Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/184006761/Defendants-Answers-to-Interrogatory
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 22:02:08
Document Index: 111156529

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1811', '§ 313', '§ 1811', '§ 313', '§ 1811', '§ 313', '§ 1811', '§ 313']

ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinDefendants Answers to InterrogatoryUploaded by FreedomofMindInterrogatoriesDiscovery (Law)Collection AgencyComplaintPlaintiff0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTMIDDLEDISTRICTOFFLORIDA .ORLANDODIVISION . JES Plaintiff, CASENO: 6:10-cv-
v. CITIMORTGAGEand CENTRALCREDITSERVICES,
__________________________ I CITIMORTGAGEIS ANSWERSANDOBJECTIONS TOFIRSTSETOFINTERROGATORIES Pursuant to FederalRule ofCivilProcedure 33, DefendantCitiMortgage (Citi) submits
these answers and objections to the First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-25 served by JeSllS
Tacoronte(Plaintiff). Citireserves the rightto supplement,amend, orcorrectall orany partof
this response as permitted under theFederalRules ofCivil Procedure and the right to objectto
theadmissibilityofanyevidencerelatedtothisresponse.
G E N E R I ~ OBJECTIONS
1. Citi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or the
productionoridentificationofdocumentsnotinthepossession,custodyorcontrolofCiti
within the meaning of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure or the Federal Rules of
Evidence on the grounds that said interrogatories are overbroad, unreasonable, unduly
burdensome,improperandthattheirscopeisnotlimitedtoinformationknownto Citi.
2. Chi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or the
identification and production of documents that constitute, contain or represent
confidential, trade secret, orotherproprietaryand commercially sensitive informationof
{TP687578;3}
Citi. Citi will produce such documents only upon entry of an appropriate protective order. 3. CHi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or the production or identification of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, by the work product privilege, or by any other privilege. 4. Citi submits these responses without conceding the relevance or materiality of the subject matter of any document or information which may be produced 01' identified, and without prejudice to Citi's right to object to further discovery or to object to the admissibility of any proof on the subject matter of any discovery of any document. Citi reserves the right to change or to supplement any response that may subsequently appear to be incomplete or incorrect. CHi reserves the right to object at such later time that any document produced or response given hereunder is protected by the attorney-client privilege, or as attorney work product or trial preparation material, and that the production or response was inadvertent 5. In responding to the interrogatories, CHi has conducted a reasonable inquiry of those persons most likely to possess information responsive thereto and a reasonable search of records where information interrogatory ed would most likely be maintained. To the extent plaintiffs seek to require Citi to respond further, Citi objects on the grounds that the interrogatories are, to said extent, overbroad, unduly burdensome, unreasonable and oppressive. 6. Chi will make any documents identified in response to any interrogatory available for inspection and copying at a time mutually convenient to the parties and their respective counsel. By agreeing to produce responsive documentS, Citi does not acknowledge that such documents exist. {TP687578;31 2 7. To the extent the interrogatories seek to impose upon Citi any duties 01' requirements in excess of those specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local rules, or applicable law, Citi objects to same. 8. Citi objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is repetitive and/or substantially overlaps with other interrogatories. When a response is equally responsive to more than one interrogatory, CHi will respond only once. 9. Each of the foregoing general objections is expressly incorporated by reference into each of the specific responses of Citi to the interrogatories. ANSWERS AND SPECIFIC OUJECTIONS INTERROGATORY NO.1: Please state the full name, present address, employer, title, and occupation of all persons providing information and documents responsive to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Citi objects to this interrogatory because it expressly calls for information concerning employee contact information. Citi further .objeets to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information for the purpose of contacting its employees concerning matters within the scope of their employment with Chi, on the grounds that such contacts would be improper, unduly burdensome, and in contravention of legal and ethical restrictions on the contact or attempted contact by counsel with a represented party, entity, employee or agent. Signer is l ~ V \ O Sf}- ;"""" and can be contacted through counsel. INTERROGATORY NO.2: Please identify all individuals known to you or your attorney who are witnesses to the events descdbed in Plaintiffs complaint or to any event which is the subject of any defense you have raised to this lawsuit. For each such person, please provide a brief summary of facts to which each might 01' could testify. Also for each such person, please state the following: (a) Please state whether each such person is affiliated with, or related to, or employed by any party (or its agents, servants, officers, or employees) to this lawsuit; (TP68757&;3} 3 (b) If any of the persons so listed in i'esponse to this interrogatory do not fit the characterization in subpart A above, please describe the nature of theh' involvement in this lawsuit; (c) Please explain and describe your understanding of their knowledge of such facts. ANSWER: Citi has not identified any witnesses, but reserves the right to supplement this response. Citi also refers Plaintiff to Citi's Initial Disclosures. INTEUROGATORY NO.3: Please identify each employee or non-employee expert witness you believe may have formed any opinion or consulted with you about the facts or basis of this lawsuit or any defense 01' allegation you have raised in this lawsuit. ANSWER: CHi has not identified any expert witnesses. INTERROGATORY NO.4: Please identify all individuals known to you or your attorney who are not witnesses, but who you have reason to believe have lmowledge pertinent to the events at issues as alleged in the complaint, and provide a brief summary of the' facts to which each such person could testify. For each person, please state the following: (a) Please state whether each such person is affiliated with, or related to, or employed by any·party (or its agents, servants, officers, or employees) to this lawsuit; (b) If any of the persons so listed in response to this interrogatory do not fit the characterization in subpart A above, please describe the nature of their involvement in th,s lawsuit; (c) Please explain and describe your understanding of their knowledge of such facts. ANSWER: Citi refers Plaintiff to its Initial Disclosures and to all documents provided in Citi's response to Plaintiffs request for production of documents. INTERROGATORY NO.5: Please state whether any of the individuals listed in the answers to the preceding interrogatories have given any statement(s) to you and, if so, please identify the individual giving the statement, identify the individual to wbom the statement was given, the date of the statement, and whether or not the statement was written or recorded and, if it was written or recorded, identify the individual presently in possession of it. ANSWER: Chi does not have any such statement'). INTERROGATORY NO.6: Please provide the date, time, and method that the Plaintiff provided permission for the Defendant to call Plaintiffs cell phone, if any. OnmCT: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it invades the attorney-client, work-product privileges, or information protected by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Safeguards Rule {TP687578;31 4 and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. § 1811 el seq.; 16 C.F.R. § 313 et seq. Subject to said objections, Citi states that its regularly kept business records do not reflect any attempts to communicate with Plaintiff regarding any alleged debt within the time-frame alleged by the Plaintiff in his complaint. To the extent this interrogatory is intended to relate to calls that may have been made prior to the time-frame alleged in the complaint, Citi objects to the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO.7: Please list, explain, and describe documents )mown to you 01' believed by you to exist concerning the communications and events described in Plaintiffs complaint or concerning any event which is the subject of any defense you have raised to this lawsuit. OBJECTIONS AND ANSWER: Citi objects to this request to the extent that it invades the attol'l1ey-client, work-product privileges, or information protected by the Safeguards Rule and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. § 1811 et seq.; 16 C.F.R. § 313 et seq. Citi further 0 bjects on the basis that the interrogatory is irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to said objections, and to the extent that they exist in Citi's cllstody or control, Chi refers Plaintiff to documents attached to the request for production as Bates Nos. CMI-2 000027-000072, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34. INTERROGATORY NO.8: Please list each exhibit which you may attempt to introduce as evidence at the trial of this case, or which has been used or referred to by any expert witness on your behalf. ANSWER: Citi has not determined which exhibits may be introduced as evidence. INTERROGATORY NO.9: For each paragraph of Plaintiffs complaint which you deny the allegations, please explain and describe any facts which you believe may support each denial. ANSWER: Citi states that Citi's regularly kept business records do not reflect any calls to Plaintiff within the time frame alleged in the complaint; Plaintiff is not a consumer or borrower {TP687578;4} 5 within the meaning of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act 01' the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and Citi is not a debt collector within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Have you ever been involved in any other legal action, either as a Defendant 01' a Plaintiff where allegations were raised concerning violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and/or the Fair Credit Reporting Act? If so, please state: (a) The date and place each such action was filed identifying the other party or parties involved, the d o l ~ e t number of such actions, and the names of the attorneys representing each party; (b) A descdption of the nature of each such action; and (c) The result of each such action, whether there was an appeal and the result of the appeal, and whether such case was reported and the name, volume number, and page citation of the report. OBJECT: Citi objects to the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please explain and describe any complaints or reprimands you have had about any individual who engaged in any communication with Plaintiff, regardless of the nature of the complaint(s) or reprimand(s). OBJECT: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent it invades the attorney-client or work-product privileges. CHi further objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding this objection, and subject to same, CHi states that its regularly kept business records do not reflect communication by "any individual" with the Plaintiff within the alleged time-frame in the complaint, and thus Citi has no information responsive to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please pl'ovide the manufacturer or program name of the auto dialer or predicts dialer referenced iu exhibit "A". ANSWEU: CHi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit "A" was attached to the interrogatories. Citi further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietary documents that are not subject to disclosure. ITP687578;3} 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please explain with detail what "Dialer Attmptll and "Mach Left Script MesH means. ANSWER: Citi objects to the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please list, describe, and explain in detail each item imposed upon any alleged account of the Plaintiff on which you were attempting to collect, the amount of each charge imposed, the date of each charge imposed, the nature of each charge imposed, and the legal basis fol' each charge imposed which in any way added to the amount allegedly due by Plaintiff. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a "debt collector. II CHi also objects to this request to the extent that it invades the attorney-client, work-product privileges, or information protected by the Gl'amm-Leach-Bliley Safeguards Rule and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. § 1811 et seq.; 16 CF.R. § 313 et seq. CHi objects to the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please list, describe, and explain the legal basis you believe you had for the attempted collection of auy alleged debt from the Plaintiff. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a "debt collector." Citi further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietary documents that are not subject to disclosure. Citi further objects as the interrogatory is irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please list, describe, and explain the terms of any agreement or contract you had with any alleged original creditor andlor any other debt collector. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a "debt collector." Citi also objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Chi further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it {TP687578;3 ) 7 seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietary documents that are not subject to disclosure. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please list, describe, and explain your policies and procedures to comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, andlor the Fair Credit Reporting Act. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks the discovery of private, confidential, trade secret, and proprietary information. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please list, describe, and explain each and every instance in which you violated any portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, andlor the Fair Credit Reporting Act with regards to Plaintiff fl'om June 2006 to the present. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and calls for a legal conclusion. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please list, describe, and explain each and every instance in which you violated any portion of your own policies and procedures with regards to Plaintiff from June 2006 to the present. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Citi also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietary documents that are not subject to disclosure. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please provide an audio copy of the Virtual Message and Script Message referred to in exhibit IIA.lt ANSWER: CHi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit "A" was attached to the interrogatories. Citi also objects as this interrogatory seems to seek the production of evidence rather than an answer and so it is not a proper interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please provide the training program Citi provides its employees in regards to circumventing the TCPA, FDCPA, FCCPA, and the FCRA. {TP687578;3} 8 ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because to it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks the discovery of proprietary information. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please show bow Citi and tile original creditor complied with FL. Stat. 559.715. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because its reference to the statute is vague, and use of the term "original creditor" is not defined. Citi further objects in that the interrogatory seeks a legal opinion, is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks the discovery of proprietary information. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Please provide a list of outbound phone calls made to tbe following pllone llumber .-- and from September 2006 thru present. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information about a consumer not a patty to this action. Citi also objects on the basis that the interrogatory invades the attorney-client, work-product privileges, 01' information protected by the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Safeguards Rule and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. § 1811 et seq.; 16 C.F.R. § 313 et seq. Subject to said objections, Citi states that its regularly kept business records do not reflect outbound calls to ,'. - . - - --14 and, 4 within the frame alleged by the Plaintiff in his complaint. To the extent this interrogatory is intended to relate to calls that may have been made prior to the alleged in the complaint, Citi objects to information as ilTelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiver of said objections, and to the extent that they exist in Citi's possession, custody, 01' control, Citi refers Plaintiff to the responsive, relevant, documents attached to request for production as Bates No. CMI-2 000027-000072, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34. {TP687578;4 } 9 INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please provide a detailed explanation of all the codes l'eferenced in the attached exhibit. ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit "A" was attached to the interrogatories. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please provide the system or process Citi uses in order to identify the difference between home phones, cell phones, and phones on the National Do Not Call list in ordcl' to comply with Federal Laws. ANSWER: Citi objects to this Intel1'0gatory as it seeks private, confidential, trade secret and pl'Oprietary information that is not subject to disclosure, Citi further objects to information as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By: Print name: Kev,\, Title: i3u5\Q es'7 QpecQ,horJS STATE OF MVnDIUl.\ COUNTY OF OJ\UV\{7 The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this day of March, 2011, by )tv\\W1 , as ftz Ov)A1't0'ist for CITIMORTGAGE. He/She is: o personally known to me; or
% produced a driver's license issued by the M\¥tO\l(\ of Highway. Safety and Motor Vehicles as identification; 01' o produced the following identification: __--:==::---.----______ .. WHITNEY A. Notary Public - Notary State of Missouri St. Charles County Commission # 09910070 . (Print, Type or tamp Commissioned Name of MyCOmmisSion Expires December 16, 2013 Notary Public) ITP687578;3} 10 Documents Similar To Defendants Answers to InterrogatorySkip carouselANSWERS to Interrogatories Under Oath BY DEF. CROOKED KENNETH M. WILKINSONMotion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Fannie Mae105 Motion - KC MPO KC Dec Joint Stmt_080423McCoy v. City of Fairview Heights et al - Case 10-L-0075 Answer to Defendants First Request to ProduceNOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND INTERROGATORIESNotice of Service of Standard Family Law InterrogatoriesShahram Lolatchy, Now & Then Dance Studio v. Arthur Murray, Inc., and George Theiss and Nicholas Theiss and Sam Costello, Shahram Lolatchy, Now & Then Dance Studio v. Arthur Murray, Inc., and George Theiss and Nicholas Theiss and Sam Costello, 816 F.2d 951, 4th Cir. (1987)AdvanceMe Inc v. AMERIMERCHANT LLC - Document No. 152Digital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc., - Document No. 38amcsuppbrUSDOJ Intro Recommendations ESI DiscoveryGordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al - Document No. 103Andersen v. Atlantic Recording Corporation et al - Document No. 2CREW v. EOPApple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc. - Document No. 23Mutual Federal Savings and Loan Association, a Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Richards & Associates, Inc., a Virginia Corporation Richard J. Schultz Constance B. Schultz, 872 F.2d 88, 4th Cir. (1989)Virgin Records America, Inc v. Thomas - Document No. 11Timebase Pty Ltd v. Thomson Corporation, The - Document No. 28Cooper TireBoothSweet's Motion in Lightspeed caseZhang v. Boeing Company et al - Document No. 7Haselton et al v. Valueclick Inc et al - Document No. 3Labbate v. Menu Foods - Document No. 3Microsoft Corporation v. Kovyrin et al - Document No. 4originalworkassessmentNotice08-05-2016 ECF 624 USA v CLIVEN BUNDY et al - ORDER Denying 591 and 593 Motions for JoinderHYPERPHRASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. - Document No. 94Carson.motion to Compel DiscoveryM.D.Fla._8-12-cv-00568_93.pdfDocuments About InterrogatoriesSkip carouselMERS Info - Discovery - Submissions - InterrogatoriesTWIA lawsuit - 6th Amended Petition10-19-16 Corgan Motion to Compel & Memo in Support OCRDiscovery to BentleyPlaintiff's 1st Set of Interrogatories for Reality Steve LLC & Steve CarboneJoint StipulationNotice of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to 1st Set of InterrogatoriesCosby-49Keene v. Meade, 28 U.S. 1 (1830)6thPetitionTWIAAndrew Defrancis Declarationsilnd-067014035929Cosby-57Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 11,026 Odessa Cowan v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., a Corporation, and World Shoe Corporation, 790 F.2d 1529, 11th Cir. (1986)John Halverson v. Campbell Soup Company, Defendant-Third-Party and Wolfes-Jensen Company, Third-Party, 374 F.2d 810, 3rd Cir. (1967)1:10-cv-08435 #43Andrew Defrancis Declaration41-4Gov.uscourts.ilnd.287310.31.0PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND JOIN OWN, LLC AND HARPO PRINT, LLC AS DEFENDANTS ilnd-0670140586352:13-cv-00922 #46Olivares v. University of Chicago - copyright.pdfUnited States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970)Alan Eugene Reed v. United States, 438 F.2d 1154, 10th Cir. (1971)Manuel Martin v. United Fruit Company, 272 F.2d 347, 2d Cir. (1959)Al Barnett & Son, Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Marine Wholesale, Inc., Tri State Marine, Inc., Shane's Marine & Hardware Corporation, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Gochenaur Marine Co., Paxton Company, Seth Smith Boat Works, Inc., Inland Marine Supply Co., Diversified Products Co., William H. Whiting Company, General Marine Supply, Inc., Marine Hardware & Supply, Inc., Jacksonville Marine Supply, Inc., Kellogg Marine, Inc., Roberts Hardware Co., Inc., Keller Marine Service, Inc., Ray Marine Distributing Co., Marine Equipment & Supply Co., Howard H. Baker & Co., Inc., Paul's Boat Supply, Inc., Vita Plate Distributors, F. Dougherty & Associates, Inc., Marine Hardware Co., Inc., Oj. Marine Supply, Inc., Marine Engine Gasket & Parts, Central Marine Supply, Inc., Beacon Supply Co., Inc., Hardware & Marine Co. Of Ala., Inc., Norfolk Marine Distributing Co., Inc., Ocean Propeller Co., Inc., South Marine Supply, Inc. v. Outboard MariMinoo Kobraei v. Keith Alexander, 4th Cir. (2013)Hillary Clinton Answers in Email LawsuitMore From FreedomofMindSkip carouselToxins in Vitamins Supplements1-2-3 Trading Signal.pdf110282088-Forex-Cheat-Sheet.pdfTrump Contractv02.pdfFmc Ant Id Brochure_retweetData_Protection_Laws_of_the_World_2013.pdfBill of SaleThe Hoax of Federal Jurisdiction-Judge and Prosecuter Decline to RespoindData Protection Laws of the World 2013Bank of America v Smith Copy Not Good Enough 7 14MERS in Robinson MERS Formation Robosigning False Docs 6 14Evidence Attack SheetAbusivePractices-FTCActAbusivePractices-FTCActSample Request for ProductionSample Motion to CompelResponse to Motion to DismissResponse to Motion to Dismiss Template-ExampleResponse to Motion to Abstain or Stay Court ProceedingsMotion to Amend SampleProposed Case Management SampleMotion for DefaultMandatory Disclosures SampleLawsuit Complaint 1Mandatory DisclosuresKentucky Case Deny Order of Lsr SanctionsInquiry Complaint Template 1In Camera Review Motion to CompelIn Forma Pauperis Shortf Dcp a Sample Complaint