Holland Files Motion to Compel Discovery Against Kent County Friend of the Court

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KENT

___________

ANNALISE MCMENAMIN,

                        PLAINTIFF,                             FILE: 03-09173-DC

VS.                                                               HON. G. PATRICK HILLARY

LARY HOLLAND (Pro Se),                                                   MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

                        DEFENDANT.                                               

----------------------------------------------- }

Lary Holland (Pro Se)                            }

5180 Cedar Lake Rd.                              }

Oscoda, MI 48750                                  }

(989) 747-0079 (v)                                 }

(989) 764-5920 (f)                                  }

------------------------------------------------/

Napieralski & Walsh                            }

(Attorneys for Plaintiff)                       }

4790 Cascade Ave.                             }

Grand Rapids, MI 49509                        }

------------------------------------------------}

 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

NOW COMES, the Defendant, Lary Holland’s (Pro Se), Motion to Compel Discovery and represents and states as follows:

1. Lary Holland is a party/litigant in the case number 03-09173-DC.
2. That Daniel J. Fojtik and John R. Cole are non-parties to the above captioned civil lawsuit and are both employees of the 17^th Circuit Court, which may have information that will likely lead to evidence to be used in the above-captioned matter.
3. That on April 20, 2006 Judge G. Patrick Hillary signed a Subpoena directed to John R. Cole, a judicial employee acting as Friend of the Court, to appear personally on 5/3/2006 at 9:30am to testify at trial and to Produce/Permit inspection or copying of several items. See attached Exhibit A, hereinafter referred to as “Cole Subpoena.”
4. That on April 20, 2006, Judge G. Patrick Hillary signed a Subpoena directed to Daniel J. Fojtik, a judicial employee who is acting as legal counsel for the Kent County Friend of the Court, to appear personally on 5/3/2006 at 9:30am to testify at trial and to Produce/Permit inspection or copying of several items. See attached Exhibit B, hereinafter referred to as “Fojtik Subpoena.”
5. That throughout the case Daniel J. Fojtik was placed on the record as formerly “appearing on behalf of” John R. Cole and the Kent County Friend of the Court.
6. That on April 28, 2006 the hearing scheduled for May 3, 2006 was adjourned without future date.
7. That no Motion to Quash was brought by the Kent County Friend of the Court regarding the Fojtik Subpoena or the Cole Subpoena and no objection was raised as to the substance of the subpoenas.  A subpoena remains in effect through the duration of the case unless quashed.
8. The substance of both the Fojtik Subpoena and the Cole Subpoena were presented through Judge G. Patrick Hillary’s office and subsequently signed, similarly Judge G. Patrick Hillary has made the assertion to the Defendant in the past that he reads everything that is presented to him.
9. That on May 4, 2006 a Request for Production to Non Party was sent to both John R. Cole and Daniel J. Fojtik individually with substantially similar and in some cases the same requests that were made with the above referenced subpoenas. See attached Exhibit C & D, hereinafter referred to as Request for Production(s) collectively.
10. That the time for filing of an Objection to both “Request for Productions” has passed and that neither an Objection was filed nor a Motion for Protective Order in response to the Request for Productions.
11. That in a letter dated 5/7/2006 Daniel J. Fojtik acknowledges receipt of both Request for Production(s) and indicates that if [Defendant] disagree with his letter to “feel free to file whatever motion [Defendant] think is appropriate” acknowledging his willful failure to act on the Request for Productions and thereby forcing Defendant to file this motion.
12. A failure to act is not excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable, unless such objection is properly presented, and Daniel J. Fojtik has simply failed to respond to the requests on behalf of John R. Cole and himself.
13. That John R. Cole and Daniel J. Fojtik owe answers to the Request for Productions to Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Court grant the following relief:

A.     Order Daniel J. Fojtik to provide full and complete answers in his own capacity and in his representational capacity of John R. Cole within the next 7 days.

B.     Order sanctions against Daniel J. Fojtik for failing to act in his own capacity and additionally in his representational capacity of John R. Cole.

Dated: May 30, 2005                                    By: __________________

                                                                                    Lary Holland

                                                                          (Defendant)

                                                                         5180 Cedar Lake Rd.

                                                                                            Oscoda, MI 48750

VERIFIED STATEMENT

I hereby state that the information contained in this verified pleading has been reviewed by me and that to the best of my knowledge is true, accurate, and otherwise complete.

                                                             By: ____________