WMSCOG First Objections & Responses to Newton’s Requests For Production of Documents – WMSCOG vs. Colon, Newton VA #2011-17163

VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

_______________________________________________________
WORLD MISSION SOCIETY CHURCH
OF GOD, A NEW JERSEY NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 2011-17163
v.
MICHELE COLON and
TYLER J. NEWTON
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT TYLER NEWTON’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff World Mission Society Church of God, a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation (“WMSCOG”), by counsel, responds to Defendant Tyler Newton’s (“Newton”) First Set of Requests for Production of Documents as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff asserts and expressly incorporates by reference the following General Objections to each of its responses. By providing a specific response to any lnterrogatory or Request for Production, Plaintiff does not waive or otherwise limit these General Objections. Furthermore, reference to these General Objections in any specific response shall not waive or otherwise limit the applicability of these General Objections to each and every other response.
Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it calls for information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. Such information or documents will not be disclosed or produced. Where the applicability of this General Objection is readily apparent on its face from the text of the lnterrogatory or Request for Production, also make a specific objection (hereinafter, an objection on the ground of “Privilege”) pursuant to this paragraph, although the failure to make such a specific objection shall not be deemed to be a waiver of this General Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it seeks information or documents prepared by Plaintiff or its representatives in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Such information or materials will not be disclosed or produced. Where the applicability of this General Objection is readily apparent on its face from the text of the lnterrogatory or Request for Production, Plaintiff may also make a specific objection (hereinafter, an objection on the ground of “Work Product”) pursuant to this paragraph, although the failure to make such a specific objection shall not be deemed to be a waiver of this General Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each lnterrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it seeks information or documents not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with respect to the claims or defenses of any party to this litigation. Where the applicability of this General Objection is readily apparent on its face from the text of the lnterrogatory or Request for Production, Plaintiff may also make a specific objection (hereinafter, an objection on the ground of “Relevance”) pursuant to this paragraph, although the failure to make such a specific objection shall not be deemed to be a waiver of this General Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it seeks information or documents that are vexatious or unduly burdensome to obtain. Where the applicability of this General Objection is readily apparent on its face from the text of the Interrogatory or Request for Production, Plaintiff may also make a specific objection (hereinafter, an objection on the ground of “Undue Burden”) pursuant to this paragraph, although the failure to make such a specific objection shall not be deemed to be a waiver of this General Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it is ambiguous, vague, or otherwise incomprehensible. Where the applicability of this General Objection is readily apparent on its face from the text of the lnterrogatory or Request for Production, Plaintiff may also make a specific objection (hereinafter, an objection on the ground of “Vagueness”) pursuant to this paragraph, although the failure to make such a specific objection shall not be deemed to be a waiver of this General Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it is overbroad and fails to set forth with reasonable particularity the information requested. Where the applicability of this General Objection is readily apparent on its face from the text of
the lnterrogatory or Request for Production, Plaintiff may also make a specific objection (hereinafter, an objection on the ground of “Overbreadth”) pursuant to this paragraph, although the failure to make such a specific objection shall not be deemed to be a waiver of this General Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it seeks private, confidential, trade secret, or proprietary information or documents of Plaintiff or third-parties. Defendant has specifically expressed intent to disseminate information provided through discovery to the public, which will harm both Plaintiff and any third parties identified through discovery. Plaintiff will divulge such information or documents only pursuant to the terms of an appropriate Protective Order to be agreed to by the parties. Where the applicability of this General Objection is readily apparent on its face from the text of the Interrogatory or Request for Production, Plaintiff may also make a specific objection (hereinafter, an objection on the ground of “Proprietary Information”) pursuant to this paragraph, although the failure to make such a specific objection shall not be deemed to be a waiver of this General Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory and Request for Production to the extent that it seeks information that is already in the possession, custody, or control of defendants or any of the defendants and/or counsel for same, or to the extent that it seeks information that is available to defendants from other sources with equivalent ease and expense.
Plaintiff objects to each lnterrogatory and Request for Production as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it is unlimited in time. Plaintiff will interpret the Requests as restricted to information or materials created or obtained in or around the time periods relevant to the alleged acts and omissions reasonably related to the claims and defenses in the action.
An objection in response to any Interrogatory or Request for Production does not indicate the existence of any information or documents responsive to such Interrogatory or Request for Production.
Plaintiff’ s responses below are subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, admissibility, and all other objections that would require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if such statement were made by a witness present and testifying in court. All such objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at any motion, hearing, or the time of trial.
Plaintiff objects to any request which requires it to answer, supplement answers, take any other action, or refrain from taking any action, not specifically required of it under the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court.
Plaintiff has not yet completed its investigation and discovery or its preparation for trial. All responses are based only upon such information and documents as are presently available and specifically known to Plaintiff at this time. Further discovery, independent investigation, legal research, expert consultation and analysis may supply additional facts, and establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the responses set forth below. The
following responses are given without prejudice to Plaintiff” s right to produce evidence of additional information. Accordingly, Plaintiff reserves the right to change any and all responses given below. The responses below are made in a good faith effort to supply as much information as is presently known in accordance with the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court, but should in no way be used to the prejudice of Plaintiff in relation to further discovery, research or analyses.
Plaintiff is the “World Mission Society, Church of God a NJ Nonprofit Corporation,” an independent member of a larger organization, and therefore does not have information regarding other unrelated independent members of that larger organization, or information regarding that parent organization.

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Plaintiff responds as follows to Defendant’s document requests:

All documents referenced in the Complaint and/or the Answer thereto.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Undue Burden and that all responsive documents are in the Defendant’s possession or readily available to the Defendant through other means.

2. All documents identified or referenced in your answers to Defendant Newton’s First Set of Interrogatories.

RESPONSE:

See all attached documents. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response.

3. All documents relating to the revenue of WMSCOG from 2009 to date, including but not limited to balance sheets, bank statements, tax returns and audits of WMSCOG.

OBJECTION:

4. All documents relating to the current financial status of WMSCOG, including balance sheets, bank statements, accounts receivable and accounts payable.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The infomation sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order.

5. All documents relating to all variances sought in and around Ridgewood, New Jersey.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

6. All documents documenting any business relationship, whether contract or otherwise, with Big Shine Worldwide, Inc.

OBJECTION:

RESPONSE:

7. All documents reflecting donations to WMSCOG from Big Shine Worldwide, Inc.

OBJECTION:

8. All documents reflecting compensation of senior WMSCOG officials, including but not limited to pastors, directors, and trustees.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

9. All documents reflecting business expenses of senior WMSCOG officials, including but not limited to pastors, directors, and trustees.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

10. All documents showing the corporate and governance relationship of WMSCOG and affiliate, parent or subsidiary churches.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will he supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11. All documents showing the financial relationship of WMSCOG and affiliate, parent or subsidiary churches, including but not limited to payments, donations, fees or other costs paid to or from any affiliate, parent or subsidiary church.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

12. All documents reflecting expenses relating to mission work.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

12. All documents relating to membership of WMSCOG from 2005 to date.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

14. All documents relating to how you gained access to the Facebook Group described in paragraphs 26-33 of the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff was advised of the content of the Facebook Group by a church member. Further response will be given following entry of an appropriate Protective Order.

15. All documents reflecting the identity of “Hailey” as described in paragraphs 52-60 of the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Undue Burden, and on the basis that all responsive documents are in the Defendant’s possession or are readily available to Defendant.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff discerned the identity of “Hailey” from the content of her messages.

16. All documents reflecting the identity of “HaileyStevens10” as described in paragraphs 98-101 of the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Undue Burden, and on the basis that all responsive documents are in the Defendant’s possession or are readily available to Defendant.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff discerned the identity of “HaileyStevens10” from the content of her messages.

17. All documents reflecting the identity of “Hailey” and “HaileyStevens” as described in paragraphs 35-48 of the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Undue Burden, that it is duplicative, and on the basis that all responsive documents are in the Defendant’s possession or are readily available to Defendant.

18. All documents reflecting the identity of “James Newton” as described in paragraphs 32-33 of the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Undue Burden, and on the basis that all responsive documents are in the Defendant’s possession or are readily available to Defendant.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff discerned the identity of “James Newton” from the content of his messages.

19. All documents reflecting the identity of “Wmscog EX-Member” as described in paragraphs 29~31 of the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Undue Burden, and on the basis that all responsive documents are in the Defendant’s possession or are readily available to Defendant.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff discerned the identity of “Wmscog EX-Member” from the content of messages.

20. All documents relating to or reflecting complaints of WMSCGG members (or former members) regarding the activities of WMSCOG, the intrusion of WMSCOG into the personal and/or family lives of members (or former members), or the financial condition, activities or donative requests of WMSCOG.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds and to the extent that any responsive documents are already in Defendant’s possession.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement its response.

21. All documents relating to lawsuits identified in response to Interrogatory No. 11, including but not limited to pleadings, documents received in discovery and documents produced in discovery.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff has not been involved in any such lawsuits.

22. All documents relating to WMSCOG’s application and award of the Presidential Volunteer Service Award.

RESPONSE:

See attached documents.

23. All documents reflecting the doctrine, practices and beliefs of WMSCOG, including but not limited to books, pamphlets, educational material (internal and external) and sermons.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds and to the extent that any responsive documents are already in Defendant’s possession.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: See attached documents.

24. All documents relating to any former members of WMSCOG, as identified pursuant to Interrogatory 3, including but not limited to donation records and any proposed or executed contract or agreement (non-disclosure or otherwise) between WMSCOG and the
individual.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

25. All documents reflecting or relating to the business relationship or donative relationship between WMSCOG and any of the corporations or entities identified pursuant to Interrogatory No. 7.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

26. All documents reflecting the compensation (including salary, expenses or other forms of compensation) paid by WMSCOG to individuals identified in response to Interrogatory No. 5.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds and to the extent that any responsive documents are already in Defendant’s possession.

27. All documents reflecting donative income lost as a result of the actions described in the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

28. All documents reflecting or relating to members who have left WMSCOG as a result of the actions described in the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

29. All computer-stored data and electronically stored information, including but not limited to, program files, log files, cache files, cookies, deleted files, back-up files, e-mails, drafts of e-mails, documents, drafts of documents, calendars, travel schedules, schedules, voice mail transcriptions, spreadsheets, and database files, from anywhere on your Computer System, that refer or relate to the allegations contained in the Complaint.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Overbreadth and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

30. All documents that support your claim for attorneys’ fees in this action and all documents that substantiate the amount sought, including copies of all invoices received from Dozier Internet Law, P.C., and any other law firm rendering legal services to you in connection with this case.

OBJECTION:

31. All documents supporting your claim for damages.

OBJECTION:

32. All documents supporting your contention that Defendant made false statements knowing them to be false.

RESPONSE:

See the Complaint, Answer, and documents cited therein. Plaintiff further takes the position that it is Defeendant’s burden to prove truth as a defense, rather than for Plaintiff to prove a negative.

33. All documents supporting your contention that Defendant acted with a purpose of harming Plaintiffs business or reputation.

RESPONSE:

See the Complaint, Answer, and documents cited therein.

34. All documents that demonstrate the falsity of any statements made by Defendant or Ms. Colon.

RESPONSE:

See the Complaint, Answer, and documents cited therein. Plaintiff further takes the position that it is Defendant’s burden to prove truth as a defense, rather than for Plaintiff to prove a negative.

35. All documents supporting your contention that Defendant acted with malice.

RESPONSE:

See the Complaint, Answer, and documents cited therein.

36. All documents relating to defamatory statements about you that were made by persons other than Defendant or Ms. Colon.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Proprietary Information. The information sought is sensitive, personal, and internal information that will be supplied only after entry of an appropriate Protective Order. Plaintiff further objects to this Request on the grounds of Relevance, Overbreadth, and Undue Burden to the extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds and to the extent that any responsive documents are already in Defendant’s possession.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement its response.

37. All documents relating to your contention that WMSCOG is not a cult.

RESPONSE:

See response to Request #23. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement its response. Plaintiff further takes the position that it is Defendant’s burden to prove truth as a defense, rather than for Plaintiff to prove a negative.

38. All documents relating to your contention that WMSCOG does not “destroy families.”

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Undue Burden and Vagueness. Plaintiff further takes the position that it is Defendant’s burden to prove truth as a defense, rather than for Plaintiff to prove a negative.

RESPONSE:

See response to Requests #22 and 23. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement its response.

39. All reports, correspondence, notes, and/or any other materials sent to, received from, or prepared by any expert witnesses whom you may call to offer testimony in this case or whose opinions you may otherwise present at trial or at any hearing in this case.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Privilege and Work Product. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds and to the extent that Rule 4:l(b)(4)(A)(l) of the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia permits discovery of “each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial” (emphasis added), and the expansion of this request into experts who “may” be called to testify impermissibly invades Privilege and Work Product, and seeks c0unsel’s trial strategy.

40. All documents obtained from any third party, by subpoena or otherwise, relating to this case or its underlying facts.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Privilege and Work Product.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. No subpoenas have yet been issued in this matter. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement its response.

41. All documents you provided to any third party relating to this case or its underlying facts.

OBJECTION:

Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds of Privilege and Work Product.

RESPONSE:

Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff is not aware of any responsive documents. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement its response.

Dated: ____________

WORLD MISSION SOCIETY, CHURCH OF GOD A NJ NONPROFIT CORPORATION
By: [Signature]
John W. Dozier, Jr., Esq.
VA Bar # 20559
Dozier Internet Law, P.C.
ll520 Nuckols Road, Suite 101
Glen Allen, VA 23059
Tel: (804) 346-9770
Fax: (804) 346-0800
email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff World Mission Society, Church of God a NJ Nonprofit Corporation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of May, 2012, the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S FIRST OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT TYLER NEWTON’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was transmitted to Lee E. Berlik, Esquire, Counsel for Defendants, via email to [email protected] and was deposited with the United States Postal Service as First Class Mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope addressed to:

Lee E. Berlik
BerlikLaw, LLC
1818 Library Street, Suite 500
Reston, VA 20190

[Signature]
John W. Dozier, Jr., Esq.

Dozier Internet Law, P.C.
11520 Nuckols Road, Suite 101
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060
Phone: (804) 346-9770
Fax: (804) 346-0800
email: [email protected]