Petitioner S Responses To Respondent S 2Nd Rogs To Petitioner¶

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

JONATHAN SWEATMAN,

Petitioner, v. SARAH ZEEMAN,

Respondent.

)

) )

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

)

21CV9795

)

)

)

)

)

PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT’S

SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO PETITIONER

COMES NOW Petitioner Jonathan Sweatman (“Petitioner”) in the above-styled civil action, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-26 and 9-1133, hereby objects and responds to Respondent’s Second Interrogatories to Petitioner (hereinafter “Respondent’s Interrogatories” or “Discovery Requests”) as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

(A)

The following responses are based upon information presently available to

Petitioner, which Petitioner believes to be correct. Said responses are made without prejudice to Petitioner’s right to utilize subsequently discovered facts. (B)

No incidental or implied admission of fact by Petitioner is made by the responses

below. The only admissions are express admissions. The fact that Petitioner has answered any request herein may not properly be taken as an admission that Petitioner accepts or admits the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by such discovery request, or that such response constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that Petitioner has answered part or all of any interrogatory is not intended to and shall not be construed to be a waiver by Petitioner of all or any

part of any objection by Petitioner to the admissibility of evidence at trial or the relevance of the response.

(C)

The

responses

to

Respondent’s

Interrogatories

may

be

supplemented

by

Petitioner’s further investigation and acquisition of information which Petitioner either does not possess or recall at this time. However, any such further supplementation shall be made only in accordance with the Georgia Civil Practice Act. (D)

Petitioner shows that, notwithstanding any of the statements, assertions, definitions,

or preliminary instructions contained within Respondent’s Interrogatories, Petitioner will provide

responses which are required pursuant to the Georgia Civil Practice Act. (E)

— The information supplied in these responses to Respondent’s Interrogatories is not

based solely upon the knowledge of the executing party, but includes knowledge of the party, its agents, its representatives, and its attorneys, unless privileged. (F)

The word usage and sentence structure may be that of the attorney assisting in the

preparation of the responses to the Interrogatories and, thus, do not necessarily purport to be the precise language of the responding party. (G)

— The objections asserted by Petitioner below are asserted in good faith, based upon

counsel’s evaluation of Petitioner’s discovery obligations under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Nonetheless, Petitioner offers and stands ready to confer with Respondent in an effort to resolve or narrow, to the greatest extent possible, any dispute between the parties concerning Petitioner’s objections. (H)

— This preliminary statement is incorporated in each of the responses set forth below.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

(A)

Petitioner objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent they seek information that

is immaterial, irrelevant, and exceeding the appropriate scope of discovery.

(B)

Petitioner objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent they are without an

appropriate time frame.

(C)

Petitioner objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent they seek information that

is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

(D)

Petitioner objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent they are overly broad,

unduly burdensome, and harassing.

(E)

Petitioner objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent they seek information that

is privilege, that is confidential, that is work product, and/or that is not subject to discovery. (F)

Petitioner objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent they seek to obtain the

disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of any attorney or other representatives of Plaintiffs concerning this litigation.

(G)

Petitioner objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent that terms used therein

are without definition and are capable of numerous interpretations. To the extent that the Discovery Requests would have Petitioner speculate at his peril as to the definition of said terms, Petitioner cannot properly respond.

(H)

Petitioner objects to the Discovery Requests to the extent they call for a conclusion

of law. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, Petitioner further objects and responds to the Respondent’s [nterrogatories as follows:

1.

Please describe all elevation differences and any differences in the rate or volume of water flowing off Your Property in the past 5 years. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff states to the best of his knowledge, there have been no changes in elevation at his property. The overall slope and topography have not changed since he bought the property in 1994. Plaintiff has no documents that note or depict the elevation before or after the 2021 renovations. Plaintiff further states that in an effort to increase the ability of his back yard to absorb and retain

rainwater, he added a layer of topsoil as a base. Plaintiff then laid a new layer of sod on top of the topsoil. Plaintiff's contractor Hudson Landscape Services, LLC used a Bobcat to evenly distribute the topsoil and prepare it for the sod. At no point in time did Plaintiff change the elevation, topography, or direction of the slope.

Plaintiff contends there has been a decrease in the rate and volume of water. Towards the conclusion of the 2021 porch renovations, Plaintiff's contractor connected the rear gutter

downspouts via buried drainage pipes to a “pop-up” drain in the bottom left corner of Plaintiffs yard, set back from the fence and the property line. Originally, this configuration created a concentration of water in Plaintiffs yard for a short, limited period of time. In response to a stop

work order issued by the City of Brookhaven, Plaintiff submitted a revision to his porch renovation permit application to the City of Brookhaven, which was approved. Plaintiff then implemented the approved application to reconfigure the flow of water. The revised plan included the following components:

(1) Disconnecting the pipes from the downspouts so the water would flow into the “open

air”. (2) Capping all the pipes at both ends and, with approval from DeKalb County Department

of Watershed Management, abandoning the pipes in place. (3) Per specifications from the City of Brookhaven, Plaintiff created a drainage field made

up of various sizes of gravel and stone, directly below each downspout, to allow as much water as possible to be absorbed into his yard.

(4) At the request of the City of Brookhaven Plaintiff increased the size and hence capacity of drainage field under downspout #2, and the City then issued Plaintiff a Certificate of Completion. (5) After the City issued the Certificate of Completion, Plaintiff doubled the size and hence capacity of the drainage field under downspout #3. (6) Plaintiff doubled the size and hence capacity of the drainage field under downspout #1

and added four small vertical slabs to “contain” the water and the gravel and prevent rainwater washing the gravel away.

Furthermore, Plaintiff added an additional drainage field under downspout #5 on the front left corner of the house. This additional drainage field was not requested nor required by the City of Brookhaven. Plaintiff's response includes a marked pdf in which he numbered the downspouts

referenced herein attached hereto. In addition to the installation of new topsoil and sod, Plaintiff added sod and covered an area where previous grass had failed to flourish. See Plaintiff's documents produced in Plaintiff s Response and Objection to Defendant’s Second Request for Production of Documents.

This 9th day of July 2022.

ROSE LITIGATION, LLC

By: /s/ Lisa K. Rose

Lisa K. Rose 4880 Lower Roswell Road

Georgia Bar No. 614204

Suite 165-522

Attorney for Petitioner

Marietta, Georgia 30068 Telephone: (678) 806-8188

lisa@roselitigation.lawyer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day I caused to be served one true and correct copy of Petitioner’s Response and Objections to Respondent’s Second Interrogatorties upon the counsel or parties listed

below by e-file and electronic mail addressed as follows:

David M. Atkinson (david.atkinson@swiftcurrie.com) Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP 1355 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 300

Atlanta, GA 30309

Tania R. Tuttle (ttuttlke@mmatllaw.com) Sarah C. Monico (smonico@mmatllaw.com) Brett M. Ledermeier (bledermeier@mmatllaw.com)

McLain & Merritt PC

11625 Rainwater Drive, Suite 125 Alpharetta, GA 30009

Richard J. Capriola (rcapriola@wezlaw.com)

Eric B. Coleman (ecoleman@wezlaw.com) Winter Capriola Zenner, LLC 3490 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 800

Atlanta, GA 30305

This 9th day of July, 2022.

ROSE LITIGATION, LLC

By: /s/ Lisa K. Rose

Lisa K. Rose 4880 Lower Roswell Road

Georgia Bar No. 614204

Suite 165-522

Attorney for Petitioner

Marietta, Georgia 30068

Telephone: (678) 806-8188 lisa@roselitigation. lawyer

SURVEY NOTES:

*LEGEND * POB LLL

POINT OF BEGINNING —LAND LOT LINE

MH

IPF IPS OTP cIP RB RBF RBS MAG

IRON PIN FOUND IRON PIN SET OPEN TOP PIPE FOUND CRIMP TOP PIPE FOUND REINFORCING BAR REINFORCING BAR FOUND REINFORCING BAR SET MAGNETIC READING ANGLE IRON FOUND CALCULATED POINT cP —X—-X FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE WIRE FENCE

= MAN HOLE

SSL SANITARY SEWER LINE CO —- SAN SEWER CLEANOUT CB. CATCH BASIN JB: JUNCTION BOX DI DRAINAGE. INLET

Yl

HEAD WALL POWER POLE LIGHT POLE

PW GW SSE

POWER LINE GUY WIRE SANITARY SEWER ESMT.

DE

Li

AE

=

6 x

=

YARD INLET

HW PP LP

.o)

_ UTILITY EASEMENT

TB

‘TOP OF BANK

_- BOTTOM OF BANK

APP APD APR APF

AS PE