Griever/2005-09-28 Plaintiffs Respond to Interrogatories
Notes
- Official Title: plaintiffs' responses to defendants' first interrogatories to plaintiffs
- Submitted to the court on 2005-09-28; received by Plaintiff Nick on 2005-09-30.
- Links have been added for purposes of cross-reference and clarity; they were not present in the original printed document.
- Contact information for individuals named in the responses has been omitted from this transcription for reasons of privacy.
- Livia Wade's first name was misspelled as "Olivia" in the original document; it is corrected here.
Nick Notes
- As far as I can tell, this document was composed by my legal counsel without a verbatim review by me, probably based on one or more phone conversations we had and/or emails I sent to said counsel. There are some minor inaccuracies and omissions in the answers; I will attempt to add clarifying notes to this page once I have finished transcribing the current batch of documents.
Contents
PLAINTIFFS
COME NOW NICK STADDON and COX-STADDON ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a RED HOUSE MEDIA and d/b/a vbz.net, Plaintiffs in the above-styled action, and responds to Defendant's First Interrogatories to Plaintiffs.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.
Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that they would require him to respond to disclosing his attorneys' or any other of his representatives' mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, computations, calculations, projections, reasons, legal theories, other work product, or the like, on the ground that said requests exceed the permissible scope of the discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act.
2.
Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that they, whether standing alone or taken in conjunction with any and all other requests, are calculated, or would operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress, unduly burden or unduly cause expense to the Plaintiff, or would be unduly vexatious ir unduly burdensome to respond to, on the ground that said Interrogatory exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act (objection on the ground of "undue burden").
3.
Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that they would require Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence, on the ground that said Interrogatories exceed the permissable scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act (objection on the ground of "irrelevancy").
4.
Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that they require Plaintiff to respond by waiving his attorney-client privilege, on the [g]round that said interrogatory exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Georgia Civil Practice Act (objection on the ground of "privilege").
5.
Without waiving or prejudicing his rights to assert these general objections or any other objections which may be set forth herein, and in a good faith effort to provide the information available to the Plaintiff at this stage of the discovery and the investigation process in this litigation, Plaintiff will provide responsive and non-objectionable information now available to him with regard to certain of the Interrogatories.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES
1.
List each item that was taken from 1242 Hull Road, Athens, GA by the PLaintiff(s) and/or those assisting him. If these items are no longer in Plaintiffs' possession, state whether or not they have been sold.
Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff states that he took the following items from 1242 Hull Road in order to inventory them as Defendant refused to do so. See documents produced. Other documents are available for inspection.
2.
If the items described in Interrogatory No. 1 have been sold, provide the name, address, and telephone number of the persons or entities to which they were sold, and the price and date of each sale.
This information is in the possession of Defendant.
3.
Provide a complete accounting of all sales through vbz.net from 1998 to the present.
See documents produced. Other documents are available for inspection.
4.
Identify all persons with personal knowledge of business relationships between you and defendants.
Editor's note: contact information has been omitted from this transcription for reasons of privacy.
- Nick Staddon
- Livia Wade
- Willard Dale Griever
- Norma Lynne Griever
- Juliet Easton (Hull, GA)
- Sandy Hall (Durham, NC)
- Jerry Brinegar
5.
Please state the full name, address and telephone number of every person whom you believe to have any relevant knowledge whatsoever concerning the facts and issues in the above-styled case.
See answer to No. 4 above.
6.
Please list and describe, in detail, each and every document, photograph, memorandum, paper, tape recording or other items of physical or material evidence which you may use or have available for public use at the trial of the above-styled case.
See documents which are or will be produced.
7.
If recorded statements of any form of written memorandum of the contents of the aforestated persons' interviews were obtained, please describe in detail the nature of said statements, recordings or memoranda, and give the full names, addresses and telephone numbers of any person or persons who have custody, possession, or control of said statements, recordings or memoranda.
See documents which are or will be produced.
8.
Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial and state:
- (a) The subject matter on which said expert is expected to testify;
- (b) The substance of facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the ground for each opinion;
- (c) The address, telephone number, education and training of said expert.
Presently Plaintiff has no expert witnesses. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement his responses pursuant to the Georgia Civil Practice Act.
9.
If there exists any insurance agreement of any type whatsoever under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgement which may be entered in this action or to indemnify or reimburse you for payments made to satisfy the judgement, state as to all such agreements:
- (a) The name of the insurer;
- (b) The name of the insured;
- (c) The type of insurance;
- (d) The date such agreement was made;
- (e) The policy or other identifying number;
- (f) The amount of the insurer's potential coverage under the agreement; and
- (g) Any conditions on such agreement which you believe may negate or limit the insurer's liability in this case.
Not applicable.
10.
State all facts concerning any legal proceedings (including claims for workers' compensation) in which you or any member of your immediate family have ever been a party and identify the courts and parties involved.
- a. Staddon v. Wade, Superior Court of Athens-Clarke County; about 2002;
- b. Imray, Staddon and Wade, U.S. District Court (Middle District), 1995 or 1996 (Chapter 7 Bankruptcy);
- c. Staddon v. Griever and Griever; MC-01-CR-MS-03-0616; Magistrate Court of Athens-Clarke County.
11.
State all facts regarding the bankruptcy of the Plaintiff(s), including court dates and a list of all creditors and the amounts owed each creditor.
See No. 10 above.
12.
Please explain in detail the events surrounding the indefinite leave of absence that Defendant Willard D. Griever has allegedly taken from his online store without consent.
Willard D. Griever was responsible for processing images of new product items and posting them on the vbz.net website on a timely basis. This Defendant repeatedly failed to fulfill his duties regarding such image processing and would not allow the duty to be transferred to the Plaintiff, who offered to take on this responsibility for the business. Plaintiff offered to mediate the dispute with Defendants but Defendants refused.
13.
Please explain how the images, logos, buttons and graphics appeared on the site and identify the person or persons who performed this work.
Merchandise images prior to June 2003 were processed by Defendant Willard D. Griever using computers and software owned by the Plaintiff. The original images were created by the product suppliers or the artists. After June 2003 all were processed by the Plaintiff. All backgrounds currently on vbz.net were created by the Plaintiff alone. Prior to June 2003, background images on vbz.net were created by Defendant Willard Griever using computers and software owned by Plaintiff. All buttons for vbz.net, except for three (3), were created by Plaintiff.
14.
Please explain how the suppliers were obtained for the store and identify the person or persons who performed this work.
Some suppliers were contacted by Defendant and some by Plaintiff.
15.
Please explain your understanding of why Defendants would continue to provide work to build the store (vbz.net) and the software if an agreement [between] the participating parties did not exist.
Plaintiff does not know Defendants' motivation.
This 28 day of September, 2005.