G.R. came to us very worried about a $17,000 lawsuit against him by Discover Bank and the Moore Law Group. We helped him defend the suit using our usual system. In the last month before trial they responded to our Request for Identification of Witnesses and Evidence with an improper list of no less than thirteen (13!) different possible witnesses “who may possibly appear” due to scheduling conflicts”. We immediately prepared an objection for G.R. because such a response is improper. A proper response to a Request for Identification of Witnesses and Evidence under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96 requires the listing of witnesses the party actually intends to call, not a laundry list of all possible witnesses. Discover Bank and The Moore Law Group responded by dismissing the case.
[button color=”black” background=”orange” size=”medium” src=”/ask-a-question/”](888) 922-2367[/button][button color=”black” background=”#77d1f4″ size=”medium” src=”/ask-a-question/”]Questions? Ask Us[/button]