| IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
|
| OLUWAROTIMI ODUTOLA,
Plaintiff, v. Robert P. Floyd, et al., Defendant. |
Case No.: 1:21-CV-03212-RCL
|
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
Plaintiff, OLUWAROTIMI ODUTOLA, hereby files this Response to Defendants’ Reply submits as follows:
- The Present Claims as Advanced by Plaintiff are Independent Claims
Plaintiff submits that the present claims as advanced in his complaint are independent claims and cannot be precluded due to the previous suit. Defendants allege in their response that “Discovery objections and authenticity disputes are themselves procedural; their not substantive legal claims on which relief may be granted.” The present suit is not all about discovery objections and for the Defendants to merely categorize the whole suit as discovery objections and authenticity disputes is simply misleading. While the dispute touches on discovery issues, the whole premise of the suit is the tampering, altering and fabrication of evidence which not only undermines any official proceeding, but defeats efforts for justice and especially when an officer of the legal system is engaged in such actions.
The claims advanced by Plaintiff are legally cognizable independent claims and can be adjudicated in any court as they raise issues of a violation of the Code of Conduct and obstruction of justice through tampering and fabrication of evidence. Defendants submit that “If the Court hearing that matter dismisses it or resolves it on grounds that do not necessitate an adjudication of those authenticity disputes then those disputes become moot and may, indeed, go unresolved.” Plaintiff contends this position and avers that the previous case was not dismissed on grounds that the court did not find that there was tampering and fabrication of evidence, instead the court found that they would not have prevented Plaintiff from appearing and proceeding with the case.
Defendants seem to try and advance this narrative that because the previous suit was dismissed on grounds that Plaintiff did not appear to proceed with the case and that such fabrication of evidence would not have prevented him from appearing, then the claims raised on fabrication of evidence cannot be raised as independent claims in this dispute. Plaintiff contends this position and argues that fabrication of evidence or any form of tampering of evidence is an offence punishable by law in DC (D.C. Code § 22-723) and thus can be raised as independent claims if a party tampers with evidence with the main aim of undermining an official proceeding as what Defendants tried to do. Further, the mere fact that they excuse their actions of tampering with evidence as “trial tactics” illustrate that they were indeed engaged in such actions.
It is therefore submitted that the fact that tampering or fabrication of evidence is an offence punishable by law, such claims can thus be raised independently. This is the substantive part that this suit is premised on, in that tampering of evidence is already an offence and discouraged by the relevant laws and Code of Conduct as advanced by Plaintiff in his complaint. “The rules of professional conduct (3.4 [1] and [6]) prohibit an attorney from unlawfully obstructing another party’s access to evidence or altering, destroying or concealing material having potential evidentiary value” Briggs v. McWeeny, 260 Conn. 296, 796 A.2d 516 (Conn. 2002).
Plaintiff still maintains that the burden of proof is on the Defendants to disprove the evidence adduced showing that they fabricated and altered evidence to their interests and thus undermining justice. Defendants deny that they did not allude to the fact that they committed such acts, but it is clear from their responses and in the motion to dismiss that they knowingly and intentionally engaged in the alleged tampering of evidence, because why else would a party state that that such actions are “attorney…tactics” if they are not conceding on the fact that they were indeed engaged in such activities. Therefore Defendants have not discharged their burden of proof, instead they try to label their actions as merely “tactics”, thus their motion to dismiss and subsequent responses should be denied.
- Defendants owe a duty of care to the Opposing party
Defendants owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff as opposing party, Defendants in this case contend that they do not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff as opposing party, this is simply not true and it illustrates an attempt by the Defendants to negate their responsibility and duty to opposing party. This duty has been a long standing tradition that attorneys owe a duty of care to the opposing party inasmuch as it they owe their absolute duty to their clients, they cannot disregard the existence of the opposing party and carry out actions that undermine efforts to justice as Defendants attempt to do in this instant case.
Defendants contend that the authorities relied upon by Plaintiff do not illustrate that a duty of care arises to Opposing party and further that none of the cited cases was an opposing party allowed to sustain an independent cause of action on the basis of a Rules violation. However this is simply not true, they had claimed in their motion to dismiss that rules of conduct do not give rise to private claims, but in all the cases cited, private claims arose and sanctions imposed on the attorney for a breach of the Rules of Conduct whether by attorney to client or in cases where an attorney fabricated evidence. Thus this honorable court should find that courts have relied upon the rules of conduct to hear and determine private claims as advanced by the injured parties.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and subsequent responses should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
OLUWAROTIMI ODUTOLA,
9400 Grand Blvd, Ste 3547
Largo, MD 20774
| IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
|
| OLUWAROTIMI ODUTOLA,
Plaintiff, v. Robert P. Floyd, et al., Defendant. |
Case No.: 1:21-CV-03212-RCL
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS has been served on opposing counsel by placing a copy in the United States Mail, first class postage affixed to ensure delivery, addressed as follows:
Laura M.K. Hassler
ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C.
1629 K Street, N.W., Suite 260
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 857-1696 (Tel)
(202) 857-0762 (Fax)
hassler@ewdc.com
Counsel for Defendant
Dated: This day of January, 2022.
Respectfully submitted,
OLUWAROTIMI ODUTOLA,
9400 Grand Blvd, Ste 3547
Largo, MD 20774
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, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.