Plaintiffs Continue to Work for Answers
This may be the first occasion in this case in which we see a filing that uses the word, “irony.”
Entered this week is the Plaintff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Requests for Admission and Interrogatories. According to Covington, the Swann Street defendants, “declined to admit, deny, plead insufficient information, or otherwise answer, based.. on inappropriate Fifth amendment privilege claims…”
In a 25 page document that includes 11 redacted exhibits (filed under seal), counsel for Kathy Wone ask for proper relief and an oral hearing to hammer out this issue that has seemed to have been front and center, without a definitive ruling, since December.
Winter has given way to spring; the summer will fly by and and soon it will be autumn.
The motion follows.
The accompanying Memorandum in Support lays out the claims and arguments.
“Since the January 31 Motion was filed, in response to recent written discovery requests, Defendants have once again refused entirely to provide even the most basic discovery regarding the claims and their defenses in this case…
…In response to to virtually every single one of Mrs. Wone’s requests for Admission and Interrogatories, Defendants “declined” to answer on the basis that answering would incriminate them.
…All Defendants asserted a handful of relevance objections, failing to appreciate the irony of contending that the information Mrs. Wone seeks is both irrelevant and incriminating, even though that cannot plausibly be so.”
As far as the Threesome being under the threat of future criminal prosecution for their Fifth claims, the filing sites:
“The standard for evaluating incrimination…. as a longstanding US Supreme Court (case):
“The privilege against self-incrimination… does not extend to remote possibilities out of the ordinary course of law. It would be to convert a salutary protection into a means of abuse if it were to be held that a mere imaginary possibility of danger, however remote or improbable, was sufficient to justify the withholding of evidence essential to the ends of justice.”
Covington maintains this “blackout of discovery” will severely prejudice Mrs. Wone’s case.
Bottom line: the attached proposed order asks to compel the housemates to reappear and answer perhaps as many as 504 questions they refused to answer in their depositions.
We don’t know what else is on the calendar of the inheritor of this case, Judge Michael Rankin, but it seems like these motions are starting to back up awaiting his rulings or the scheduling of oral arguments in a status. October 17 still seems like a long way off, but no one wants to see this alleged stonewalling, or possible motion bottleneck, jeopardize the trial date.
Plaintff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Requests for Admission and Interrogatories.