Motion to Compel Discovery Response and Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

ANNA ANDERSON * IN THE

Plaintiff * CIRCUIT COURT

v. * FORL

LOUIS SLAVOTINEK * BALTIMORE CITY

Defendant * CIVIL ACTION NO.:

* * * * * * * * * * *

MOTION TO COMPEL

Anna Anderson, Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Laura G. Zois, and Miller & Zois, LLC, requests that this Honorable Court compel Defendant, Louis Anthony Slavotinek, Jr., to answer Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and to deem admitted Requests for Admission that were served on Defendant on January 29, 2004. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Plaintiff served Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and First Request for Admissions on Defendant on January 29, 2004 in this personal injury/auto accident case. See Exhibits A-C.

2. Defendant filed an Answer on February 19, 2004. See Exhibit D. At that time, Defendant also propounded Interrogatories on the Plaintiff that were answered on March 31, 2004. See Exhibit E.

3. Defendant has still refused to answer discovery in spite of three separate letters from Plaintiff's counsel requesting Defendant to answer discovery. See Exhibits F-H.

4. Maryland Rule 2-424 unambiguously states that "each matter of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted" unless a response is given in the time prescribed, in this case 45 days. Because this rule is self-executing, defendants are required under Maryland law to seek relief from this Court to allow them amend their answers to Plaintiff's admission requests. Murnan v. Joseph J. Hock, Inc., 274 Md. 528, 533-34 (1975)

(". . . to fulfill its unquestioned function, to eliminate the need to prove factual matters at trial which the adversary cannot fairly contest, the admission produced by the rule must be conclusively binding. A contrary interpretation would reduce the rule to a "useless appendage"); Maryland Rule 2-424(d) ("Any matter admitted under this Rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment . . .").

5. Maryland Rule 2-424(d) gives this Court unfettered discretion to determine whether to grant a party relief. Assuming Defendant seeks relief in response to this motion, this Court should deny Defendant's request because he is not deserving of dispensation. Defendant has willfully ignored the Maryland Rules and has ignored three separate requests to provide responses.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to answer requests for production of documents and interrogatories within ten (10) days and an order deeming Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions to Defendant admitted.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

ANNA ANDERSON, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CASE NO.: 24-C-03-009564

LOUIS ANTHONY SLAVOTINEK, JR., *

Defendant. *

* * * * * * *

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

The undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff certifies that counsel for the above parties have been unable to reach an agreement concerning this dispute, and as reasons, state:

1. That on April 6, 2004, the attorney representing the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant supply Answers to Interrogatories and responsive documents. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and prayed to be read as a part hereof as Exhibit F.

2. That on April 15, 2004, the attorney representing the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant supply Answers to Interrogatories and responsive documents. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and prayed to be read as a part hereof as Exhibit G.

3. That on May 18, 2004, the attorney representing the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant supply Answers to Interrogatories and responsive documents. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and prayed to be read as a part hereof as Exhibit H.

4. As of the present date, the Plaintiff has not yet received executed Answers to Interrogatories, Response to the Request for Production of Documents, or Response to Request for Admissions from the Defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

MILLER & ZOIS, LLC

Laura G. Zois

Empire Towers, Suite 615

7310 Ritchie Highway

Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061

(410)553-6000

(410)760-8922 (fax)

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel and proposed Order was sent via U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, this day of June, 2004, to:

Susan A. Goddard, Esq.

Allstate Insurance Company

10 N. Calvert Street, Suite 444

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

ANNA ANDERSON *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CASE NO.: 24-C-03-009564

LOUIS ANTHONY SLAVOTINEK, JR., *

Defendant. *

* * * * * * *

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion to Compel, it is this _________ day of __________, 2005, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, hereby

ORDERED, that the Defendant produce complete and executed Answers to Interrogatories and a Response to the Request for Production of Documents within ________ days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions are deemed admitted.

COPIES TO:

Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Esquire

Laura G. Zois, Esquire