Like before this is not legal advice. Mr. Gaffney is refusing to answer the Interrogatories. I have asked the Courrt to compel Mr. Gaffney's answer. It is curious how Mr. Gaffney, a licensed attorney, seems to have misread Rule 33.
COMMCOMMONWEALTH
OF MASACHUSETTS
WORCESTER,
SS
SUPERIOR COURT
16-0288 B
********************************
Michael Gaffney, Plaintiff *
*
Vs. *
*
Gordon T. Davis *
Defendant *
Vs. *
InCity Times *
Rosalie Tirella *
Defendants *
*
********************************
DEFENDANT GORDON T. DAVIS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES
The Pro Se Defendant Gordon T.
Davis respectfully requests this Court to compel the Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney to
answer the interrogatories served upon him by the Defendant.
Background
1. On February 23, 2016 the
Plaintiff filed with this Court a one million dollar complaint for
defamation. (Exhibit 1)
2. On the same day the Plaintiff
informed the news media of his complaint. (Exhibit 2)
3. The Plaintiff has not as of the
date of this motion served the complaint to the Defendant per the authorized
agents described in the Court rules.
4. On March 8, 2016 the individual
Defendant Gordon T. Davis answered the complaint. (Exhibit 3)
5. On March 19, 2016 Defendant Mr. Davis
served the Plaintiff with a set of interrogatories. (Exhibit 4).
6. On March 25, 2016 the Plaintiff
refused to provide answers to the interrogatories. The Plaintiff asserted that
the complaint was not served and therefore the interrogatories are premature.
(Exhibit 5)
Argument
7. Rule 33 of the Civil Court allows
the Plaintiff to be served interrogatories without leave of Court after the
commencement of the action by the Defendant.
Civil
Procedure Rule 33: Interrogatories to Parties
(a)
Availability: Procedures for Use.
(1) In General.
Any party may serve
upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served
or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or
association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish
such information as is available to the party. Interrogatories may, without
leave of court, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action
and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party.[1]
8. On April 2, 2016 Defendant Mr.
Davis attempted to engage in a 9c conference with the Plaintiff. (Exhibit 6)
9.
As of the date of this motion the Plaintiff has not responded to the
request for the 9c conference.
Conclusion
Rule 33 allows without leave, the
Defendant Mr. Davis to serve interrogatories upon the Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney.
The Defendant respectfully requests the Court to enforce Rule 33 and compel the
Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney to answer the Plaintiff’s interrogatories.
The Defendant
Mr. Davis served the interrogatories on March 19, 2016 and respectfully
requests the Court to use that date as the beginning of the 45 days that the
Plaintiff is normally allowed without enlargement to answer the
interrogatories.
The
Plaintiff Mr. Gaffney is a licensed attorney and he should not be rewarded for
misreading Rule 33 or for missing a deadline.
Respectfully submitted
Gordon T. Davis
Pro Se Defendant
No comments:
Post a Comment