew YcyV-sc NaWFqY.IL 0 RALEI, C#
TRC3UTMAN SANDERS LLP
A -Y1i4 6 Ll4S ILITY 1AtTMt11SX4 •
11/Ir. Jamey Std
Ms. Jars McDonald
April 2, Z008
Yet, on the eve oftine scba duledd
haviin g ip ored my allamiNs to oontwl You
for several days, you now cla m thd April and gas also caoovameak" Lice before you fsii to
propose an alternative date for *e d
wm, much less a validjusfificafimm fag your refusal to
sit for the depasiirion.
We have no choice but to mare our Notices of D icut . cqwd
I your Mmdmxw
bamw mw morning at our oboes fir your depamatiam As I mentioned in my previous letter,
your fidhme to attend gill result in a motion to
dimumior aou pel, and we will seek to recover
our costs and keys' fees incaued in pursuing such an Order fraam
m the Court
rian P. Watt
3faner M ArlBnndb
82'! Sheppard Rd
4f312M 3.27 :48 PM
COU Peachhm Street , NE Suite 5200
Atlanta . GA 30308
Mr. Waft,
I am in the prods of dra ffing a 1
to you in respo nse to your letters left in my email
K call before
box I would appreciate from now on you do riot emal m e_ You may fax
sending . If this unacceptable, send LISPS maul_
i do not expect to have any more
tape them _ You ivvist, delete an~
-r ~ - ,
es B Stag an
the oppartunfij to
Documents Similar To Plrespcompelcert
Jasper H. Parks, A/K/A Jack Parks v. Atwood J. Huff, II, 955 F.2d 42, 4th Cir. (1992)