Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

Goldman v. Eberly

16CV1860-9

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
DYLAN GOLDMAN

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ALLISON EBERLY
Defendant.

Civil Action File

No. 16CV1860-9

PLAINTIFFS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANTS FIRST CONTINUING INTERROGATORIES
COMES NOW Dylan Goldman, Plaintiff in the above-styled action, and
files his Amended and Supplemental Responses to Defendants First Continuing
Interrogatories. As answer to portions of this discovery for which Plaintiff objects,
a good faith letter has been mailed to Defendants Legal Counsel before seeking a
Protective Order, pursuant to Unif. Sup. Court Rule 6.4(b), and is attached hereto.
OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff objects to each and every interrogatory, and to every introductory
definition or instruction, that seeks information protected under Georgia law,
and/or seeks to impose obligations beyond those required by Title 9, Chapter 11 of
the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Civil Practice Act).

!1

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

Plaintiff objects to each and every interrogatory, and to every introductory

definition or instruction, that seeks information not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiff objects to each and every interrogatory, and to every introductory
definition or instruction, that seeks information beyond the allowable scope of
discovery pursuant to GA Code 9-11-26 (2015).
Plaintiff objects to each and every interrogatory, and to every introductory
definition or instruction, that is vague, overbroad or intended to harass or
burden the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff objects to each and every interrogatory, and to every introductory
definition or instruction, that seeks to invade work-product privilege under the
Work Product Doctrine.
Interrogatory No. 1: Please identify each person who has assisted in the
preparation of your responses to theses [sic] interrogatories, stating for each such
person their name and address.
Response to Interrogatory No. 1: Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 15-19-51, no one
has helped me or assisted me in the preparation of my responses to these
interrogatories, just as no one has provided any assistance, legal advice or guidance
to me in any way for each and every part and facet of this lawsuit. I have singlehandedly researched Georgia Code Law, Uniform Rules of Superior Courts, Local
Rules and case law, and written each and every word of every last motion, brief,
!2

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

request, memorandum, and any other legal document associated with this civil
action.
Interrogatory No. 2: For each and every instance of libel or slander you
are claiming in the Lawsuit, please indentify [sic]: a.) The specific statement that
you allege is libelous or slanderous; b.) The identify of any and all non-party(s)
who heard or read the statement; c.) The date of the statement; d.) Whether the
statement was oral or in writing (including electronic); e.) Any and all documents
that evidence the statement; f.) Any and all facts you allege prove that the
statement was false.
Response to Interrogatory No. 2:
Interrogatory No. 3: Please identify any and all monetary damages you
are seeking in the Lawsuit and for each amount claimed, please describe how you
calculated it.
Response to Interrogatory No. 3: Subject to and without waiver of the
foregoing objections, Plaintiff states that the information sought by the Defendant
was previously provided within the pleadings when Plaintiff filed his Amended
and Redacted Complaint for Damages with this Court on February 29, 2016,
service of which was perfected upon the Defendant by U.S. certified mail.
Count II (22) of the pleadings identifies the compensatory damages sought
by Plaintiff, as well as how the amounts were reached, and states as follows:

!3

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

Plaintiff seeks compensatory relief in the amount of $1015, for the

following expenses incurred due to the Defendants arrest warrant being
approved under false pretenses:
$295 for bond (10% of $2950)
$720 for mandatory domestic violence intervention classes (24 weeks @
$30/wk)
Since filing the aforementioned document on February 29, 2016, there is one
update and change to the amount sought for Plaintiffs bond. According to his bank
statement dated January 14, 2016 (and encompassing all account activity between
January 5, 2016 and February 11, 2016), the bonding company withdrew $683.50
from a Non-Chase ATM @ Dekalb County She1 Decatur GA, using his CHASE
Debit Card, ending in 6731. Plaintiff will include a copy of his bank statement
showing the withdrawal made on February 2, 2016 within his document production
per Defendants Requests to Produce, under Request No. 1.
Initially identified under Count IV, 22 of the pleadings, the remaining
compensatory damages sought by Plaintiff are simply to reimburse him for any and
all monies paid out-of-pocket in connection with this lawsuit, and states as follows:
$210 filing fee plus a $50 service fee, as well as $36 for courthouse
parking expenses.

Plaintiff assumes this is a Shell gas station ATM.

!4

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

Since the above-mentioned document was filed on February 29, 2016,

Plaintiffs litigation expenses have increased to reflect any and all copy services,
ink purchases, parking fees, mailing expenses and notary expenses which he has
incurred in connection with this lawsuit. The new running total of damages sought
by Plaintiff is $2080.22, which is subject to change as Plaintiff incurs further
expenses. (Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of Plaintiffs expense log and
copies of all the receipts supporting his monetary claims.)
Plaintiff will not seek punitive damages in this civil action, as he wishes to
be free of all communication with, and ties to the Defendant as quickly as possible.
Furthermore, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51-12-5.1(d), if punitive damages are not
sought specifically in the pleading, they cannot be sought after the pleadings close.
Furthermore, Plaintiff filed this civil action for the pursuit of justice, not for
monetary gain.
Interrogatory No. 4: Please identify any and all facts that you allege
support your claims in the Lawsuit.
Response to Interrogatory No. 4: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as it
seeks to reveal his trial strategy, which, in acting as his own attorney, is privileged,
and protected by the work-product doctrine2. Plaintiff, as his own counsel, is not

Jeff A. Anderson, Gina E. Cadieux, George Hays E., and Michael B. Hingerty, Work Product Doctrine,
68 Cornell L. Rev. 760 (1983)
!5

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

required to disclose his legal research, opinions, or theory of the case to the
Defendant.
Interrogatory No. 5: Please identify any and all documents that you
allege support your claims in the Lawsuit.
Response to Interrogatory No. 5: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as it
is inappropriate to request any and all materials which might reveal the trial
strategy of Plaintiff in acting as his own attorney. Plaintiff objects to this
interrogatory, as it would be more appropriate as a request for the production of
documents. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff
states any and all documents will be provided within his document production per
Defendants Requests to Produce, under Request No. 1.
Interrogatory No. 6: Please identify any and all felonies that you have
been convicted of in the last twenty years.
Response to Interrogatory No. 6: Plaintiff has never been convicted of a
felony.
Interrogatory No. 7: Please state your work employment for the past ten
(10) years, giving the name and address of each employer, the period of each
employment, the general nature of the job, and the rate of pay.
Response to Interrogatory No. 7: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as it
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. There
is no way that the Plaintiffs work history can provide any insight into and/or
!6

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

evidence related to this lawsuit, especially as damages sought are solely

compensatory and not punitive.
Interrogatory No. 8: Please identify any and all cell phone numbers, and
the provider of such cellular service, that was assigned to you or that you used
during the twelve months prior to the filing of the Lawsuit.
Response to Interrogatory No. 8: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as it
seeks to violate Title II, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. 2510-22. Plaintiff
objects to this interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory No. 9: Please identify any and all addresses you have lived at in
the past five years.
Response to Interrogatory No. 9: Plaintiff cannot ascertain how his
address history is necessary for counsels preparation for trial, and objects to this
interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. However, subject to and without waiver of the foregoing
objections, to the extent he understands the interrogatory, the Plaintiff has resided
at the following addresses over the last five (5) years:
1. 2493 Pine Lake Drive, Tucker, GA 30084
2. 2071 Fellowship Road, Tucker, GA 30084
3. 4223 Theresa Court, Tucker, GA 30084
!7

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

4. 3106 Summit Lake Drive, Stone Mountain, GA 30083

Interrogatory No. 10: Please identify any and all software programs you
used for voice communication purposes during the twelve months prior to the filing
of the Lawsuit.
Response to Interrogatory No. 10: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as
it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, to the extent he
understands the interrogatory, Plaintiff states he used Skype and Google for voice
communication purposes during the twelve months prior to the filing of the
Lawsuit.
Interrogatory No. 11: Please identify each and every witness that you
expect to call as an expert witness at any hearing or trial in the Lawsuit.
Response to Interrogatory No. 11: The Plaintiff intends to call the
following expert witnesses at any hearing or trial in this Lawsuit:
1. Pamela Woodson - Domestic Violence Intervention group facilitator,
Atlanta Intervention Network.
2. Carole Lieberman MD, MPH - Contact with this expert pending outcome
of oral hearing.
Interrogatory No. 12: For each witness identified in your response to
Interrogatory No. 11, state the following: a) the subject matter on which the
witness is expected to testify; b) the substance of the facts and data, and the
!8

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

opinions and mental impressions, to which the witness is expected to testify; c) a

summary of the grounds for each opinion, including the principles and methods
upon which the witness has based his or her opinions and mental impressions.
Response to Interrogatory No. 12:
1) Pamela Woodson- a) expected to testify 1) to the common character traits
and/or similarities shared by the typical person mandated to take Domestic
Violence Intervention classes3; 2) regarding the general character of the Plaintiff as
she has observed over the 24-week period he attended her Domestic Violence
Intervention group every Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. since March 2016;4 b) Woodson has
been a group facilitator for the Atlanta Intervention Network for several years. She
facilitates multiple Domestic Violence Intervention groups every week. Woodson is
a licensed therapist who clearly has background in Domestic Violence and special
knowledge of matters of the like.
At this time, Plaintiff is unable to provide further information regarding
expert Carole Lieberman, as he has not yet established contact, which is pending
the result of the upcoming oral hearing on all open motions in this case.

O.C.G.A. 24-9-67: The opinions of experts on any question of science, skill, trade or like

questions shall always be admissible.

4

Schafer v. Time, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; No.96-8730. (June 8 1998). In an
action for defamation or libel, however, the issue of the plaintiff's reputation and character scarcely can be
avoided because the plaintiff typically seeks to recover compensation for damage to his or her
reputation.
!9

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

Interrogatory No. 13: Please identify each and every witness that you
expected [sic] to call pursuant to O.C.G.A. 24-7-701 to provide lay opinion
testimony at any hearing or trail in the Lawsuit.
Response to Interrogatory No. 13: Subject to and without waiver of the
foregoing objections, to the extent he understands the interrogatory, Plaintiff
intends to call/subpoena the following witnesses to depose and later provide lay
opinion testimony 5 on the stand: Pamela Simons; Melissa Miller; Cassie Apley;
Carol Lunsford. This list is subject to change at any time, based on any and all
developments in the case that alter the legal strategy of the Plaintiff, acting as his
own attorney. In the event of a change, Plaintiff will inform Defendants legal
counsel within ten (10) business days after the change is formalized.
Interrogatory No. 14: For each witness identified in your response to
Interrogatory No. 13, state the following: a) the subject matter on which the
witness is expected to testify; b) the substance of the facts, data, opinions and
mental impressions to which the witness is expected to testify; and c) a summary of
the grounds for each opinion.
Response to Interrogatory No. 14: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as
it seeks information that is only mandatory to disclose in terms of expert
witnesses, pursuant to GA Code 9-11-26 (2015), not lay witnesses.
5

Plaintiff intends to either disclose his list of witnesses not providing lay opinion, including affiants, only
first hand accounts of personal evidence, within the Pre-Trial order. If compelled to do so by this court,
the latter will be protected, confidential information, and marked for Attorney Eyes Only (AEO).
!10

Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Interrogatories

16CV1860-9

Goldman v. Eberly

Interrogatory No. 15: Please identify any person having knowledge of the
facts discussed in your responses to these interrogatories, stating as to each that
persons name, address, current employer and a brief description of the relevant
matters within that persons knowledge.
Response to Interrogatory No. 15: Fearing retaliation, and at the request of
several of his witnesses, based upon the Defendants reputation for being generally
and habitually dishonest, Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as it could possibly
lead to witness tampering.

This 3 day of October, 2016.

_________________________
Dylan Goldman, Plaintiff, Pro Se
3106 Summit Lake Drive
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 989-3868

!11