Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/45103665/09-15-2010-Plaintiff-s-Responses-to-Defendant-s-First-Interrogatories-Midland-v-Sheridan
Timestamp: 2016-10-20 22:13:16
Document Index: 358662394

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicIN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIAEXHIBIT E
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ASSIGNEE OF CHASE BANK (USA), N.A.,
vs. JILL SHERIDAN CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 10-7271-4
Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES
COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and responds to Defendant's First Interrogatories, as set forth in the following manner below: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Plaintiff generally objects and responds to the Interrogatories on the grounds set forth in paragraphs "A" through "R" below. All general objections shall be deemed to be continuing and shall be construed as supplementing each specific objection and/or response to the Interrogatories. No specific objection and no response contained herein shall be interpreted as limiting in any way the scope or effect of any general objection. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent they exceed the scope permitted by O.C.G.A. § 9-1126 and § 9-11-33.
Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they exceed the scope permitted by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26 and § 9-11-33.
Each response is subject to all objections as to relevance and
materiality or any other objections that would require the exclusion of any statement herein if such statement were to be made by a witness present and testifying in Court. C. A response to any Interrogatory is not intended and should
not be construed to be a waiver by Plaintiff of all or any part of any objection to any Interrogatory. D. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they assume facts that are inaccurate.
they are argumentative. F. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are defective in form. G. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are overly broad. H. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are unduly burdensome.
they are oppressive. J. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
they impose on it an unreasonable burden of inquiry.
they seek information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, or any other privilege or legal protection. The inadvertent or mistaken production of information and/or documents subject to the protections of the attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, or any other privilege or legal protection shall not constitute a general, inadvertent, implicit, subject matter, separate, independent, or other waiver of such privilege or protection and does not put in issue or constitute the affirmative use of the advice of counselor of any privileged communications. All such inadvertently produced information and/or documents shall be returned to Plaintiffs attorneys, along with any copies made thereof. M. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek information that is of a confidential, proprietary, or trade secret nature. N. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek information that was prepared in anticipation oflitigation. O. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they are not properly limited as to time. P. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek documents not in its possession, custody, or control. Q. Plaintiff objects generally to the Interrogatories to the extent
they seek conclusions or request opinions or contentions that relate to the application of law to facts.
Plaintiff reserves its right to supplement its objections and
responses to the Interrogatories to the extent necessary and appropriate.
These responses are made without waiver of, and with preservation
of: (a) The right to object to all Interrogatories as to competency,
relevancy, materiality, confidentiality, privilege, and admissibility of the responses, or the subject matter thereof, as evidence for any purpose in any further proceeding in this action (including the trial of this action) or in any other action;
The right to object to the use of any such responses, or the
subject matter thereof, on any ground in any further proceeding in this action (including the trial of this action) or in any other action; (c) The right to object on any ground to any Interrogatory
revised by Defendant in response to any objection herein that an Interrogatory, or any part thereof, is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, or unduly burdensome; and (d) The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, supplement
or clarify any of the responses contained herein.
The following responses, and any further responses to the
Interrogatories, or to their subject matter, are made expressly without acknowledgment of materiality or relevance of information requested by the Interrogatories, or that the Interrogatories seek information, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the above-captioned action. 3. The disclosure by Plaintiff of any information, the request for which
is objected to herein, shall not constitute waiver of any applicable objection.
Plaintiff reserves its right to supplement, clarify, revise, correct,
and/ or amend any or all of its objections and responses to the Interrogatories to the extent necessary and appropriate.
SPECIFIC OBJECfIONS AND RESPONSES
Daniel Adam Greene, esq. 1427 Roswell Road, Marietta GA, 30062.
(770 )-988-9055. Attorney at Law Direct assignee.
Midland Funding, LLC Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. 4. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. 5. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be ' irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said
request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. 6. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is not
limited in scope, is overbroad and confusing, and places a substantial burden upon the Plaintiff because of Defendant's failure to limit the request; and on the ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiff is in the process of gathering evidence and will provide information responsive to this request when it becomes available. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiff will produce an O.C.G.A. § 9-11-3o(b)(6) witness if so requested. For its further answer, Plaintiff identifies a representative of Washington Mutual, who will have knowledge regarding Defendant's opening of, and default on, the subject credit card, as well as the sale of the account to Plaintiff; a representative of Plaintiff will testify regarding the sale of the account to Plaintiff and the account information supplied to Plaintiff by Washington Mutual; and Defendant, who has knowledge regarding his opening of and default on the subject credit card account. None of these witnesses will be tendered as an expert witness. 7. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is not
limited in scope, is overbroad and confusing, and places a substantial burden upon the Plaintiff because of Defendant's failure to limit the request; and on the ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiff is in the process of gathering evidence and will provide information
responsive to this request when it becomes available. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiff will produce an O.C.G.A. § 9-11-3o(b)(6) witness if so requested. For its further answer, Plaintiff identifies a representative of Washington Mutual, who will have knowledge regarding Defendant's opening of, and default on, the subject credit card, as well as the sale of the account to Plaintiff; a representative of Plaintiff will testify regarding the sale of the account to Plaintiff and the account information supplied to Plaintiff by Washington Mutual; and Defendant, who has knowledge regarding his opening of and default on the subject credit card account. None of these witnesses will be tendered as an expert witness. 8. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. 9. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is not
limited in scope, is overbroad and confusing, and places a substantial burden upon the Plaintiff because of Defendant's failure to limit the request; and on the ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiff is in the process of gathering evidence and will provide information responsive to this request when it becomes available. Subject to such objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiff will produce an O.C.G.A. § 9-11-3o(b)(6)
witness if so requested. For its further answer, Plaintiff identifies a representative of Washington Mutual, who will have knowledge regarding Defendant's opening of, and default on, the subject credit card, as well as the sale of the account to Plaintiff; a representative of Plaintiff will testify regarding the sale of the account to Plaintiff and the account information supplied to Plaintiff by Washington Mutual; and Defendant, who has knowledge regarding his opening of and default on the subject credit card account. None of these witnesses will be tendered as an expert witness.
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requires
Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, on the ground that said request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act.
Plaintiff objects because the information sought is equally available
to, or already in the possession of, Defendant. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, Plaintiff has no record of any confirmed telephone contacts between Plaintiff and Defendant.
( : ; day of - -- - l - - - f ' - - - - + - - I - - - f - ' 2010.
FREDERICK J. ATTORNE
Daniel A. Greene, Esq. Georgia Bar No. 105227
09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan by Jillian Sheridan2.0K viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionJILL SHERIDAN http://www.jilliansheridan.com
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
vs. JILL SHERID...JILL SHERIDAN http://www.jilliansheridan.comIN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIAEXHIBIT EMIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ASSIGNEE OF CHASE BANK (USA), N.A.,Plaintiff,vs. JILL SHERIDAN CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 10-7271-4Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIESCOMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and responds to Defendant's First Interrogatories, as set forth in the following manner below: GENERAL OBJECTIONS Plaintiff generally objects and responds to the Interrogatories on the grounds set forth in paragInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
Related08.11.2010 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents - Midland v Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Request for Admissions - Midland v. Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan08.19.2010 Defendant's Interrogatorries and Request for Admissions to Plaintiff - Midland v Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan 12.6.2010 Motion to Compel or Limine - Midland v. Sheridan by Jillian Sheridan07.14.2010 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim (Never Filed) Midland v Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan12.09.2010 Bench Trial Transcript Judgment for Defendant - Midland v Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan07.12.2010 Defendant's Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff - Midland v. Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan02.14.2011 Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant Sheridan's 9-15-14 Motion - Midland v. Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan10.19.2010 Defendant's Second Request for Discovery to Plaintiff (Notice of Deficient Responses)by Jillian Sheridan01.24.2011 Defendant Sheridan's 9-15-14 Motion Frivolous Litigation - Midland v. Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan12.29.2009 Midland v Sheridan Magistrate Courtby Jillian Sheridan06.12.2010 Defendants Answer With Counterclaim Midland v Sheridanby Jillian Sheridan04.01.2011 Rule Nisi 9-15-14 Hearing Transcript (Midland v Sheridan)by Jillian Sheridan12.04.2010 Midland v Sheridan Plaintiffs Proposed Settlement Releaseby Jillian Sheridan01.24.2011 Actual Costs Submitted with Motion for 9-15-14 by Jillian SheridanTHE ROLE OF VALIDATION AND COMMUNICATION IN THE DEBT COLLECTION PROCESS ELWIN GRIFFITHby Jillian SheridanARBITRATION OR ARBITRARY: THE MISUSE OF MANDATORY ARBITRATION TO COLLECT CONSUMER DEBTSby Jillian SheridanSample Interrogatoriesby Leroy Heartsfield 04.01.11 Updated Costs Sought 9-15 -14 Midland v. Sheridan by Jillian SheridanMidland v. Sheridan Current Docket as of March 15, 2011by Jillian SheridanGeorgia Junk Debt Assignment Case Lawby Jillian SheridanTestimony: “Credit Reports: Consumers’ Ability to Dispute and Change Inaccurate Information” CDIA (2007)by Jillian SheridanWheres the Proof? (2009)by Jillian SheridanPlaintiffs' Response to Interrogatoriesby Ben SheffnerInterrogatories JPMCby Maggie ApostolPetition for Temporary Restraining Order against Bank of Americaby Janet and JamesANSWERS to Interrogatories Under Oath BY DEF. CROOKED KENNETH M. WILKINSONby KENNETH_M_WILKINSONEncore Capital, Midland Funding, Midland Credit Managament, and other subsidiaries comments to the FTC on "Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration" (2009)by Jillian SheridanSimilar to 09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Interrogatories - Midland v. Sheridan08.11.2010 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents - Midland v Sheridan09.15.2010 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Request for Admissions - Midland v. Sheridan08.19.2010 Defendant's Interrogatorries and Request for Admissions to Plaintiff - Midland v Sheridan 12.6.2010 Motion to Compel or Limine - Midland v. Sheridan 07.14.2010 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim (Never Filed) Midland v Sheridan12.09.2010 Bench Trial Transcript Judgment for Defendant - Midland v Sheridan07.12.2010 Defendant's Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff - Midland v. Sheridan02.14.2011 Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant Sheridan's 9-15-14 Motion - Midland v. Sheridan10.19.2010 Defendant's Second Request for Discovery to Plaintiff (Notice of Deficient Responses)01.24.2011 Defendant Sheridan's 9-15-14 Motion Frivolous Litigation - Midland v. Sheridan12.29.2009 Midland v Sheridan Magistrate Court06.12.2010 Defendants Answer With Counterclaim Midland v Sheridan04.01.2011 Rule Nisi 9-15-14 Hearing Transcript (Midland v Sheridan)12.04.2010 Midland v Sheridan Plaintiffs Proposed Settlement Release01.24.2011 Actual Costs Submitted with Motion for 9-15-14 THE ROLE OF VALIDATION AND COMMUNICATION IN THE DEBT COLLECTION PROCESS ELWIN GRIFFITHARBITRATION OR ARBITRARYSample Interrogatories 04.01.11 Updated Costs Sought 9-15 -14 Midland v. Sheridan Midland v. Sheridan Current Docket as of March 15, 2011Georgia Junk Debt Assignment Case LawTestimonyWheres the Proof? (2009)Plaintiffs' Response to InterrogatoriesInterrogatories JPMCPetition for Temporary Restraining Order against Bank of AmericaANSWERS to Interrogatories Under Oath BY DEF. CROOKED KENNETH M. WILKINSONEncore Capital, Midland Funding, Midland Credit Managament, and other subsidiaries comments to the FTC on "Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration" (2009)Collector v McDonald State Court DeKalb County, GAConsumer Law Discovery