Motion To Strike Surveillance And Impose Sanctions

MOTION TO STRIKE SURVEILLANCE AND IMPOSE SANCTIONS

STATE OF _____________________

IN THE _______________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF _____________

______________________________

______________________________

Plaintiffs

v.

JOHN DOE and

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

___________________________________________________/

___________________________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE SURVEILLANCE AND IMPOSE SANCTIONS

NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, and for their motion to strike surveillance and impose sanctions, state:

This case involves first and third party claims arising out of a [date] motor vehicle accident in which Plaintiffs were seriously injured.

Plaintiffs served interrogatories and requests for production of documents and things on Insurance Company on [date].

Interrogatory #50 asked whether surveillance of Plaintiffs had been conducted.

Request for production #1e asks for all surveillance and investigative results.

Insurance Company provided answers to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and requests for production on [date].

In those signed, sworn answers, Insurance Company responded that no surveillance had been conducted.

On [date], Defendant provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with DVDs containing surveillance of the Plaintiffs. This surveillance had been conducted between [date], and [date]–before Defendant’s signed answers were served to Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant’s answers to interrogatories and requests for production, provided under oath, were false when they were made. Defendant had ordered surveillance nearly a year before answering the discovery requests, and then knowingly and purposefully attested that no such surveillance had been performed.

“Pursuant to MCR 2.114(E), the court may sanction a party's attorney or the represented party for providing a false or misleading answer to an interrogatory.” Kirschner v. Process Design Associates, Inc., 459 Mich. 587, 597; 592 N.W.2d 707, 711 (1999).

Defendant’s counsel has also violated MCR 2.302(G)(3). By signing the discovery requests, as required by MCR 2.302(G)(1), attorney _______________ certified that he had read the request and response, and had made a reasonable inquiry, and to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, the responses were consistent with the Rules.

In further support of Defendant and Defendant’s counsel’s knowingly false statement...