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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Officer Porter's Objection Shorten Discovery

Officer Porter's Objection Shorten Discovery

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,408|Likes:
Published by Janet and James
Porter had waited until the last month of the four months to attempt any discovery. Officer Porter was the first one to complain upon Plaintiff's filing Motion to Amend Complaint.

In this, his Objection to Shorten Discovery, Officer Porter states that he still has extensive Discovery to perform that he intends to depose Plaintiff and he will then have the evidence he needs to prove Stegeman guilty of the fraudulent charges he continually has claimed Stegeman is guilty of.

This shows beyond all doubt that there has never been an investigation into the crimes Officer Porter and other defendants insist Stegeman commited.

Judge Duffey's Order Dismissing the case link provided: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6047985/Judge-Duffey-Dismisses-Case

Duffey commits perjury when he states that DFCS, Porter, and others investigated Stegeman and the crimes and leads one to believe Stegeman was found guilty.

Amazingly, not one defendant has documents to support their defenses, all documents concerning the matters have been filed by Plaintiff with the complaint. Judge Duffey's Order falsifies what the Complaint states, what the documents show, and further attempts to discredit the Plaintiff in the case.

The Defendants' responses to Motion to Amend Complaint was that the motion was to stall, undue delay, etc. At that point, all defendants' had stated they had no documents other than the ones that Plaintiff had submitted with his prima facie complaint and no persons other than the defendants could support their defenses. The false allegations of undue delay were shot down by Motion to Shorten Discovery. Discovery had been appointed Four months, the four months only had one week left. Officer Porter had waited until the last month of the four months to attempt any discovery.
Porter had waited until the last month of the four months to attempt any discovery. Officer Porter was the first one to complain upon Plaintiff's filing Motion to Amend Complaint.

In this, his Objection to Shorten Discovery, Officer Porter states that he still has extensive Discovery to perform that he intends to depose Plaintiff and he will then have the evidence he needs to prove Stegeman guilty of the fraudulent charges he continually has claimed Stegeman is guilty of.

This shows beyond all doubt that there has never been an investigation into the crimes Officer Porter and other defendants insist Stegeman commited.

Judge Duffey's Order Dismissing the case link provided: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6047985/Judge-Duffey-Dismisses-Case

Duffey commits perjury when he states that DFCS, Porter, and others investigated Stegeman and the crimes and leads one to believe Stegeman was found guilty.

Amazingly, not one defendant has documents to support their defenses, all documents concerning the matters have been filed by Plaintiff with the complaint. Judge Duffey's Order falsifies what the Complaint states, what the documents show, and further attempts to discredit the Plaintiff in the case.

The Defendants' responses to Motion to Amend Complaint was that the motion was to stall, undue delay, etc. At that point, all defendants' had stated they had no documents other than the ones that Plaintiff had submitted with his prima facie complaint and no persons other than the defendants could support their defenses. The false allegations of undue delay were shot down by Motion to Shorten Discovery. Discovery had been appointed Four months, the four months only had one week left. Officer Porter had waited until the last month of the four months to attempt any discovery.

More info:

Published by: Janet and James on Dec 25, 2008
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

05/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAATLANTA DIVISIONJAMES B. STEGEMAN,))CIVIL ACTIONPlaintiff,))FILE NO. 1:06-CV-2954-WSDv.))STATE OF GEORGIA, thru GOVERNOR)SONNY PERDUE, in His Official Capacity;)STATE OF GEORGIA DEPARTMENT)OF HUMAN RESOURCES; DEKALB)COUNTY, thru CEO VERNON JONES)in His Official Capacity; DEKALB)COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY)& CHILDREN SERVICES; DEKALB)COUNTY FIRE & RESCUE; LT.)HUGHETT - NO. 581 In His Official)Individually and in His Official Capacity; )EMS MEDIC DENNIS CARLOCK)Individually and in His Official Capacity;)STONE MOUNTAIN POLICE OFFICER)R. B. PORTER BADGE, #119, )Individually and in His Official Capacities;)DEKALB COUNTY PROBATE COURT;)PROBATE JUDGE JERYL DEBRA )ROSH, Individually and in Her Official)Capacity; GEORGIA SUPERIOR COURT,)STONE MOUNTAIN JUDICIAL )CIRCUIT; STATE COURT OF )GEORGIA; DEKALB COUNTY )SOLICITORS OFFICE; JANE DOE 01-)100; JOHN DOE 01-100,))Defendants.)
Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 82 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 8
 
-2-
DEFENDANT OFFICER R. B. PORTER’S RESPONSE TOPLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SHORTEN DISCOVERY PERIOD
COMES NOW Defendant Officer R. B. Porter and files this, his Response inopposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Discovery Period. Defendant Porter would rather not spend the time and resources on discovery in this case and prefersthat this Court soon considers and grants his Motion to Dismiss. However, until thiscase is dismissed, Defendant Porter must confront the facts and substance of this caseand proceed with discovery. Defendant Porter herein shows that he requires a fulldiscovery period of six months for extensive discovery, including additional writtendiscovery to Plaintiff and the depositions of Plaintiff and other third parties.In his Motion to Shorten Discovery Period, Plaintiff requests that this Courtshorten the discovery period as he alleges no further discovery is necessary and he isready for trial. He argues that discovery is not necessary as the Defendants havefailed to disprove the allegations against them. Plaintiff erroneously believes that theDefendants bear the burden of disproving the baseless allegations asserted inPlaintiff’s Complaint. In fact, it is Plaintiff who bears the burden of proving hisallegations. As to Defendant Porter, Plaintiff alleges that he fraudulently preparedthe Family Violence Incident Report, that he has made slanderous and libelous
Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 82 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 8
 
-3-statements regarding Plaintiff and that Defendant Porter has, along with the other Defendants, engaged in an intricate conspiracy to defraud and otherwise harmPlaintiff. Plaintiff cannot merely rest on these wild assertions especially whereDefendant Porter has denied Plaintiff’s allegations.As stated in KH Outdoor, L.L.C., et. al. v. Clay County, Florida:A plaintiff who invokes the jurisdiction of a federal court bears the burden of showing “(1) an injury in fact, meaning an injury that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) a causal connection between theinjury and the causal conduct, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will beredressed by a favorable decision.” Clearwater, 351 F. 3d at 1116 (citation andemphasis omitted). Each element is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’scase” and “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,
i.e.
,
 
with the matter and degree of evidencerequired at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112S. Ct. at 2136 (citation omitted). Also, the plaintiff must satisfy certain prudential principles established by courts. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,162, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1161, 137 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1997). These immutablerequirements of the Constitution govern KH Outdoor’s Second AmendedComplaint.KH Outdoor, L.L.C., et al. v. Clay County, Florida, 482 F. 3d 1299, 1303 (11 Cir.
th
2007). Similarly, Plaintiff James Stegeman bears the burden of proving that he hassuffered particular and concrete injuries and that those injuries were caused by theconduct of the Defendants, in this case Defendant Porter.While it may satisfy Plaintiff to simply rest on the conclusory allegations of his
Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 82 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 3 of 8

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->