Affidavit Of Lisa Rose Esq Ocr¶

FILED 6/14/2023 6:46 PM CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT DEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA

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

§

§ §

Petitioner,

§

v.

§

§

SARAH ZEEMAN,

§

Respondent / Counterclaim

Petitioner.

§

CIVIL ACTION

§

FILE NO. 21CV9795

§

§

V.

§

JONATHAN SWEATMAN, Counterclaim Respondent.

§ §

§

§

§

AFFIDAVIT OF LISA K. ROSE, ESQ

COMES NOW Lisa Rose, Georgia Bar Number 614204, counsel of record for JONATHAN SWEATMAN, Petitioner/Counterclaim Respondent (hereinafter referred to as

“Mr. Sweatman’”) in the above-styled Civil Action, and who, after being duly sworn, deposes and states under oath as follows: 1.

I give this Affidavit based upon my personal knowledge for use in the above-styled case

and any other purposes provided by law.

I am a member of the Georgia Bar duly licensed to

practice law in the State of Georgia. I am counsel of record for Mr. Sweatman as Petitioner in the above-styled case.

2.

On or about November 30, 2021, Jonathan Sweatman (“Sweatman”) filed his Complaint against Sarah Zeeman (“Zeeman”) in the above case. 3.

Zeeman filed an Answer and Counterclaim on January 13, 2022, claiming that Sweatman undertook a series of renovations and improvements to his property that encroached onto

Zeeman’s property and causing an increased, unnatural amount of water to collect and accumulate on Zeeman’s property. 4.

On February 16, 2022, Mr. Sweatman served discovery requests upon Respondent Sarah Zeeman (hereinafter referred to as “Ms. Zeeman”). (Petitioner’s First Interrogatories to Respondent Sarah

Zeeman and Petitioner’s

Requests For Production of Documents to

Respondent Sarah Zeeman are attached hereto as Exhibit A). 5!

On April 1, 2022, Ms. Zeeman provided incomplete responses to Mr. Sweatman’s

discovery requests along with a multitude of objections. (Respondent Sarah Zeeman’s Responses to Petitioner’s First Interrogatories and Respondent Sarah Zeeman’s Responses to Petitioner’s First Request for Production of Documents, are attached hereto as Exhibit B). 6.

Also on April 1, 2022 counsel for Ms. Zeeman stated in an email correspondence: We have the documents requested uploaded to dropbox and we are working on compiling/labeling and will send you a link to access. Note the document production is

voluminous so we are working together to present in the best way possible. 7.

On April 25, 2022, I followed up with Ms. Zeeman’s counsel via email to inquire as to

when Mr. Sweatman could anticipate receiving Ms. Zeeman’s responsive documents. (April 25, 2022 email from Lisa Rose to Sally L. Monico, Zeeman’s counsel, is attached hereto as Exhibit Cc.)

8.

On May 3, 2022, I sent a follow up email request to Ms. Zeeman’s counsel inquiring of the status of Ms. Zeeman’s document production (May 3, 2022 email from Lisa Rose to Tania Tuttle, Brett Ledermeier, Lucy Aquino, Richard J. Capriola, and Eric B. Coleman, Zeeman’s counsels, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) 9.

On May 5, 2022, I sent the attached 6.4(b) letter to Ms. Zeeman’s counsel listed above stating that many of Ms. Zeeman’s discovery responses were insufficient and requested that

those responses be supplemented, and the requested documentation be produced. (May 5, 2022 letter, attached hereto as Exhibit D.) 10.

On May 13, 2022, Ms. Zeeman’s counsel indicated that they would provide the requested

documents. More specifically, Ms. Zeeman’s counsel agreed to produce relevant medical records so long as the parties entered a protective order that limits the use of Ms. Zeeman’s personal

medical records to this case and prohibits any public unsealed filing of the same absent a court order. Ms. Zeeman’s counsel stated they will prepare that motion and proposed order. In addition, Ms. Zeeman’s counsel provided a dropbox link for the production of documents, absent the medical records. (May 13, 2022 email from Eric Coleman, Zeeman’s counsel to Lisa Rose, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.)

11.

Ms. Zeeman’s counsel never provided a proposed protective order and never produced the relevant medical records. 12.

On June 3, 2022, I served Mr. Sweatman’s Notice of Deposition and Request for Production of Documents to Ms. Zeeman for July 7, 2022 at 9:30 am. In the Notice of Deposition, I attached a list of the remain outstanding discovery documents to be produced by Ms. Zeeman. (A true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit

E) 13.

On July 5, 2022, Ms. Zeeman’s counsel and I agreed to extend discovery based on Respondent’s counsel’s confirmation that he would produce the outstanding documents in advance of mediation. (July 5, 2022 email from Joseph G. Emanuel to Lisa Rose, attached hereto as Exhibit F.) 14.

On July 6, 2022, I sent the following email correspondence to Ms. Zeeman’s counsel: This email will confirm my telephone conversation earlier today with Eric, wherein he confirmed the production of the outstanding documents from Ms. Zeeman in advance of

mediation and as identified in the previous 6.4 letter. I am still waiting for a proposed consent agreement regarding Defendant’s medical records. In addition, Defendant has not provided certain documents that were referenced in her written responses, to be provided and/or supplemented. More specifically, the documents outstanding are listed

in the Document Request attached and incorporated to the Notice of Deposition of Defendant Zeeman. Please consider this written email pursuant to USCR 6.4. produce the outstanding documents within 2 weeks of this email.

Please

Given Eric’s confirmation of the production of the outstanding documents in advance of mediation, I consent to the discovery motion. Prior to filing the proposed discovery motion, please correct my client’s name, and then you have my permission to sign and file.

Ms. Zeeman’s counsel never produced the outstanding discovery documents prior to mediation. (July 6, 2022 email from Lisa Rose to Joseph G. Emanuel, is attached hereto as Exhibit G.) 15.

Mr. Sweatman made an Offer Of Settlement to Ms. Zeeman and to this date, Ms. Zeeman has not responded to that offer. 16.

As of this date, Ms. Zeeman has not supplemented her responses to Sweatman’s

discovery requests with the relevant outstanding responsive documents. 17.

The hourly rate for my involvement in the prosecution of this action is $375.00 per hour. The hourly rate of $375.00 is reasonable for my practice area, reasonable for the location within

metro Atlanta where my law office is located, and reasonable for my years of experience. The number of hours I incurred in resolving this discovery dispute total approximately 3.3 hours. [Signatures on the following page.]

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT This the 14th day of June 2023.

TSAK. ROSE, ESQ.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this

(Ath day of SUA 2023,

{SECURE Firm/271/02766/PLEADING/04081184.DOCX }

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

JONATHAN SWEATMAN,

Petitioner, v. SARAH ZEEMAN,

Respondent.

)

) )

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

)

21CV9795

)

)

)

)

)

PETITIONER’S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO RESPONDENT

COMES NOW Petitioner Jonathan Sweatman (“Petitioner” or “Sweatman’”’), in the above styled lawsuit, and pursuant to O.C.G.A. 8§ 9-11-26 and 9-11-33, hereby serve Petitioner’s First Interrogatories to Respondent Sarah Zeeman (“Respondent” or “Zeeman”) (the “Discovery Requests”

or

the

“Interrogatories”’).

Respondent

is

required

to

answer

the

following

Interrogatories separately, in writing, and under oath, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of these Discovery Requests, all in accordance with Georgia Code Sections 9-11-26 and 9-11-33.

Each Interrogatory is addressed to the personal knowledge of Respondent, as well as the knowledge and information of Respondent’s attorneys, agents, and other representatives. When an Interrogatory is directed to Respondent, the Interrogatory is also directed to each of the aforementioned persons.

Pursuant to Georgia Code Section 9-11-26, these Interrogatories are continuing so as to require supplemental answers if Respondent obtains further or different information between the time her answers are served and the time of trial.

EXHIBIT A

DEFINITIONS

When used herein, the terms “Respondent,”

99

66.

“you,”

99

66.

“your,” or any synonym thereof are

intended to and shall embrace and include Defendant, and in addition to Respondent, the assigns, employees, agents, officers, or representatives of said Respondent or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of Respondent, who are in possession of or may have obtained information for or on behalf of Respondent. “Respondent” refers to Sarah Zeeman. “Person” means any person and includes natural persons, private and public corporations, partnerships, associations, joint ventures, sole proprietorships, firms and any other business enterprise or entity of any description whatsoever. The term “or” means and/or.

“Document” means all written, printed, or recorded matter of any kind, wherever located, including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from original by

reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise, graphics or oral records or representations of any kind within either of said Defendant’s possession, custody, or

control. “Communication” means any exchange or transmission of information whether oral, written, via electronic mail or by other means, and includes, but is not limited to, internal and

external

representation, newsletter,

written,

oral,

discussion,

telegram,

telephonic,

electronic

mail,

or

meeting,

letter,

correspondence,

advertisement,

speech,

conversation,

any

other

inquiry,

memorandum, conference,

note,

e-mail

or

computer-generated message and includes any other document that evidences, refers, or relates to any such communication. “Identify,” “identification,” “identity,” “describe,” “state,” and “set fo