Responses To Rogs¶

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

RESPONDENT SARAH ZEEMAN’S RESPONSES TO PETITIONER’S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

COMES NOW, SARAH ZEEMAN (hereinafter, “Respondent” or “Zeeman”), by and through the undersigned counsel and preserving all defenses, and conditionally responds to Petitioner’s First Interrogatories to Zeeman (hereinafter, the “Request(s)” or the “Interrogatories”) as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The following responses are based upon information presently available to Respondent which she believes to be correct. Said responses are made without prejudice to Respondent’s right to utilize subsequently discovered facts. No incidental or implied admission of fact by Respondent is made by the responses below. The only admissions are expressed admissions. The fact that Respondent has answered any request, any interrogatory, or produced any document herein may not properly be taken as an admission that they accept or admit the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by such request, or that such response constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that Respondent has answered part or all of any interrogatory is not intended to and shall not be construed to be a waiver by Respondent of all or any part of any objection by Respondent to the admissibility of evidence at trial or the relevance of the response. The responses to Petitioner’s Requests may be supplemented by Respondent’s further investigation and acquisition of information which she does not either possess or recall at this time. However, any such further supplementation shall be made only in accordance with the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Respondent shows that, notwithstanding any of the “definition(s)” or preliminary instruction(s) contained within Petitioner’s Requests, Respondent will provide responses which are required pursuant to the Georgia Civil Practice Act. As to any of the “definition(s)” which precede Petitioner’s Requests and which seek information or documents which include trial preparation and/or privileged material(s) or communication(s), Respondent objects to such “definition(s).” The information supplied in these answers is not based solely upon the knowledge of the executing party, but includes knowledge of the party, its agent(s), its representative(s) and attorney(s), unless privileged. The word usage and sentence structure may be that of the attorney assisting in the preparation of the answers and, thus, do not necessarily purport to be the precise language of the executing party(ies). The objections asserted by Respondent below are asserted in good faith, based upon counsel’s evaluation of Respondent’s discovery obligations under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Nevertheless, Respondent offers and stands ready to confer with the Petitioner, through counsel, in an effort to resolve or narrow, to the greatest extent possible, any dispute between the parties concerning Respondent’s objections. This preliminary statement is incorporated in each of the responses set forth below. RESPONDENT ZEEMAN’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Respondent objects to these Requests to the extent they seek the discovery of information prepared in anticipation of litigation, protected by the work product privilege, attorney-client privilege, or which information is beyond the scope of permissible discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Respondent objects to the release of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine. Respondent construes these interrogatories to exclude documents, information and communications exchanged with counsel in this and other litigation, if any. Respondent objects to these Requests as they seek documents or information which is immaterial, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Respondent objects to Petitioner’s Requests on the ground that they are repetitive. Respondent objects to these Requests on the ground that many terms utilized are without definition and are capable of numerous interpretations, that they would have Respondent speculate to her detriment as to the definition of said terms and, therefore, Respondent cannot properly respond. Respondent objects to the extent that these Requests are deemed to be continuing as going beyond the scope of the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Respondent will supplement her answers, if required, in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(e). Subject to, and without waiving the above and foregoing objections, Zeeman provides the following responses to Petitioner’s First Interrogatories: RESPONDENT’S SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONER’S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 1 Identify all persons having knowledge of the claims made and/or defenses raised by you in this case and provide a brief summary of the knowledge of said persons and the last known address and telephone number for said persons. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Reserving all general objections, Zeeman responds as follows: Sarah Zeeman – Respondent, may be contacted through counsel. Ms. Zeeman has knowledge of the property commonly known as 2740 Grove Street, Atlanta, GA 30319 (hereinafter, the “Zeeman Property”), all improvements thereon, and Petitioner’s actions to relating to the Zeeman Property and his property located at 2746 Grove Street, Atlanta, GA 30319 (hereinafter, the “Sweatman Property”).
TO BE PROVIDED BY SARAH
By way of further answer, the Zeeman refers Petitioner to the non-privileged and relevant documents produced through Responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-33(c) as well as her Answer. Respondent’s investigation of the facts relating to this case is ongoing and she reserves the right to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 1 in accordance with the Civil Practice Act.
Interrogatory No. 2 Identify each document requested in Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents which you are withholding from production. For each such document, state the specific grounds upon which each such document is being withheld. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Reserving all general objections, Zeeman responds as follows: TO BE PROVIDED BY SARAH AND REVIEWED BY COUNSEL Respondent’s investigation of the facts relating to this case is ongoing and she reserves the right to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 2 in accordance with the Civil Practice Act.
Interrogatory No. 3 Identify each person you expect to call as a fact witness at the trial of this action and, for each such fact witness, state the subject matter on which the witness is expected to testify. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Reserving all general objections, Zeeman responds as follows: Sarah Zeeman – Respondent TO BE PROVIDED BY SARAH By way of further answer, Zeeman refers Petitioner to the non-privileged and relevant documents produced through Responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-33(c) as well as her Answer and Counterclaims. Zeeman’s investigation of the facts relating to this case is ongoing and she reserves the right to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 3 in accordance with the Civil Practice Act.
Interrogatory No. 4 Identify each expert witness whom you intend to call at any hearing and/or trial of this case. As for each such expert, state the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to testify, a summary of the grounds for each such opinion of each expert, all documents provided to or reviewed by each expert in preparation for his or her testimony or in reaching his or her opinions, and all written reports created by each expert related to this case. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Reserving all general objections, Zeeman states that she has not yet identified any expert witnesses in this matter. Zeeman’s investigation of the facts relating to this case is ongoing and she reserves the right to supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 4 in accordance with the Civil Practice Act.
Interrogatory No. 5 State all facts and circumstances and identify all documents in support of your denial in response to paragraph 10 of the Petition.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Reserving all general objections, Zeeman states that she did not cause any structures or improvements on the Zeeman Property to be constructed on any portion of the Sweatman Property. The HVAC units and concrete slabs referenced in ¶ 10 of the Petition have been in place since Zeeman purchased the Property in 2006. Further, Zeeman believes that the HVAC and concrete slabs have been in the same position or location since the residence on the Zeeman Property was constructed in 1994.
SARAH TO PROVIDE INFORMATION RE: INSTALLATION OF WINDOW
By way of further answer, Zeeman refers Petitioner to the non-privileged and relevant documents produced through Responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-33(c) as well as her Answer and Counterclaims. Zeeman’s investigation of the facts relating to this case is ongoing and she reserves the right to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 5 in accordance with the Civil Practice Act.
Interrogatory No. 6 State all facts and circumstances and identify all documents in support of your denial in response to paragraph 13 of the Petition.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Reserving all general objections, Zeeman states that the survey attached as Exhibit 4 of the Complaint speaks for itself, but she denies that any structures on the Zeeman Property constitute encroachments on the Sweatman Property for the reasons outlined in her response to Interrogatory No. 5. By way of further answer, Zeeman refers Petitioner t