Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 212 views

    12-20 Reply To Motion To Compel Discovery Redacted

    Uploaded by

    himself2462
    Defendant William Schmalfeldt filed a reply to the plaintiff's latest motion to compel discovery. Schmalfeldt argues that the plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute as required by Maryland rules before filing the motion. Specifically, the plaintiff only sent Schmalfeldt a letter demanding he provide the discovery rather than making a genuine attempt at resolving their differences. Therefore, Schmalfeldt asks the court to deny the plaintiff's motion to compel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    12-20 Reply To Motion To Compel Discovery Redacted

    Uploaded by

    himself2462
    212 views3 pages
    Defendant William Schmalfeldt filed a reply to the plaintiff's latest motion to compel discovery. Schmalfeldt argues that the plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute as required by Maryland rules before filing the motion. Specifically, the plaintiff only sent Schmalfeldt a letter demanding he provide the discovery rather than making a genuine attempt at resolving their differences. Therefore, Schmalfeldt asks the court to deny the plaintiff's motion to compel.

    Original Description:

    Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al.

    Original Title

    12-20 Reply to Motion to Compel Discovery Redacted

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Defendant William Schmalfeldt filed a reply to the plaintiff's latest motion to compel discovery. Schmalfeldt argues that the plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute as required by Maryland rules before filing the motion. Specifically, the plaintiff only sent Schmalfeldt a letter demanding he provide the discovery rather than making a genuine attempt at resolving their differences. Therefore, Schmalfeldt asks the court to deny the plaintiff's motion to compel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    212 views3 pages

    12-20 Reply To Motion To Compel Discovery Redacted

    Uploaded by

    himself2462
    Defendant William Schmalfeldt filed a reply to the plaintiff's latest motion to compel discovery. Schmalfeldt argues that the plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute as required by Maryland rules before filing the motion. Specifically, the plaintiff only sent Schmalfeldt a letter demanding he provide the discovery rather than making a genuine attempt at resolving their differences. Therefore, Schmalfeldt asks the court to deny the plaintiff's motion to compel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND

    WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, III


    Plaintiff
    v.
    BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al.,
    Defendants

    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )

    Case No. 06-C-16-070789

    _________________

    DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS LATEST MOTION TO COMPEL


    DISCOVERY
    COMES NOW Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. to REPLY to plaintiffs most
    recent motion to compel discovery.
    THIS COURT DENIED THE PLAINTIFFS PREVIOUS MOTION TO COMPEL
    DISCOVERY ON DECEMBER 5, 2016 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
    MARYLAND RULE 2-431, WHICH REQUIRES A PARTY TO FILE A CERTIFICATE
    OF GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE BEFORE A
    COURT WILL CONSIDER THE MOVING PARTYS COMPLAINT.
    Maryland Rule 2-431 provides:
    A dispute pertaining to discovery need not be considered by the court unless the attorney
    seeking action by the court has filed a certificate describing the good faith attempts to
    discuss with the opposing attorney the resolution of the dispute and certifying that they
    are unable to reach agreement on the disputed issues. The certificate shall include the
    date, time, and circumstances of each discussion or attempted discussion.
    In his most recent motion to compel discovery, the plaintiff incorporates the certificate
    required by the Rule. The only thing missing is the fact that there was no good faith effort to
    resolve the discovery dispute. Plaintiff sent this Defendant a note essentially indicating, Do as I
    say or I will seek sanctions. That hardly seems like a good faith effort to resolve a dispute any
    more than, Give me your money or I will shoot you, would be a good faith effort to obtain
    money from another person.

    Maryland case law has established that beyond the actual certificate required by
    Rule 2431, actual performance in good faith as set forth in the rules also required, and a
    certificate itself, while mandatory, is not prima facie evidence of substantial compliance. As
    Judge Battaglia of the Court of Appeals wrote:
    The element of good faith, mandated by the Maryland discovery rules, is central to the
    entire discovery process. Rodriguez v. Clark, 400 M.D. 39, 61 (2007).
    Thus, [i]n addition to including the actual certification with emotion compelling
    discovery, the movement must have performed as set forth in the rule. Shuffle Master,
    Inc., v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1966)
    A single letter between counsel which addresses the discovery dispute does not satisfy
    the duty to confer. Williams v. Brd. Of County Comms, 192 F.R.D. 698, 700, (D. Kan.
    2000)
    This defendant does not consider a short, brusque letter from the Plaintiff basically
    stating do as I say, or else to be a good faith effort to resolve differences, and as noted in the
    above-cited cases cannot be considered as such.
    The Plaintiff admits he wants Defendant to answer Interrogatories 7 and 8 to assist him in
    obtaining discovery as to the names of potential defendants he wishes to sue. It is not this
    Defendants job to do Plaintiffs discovery for him
    CONCLUSION
    WHEREFORE, Defendant Schmalfeldt asks the Court to deny the Plaintiffs latest
    motion to compel him to answer the irrelevant interrogatories.

    DATE: December 20, 2016

    Respectfully Submitted,

    William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.


    3209 S. Lake Dr. Apt. 108
    Saint Francis, WI 53235
    (414) 249-4379
    [email protected]
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that on the 20th day of December, 2016, I served copies of the foregoing on the
    following persons:
    WJJ Hoge III via e-mail as agreed
    Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin via e-mail as agreed.

    William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

    AFFADAVIT
    I, William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., solemnly affirm under the penalty of perjury that the
    contents of the foregoing filing are true top the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

    DATE: December 20, 2016

    William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

    You might also like