Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
1,391 characters extracted
—
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
CHEXBURGER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-640
PRESIDING JUDGE: HON. HECXTRO
RESPONSE TO REQ. FOR ADMISSIONS
Plaintiff
v.
BATTALIONGAVIN
Defendant
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
1. Admitted
2. Denied. “The court may exclude relevant evidence if it is…one or more of the following:...
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” See Rid. R. Evid. 12. Exhibit A
shows the exact route the car took without the possibility of hand drawn inaccuracies.
3. Denied. See the above reasoning.
4. Denied. Lacking relevance to the State of Ridgeway. PIT maneuvers are performed far
differently when in comparison to real life PITs. Exhibit D provides information on how to
conduct a pit maneuver in real life, not Ridgeway, as law enforcement officers are trained
differently on the maneuver and how to conduct it, which involves an entirely different process.
5. Admitted (I guess??)
6. Denied. The Plaintiff provided no Exhibit F on his Initial Disclosure.
7. Admitted
8. Admitted
9. Admitted
10. Denied for Exhibi H and I. See Rid. R. Evid. 13(a)(1), “Evidence of a person’s character or
character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in
accordance with the character or trait.”
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/RyanJSyndicate
RyanJSyndicate
Assistant Solicitor General; Office of the
Solicitor General
R.W. Bar #18106
Document record
File size
89.2 KB
Uploaded
Aug 23, 2022 12:00 PM
Filed
Aug 23, 2022 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
dorkjacob
Notes
RSC-CV-640 Defense Response to Request for Admission — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/1MeBjpls)
