To compel or not to compel

You file a Motion to Compel in the hope that they not only can't find it but also to prevent them from suddenly "finding" it later. Not producing under an Order to Compel brings a Motion and Order to Preclude, which prevents them from using as evidence anything that should have been produced in the Discovery.

After they have been precluded you file for Summary Judgment or Dismissal.

I did not mean new topic. oops. This is in reference to a debt collector suing me for cc debt. I requested discovery and the judge granted it. I requested that the plaintiff produce a signed contract or agreement and a cc statement or bill. All the plaintiff returned to me in regard to my discovery request was an "account statement" (prepared by another collection agency base on furnished business records form the original creditor) Is it necessary to motion to compel? If the CA does not have the information, and the judge finds that it is necessary, (orders the plaintiff to produce) is that good? I know that the palintiff can't come up with it!!! Impossible.

yes, you need to file a motion to compel. Dont expect the judge to defend your rights--that is not what he's there for and in fact it is not allowed for the judge to offer such help to one side or the other. The judge may decide that it is necessary but I would never let my defense rest on someone else's shoulders like that.

File the motion to compel discovery, and let us know what happens.

Valueable. I will and I will let you kniow what happens. May 18th is my trial date. I think I am sooooo ready. Thank you everyone.

:)

Yep, the judge is supposed to be an impartial third party (theoretically), it is up to the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) to argue both of their cases out. If you have something in your defense, make every effort to be sure that it is admissible as evidence. That way, worst case scenario, if the judge is in the CAs pocket and still finds against you, you will have grounds for appeal.