Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:04-cv—01538-SLR Document 43-9 Filed 07/18/2005 Page10f4
7 m j

-

, F q Case 1 :04-ov-01538-SLR Document 43-9 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 2 of 4
'`-·
rw om. Free; seems only ceq ;.;r»
__ , _ _ * ` Care Liberty Piece
i"*lPbF£ RiJlJ‘§*3tCi‘Z rsso lasers: swag; seize
GRQY CARY emaseerpsss, eesesyl-isms rsws-rate
t "'{ 215.B5t3`.33GO
F 2%.655.3301
W ww··w.§laoiper.com
owns mss
[email protected]
T 215.5%.3328 F 215.6%.3328
Emo 2*%, EGGS _
. YEA TELEFAX
Michrzel T, ven der Veen, Esquire
Kats, Eamison, van der Veen & Associates
25 Bustleton Pike
Peestervitle, PA 19053
Re: Vas<:eIg__xg_. United Parcel Services. Inc. and Mark Bard
Deer Mr. ven der Veeo;
i ern in receipt of your letters dated Jttrre 28 and June 25, 2005 is which you request
further responses to pieintrff s interrogatories directed to Mark Bard. As as preliminary matter,
Mr. Bard objects to those requests for further information than the interrogetooes that were _.
originally directed to hirn, es those interroggetories in end oftheroselves exe-ceded the number of
interrogatories allowable ptt1‘SU3.t‘1I to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Responses to your I
requests ere as follows:
Interroeetogy 75 lg}:
Supplemental Response: M;. Bard hes driven in the eree ofthe accident at least once s. dey
every business clay exclusive of vacation and personal days, for the two years prior to the
accident.
lnterrovstogy 10: This response is complete es written. in addition, pursuant to
F.R.C.P. 26, this information is equally available to yon.
lnterrcg etorv No I 1: The response to lnterrogarory No. il is compiete es vtritten.
lnterrogetorv No. l2: The response to lnterrogetory No. 12 is complete es written.
lnterroeetorv No. 13: The response to lnterrogetory No. 13 is complete as written.
lnterro oatorv No. 14ga}: This response is complete as wrirten. The additional question
further exceeds the torel nmnher of interrogatories allowable under the Federal Rules and
Delaware locsl roles.
Serving clients giobally

· ll _ I Case 1 :04-cv—O1538-SLR Document 43-9 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 3 of 4
E!} Q, 2 _
Maclzzsl Va; der Yuan, Esqmm
FҤPE?? RUDZMCK Dag?}
GRAYCAQY “ ° “
Imarrcpatcrw Ns. IZWM); Response K0 lmzzrmgatcry N0. 1"Kb) is ccmplcic as wximzzz.
lnaazzmzaiow N0. EB: Response to lmmegamry N0. 13 is complete; as witaars. This
information is equally avalila.bl<2 to plaintiff pursuam tc the Federal Rules cf Civil Pmccclurc.
lm21·r0¤, atuzv No Zéfal & {cl: Response to lntcrrogatcry N0. 24 is complete: as wdttczz.
Emarmgaicw N0. 25: Response to Intcsmgacory N0. 25 is complete, as wyittcn.
lnt&1T0gatc>rvE\?0. 8: Mz. Bard’s response to Izmrmgatnry N0. 3 is complete as written,
With respect to the reference tc me Police Accident Rapoxt, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 26, nbc
informaziom regarding tlxc munber 0f traffic lanes, atc, is equally available to plaiméff and is
available in the Polica Accident Repcn. "T0 be clsazf this intcncgatory requests the factual
infmmation, mt "Mr. B2.;cl’s C`JbS¢:’$I"~·’3l.lOI'lS cfthc r0&clw21y" as chaxactcrlzed in your lance:.
lmenmmatorv N0. 13: Response to intcrmgatcry N0; 13 is complex:. ln addition,
Imerrcgamxy Nc:. l3(&) is vague and uminiclligiblc.
lntcrmqazcgy Response tc Enicrrcngatcry N0. 15 is complete and responsive as
wrlvtcm.
lntezzcgazars N0. 26: The response to lntcrzcngatcziv N0. 26 is complete. If plaintiffs
dclimiticm 0f skici marks is other than Lhasa maxks caused by brake application, that definition
should have been contained in the imarmgatoxy. For these reasons, this intcrmgawry than is
vague ané unintelligible.
§mcr:<>2amrv N0. 3 li lntcmngatcry N0. 31 is complete as wimznl The acidirjmnai
questions in thc lciter exceed the maximum number of imcrsogatozécs allowable under the
Federal Rules and local Delaware Rules.
_§r_g_;g:_z·;s_p_g&£0w N0. 36: Th: response tc Imtemgatcry N0. 36 is complete as wrimm. The
additional qucsmcms asked in the lcmzr exceed the wml number of interrogatories allowable
unda: me Fcéaral Rules of Civil Pmccdwc and Delaware loam rules.
Imermgazcxgjg N0. 37: Intem;>gaT.01·y N0. 37 is complete as vwilitm. The additional
uesticms asked in abc lem: exceed aha nmnbcr of intcxm atcrics allowable uncicr the Federal
. . g l
Rules 0fC:v1l Pmmzduzc and Dalawaxc local rules.
lmarrcbizatcw N0. 42: lmcrscgatory No 42 is complete as vwrimm.

_ Case 1 :04-cv-01538-SLR Document 43-9 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 4 of 4
"’ ,i . , ,. , . .
Mietiiel H -;:1 1;:: Vests. Eiilllifd
, ,.. .,.,.,, ,. 511;:: 29. 2005
Rpm? iQl.lDl“le.,:··. imc 1
GRQY CAR`? ‘ “° “
lriteeroestorv No. 45; Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Eofoltl), this
iriterrogsto1";y‘e: defense ofamy pearly.
loterrogstorv No. 46: Mr. Bards eroployee Ele hes been produced. A ;;.dvile,;,5log will
be produced to supplement this iriterrogetory.
You have agreed to depose lvlsrlc Bard on Friday, lady 1, 2005. Please advise as to the
eime sed location oflvlr. Bards deposition. As we previously discussed, Mr. Bard hss at
scheduled vecetiori starting July 9, 2005 and will not return to UPS tmtil Attgttst I5, 2005. lt is
my understanding that you have postponed me lcdy 1 scheduled deposition of John Seiffezt
because you wanted to spend e full day with Mr. Bsrd. As I discussed with Nina. Bushrmri of
your odicejust moments ago, Mrs. Vs,scek’s deposition is scheduled for 10:00 A l\/l. tomorrow
moming,lu:1e30, 2005, at Bill Csrtie’s office.
I have also just received the notice of costimtstéoo of deposition for Cpl. Weaver for
July 13, 2005 st 10:00 A.M. While the notice was scheduled tmilsterslly arid 1 was not consttlterl
for the date {despite the feet that l will be deposing Cpl. Weaver that dey), in the spirit of
cooperation., I arti available sod agree to that date.
'l`l*ze.nk you io advance for your cooper tion.
V truly ytowspw
la, Risk
.lAR:pd
cc; Richard R, Wie-r, lr., Esquire
William Csttie, Esquire