Electronically Served 19HA-CV-18-905

7/6/2020 1:41 PM
Dakota County, MN

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Case Type: Civil Other/Misc.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Court File No.: 19-HA-CV-l8-905
Judicial Officer: Jerome B. Abrams
Plaintiff,
v.

David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki;

Gianna Rucki, Sandra Sue Grazzini-
Rucki; Deidre Elise Evavold; Destiny
Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse
Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit
Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen;
Douglas Dahlen, Destiny Church;
Steve Quememoen and Trish Quememoen,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS DAVID V. RUCKI; SAMANTHA RUCKI AND GIANNA RUCKUS

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION;
INTERROGATORY AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

TO: PLAINTIFF ABOVE-NAMED AND ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD, Kathleen K.

Curtis, Esq., HKM, P.A., 30 East Seventh Street, Suite 3200, St. Paul, Minnesota,
55101:

These Defendants above named (David Rucki; Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki) provide

the following Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions, Interrogatory and

Request for Production of Documents:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Defendants David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki object to Plaintiffs Requests

for Admission, Interrogatory and Document Requests to the extent they ask These

1
 19HA-CV-18-905

Defendants to provide information and/or documents not within their possession or control

and are not reasonably obtainable by them.

2. Defendants David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki object to Plaintiffs Requests

for Admission, Interrogatory and Document Requests to the extent that they seek

information about other parties or non-parties, or seek information that may be obtained from

another party or from another source that is less burdensome, less expensive or more

convenient, and to the extent they seek information already in Plaintiffs possession, or in the

possession of their attorneys, representatives, agents or employees.

3. Defendants David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki object to Plaintiffs Requests

for Admission, Interrogatory and Document Requests to the extent they seek information

protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product

doctrine.

4. Defendants David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki object to Plaintiffs Requests

for Admission, Interrogatory and Document Requests to the extent they seek information

prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for These Defendants.

5. Defendants David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and GiannaRucki object to Plaintiffs Definitions

and Instructions, if any, as overly broad, vague, and to the extent they differ from or are

contrary to the use of such terms in any contract documents or vary from accepted industry

or common meanings.

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

1. Admit that on or around April 19, 2013, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki brought her daughters
Gianna and Samantha Rucki to Deirdre Evavold’s home in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

RESPONSE: Admit.

2
 19HA-CV-18-905

2. Admit that Deirdre Evavold allowed Ms. Grazzini-Rucki to stay at her home with Gianna
and Samantha Rucki to keep them away from their father David Rucki.

RESPONSE: Deny.

3. Admit that Deirdre Evavold and Ms. Grazzini-Rucki drove Gianna and Samantha Rucki to
the White Horse Ranch on or about April 21, 2013.

RESPONSE: Admit.

4. Admit that Deirdre Evavold helped bring Gianna and Samantha Rucki to the White Horse
Ranch to deprive David Rucki of access to and parenting time with his daughters.

RESPONSE: Deny.

5. Admit that by bringing Gianna and Samantha Rucki to the White Horse Ranch, Deirdre
Evavold restricted their physical liberty to be with David Rucki.

RESPONSE: Deny.

6. Admit that Gianna and Samantha Rucki were aware that Deirdre Evavold brought them to
the White Horse Ranch to restrict their physical liberty to be with David Rucki.

RESPONSE: Deny.

7. Admit that Deirdre Evavold did not have any contact with Gianna or Samantha Rucki after
she left them at the White Horse Ranch.

RESPONSE: Deny.

8. Admit that Gianna and S amantha Rucki had no reasonable means of leaving the White Horse
Ranch.

RESPONSE: Admit.

9. Admit that Deirdre Evavold never told law enforcement that Gianna and Samantha Rucki
were staying at the White Horse Ranch.

RESPONSE: Admit.

10. Admit that Deirdre Evavold helped bring Gianna and Samantha Rucki to the White Horse
Ranch with the specific intent of depriving David Rucki of his parenting and custodial rights.

RESPONSE: Deny.

3
 19HA-CV-18-905

11. Admit that Deirdre Evavold was charged with six counts of depriving another of custodial or
parental rights under Minnesota Statute § 609.26.

RESPONSE: Admit.

12. Admit that Deirdre Evavold did not assert an affirmative defense to those charges under
Minnesota Statute § 609.226, subdivision 2.

RESPONSE: These Defendants cannot admit or deny this Request to Admit.

13. Admit that Deirdre Evavold was convicted on all six counts under Minnesota Statute §
609.26.

RESPONSE: Admit.

14. Admit that Deirdre Evavold helped conceal Gianna and Samantha Rucki from David Rucki
to deprive David Rucki of his rights to parenting time or custody.

RESPONSE: Deny.

15. Admit that Deirdre Evavold’s principal goal in helping to bring Gianna and Samantha Rucki
to the White Horse Ranch was the denial of parental rights of David Rucki.

RESPONSE: Deny.

16. Admit that all the allegations in your Amended Complaint against Deirdre Evavold involve a
plan by Ms. Evavold to deprive David Rucki of his parental rights that was at its heart
intentional and deliberate.

RESPONSE: Deny.

INTERROGATORY

1. If you denied any of the above Requests for Admission, set forth in detail the factual basis
for your denial and identify all witnesses and documents that support your denial.

ANSWER: Defendants object to Plaintiffs Interrogatory based on Requests to Admit as unduly

burdensome, multiple in form, as calling for legal and expert opinion/conclusion, improper,
inappropriate, as exceeding the scope of Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.01, which allows a party to give a
denial to a request to admit without explanation. They are further objected to as seeking information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine
because they effectively require Defendants to prove a negative and/or to lay out a road map of their
entire case. Requests to admit are not a discovery device. See, e.g., Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v.
American Home Assur. Co., Ill F.R.D. 454 (D. Minn. 1997).

4
 19HA-CV-18-905

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. All documents that support your denial of any of the above Requests for Admission.

RESPONSE: Defendants object to this Request for Production of Documents based on Requests to
Admit as unduly burdensome, multiple in form, as calling for legal and expert opinion/conclusion,
improper, inappropriate, as exceeding the scope of Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.01, which allows a party to
give a denial to a request to admit without explanation. They are further objected to as seeking
information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product
doctrine because they effectively require Defendants to prove a negative and/or to lay out a road map
of their entire case. Requests to admit are not a discovery device. See, e.g., LakeheadPipe Line Co.
v. American Home Assur. Co., 177 F.R.D. 454 (D. Minn. 1997).

2. All documents that you intend to introduce as exhibits at the trial of this matter.

RESPONSE: Unknown at this time. These Defendants will produce trial exhibits
pursuant to requirements set forth in the Court’s Trial Order in this
matter.

3. All settlement agreements and/or releases between you and Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki;
Deirdre Elise Evavold; Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch, a Minnesota
Nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen; Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church; Steve Quememoen;
or Trish Quememoen.

RESPONSE: These Defendants are not able to produce these documents as it is subject
to a Confidentiality Agreement.

Date: July 6, 2020 ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A.

/s/ Lisa M. Elliott__________________

LisaM. Elliott, #201923
Attorneys for Defendants David Rucki;
Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki
2409 West 66th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55423
612-466-7190
lisa@elliottlaw.net