Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Opposition to Motion to Compel

Opposition to Motion to Compel

Ratings: (0)|Views: 432|Likes:
Published by Steve Chan

More info:

Published by: Steve Chan on Jun 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
23
5
6!
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
2021
2223242526
A
THE FLAG COMPANY, INC
. a
Georgia Corporation,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO
:
1
:09-CV-1880
OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION
RESPONSES
; DECLARATION OF
STEVEN CHAN
Defendant
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
;
DECLARATION OFSTEVE
NA
.
CHAN
~
Page 1 of13
IN THE UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
FILED IN
CL
.
E
R
K
~ OFF
I
CE
l~
.S.D.C. - A~~ to
JUN
a
7
z~
1
a
V
.
STEVEN A CHAN, LLC (d/b/a FIVESTAR FLAGS and/orVIA5),
a
California Limited Liability Company,
and STEVEN A
. CHAN, a California
resident,
OPPO
S
I
TIO
N T
O
M
OTIO
N
TO
C
O
M
PE
LREPSONSES
; DECLARATION
O
F STEVEN A
. C
H
AN
This is the Defendant Steven A Chan's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to
Compel Responses to the Production Demand Set #1
.
MEMORANDOM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I
. Introduction
Plaintiff Flag Company's Motion is fatally flawed procedurally andsubstantively meritless
. Like the rest of this litigation, it is abusive and
overreaching: It is the product of the haughtiness of the Flag Company exploitingthe vulnerability of an individual who is trying to navigate on his own through a
 
2
3
4
5
6s9
12
1
3
14
15
1
61
718
19
20
21222324
25
26
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
; DECLARATION OF
STEVEN A
. CHAN ~ Page
2
of
13
complex and unfamiliar legal proceeding without the benefit of counsel, which hecannot afford
. Flag Company is using its economic advantage in this court like a
bully would push around a weaker child in a schoolyard
. If th
i
s court values
~ j
ust
i
ce
,
it should allow this defendant
,
Mr
. Chan
,
a l
i
ttle room for procedural error
.
The Flag Company claims to have valid and enforceable intellectual property
rights to the phrase "farming flag." It claims to have invented the term
,
just like Al
Gore
i
nvented the Internet. They have brought this act
i
on alleging that its
compet
i
tor, Mr. Chan and h
i
s company, which is now a d
i
ssolved entity, violated
i
ts property r
i
ghts
.
Farming is a term used in the real estate industry
. It refers to prospecting in(usually a geographic) area for buyers and sellers of residential real estate. Real
estate professionals are trained in "Farming" techniques and methods using a wide
~ array of `farming tools'
. It is a `famous' word in the consuming public, is a generic
~
term
,
and has been pre
s
ent in real-estate dict
i
onaries for at lea
s
t 10
y
ear
s
prior tothe Plaintiff
'
s reg
i
stration of the term
`
farming flag
'
. "
Farming
"
with the
American
flag is a famous activ
i
ty within the consuming public. It is well-documentedactivity done nationw
i
de
s
ince the early 1980
'
s by the US residential brokerageindustry
. It is a generic term. Plaintiff's proprietary right claim is as spurious as Al
Gore's claim that he invented the Internet
. The license issued to plaintiff inrecognition of that claim is based on plaintiff's fraud and is a nullity
. Plaintiff's
action is not an effort to enforce a proper property right, but an abusive effort to
use the processes of the court to close down its competitor, wh
i
ch in large part it
I
already has succeeded
.
Discovery was opened on this matter on December 28, 2009
. By order of this
 
2
3
4
s
689
1011121314I51617181920
21
22
23242526
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
; DECLARATION OF
STEVEN A
. CHAN ~ Page 3 of
1
3
court, it closed in April 28, 2010
. The scope of discovery as defined by the court's
order was plaintiff's claims and defendant's defense
.
Sitting on its dilatory hands until almost the last speck of sand dropped
through the hourglass, plaintiff served Mr
. Chan on March 23, 2010 discovery thatwas in its scope overwhelming, much of it invasive and/or a fishing expeditionbeyond the scope of court authorized discovery
. In one fell swoop, plaintiff
bundled together all of its discovery demands
. On this last minute service ofdiscovery, plaintiff served a request for admissions with a set of interrogatories,
and a production of documents demand
. Plaintiffs purpose in serving such
burdensome discovery all at once and at the last minute was to overwhelm Mr
.
Chan
. As it admits in its April29,
2010
so-called meet & confer letter (exhibit B,to the motion, without foundation testimony, its service at the last minute was
purposefully designed such that he could not grant any extensions, no matter how
modest
. In spite of the scope and breadth of its burdensome discovery, it now had
schedule, which precluded the simple civility of an extension. ("Even if yourequest an extension in a timely fashion, however, The Flag Company would not
have been able to agree to such a request. The discover period in this lawsuit
closed on April 28
..
. In addition, summary judgment motions are due within thirty(30) days of the close of discovery
.")
Mr
. Chan, who is in pro per and has no federal court experience,
misunderstood the response dates required. Working hard to run his business, healso worked hard on responding to plaintiff s discovery. However, because of thebreadth of the discovery that was served, he could not fully prepare his response
.
In order to preserve his objections, he served responses on April27,
2010 with
objections only. Plaintiff acknowledges that the responses were only one day late
.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->