Pet Rog Responses To First Discovery Ocr¶

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

JONATHAN SWEATMAN,

Plaintiff, V.

)

) ) )

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

)

21CV9795

)

SARAH ZEEMAN,

)

Defendant.

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF

COMES NOW Plaintiff Jonathan Sweatman (“Plaintiff”) in the above-styled civil action, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to O.C.G.A. 8§ 9-11-26 and 9-11-33, hereby objects and responds to Defendant’s First Interrogatories to Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant’s Interrogatories” or “Discovery Requests”) as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

(A)

The following responses are based upon information presently available to

Plaintiff, which Plaintiff believes to be correct.

Said responses are made without prejudice to

Plaintiff's right to utilize subsequently discovered facts. (B)

below.

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

The only admissions are express admissions.

The fact that Plaintiff has answered any

request herein may not properly be taken as an admission that Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff has answered part or all of any interrogatory

is not intended to and shall not be construed to be a waiver by Plaintiff of all or any part of any objection by Plaintiff to the admissibility of evidence at trial or the relevance of the response. (C)

The responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories may be supplemented by Plaintiff's

further investigation and acquisition of information which Plaintiff 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)

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

or preliminary instructions contained within Defendant’s Interrogatories, Plaintiff will provide

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

— The information supplied in these responses to Defendant’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 Plaintiff below are asserted in good faith, based upon

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

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

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

(A)

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

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

(B)

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

appropriate time frame.

(C) — Plaintiff 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)

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

unduly burdensome, and harassing.

(E)

Plaintiff 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)

Plaintiff 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)

Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff speculate at his peril as to the definition of said terms, Plaintiff cannot properly respond.

(H)

Plaintiff 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, Plaintiff further objects and responds to the Defendant’s Interrogatories as follows:

1.

Please identify all persons with knowledge of any facts related to the allegations set out in your Petition, your responses to these Interrogatories, or any claim or defense at issue in this civil action. With respect to each person, please describe the subject matter concerning which they have knowledge. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff responds by stating the following individuals may have information of facts

related to the Complaint and/or defenses asserted in this litigation: a.

Plaintiff Jonathan Sweatman has knowledge of the facts related to the allegations with

respect to the Complaint and Counterclaims. Diana Sweatman has information and knowledge regarding several interactions she had with Plaintiff and Defendant. Mrs. Sweatman may be reached through Plaintiff's counsel of record.

Matthew Johnson, of Artisans of Atlanta, as the primary contractor for the renovations to the rear porch has information related to the construction of same.

Stephen Hudson, of Hudson Landscape Services LLC, provided landscape services to the

property and he witnessed an interaction between Plaintiff and Defendant on May 4", 2021. Henry Reyes, of Henry’s Fine Painting, assisted in staining the fence on Plaintiff's Property.

Survey Land Express, prepared the surveys for the two adjacent parcels, may have information and knowledge related to the property.

Representatives within the City of Brookhaven, including Linda Abaray, Officer Orlando Flores, Eric Long, Murray Nicol, and who were involved in the permitting, inspection, and approval of Plaintiffs application for renovations to the porch and fence permit, may have information or knowledge related to same.

h.

Representatives within DeKalb County including Yola Lewis who was involved in the permitting, inspection, and approval of Plaintiff's application for renovations to the porch and fence permit, may have information or knowledge related to same.

i.

Blair Jordan, who assisted in the construction of the fence and witnessed several interactions between Plaintiff and Defendant, may have information and knowledge related to same.

j.

James Tuley, who assisted in the construction of the fence, may have information and knowledge related to same.

See documents produced by Plaintiff in Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s First Request for Production to Plaintiff. 2.

Please fully identify all persons and entities which have ever held any ownership, lien, or leasehold interests in the property identified in your Petition as “2746 Grove Street” at any time since you first acquired an interest therein, specifically describing the effective dates and nature of all such interests

(including

your

own)

and

identifying

all

documents,

communications,

and

correspondence reflecting same. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff objects to the information requested to the extent the information is readily accessible and available to the public through the recorded deeds. current record owner of the subject property. interest in Plaintiff's Property.

Plaintiff states that he is the

PNC Bank National Association holds a secured

The following financial institutions and/or entities once held a

secured interest in Plaintiff's Property: First Union National Bank of Georgia, Mortgage One Lending Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, National City Mortgage Co., and Mortgage Solutions Network. 3.

With respect to the “damages from the loss of use of Plaintiff's property encroached upon in an amount to be proven at trial,” referenced in your Petition, please fully explain the method, manner, and means by which this amount of damages will be calculated and identify each and every fact that will be used to support this calculation. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s encroachments damage his property and diminish the value of his real property.

In addition to a diminished value, additional damages include the

reasonable cost of repairs to restore his property to its original condition without Defendant’s encroachments. Plaintiff will supplement his response with a calculation of his damages. 4.

With respect to your contention that “Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages for loss of use of 2746 Grove Street so long as the encroachments remain on 2746 Grove Street,” please provide a full and complete factual description of all harms, injuries, costs, and other damages of any kind whatsoever, that you contend have or will result from the presence of said encroachments and identify all evidence supporting each. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s encroachments damage his property and diminish the value of his real property.

In addition to a diminished value, additional damages include the

reasonable cost of repairs to restore his property to its original condition without Defendant’s encroachments. Plaintiff will supplement his response with a calculation of his damages. 5.

To the extent not otherwise set out in your Response to the above Interrogatories, please provide a full and complete description of each and every fact showing that the existence of encroachments upon 2746 Grove Street has interfered with your use and enjoyment of your property and the damages resulting therefrom. RESPONSE:

P