Zeeman Responses To Rpds Final Ocr¶

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

JONATHAN SWEATMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 21CV9795

SARAH ZEEMAN,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT SARAH ZEEMAN’S RESPONSES TO PETITIONER’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COMES NOW, SARAH ZEEMAN (hereinafter, the “Respondent” or “Zeeman’”), a

named Defendant in the above-styled civil action, and, in response to Petitioner’s First Request For

Production

(hereinafter,

“Petitioner’s

First

Requests

for

Production”)(hereinafter,

collectively, “Requests’’), states as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

(A)The following responses are based upon information presently available to Respondent

which they believe to be correct. Said responses are made without prejudice to Respondent’s right to utilize subsequently discovered facts. (B) 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 Request 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 Page -1-

Zeeman Responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents Sweatman vy. Zeeman

DeKalb County Superior Court, CAN: 21CV9795

the admissibility of evidence at trial or the relevance of the response. (C) The responses to Plaintiff'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. (D)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. (E) 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).” (F) 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. (G)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). (H)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. (I) This preliminary statement is incorporated in each of the responses set forth below.

Page -2-

Zeeman Responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents Sweatman vy. Zeeman

DeKalb County Superior Court, CAN: 21CV9795

RESPONDENT’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

(1) Respondent objects to these Requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of information which would unduly invade the privacy rights of persons not party to this litigation or to whom Respondent has a duty of confidentiality. (2) 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 Requests to exclude documents, information and communications exchanged with counsel in this and other litigation, if any. (3) 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. (4) Respondent objects to Plaintiff's Requests on the ground that they are repetitive.

(5) Respondent objects to these Requests on the ground that many terms utilized are without definition and are capable of numerous interpretations and to the extent the Requests would

have Respondent speculate to her detriment as to the definition of said terms and, therefore, cannot properly respond.

(6) Respondent objects to these Requests to the extend the information or documentation requested is not in Respondent’s possession, but rather in Petitioner’s possession or a representative of Petitioner’s possession. (7) Respondent objects to the extent that these Requests are deemed to be continuing as going

Page -3-

Zeeman Responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents Sweatman vy. Zeeman

DeKalb County Superior Court, CAN: 21CV9795

beyond the scope of the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Defendant will supplement his 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 Requests for Production: RESPONDENT’S SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONER’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Request for Production No. 1

Copies of any and all documents utilized, consulted, or relied upon by Respondent in preparation of the Counterclaim. RESPONSE TO RPD NO. 1:

In response to Request for Production No. 1 and subject to all objections, Respondent states that she will produce all non-privileged documents at a mutually convenient time and place. Respondent objects to the disclosure and production of her medical records and medical billing records, pharmacy records and billing records, or any other records of any medical facility where she received any type of treatment and filled any prescription medication(s) on the basis that the same is irrelevant, highly confidential, and not subject to discovery. Respondent’s medical history is highly personal and confidential information that is irrelevant to the facts and

circumstances of this case. Respondent reserves the right to supplement this response under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(e).

Request for Production No. 2

Copies of any and all documents which contain relevant information in support of any claim asserted by Respondent in this action, or which are relied upon to demonstrate or support facts relevant to this litigation.

Page -4-

Zeeman Responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents Sweatman vy. Zeeman

DeKalb County Superior Court, CAN: 21CV9795

RESPONSE TO RPD NO. 2:

In response to Request for Production No. 2 and subject to all objections, Respondent states that she will produce all non-privileged documents at a mutually convenient time and place. Respondent objects to the disclosure and production of her medical records and medical billing records, pharmacy records and billing records, or any other records of any medical facility where she received any type of treatment and filled any prescription medication(s) on the basis that the same is irrelevant, highly confidential, and not subject to discovery. Respondent’s medical history is highly personal and confidential information that is irrelevant to the facts and

circumstances of this case. Respondent reserves the right to supplement this response under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(e). Request for Production No. 3

Copies of any and all documents which contain relevant information in support of any defense asserted by Respondent in this action, or which are relied upon to demonstrate or support facts relevant to this litigation. RESPONSE TO RPD NO. 3:

In response to Request for Production No. 3 and subject to all objections, Respondent states that she will produce all non-privileged documents at a mutually convenient time and place. Respondent reserves the right to supplement this response under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(e). Request for Production No. 4

Copies of any and all documents referred to in Respondent's Counterclaim.

Page -5-

Zeeman Responses to Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents Sweatman v. Zeeman

DeKalb County Superior Court, CAN: 21CV9795

RESPONSE TO RPD NO. 4:

In response to Request for Production No. 4 and subject to all objections, Respondent states that she will produce all non-privileged documents at a mutually convenient time and place. Respondent reserves the right to supplement this response under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(e). Request for Production No. 5

Copies of any and all documents evidencing any communications by and between Petitioner and Respondent that relate to the subject matter of this litigation. RESPONSE TO RPD NO. 5:

In response to Request for Production No. 5 and subject to all objections, Respondent states that she will produce all non-privileged documents at a mutually convenient time and place. Respondent reserves the right to supplement this response under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(e). Request for Production No. 6

Copies of any and all documents evidencing any communications by and between Respondent and any non-party that relate to the subject matter of this litigation. RESPONSE TO RPD NO. 6:

In response to Request for Production No. 6 and subject to all objections, Respondent states that she will produce all non-privileged documents at a mutually convenient time and place. Respondent reserves the right to supplement