STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DAVID DERRINGER
Plaintiff,
No. CV-2012-10816
v.
BARRIE CROWE aka BARRIE DERRINGER ET AL.
Defendants,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
COMPLIANCE AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BARRIE CROWE/DERRINGER AND ATTORNEY FLOYD WILSON
COMES NOW the Pro-Se Plaintiff David Derringer with his Motion for this Court to Order discovery compliance from Defendant Barrie Lee Crowe aka Barrie Derringer pursuant to Rule 1-037(A)(2). The Petitioner has defied entirely the matter of discovery that was properly presented to the Defendant [Exhibit 1] . It is clearly seen that the Defendant and her attorney have “conspired” to defy discovery in every respect of interrogatories, request for production and request to admit or deny. The Defendant simply states that no discovery is applicable to this law suit, including but not limited to the names of the friend and 9 men that Barrie had involved in assault and batters, the medical records showing Barrie is bi-polar, suicidal and has herpes and all other proper inquests are ignored. This blatant action is the direct obstruction of justice this same attorney Floyd Wilson does in defiance of discovery in CV-12-1307 forcing the same Plaintiff David Derringer in that suit to have also to go to the court to gain Order for compliance, making attorney Floyd Wilson mandated to be severely sanctioned and reprimanded as this court can take judicial notice of his same illegal actions in the other suit.
Plaintiff David Derringer has an undeniable right under discovery to obtain all medical records, and all answers to each and every part of discovery, and without doubt identities of all persons known to Barrie that were involved in the assault and batters, as well as all evidence or lack thereof that was involved in the malicious prosecution of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 re-openings of December 11, 2012. Barrie Crowe/Derringer has now again lied under oath (discovery is under oath) that she has returned all property of David Derringer to David Derringer that she took in three separate break-ins of February 4, February 25, and March 8th, 2012 and there is also some concern that she was involved behind the scene in a burglary of July 3, 2012 at the time we were in court together. Barrie Crowe/Derringer has had a “no-contact” order against David Derringer since February 6, 2012 ongoing, so there has been no contact with her outside of a court of law, so there has been no availability of her returning any items of David Derringer of which there are many of about $55,000.00 worth of tools and equipment, clothing, papers, piano music, horse travel papers, wedding ring, two swords, ice axe, two crossbows, and much more. None has ever been returned. Also in the discovery Barrie Crowe/Derringer additionally lies that her attorney Alain Jackson, who is also a “Defendant” in this suit, has returned all of David Derringer’s property, which of course he has not returned anything since February 4, 2012 either. The perjury and fraud of these statements is provable to a court of law under the meaning of NMSA 30-25-1.
The Defendant has “willfully” and deliberately failed and concealed their damaging information so as not to show the “genetic predisposal of bi-polar and mental and emotional disorders in the Crowe family that has every bearing on this suit with avoiding all answers, document withheld and refusal to respond to questions. [Exhibit 2]. The Defendant has failed, refused and ignored the Plaintiff’s discovery requests totally. The Defendant has a history of violations of discovery in also DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 with defiance and continuous attempts to violate Rules 1-026, 1-033 and 1-034 to affect the protection of the Defendant’s past perjury and fraud of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 and to leave the Plaintiff without due process and equal protection, that included Barrie Derringers fraud and falsification of the records of the court of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 by denial and disregard of discovery obligations which is against the Rules of Civil Procedure and continually denies the Plaintiff=s rights under the 14th Amendment for due process. Floyd Wilson can easily be shown to be an attorney that is unethical and defies the Rules for his clients in several cases and is intent in the two cases of CV-12-1307 and CV-12-10816 of hiding, concealing and protecting the known identity of the 10 other persons that are known to Barrie Crowe aka Barrie Derringer whom she had with her on February 4, 2012 and February 25, 2012 breaking into storage at 101 Florida SE Unit C that did criminal assault and battery on the Plaintiff before her very eyes, as witnesses prove.
The attorney and the Defendant not only simply Aignore@ the Pro-Se Plaintiff but there is a corruption of deliberate concealment of information and identities that is very harmful for the Defendants, and a proven history of mental and emotional illness in the Crowe family that they wish the court not to be able to see the medical records and substantiation of same. The legal possibility also exists for this court to deny the Defendant any discovery of their own, and to prevent each Defendant from presenting any documents, witnesses or testimony at a trial with their own violations of discovery or in fact grant a summary judgment on the Complaint. The Plaintiff thus now requests of this court to barr Barrie Crowe/Derringer from any proof or contentions of her own at any trial on any matters of CV-12-10816, and in fact the Plaintiff requests of this court that Barrie Crowe/Derringer be held in contempt of court for failure to comply with discovery, or extreme monetary sanctions be granted to the Plaintiff as failure to comply with discovery and bogus pleadings that do not comply with discovery also violate NMRA Rule 1-011. Michigan Window Cleaning Co. v. Martino, (1949 CA6 Mich) 173 F2d 466, 16 CCH LC 65039 AIf party declines to answer interrogatories he may be precluded by district court from offering proof at trial.@
The Plaintiff has to be able to have his discovery promptly, and has sought the discovery properly wherein the Defendant cannot claim in any way objection. Weston & Brooker Co. V. Continental Casualty Co. (1962 CA4 SC) 303 F2d 91, 5 FR Serv 2d 628 AParty to action has right to have benefits of discovery procedure promptly, not only in order that he may have ample time to prepare his case before scheduled trial, but also in order to bring to light facts which may entitle him to summary judgment or induce settlement prior to trial.@ In this matter, the Defendant has to respond in detail to both the documents and interrogatories that involve medications, and mental and emotional remedy whether that be past hospitalization or medication. Also the requests to admit or deny are very important to gain information as to whether more discovery is needed and the Defendant has ignored all. Hercules Powder Co. v Rohm & Haas Co. (1944 DC Del) 3 FRDJ 328, 60 USPQ 437 AOne purpose of interogatories under Rule 33 is to ascertain facts and to procure evidence or secure information as to where pertinent evidence exists and can be obtained.@
The Defendants are involved in a “conspiracy” against the Plaintiff in all regards to the actions of the Complaint, and the court can see that all Defendants act with the same disregard of the legal process, with facilitation by an attorney that has a history and reputation for defiance of discovery as proven in CV-12-1307. The Defendant will not Awillfully@. Rubinstein v. Kleven, (1957 DC Mass) 21 FRD 183 AParty who proceeds in courts under rules subjects himself to rules of pretrial examination and production, and general intent of rules, with certain exceptions is early rather that late revelation.@
David Derringer has a right under court rules to examine each Defendant Aexhaustively@ as to conspiracy, motives, actions, and methods of the torts of this complaint and mis-using the courts in other actions, and as to why each Defendant has thus far chosen to attack, demean, and violate David Derringer in every respect, including stealing and breaking and entering the Derringer storage to take all personal property at all times, sabotage of the Derringer marriage, and multiple other torts. Hickman v. Taylor, (1947) 329 US 495, 91 L.Ed 451, 67 S. Ct. 385, 34 Ohio Ops 395 APre-trial deposition-discovery mechanism established by Rules 26-37 is one of the most significant innovations of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under prior federal practice, pre-trial functions of notice-giving, issue-formulation and fact-revelation were performed primarily and inadequately by pleadings, and inquiry into issues and facts before trial was narrowly confined and was often cumbersome in method, but new rules restrict pleadings to task of general notice-giving and invest deposition-discovery process with vital role in preparation for trial.@
With the aspects of discovery, all details and all persons involved in the alienation of affection, loss of consortium, assault and battery and other outrageous acts can be defined with enough detail and indeed make sense of the conspiracy underlying many matters involving all Defendants and possibly make each Defendant not only accountable for their illegal and irrational acts, but also to maybe actually think of what they have done to a man that only loved and protected and was devoted to his own wife with collateral damages of the extreme that has actually been done to all involved, including monetary waste, property damages, emotional damages and actual death of loved pets and other extreme damages and the Defendant’s sabotage of their own lives in the process. The Adiscovery process@ may and should actually feed and precipitate a settlement and stop this insanity. Crowe v. Chesapeake & OR Co., (1961 ED Mich) 29 FRD 148, 5 FR Serv 2d 586 A In view of liberal spirit of these rules, court should be disposed to grant such discovery as will accomplish full disclosure of fact, eliminate surprise, and promote settlement.@
It is undetermined as to why Barrie Derringer chose to again lie to the court in Afraud@ to obtain a reopening of DV-12-234 and DM-12-610 in provable malicious prosecution except as revenge, retaliation and retribution of this instant pre-filed suit CV-12-10816. All Defendants sabotage the life of Barrie Crowe/Derringer who apparently has been out of control and irrational in her way of thinking after the disaster fire of December 2011 that set back the lives of the Derringers, but did not stop the love and care for Barrie Derringer from David Derringer that she needs the most and has never had in her life before David Derringer had became her loving husband. Rorer International Cosmetics Ltd v. Halpern, (1979ED Pa) 85 FRD 43, 28 FR Serv 2d 837. Adiscoverable as relevant to central allegations of fraud.@ It seems that Defendants are simply attempting to show Apower@ and control of defeating the good Derringer marriage and sabotage Barrie Crowe/Derringer in all of these actions, instead of each performing as an adult and seeking stability of the Derringer marriage and the lives of Barrie and David. This ranting of destruction serves no purposes, and is un-nerving that Barrie actually stated in January 2012 that Aeven if we get divorced, we can always remarry@. Barrie had already done this act with former husband Charles Beverley, and thus this matter seems to reek of these Defendants ruining lives and then thinking of repair later with all of the collateral damages done in their insane processes. Barrie Crowe/Derringer is possibly headed for jail in some of these maneuvers that should never have been perpetrated against David Derringer that is devoted to Barrie Crowe/Derringer. Tiedman v. American Pigment Corp. (1958, CA4 Va) 253 F2d 803 AA trial is not a sporting event, and discovery is founded upon policy that the search for truth should be aided.@
Regardless of each Defendant’s motives of ignoring David Derringer=s discovery requests of Defendants, entirely and forcing this motion to be presented to the court, the court has the obligation to grant David Derringer an Order forcing each Defendant to perform in all discovery. Parla v. Matson Navigation Co. (1961 SD NY) 28 FRD 348, 4 FR Serv 2d 489 AIn granting motion under Rule 34 to compel defendant to produce court would observe that allowing pre-trial disclosure appeared to be the better course.@ ; Heiner v. North American Coal Corp. (1942 DC Pa) 3 FRD 64 AInspection of relevant papers and records should be obtained under Rule 34.@ There is a total disregard for the Rules of Civil Procedure by each Defendant, but in Barrie Crowe/Derringer, it is also a irrational disregard for her vows, responsibility, obligations and duties under the Amarriage contract@, God, her Catholic Church, the binding actual laws of the marriage contract, and unbelievable immaturity of a 57 year old woman to just simply cutting and running away from her marriage instead of working any and all problems out, as well as leaving her own husband at the time with the aftermath of a house fire that killed pets to deal with the entire matter alone with no emotional or physical support from his own wife. All Defendants were conspirators in this malicious action and must be held accountable for torts, perjury and fraud to the court and disregard of the Rules of litigation in the Awillful and very bad faith actions of each Defendant; such sanctions that should be immediately Ordered by this court are extreme punishment of monetary sanctions and prevention of any evidence from any Defendant at trial if so held. Pittard v. Four Seasons Motor Inn, Inc. 101 N.M. 723, 688 p.2d 333 (Ct. App. 1984) ASevere sanctions should be imposed where there is a willful or bad faith failure to comply.@ Each Defendant and the attorney Floyd Wilson have not proceeded in any lawful manner in this entire procedure and must be sanctioned severely with the attorney not escaping his deplorable and illegal behavior when each refuses to abide by the rules of the court. Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 552 P.2d 227 (Ct. App. 1976) AWhen plaintiff in a civil action files a lawsuit, his adversaries are entitled to generally understand that he will proceed in a lawful manner and that compliance will be had with the Rules of Civil Procedure, including those relating to Discovery.@ Each Defendant and their unethical attorney believes they can stop the litigation process and defeat any trial and simply feel that they no longer have to actually participate in the judicial process. Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 552 P.2d 227 (Ct. App. 1976) AJust as it is proper for a trial court to dismiss an action for failure of the Plaintiff to appear for deposition, it is also proper to dismiss an action for failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order of the Court if this case, and order to answer interrogatories.@
David Derringer has been denied due process and equal protection by defiance of discovery as well as each Defendant’s violation of Rule 11. RULE 11 STANDARDS NMRA 0-11 provides: The signature of (a)... party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading, motion or other paper: that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay....For a willful violation of this rule (a)...party may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary or other action. In adopting an abuse of discretion standard for the review of an award of sanctions, the Supreme Court stated: “A court may exercise its discretion and impose sanctions for a willful violation of the rule when it finds, for example, that a pleading or other paper signed by an attorney is not well grounded in fact, is not warranted by existing law or a reasonable argument for its extension, or is interposed for an improper purpose.” The primary goal of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court...Although the rule should be read in light of concerns that it will spawn satellite litigation and chill vigorous advocacy, an interpretation must give effect to the rules’s central purpose of deterrence. Id.; see also White v. General Motors Corp. 908 P.2d 675, 683 (10th Cir. 1990) (sanctions are intended to deter future litigation abuse, punish present litigations abuse, compensate victims of litigation abuse, and streamline court dockets and facilitate case management); Invest Fin. Group. Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Sys., Inc., 815 P.2d 391, 404 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 927, 108 S. Ct. 291, 98 L.Ed.2d 251 (1987). motions without Aopposition@ in any regard and wherein each motion had been supported by Alaw@. David Derringer should be awarded $18,000.00 from each Defendant for this blatant violation of discovery forcing David Derringer back to this court for an Order to comply, wasting the time of David Derringer and the courts of which attorney Floyd Wilson is entirely intertwined. In Rivera v.Brazos Lodge Corp., 111 N.M. 670, (1991), the trial court awarded sanctions in excess of $18,000.00 because of the violations of Rule 11.; New York State National Org. for Women v. Terry, 732 F Supp. 388 “SDNY 1990 Attorneys do not possess immunity from sanctions for their conduct in judicial proceedings so as to preclude imposition of Rule 11 sanctions pursuant to rules enabling act. Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 28 USCA, 28 USCA 2072." RULE 11 STANDARDS Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b) Representations to Court. “that it is not interposed for delay”....For a willful violation of this rule (a)...party may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary or other action. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b)(1) Discovery must be upheld. Salitan v. Carrillo, 69 N.M. 476, 368 P.2d 149 (1961); Marchiando v. Brown, 98 N.M. 394, 649 P.2d 462 (1982).
WHEREFORE Plaintiff David Derringer request of the court to look at judicial notice of CV-12-1307 to see the same acts of Floyd Wilson, with that case underlying the intertwined with the same persons of the cult of the gang that destroyed the Derringer marriage and are leading Barrie Crowe/Derringer to her demise without her loving husband in her life, as she reels in the erratic actions that sabotage her entire future, with bosses, parents and her pathetic friends doing nothing but hurting this woman. The Court should take immediate and severe actions against all Defendants.
Respectfully submitted by:________________________________________
David Derringer, Pro-Se Box 7431 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3-22-13
I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to:
Second Judicial District Court
400 Lomas NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
I hereby certify that I hand delivered a copy of this pleading to the attorney Floyd Wilson for the Defendants at:
Floyd Wilson
1401 Central Ave. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104
No comments:
Post a Comment