Well, we knew that Chris West would go crazy when he got his discovery requests. But his response was almost too confusing even for him. Check out his response to discovery requests for Bradford Payne, President and CEO (corporate officer) of Oak Health Care Investors of North Carolina.
3. Pursuant to Rule 33(a)... any party (that's me) may serve upon any other party (that's Oak Health Care) written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation..., by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information...
Then he writes...
6. The rules do not allow a Plaintiff to serve discovery...to non-parties. Because Mr. Payne is not party to the instant action, he should not be forced to respond to these discovery requests.
Can you believe it? In paragraph 3, he correctly states the law, and then in paragraph 6, he completely disregards it. This is what happens when attorneys believe they are immune from Rule 11. This time, however, this is going to be a fight! Stay tuned!
Well, I hit them with a MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 11 for Christopher Mitchell West. I'm done playing games with this guy. I've filed for sanctions before and somehow it never got addressed. This time, however, I will proceed to the Appellate Court if I have to. (Click here for the EXHIBIT A and EXHIBIT B [detail graphics] attached to the motion)
No comments:
Post a Comment