Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

· ```` Case 1 :04-cv-01538-SLR Document 43 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 1 ot 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HEIDI VASCEK, individually and as :
Administratrix of the ESTATE OF :
JOHN VASCEK, JR., :
Plaintiffs, :
: C.A. No. 044538 5 :1.K
vs. :
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and
MARK BARD, :
Defendants. :

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS ANSWERS TO WRITTEN
INTERROGATORIES
l Pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Plaintiff, Heidi Vascek,
individually and as Adrninistratrix of the Estate of John Vascek, by her attorney Michael
T. van der Veen, Esquire, requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order directing
Defendant, Mark Bard to tile full and complete answers to written Interrogatories and in
support thereot] avers as follows:
l. On or about March l, 2005, Plaintiff served Defendant Bard with
Plaintiffs First Set of Written lnterrogatories, (the discovery requests). See Exhibit "A”
attached hereto.
2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, interrogatories to Parties, states in
pertinent part:
(b) Answers and Objections
(l) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully
in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event
the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and
shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable.
(2) The answers are to be signed by the person making them,
and the objections signed by the attorney making them.
[Eniphasis added]

‘ ‘ Case 1:04-cv-01538-SLR Document 43 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 2 of 4
3. On or about April 26, 2005, Jayne Risk, counsel for Defendant Bard,
responded to Plaintiffs discovery requests with answers that were not Mr. Bard’s, but
rather were summaries, paraphrases and redrafts of Mr. Bard’s alleged answers and were
not prepared by Mr. Bard. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
4. On June 15, 2005, after several unsuccessful requests by Plaintiffs
counsel via phone, Plaintiffs counsel wrote to Defense counsel requesting they provide
Defendant driver, Mark Bard’s answers to Plaintiff` s interrogatories in original form and
not in a forin which was prepared, summarized, paraphrased and redrafted by counsel.
Plaintiff also wrote requesting Mr. Bard provide a Verification. See Exhibit "C" attached
hereto.
5. On June l8, 2005, Plaintiffs counsel wrote to Defense counsel requesting
that when they did send l\/lr. Bard’s actual verified answers, the following interrogatories
were to be answered fully and completely: '/(b), I0, ll, 12, l3, l4(a), l7(b), 18, 24(a-b)
and 25. See Exhibit "D" attached hereto.
6. Furthermore, on June 25, 2005, Plaintiffs counsel again wrote to Defense
counsel requesting complete answers to the following interrogatories: 8, 13, I5, 26, 3l,
36, 37, @2, 44, 45 and 46. See Exhibit "E” attached hereto.
7. On June 29, 2005, Defense counsel, for the first time, responded that her
responses are "complete as written", or, in the alternative, that the Plaintiffs
Interrogatories were too numerous and therefore Defendant need not respond. This J
objection is not made in good faith or with clean hands in that prior to Plaintiff serving
her discovery, Defendants counsel served I27 Interrogatories on Plaintiff. See Defense
counsel’s letter attached as Exhibit "F".

l Case 1:04-cv-01538-SLR Document 43 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 3 of 4
8. Defendant, Mr. Bard, failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33 governing responses to interrogatories in that the responses are not
answered by the Defendant, Mr. Bard, but rather are summaries, paraphrases and redrafts
prepared by his attorney, in the third person; and are absent a Verification.
9. Mr. Bard, an employee of UPS, is the Defendant driver in a package van
versus motorcycle fatality case.
l0. It is critical to the preparation of Plaintiff s case and absolutely necessary
prior to Mr. Bard’s deposition that full, complete and verified answers be supplied by
him. The current discovery deadline in this case is August 8, 2005.
WHEREPORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter the
attached Order compelling Defendant Mark Bard to answer Plaintiff s Written
Interrogatories within fourteen (l4) days.
Respectfully srgqrnitted,
fj,1i>·*—-»ci.___~__N_pm“
Dated: 7/13/05 t...,c.,»~·""”/ n l
Michael T. van der Veen
25 Bustieton Pike
Feasterville, PA 19053
Counsel for Plaintiff
/_ ;’/’§/f/ J
iDanie1 W. S élpi (@146)
Richard R. Wier, Jr., P.A.
1220 Market St., Suite 6OO
Wilmington, BE IQSOI
(302)833—3222
DScialpiewierlaw.com

Case 1:04-cv-01538-SLR Document 43 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
_ I certify that on this 20th day of June 2005, that I electronically tiled the attached
motion to compel with the Clerk ofthe Court using CM/EGF, which will send
notiticatio‘n of such ti1ing(s) to the following
William J. Catie, Esq.
Rawle & Henderson
300 Delaware Ave., Suite t0l 5
Wilmington, DE 19899
RICHARD R. WIER, JR., P.A.
/s/ Daniel W. Scialpi
Richard R. Wier, Jr. (#716)
Daniel W. Scialpi (#4146)
1220 Market St., Suite 600
Wilmington, DE i980l
(302)888—3222
[email protected]