Beatty v. Accident Fund General Insurance Company et alRESPONSE/ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Plaintiff's First Supplemental ResponsesS.D. Ill.March 26, 2019IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MICHAEL E. BEATTY, M.D., P.C. d/b/a THE ) SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS PLASTIC & ) HAND SURGERY ASSOCIATES, individually ) and as the Representative of a class of similarly- ) situated persons and entities, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) NO: 3:17-cv-01001 vs. ) ACCIDENT FUND GENERAL INSURANCE ) ) COMPANY, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES, LLC AND TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Plaintiff Michael E. Beatty, M.D., P.C. (d/b/a The Southwestern Illinois Plastic & Hand Surgery Associates), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 36 and subject to the below objections, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, states the following in response to Defendants Constitution State Services, LLC and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America’s First Set of Requests for Admission. Plaintiff has not completed his investigation of the facts relating to this action and has not completed discovery. Further discovery and investigation may result in additions, changes, or supplements to these responses. OBJECTIONS Plaintiff asserts the following objections, which are hereby incorporated into each response below. Case 3:17-cv-01001-NJR-GCS Document 414 Filed 03/26/19 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #2805 2 1. Plaintiff objects to the definition of “‘Plaintiff,’ ‘You,’ or ‘Your,’” as vague and ambiguous, overbroad, seeking attorney-client or otherwise privileged or protected communications, and exceeding the scope of discovery and imposing obligations beyond those permitted by the applicable rules. 2. Plaintiff objects to the definitions of “Constitution,” “Travelers Property Casualty,” and “Travelers,” as vague and ambiguous and exceeding the scope of discovery and imposing obligations beyond those permitted by the applicable rules. 3. Plaintiff objects to each request to the extent it calls for documents or information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control and/or documents or information in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 4. Plaintiff objects to the extent the requests seek information protected by any applicable privilege or immunity, including without limitation attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. 5. Plaintiff objects to the extent the requests are overly broad or seek disclosure of information which is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or that is not proportional to the needs of the case. 6. Plaintiff objects to these requests to the extent the information sought imposes obligations beyond those permitted by the applicable rules or Court Orders or is outside the scope of discovery. REQUESTS 1. Admit that Travelers made interest payments to Plaintiff. RESPONSE: After making a reasonable inquiry, the information Plaintiff knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny at this time. Case 3:17-cv-01001-NJR-GCS Document 414 Filed 03/26/19 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #2806 3 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: After further inquiry and recent production of information from Defendants, Plaintiff admits that Travelers made certain interest payments to Plaintiff. 2. Admit that Travelers paid Plaintiff interest of $2.78 on or about October 17, 2014. RESPONSE: After making a reasonable inquiry, the information Plaintiff knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny at this time. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: After further inquiry and recent production of information from Defendants, Plaintiff admits this request. 3. Admit that Travelers paid Plaintiff interest of $0.61 on or about April 3, 2015. RESPONSE: After making a reasonable inquiry, the information Plaintiff knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny at this time. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: After further inquiry and recent production of information from Defendants, Plaintiff admits this request. 4. Admit that Travelers paid Plaintiff interest of $74.98 on or about February 18, 2014. RESPONSE: After making a reasonable inquiry, the information Plaintiff knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny at this time. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: After further inquiry and recent production of information from Defendants, Plaintiff admits this request. Case 3:17-cv-01001-NJR-GCS Document 414 Filed 03/26/19 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #2807 4 Respectfully submitted, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. /s/ Benjamin R. Askew John G. Simon, #35231 Benjamin R. Askew, #58933 Kevin M. Carnie, Jr., #60979 Patrick R. McPhail, #70242 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: 314-241-2929 Fax: 314-241-2029 jsimon@simonlawpc.com baskew@simonlawpc.com kcarnie@simonlawpc.com pmcphail@simonlawpc.com Robert H. Wendt, Pro Hac Vice The Wendt Law Firm 1015 Locust Street, Suite 1036 rwendt@wendtlawfirm.com Phone: 314-588-0097 Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 26, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the Southern District CM/ECF system. /s/ Benjamin R. Askew Benjamin R. Askew Case 3:17-cv-01001-NJR-GCS Document 414 Filed 03/26/19 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #2808
