| XXX
Plaintiff vs.
XXX, XXX and XXX Defendants |
SUPERIOR COURT OF XXX
LAW DIVISION Case Number: XXX MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
|
COMES NOW, Richard Singletary, Plaintiff pro se, and files this Motion to Compel Discovery. In support thereof, Plaintiff as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the initial complaint on September 17, 20XX. Having realized several mistakes in the initial complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to file the First Amended Complaint on or about December 29, 20XX.
The Discovery Requests
On or about February 22, 20XX, Plaintiff sent Defendants Tamika Singletary and XXX the First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff then sent the Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the Defendants on February 27, 20XX. Consequently, Plaintiff realized that Defendant Yvonne had sent Plaintiff a restraining order. Said Defendant alleged that Plaintiff harassed her by sending her discovery requests through email and regular email. Defendant Tamika also filed a domestic violence order alleging harassment by Plaintiff, when Plaintiff sent her discovery requests.
On March 7, 20XX, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to respond to the discovery requests. On March 31, 20XX, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel without prejudice. The motion was denied on procedural grounds, inter alia, that Plaintiff had failed to state when he served the Defendants the discovery requests, and that the Motion failed to indicate when the response thereof was due.
Meet and confer efforts
On or about May 11, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendants XXX and XXX, a follow-up letter, raising concerns over the Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s two sets of Interrogatories and Request for Productions of Documents, which Plaintiff sent on February 22, 20XX and February 27, 20XX. Defendants never responded to the letters.
Considering the time limitations set forth in statute, the Defendants should have responded to the discovery requests by: for the February 22, 20XX discovery requests, March 24, 20XX (for the interrogatories) and March 29, 20XX (for the request for production). For the February 27, 2023 requests, the responses should have been filed by March 29, 20XX (for the interrogatories) and April 3, 2023 (for the request for production).
Defendants have still neither responded to Plaintiff’s follow-up letter nor responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
ARGUMENTS
- Defendants have failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests
A party, upon reasonable notice to the other parties and upon all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery if a deponent fails to respond to discovery requests. See XXX
The time “for serving answers to interrogatories is reduced to 30 days, unless another time period is stipulated by the parties or ordered by the court” See Rule 4:104 – Discovery, N.J. Ct. R. 4:104. Also, regarding the Request for Production of documents, “[t]he party on whom the request is served shall serve a written response within 35 days after the service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response within 50 days after service of the summons and complaint on that defendant.” See Rule 4:18 – Discovery and Inspection of Documents and Property; Copies of Documents, N.J. Ct. R. 4:18.
On or about February 22, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendants Tamika Singletary and Yvonne Buddington the First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff then sent the Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the Defendants on February 27, 2023. Considering the time limitations set forth in statute, the Defendants should have responded to the discovery requests by: for the February 22, 2023 discovery requests, March 24, XXX(for the interrogatories) and March 29, XXX (for the request for production). For the February 27, 2023 requests, the responses should have been filed by March 29, XXX (for the interrogatories) and April 3, 2023 (for the request for production). However, at the time of filing this Motion, none of the Defendants has filed any response to the discovery requests.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to Compel Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff prays for any other Order this Court deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: _________
______________________________
XXX
Plaintiff, pro se
XXX
| Plaintiff
vs.
XXX, XXX and XXX Defendants |
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION Case Number: XXX AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
|
I, RICHARD SINGLETARY, being duly sworn, states as follows:
- I am the Plaintiff in this case.
- I am of above 18 years old and of sound mind.
- I make this Affidavit in Support of my motion to compel discovery.
- On or about February 22, XXX, I sent Defendants Tamika Singletary and Yvonne Buddington the First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.
- I then sent the Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the Defendants on XXX, XXX.
- Consequently, I realized that Defendant Yvonne had sent me a restraining order. Said Defendant alleged that I harassed her by sending her discovery requests through email and regular email. Defendant Tamika also filed a domestic violence order alleging harassment by me, when I sent her discovery requests.
- On XXX, I filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to respond to the discovery requests. On XXX, the Court denied my Motion to Compel without prejudice. The motion was denied on procedural grounds, inter alia, that I had failed to state when he served the Defendants the discovery requests, and that the Motion failed to indicate when the response thereof was due.
- On or about XXX, I sent Defendants XXX and XXX, a follow-up letter, raising concerns over the Defendants’ failure to respond to my two sets of Interrogatories and Request for Productions of Documents, which I sent on XXXX, XXX and February 27, XXX. Defendants never responded to the letters.
- Considering the time limitations set forth in statute, the Defendants should have responded to the discovery requests by: for the February 22, XXX discovery requests, XXX (for the interrogatories) and XXX, XXX (for the request for production). For the February 27, XXX requests, the responses should have been filed by XXX (for the interrogatories) and XXX, XXX (for the request for production).
- Defendants have still neither responded to my follow-up letter nor responded to my discovery requests.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under New Jersey laws that all statements and information contained in the foregoing affidavit are true and correct.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of May, XXX.
____________________________________
Notary Public
Date: _________________
______________________________
XXX
Plaintiff, pro se
| XXX SINGLETARY
Plaintiff vs.
XXX, and XXX Defendants |
SUPERIOR COURT OF XXX
LAW DIVISION Case Number: XXX PROPOSED ORDER
|
This matter came before this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. The court being fully advised, and having considered all of the testimony, evidence and arguments presented;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
- Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery is granted.
- Defendants are hereby Ordered to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on or before ________________.
DONE AND ORDERED on this _____day of May, XXX.
_________________________
____________, Judge of the Superior Court of XXX: Law Division
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )