Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00705-JJF

Document 44

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

JAMES M. KAMARA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL FUNDING, LLC, a Limited Liability Company of the State of New York, Defendant.

C.A. No. 04-705 JJF

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL COMES NOW the Defendant, Michael Funding, LLC by and through its attorneys, Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A., and responds in opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Compel as follows: 1. Admitted in part. Denied in part. By way of further response, Plaintiff mailed a A copy of the letter

non-conforming request for production in violation of FCRP 26(d).

informing Plaintiff of the violation is attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Further, Defendant served Plaintiff with the documents in its Rule 26(a) initial

disclosures on October 14, 2004. Plaintiff has yet to provide a single document under the mandatory Rule 26(a) disclosure due in October 2004, Defendant's Request for Production of Documents due March 14, 2006, and the Court's Order compelling production by April 7, 2006. 2. Denied. By way of further response, Plaintiff's non-conforming request was

received in response to Defendant's letter to the Court concerning Plaintiff's lack of response to correspondence. A copy of the letter informing Plaintiff of the problems is attached as Exhibit B hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

Case 1:04-cv-00705-JJF

Document 44

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 2 of 3

3.

Admitted as to service of Request for Production on December 19, 2005. Denied

as to the balance of the allegation. By way of further response, Defendant provided nine pages of response to the Request assert objections. All requested documents either were provided in the initial disclosures or were unrelated to the remaining claims in this case. A copy of the

Defendant's Response to Request for Production of Document is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference herein. 4. Denied. The only abuse of the legal system is Plaintiff's bald refusal to follow

court rules, to produce documents pursuant to required disclosure, proper requests and court order, and to appear for three properly noticed depositions. Further, the purported list of

documents listed in paragraph 4 of the motion has never been the subject of any interrogatory or request for production. (5.) Plaintiff made no attempt at anytime during this case to address the properly

raised objections or to resolve any dispute in this case. The certification is unsupported by any documentation because no efforts were made. Defendant requests Rule 11 sanctions in addition to the sanctions required by Rule 37(A)(4)(b). (6.) Plaintiff has incurred no legal fees and does not even pay for the costs of e-filing

of the documents. The allegation of $500 in legal fees is fraudulent and Defendant requests Rule 11 sanctions in addition to the sanctions required by Rule 37(A)(4)(b).

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to Compel and award Defendant attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Rule 11 and Rule 37(a)(4)(B).

Case 1:04-cv-00705-JJF

Document 44

Filed 04/27/2006

Page 3 of 3

PARKOWSKI, GUERKE & SWAYZE, P.A.

BY:

/s/Michael W. Arrington (#3603) MICHAEL W. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE (#3603) 800 King Street, Suite 203 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 654-3300 Attorneys for Defendant

DATED: April 27, 2006