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

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JONATHAN SWEATMAN,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

)

21CV9795

)

SARAH ZEEMAN,

)

)

Respondent.

)

) PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT’S

SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 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 Request for Production to Petitioner (hereinafter “Respondent’s RPDs” 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 RPDs 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 RPDs, Petitioner will provide responses

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

— The information supplied in these responses to Respondent’s RPDs 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 RPDs 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 RPDs as follows:

I.

Please produce all documents showing the change in elevation of any portion of Your Property during the past five (5) years. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff states he has no documents responsive to this request as there was no change in elevation to Plaintiff's Property in the past five years. 2.

Please produce any documents, plans and approvals regarding the set of stairs that currently are located within the DeKalb County Sanitary Sewer Easement on Your Property.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff states he has no documents responsive to this request as there are no set of stairs within the DeKalb County Sanitary Sewer Easement.

3.

Please produce any and all documents showing the calculation of the impervious surface area on Your Property before and/or after the installation of any additional impervious surfaces on Your Property in the past five (5) years. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff will produce those non-privileged documents in his possession that are responsive

to this request at a mutually convenient place and time. 4.

Please produce any documents related to the amount or calculation of impervious surface area on Your Property as it relates to any stairs installed or replaced in your backyard since January 1, 2021.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff will produce those non-privileged documents in his possession that are responsive

to this request at a mutually convenient place and time. 5.

With respect to the buried cement unearthed in the back yard of Your Property in the area shown on Exhibit "1", please describe the date it was buried, what function it served and the date it was

excavated. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff states he has no documents responsive to this request as there is no buried cement as referenced in Defendant’s Exhibit 1. 6.

Please produce any documents showing the location of any improvements on Your Property in relation to the DeKalb Sanitary Sewer Easement for the past 5 years. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff will produce those non-privileged documents in his possession that are responsive

to this request at a mutually convenient place and time.

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 Request for Documents 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