Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
2,367 characters extracted
—
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
BETATHEWOLFGAMER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-315
Plaintiff
v.
BRENTABOY
Defendant
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff BetaTheWolfGamer submits, through counsel, that this case should not be dismissed for the
reasons that follow.
I. DEFENDANT FAILED TO SERVE THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY UPON THE
PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Rule 5a of the Rules of Civil Procedure states, in part, that “...every paper relating to discovery
required to be served upon a party, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte,
and every written notice (...) and similar paper shall be served through proceeding communications.”
Rule 5b elaborates on how service is required: “Whenever under these rules service is required or
permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney the service shall be made upon the
attorney unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Service upon the attorney or upon
a party shall be made by delivering a copy to him in direct messages or through a direct ping in the
proceeding communications.” As counsel for the plaintiff, neither the plaintiff nor I were served a copy
of the motion for discovery, nor was the motion for discovery posted in the “proceeding
communications” with a direct ping. Instead, the motion for discovery was quietly filed. It is
unreasonable to expect the discovery process to be facilitated when the defendant made no effort to
actually notify us of the motion to discovery. Not only does this waste the time of the Court, it also
contravenes the rules with regard to service of pleadings and motions.
II. THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY WAS NEVER ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT
Importantly, the motion for discovery was never actually accepted by this court, which means
that we have never been compelled to produce our documents. The defendant’s motion for discovery
begins with: “The Defendant, through this Motion for Discovery, motions for the Court to compel the
Plaintiff to submit any evidence of which may pertain to any of the following categories (...)”. There is
no record of this court ever making a ruling with regard to this motion.
III. CONCLUSION
As a result, we submit that the motion to be dismiss should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff BetaTheWolfGamer
By their Attorney,
/s/ frostbleed
frostbleed, RSB#17103
Document record
File size
92.3 KB
Uploaded
Apr 29, 2022 12:00 PM
Filed
Apr 29, 2022 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
betathewolfgamer
Notes
beta-v-brent-may9-22-rmd.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/keS1ztbR)
