STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SPECIALKOMRADE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-923
Plaintiff
v.
ECTOPIEX
Defendant
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
COME NOW, The Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorney, submits a response to the Motion to
Dismiss introduced by the defense before the court on the date of 10 February 2023, filed pursuant to Rid. R.
Civ. 28(b)(2). A Memorandum-In-Law and supporting affidavit will be attached below.
AFFIDAVIT
The Plaintiff, pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. 38(d), submits the supporting affidavit attached below.
Plaintiff Affidavit
MEMORANDUM-IN-LAW
DEFENSE MISSES ESSENTIAL PARTS IN CASE CITATION
LuisAntonioSantiago v. avixsz is a civil case regarding tortious false arrest. It was ruled that
“[the] court cannot rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s argument”, on the grounds that “it was
discovered that the plaintiff’s Exhibit A was trimmed to exclude portions of the video after it was
viewed by the defendant at the time of the incident.” However, “the defendant was able to
produce material evidence to this effect”.
The defense in the case cited was able to substantiate that the videographic evidence provided in
discovery was trimmed in bad faith, as to exclude important facts “contributing to a defendant’s
decision to issue an arrest.”
SITUATION DIFFERS THAN FROM CASE CITED
The court noted in its ruling that: “A plaintiff must present all material evidence of which they
know, or reasonably should be expected to know.” In RSC-CV-403, the defense proved that the
plaintiff is withholding evidence that turned out to entirely change the perspective of the facts.
However, the defense in this case fails to provide an explanation on how the trimmed clips
cannot be entered as evidence to substantiate the facts in the matter. Furthermore, the defense
also fails to present any proof of a bad faith concealment of evidence, as properly done in the
case cited above.
PLAINTIFF IS NOT WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE IN BAD FAITH
The clips were filmed with the Medal platform, which only allows for clips shorter than two
minutes. The plaintiff trimmed the clip to show the necessary course of events, in order to prove
the facts he is alleging in the Civil Complaint. The plaintiff has provided proper explanation for
trimming the videos, and they have not entered any evidence in bad faith, as stipulated by the
affidavit herein.
ATTORNEY STATEMENT IS NULL
The attorney for the plaintiff stated, in the case Discord channel, that “client clears his medal
every 5 (five) days”. The statement cannot be used to substantiate anything, due to the fact that it
is mistaken, therefore it does not bind to the plaintiff.. A Third Circuit ruling stated that
“Ordinarily, an admission of counsel during the course of trial is binding on his client.”
See Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Assocs. II PC, 935 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2019).
However, it additionally noted that “For an admission of counsel [...] to be binding on his client,
it must be unequivocal.” See Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Assocs. II PC, 935 F.3d
187 (3d Cir. 2019). The plaintiff has clarified, in the affidavit submitted before the court, that he
“irregularly, without a real schedule”, clears his Medal storage, which is inconsistent with the
attorney’s statement, which claims a reasonably regular schedule. Notwithstanding the “clear
admission”, as portrayed in the defense’s Motion to Dismiss, it is equivocal and unbinding to the
plaintiff.
TRIMMED EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTED BEFORE THE COURT
As per Rid R. Evid. 58(a)(b), “An original is not required, and other evidence of the content of
the writing or record is admissible, if: all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the
proponent acting in bad faith; an original cannot be obtained by any available judicial process.”
As the original videotapes were lost, and not by the plaintiff acting in bad faith, they cannot be
obtained by any available judicial process. Therefore, the original videographic material is not
required.
CONCLUSION
The court shall DENY the motion to dismiss, on the grounds that:
I. The plaintiff is not willfully withholding any evidence, and the original was not lost by the
proponent acting in bad faith. Therefore, the original evidence is not required in this
circumstance.
II. Evidence has the potential to be authenticated at trial, and is the only evidence available to
ascertain the facts in the matter.
III. The defense has improperly cited another court ruling, omitting essential pieces and bending the
context.
DATED: February 10th, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
kafkadelrey, Esq.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Ridgeway State Bar License #11110
Cohn, Cicero & Goodrich
Senior Associate
/s/ kafkadelrey
―――――――――――――
SpecialKomrade
Plaintiff
/s/ SpecialKomrade
