Go To Photographic Evidence
To put this case all on the Record, all Discovery, both Requests and Responses were filed with the Clerk of the Court by the Defendant Pro Se, not just the Certificates of Service.
/construction-lawsuit/
CURRENT CASE DOCKET -  CONTRACT LAWSUIT            Next Document             Previous document
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

INSULATED WALL SYSTEMS, INC.,      )
       Plaintiff,                                        )      Civil Action File No.:  
v.                                                          )           05A06942-9
RON MCKINNEY,                                   )        
      Defendant.                                     )

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST AND SECOND INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1
Please state: (a) The name, address and telephone number of the person or persons answering these interrogatories; (b) His/her relationship to Plaintiff and/or Defendant; and, (c) His/her position of employment.
Plaintiffs response: Undersigned counsel and John J. Tabor, president of Insulated Wall Systems, Inc. are responsible for responding to these requests.

Interrogatory No. 2
Please identity the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of all of Plaintiffs employees and independent contractors who worked for Plaintiff at any time on Defendants residence; for each person identified, include the amount of hours worked, his or her job duties, the dates of work and amount of payment, including overtime wages, Plaintiff paid for the work.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 2, Plaintiff objects to said interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information which is beyond the scope of admissible discovery.  Moreover, said interrogatory is overly broad, and request information wholly unrelated to the issues presented in this case.  Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiff states that the following independent contractors worked on Defendants residence.
1.  James S. Sailors, 6520 Tyree Rd., Winston, GA  30187, Windows
2.  Adam Kurzeja, 2510 Dogwood Court, Atlanta, GA  30311, Vinyl Siding
3.  Ricardo Ruiz, 1859 Skyland Drive, Atlanta, GA  30341, Vinyl Siding
4.  Clifford Sarget, C&M Gutter Works, 1471 Woodhaven Lane, Monroe, GA  30655, Gutters
5.  Keith Payne, 123 Summerville Rd., Buchanan, GA  30113, Deck and Slab
Plaintiffs supplemented response to Interrogatory No. 2 dated July 13, 2006:
2. Plaintiff withdraws its original response with regard to these particulars concerning Mr. Ruiz and replaces them with the following:
Ricardo Ruiz  3441 Ashwood Drive, Atlanta, GA 30340 [Verification dated JULY 30, 2006]

Interrogatory No. 3
Please identify the names, telephone numbers and addresses of any person complaining of or who was dissatisfied with Plaintiffs installation of siding, gutters, windows, decks or slabs on their home or building within the past ten (10) years.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 3, Plaintiff objects to the extent that the same seeks information which is beyond the scope of admissible discovery, and it interposed for nothing but harassment, and does not address the issues presented in this case.

Interrogatory No. 4
Please identify the names, telephone numbers and addresses of all individuals who contracted with Plaintiff to install siding, gutters, windows, decks or slabs identical to or similar to that installed on Defendants residence on his or her own home at any time from 24 months before to 24 months after Plaintiff began the siding installation on Defendants residence.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 4, Plaintiff objects to the extent that the same seeks information which is beyond the scope of admissible discovery, and it interposed for nothing but harassment, and does not address the issues presented in this case.

Interrogatory No. 5
Please state, in specific detail, when and how Plaintiff learned of Defendants dissatisfaction, the complaints raised regarding defects in the work or defects in Plaintiffs performance of the terms of the contract. Include the specifics of the corrective actions taken to satisfy the complaints and which support the allegation of repeated attempts to satisfy the Defendants complaints.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 5, Plaintiff states that as soon as work began on the Defendants residence, the Defendant expressed concerns, dissatisfactions, or requested changes as to every aspect of the work performed. This included work performed on vinyl siding, window installation, slab pouring and deck construction. Verbal complaints were expressed to virtually every sub contractor which Plaintiff sent to Defendants residence to work on specific aspects of the contract.  The specific language used with regard to those verbal statements made by the Defendant are unknown to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff is aware, with general knowledge, of those statements.  Furthermore, statements were made to the Plaintiff directly vis--vis letters sent to the Plaintiff in the later part of 2004 and early 2005 and upon site visits conducted by John Tabor.  Throughout the course of the project, as the Defendant expressed concerns, Plaintiff and its subcontractors associated by Plaintiff for the project made several attempts to satisfy Defendants concerns or objections by reworking certain aspects of the project and changing work to suit Defendants requests.

Interrogatory No. 6
Please state, in specific detail, the facts and information you have to support your allegations that all of the work was satisfactorily completed in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Plaintiffs response: In response to Interrogatory no. 6, Plaintiff states that the four aspects of the contract with the Defendant, namely vinyl siding, installation of replacement windows, slab pouring and deck construction were all completed by late 2004.  The work in question was performed in accordance with the understanding of the parties and in accordance with the provisions set forth in the written contract.

Interrogatory No. 7
Please identify the names, telephone numbers and addresses of any expert witness Plaintiff has retained or consulted with in preparation for this trial, the technical field in which you claim they are expert and dates first contacted.  For each expert identified, indicate his or her opinions to be expressed in this matter and identify all materials, documents, correspondence, photographs or reference materials upon which the expert relied, indicate whether such expert has furnished a written report, and if so, the date and location of the report.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 7, Plaintiff objects to the extent that the same seeks information which is beyond the scope of admissible discovery, and seeks information which is protected by the privilege afforded information obtained in anticipation of litigation or trial and/or protected by the privilege afforded to work-product because Defendant has made no showing of substantial circumstances as required by O.C.G.A. 9-11-26(b)(4)(B).  Subject to said objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff states that no expert witnesses have been retained at this time.  Plaintiff expressly reserves it right to supplement this interrogatory response.
Plaintiffs supplemented response to Interrogatory No. 7 dated July 13, 2006:
7.  Plaintiff withdraws its original response and replaces it with the following:
Plaintiff has retained the following individuals as experts in this case:
Scott Berlyoung, ASHI, GAHI, CABO, SBCCI, Champia Corporation, 336 Lamplight Lane Marietta, Georgia 30067.  Mr. Berlyoung is a certified home inspector and will testify as to issues concerning the vinyl siding, windows, concrete slab and deck. Mr. Berlyoung has not issued a report at this time. [Verification dated JULY 30, 2006]
Mike Entinger, Branch Manager, Ted Lansing Corporation, 4917 Golden Parkway Suite 100 Buford, Georgia 30518.  Mr. Entinger will testify as to issues concerning vinyl siding and replacement windows.  Mr. Entinger has not issued a report at this time.

Interrogatory No. 8
Please list your contractor/business license numbers referred to on your post card, which would have been in effect on August 23, 2004, during the period of work, up to and including the present, identify the governing authority and jurisdiction under which they are issued along with the date of issue and expiration date.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 8, Plaintiff states that its only license is a business license issued by the City of Chamblee, Georgia, a copy of which has previously been provided in response to Defendants Request for Production of Documents.

Interrogatory No. 9
Please identify all insurance policies referred to on your post card, which would have been in effect on August 23, 2004, during the period of work and up to and including the present, identifying the policy number, issuing agent name, telephone number, address, dates of coverage, issue date, expiration date, and summarize the coverage. Identify which if any insurance policies may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that may be entered in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment in this action.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 9, Plaintiff states that the insurance referred to on the document referenced in this interrogatory is insurance procured by independent contractors which may perform construction work or other services on a structure owned by customers of the Plaintiff. All work performed on any customers property, including Defendants, is performed by independent contractors solicited by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff does not perform any work on any structure, including Defendants residence. As such, the Plaintiff has no insurance with regard to construction projects.

Below is quoted Plaintiff’s supplemented response to Interrogatory No. 9 dated March 20, 2007:
“Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges its initial response, along with any previous amendments thereto and adds the following:

Plaintiff carried no insurance at the time of the project in question which would cover any claim alleged by the Defendant vis-à-vis his counterclaims.”

Interrogatory No. 10
This question is in reference to words found on your post card. Please define the terms found on your post card as Plaintiff meant for them to be understood by potential customers, include any implied meanings of the following terms:
(a)  Satisfaction Guaranteed;
(b)  Quality Work;
(c)  Best Discounts;
(d)  Name Brand Products;
(e)  Licensed;
(f)    Insured.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 10, as an initial matter, Plaintiff states that any and all wording found on the document at issue in this interrogatory are the terms of which are construed with their plain and ordinary meaning.  Further, the Plaintiff states that the document in question is a tool of salesmanship which contains wording promoting Plaintiffs services.  The wording therein is not offered as a binding contract but it is merely a tool of solicitation for work to be performed on behalf of the Plaintiff. Given that the specific terms recited in the request are terms within the understanding of reasonable minds, Plaintiff offers no further specific response to this request.

Interrogatory No. 11
This question is in reference to words found on your business card.  Please define the terms found on your business card as Plaintiff meant for it to be understood by potential customers, include any implied meanings of the following terms:
(a)  Vinyl Siding& Vinyl Windows;
(b)  Let us make your home the home of your dreams with Custom Exteriors.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 11, Plaintiff states that the wording in question in this interrogatory is not wording drafted by the Plaintiff but is wording placed upon said document by the manufacturer of the products referenced on the card.  However, Plaintiff submits that the wording used thereon is subject to the normal course and usage in general understanding of reasonable minds regarding the word found thereon.  As such, Plaintiff offers no further specific response to this request.
Plaintiffs supplemented response to Interrogatory No. 11 dated October 27, 2005:
Plaintiff supplements it initial response to request no. 11 with the following:
In responding to request no.11 of Defendants Interrogatories, Plaintiff states that to the extent that the Defendant is now requesting that the Plaintiff identify handwritten markings contained on John Tabors business card which is attached as Exhibit B to Defendants Interrogatories, those markings are for specific areas of work Mr.Tabor discussed with the Defendant and possible price points for those specific tasks to be performed.

Interrogatory No. 12
This question is in reference to words found on your contract. Please define the terms found on your contract as Plaintiff meant for them to be understood by Defendant, include any implied meanings of the following terms:
(a)  contractor agrees to furnish all materials and labor necessary;
(b)  upon completion of the work;
(c)  contractor agrees to do all work in a good and workmanlike manner;
(d)  sufficient notice;
(e)  satisfactorily completed;
(f)    contractor will do all said work in strict accordance with the ordinances, rules, and requirements;
(g)  breach of this contract.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory no. 12, as an initial matter, Plaintiff objects to the interrogatory to the extent that the request requires any legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving this objection, the Defendant [Plaintiff] states that each and every provision used in its written contract is subject to the plain and ordinary meaning within reasonable minds of the wording employed therein.  As such, Plaintiff offers no further specific response to this request.

Interrogatory No. 13
In your responses to each of Defendants Continuing Requests for Admissions, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:
(a)   state the number of the request;
(b)   state all facts upon which you base your response;
(c)   state the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts;
(d)   identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, address, and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.

Plaintiffs response as amended to Interrogatory No. 13 dated October 27, 2005:
In responding to Interrogatory no. 13, [Defendant] (amended to read Plaintiff ) states as follows:
To the extent that the Plaintiff has neither admitted or denied Request for Admissions nos. 7 and 8, the documents submitted to the Plaintiff for admission are of unknown origin, have not been certified by any county official, may in fact be incomplete in their presentation, and furthermore, Plaintiff is not subject as a remodeling contractor to such building code provisions, if in fact valid.  Therefore, any request to have Plaintiff admit the same is an effort to have Plaintiff admit its subjection to the same, which the Plaintiff will not do.

Request for Admission no. 12 is denied because it asks Plaintiff to admit that statements made by a representative were false and such statements were not false.

Request for Admission no. 13 and 14 have been denied in part as they request that the Plaintiff admit that certain statements made by its representative in affidavit dated July 27, 2005 are false.  Said statements are not false and therefore, are denied.

Request for Admission no. 16 is denied in part as it requests that the Plaintiff admit that certain portions of a letter from Plaintiffs representative, John Tabor, dated January 4, 2005 are untrue.  Any and all statements made in that letter are in fact true and as such, Plaintiff has not and will not admit such statements are false.

Request for admissions no. 17, 18 and 19 request the Plaintiff admit statements concerning its relationship with its undersigned attorney.  To the extent any and all communications between the Plaintiff and the undersigned attorney are privileged, Plaintiff has objected to such request.  However, to the extent that the questions request information to be admitted which is false, the Plaintiff has nonetheless denied the same.

Request for Admission no. 20 is a denied because the statements made in the (complaint) paragraphs referenced therein are true.

Plaintiffs supplemented response to Interrogatory No. 13 dated July 30, 2006:
Plaintiff supplements its initial response to request no. 13 with the following: In response to Defendants interrogatory no. 13 to the extent that it now applies to the Defendants Second Request for Admissions numbered 1 through 300, inclusively, and objects to a response regarding the admissions in their entirety to the extent that a response here exceeds the number allowed by O.C.G.A. 9-11-33.

SECOND INTERROGATORY REQUESTS

Interrogatory No. 14
Please identify by name and state the amounts and method of payment Plaintiff paid for workers to perform all work under a contract with Defendant.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 14, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that the question proposed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it is interposed for nothing but harassment and is irrelevant to the matters at issue in this case.

Interrogatory No. 15
Please identify and state the name and valid finance/broker license number issued by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance that is used to provide 100% financing for contracted home improvement installment sales by Insulated Wall Systems in the state of Georgia.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 15, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that the question proposed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it is interposed for nothing but harassment and is irrelevant to the matters at issue in this case.

Interrogatory No. 16
Please identify by name and state whether or not and when Plaintiff obtained proof of or verified the insured status of each worker Plaintiff sent to Defendants residence.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 16, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that the question proposed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it is interposed for nothing but harassment and is irrelevant to the matters at issue in this case.

Interrogatory No. 17
Please identify by name, and state the length of time each crew member sent to Defendants residence has worked for Plaintiff or performed siding work, window work, gutter work, deck construction or slab construction work for Plaintiff.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 17, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that the question proposed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it is interposed for nothing but harassment and is irrelevant to the matters at issue in this case.

Interrogatory No. 18
Please identify by name, and state the length of time employed for each of Plaintiffs employees.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 18, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that the question proposed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and it is interposed for nothing but harassment and is irrelevant to the matters at issue in this case.

Interrogatory No. 19
Please state the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any and all discoverable matters with regard to Plaintiffs complaint for Breach of Contract or Defendants counterclaims.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 19, Plaintiff states to its knowledge, that the following individuals have information relevant to Plaintiffs Complaint, and or Defendants Counterclaims: John Tabor, Ron McKinney, James S. Sailors, Adam Kurzeja, Ricardo Ruiz, Clifford Sargent and Keith Payne.

Interrogatory No. 20
Please state the identity and location of each person Plaintiff expects to call as an expert witness or a witness at the trial, state the subject matter on which he is expected to testify, and the substance of his testimony.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 20, Plaintiff states that this Interrogatory has already been asked as Interrogatory No. 7. Therefore, for a response to this Interrogatory, see Plaintiffs response to Interrogatory No.7 previously submitted.

DID NOT RESPOND FROM HERE DOWN

Interrogatory No. 21
Please state the dates, the name of the worker who performed it and provide a descriptive list of any and all items of work Plaintiff claims to have corrected to satisfy the Defendant under a contract. Describe what Defendant complained of and what was done to satisfy the complaint.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 21, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-33.

Interrogatory No. 22
Please state the dates, the name of the worker who performed it and provide a descriptive list of any and all specific items of work or services that Plaintiff claims to have performed outside of the contract at the Defendants request. Describe what Defendant requested and what was done to fulfill the request.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 22, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed pursuant toO.C.G.A. 9-11-33.

Interrogatory No. 23
Please state the dates and identify each and every specific item of work Plaintiff inspected from the list of corrected work or additional work identified in Interrogatory No. 21 and No.22 include also any original work inspected.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 23, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed pursuant toO.C.G.A. 9-11-33.

Interrogatory No. 24
Please state the amount of money spent on each and every correction, or additional work identified in Interrogatory No. 21 and No.22 and identify the receipts and the materials used to make the corrections or additional work.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 24, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed pursuant toO.C.G.A. 9-11-33.

Interrogatory No. 25
Please state the level of education, degrees achieved, honors achieved and professional credentials of Plaintiffs representative, John Tabor, include also the number of years he has worked in the field of his education and in his present profession. State also any training, awards, accreditations or certificates of recognition that he has earned in the field of home improvements, siding, and window installation and provide the name of any organization issuing such and the year.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 25, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-33.

Interrogatory No. 26
Please identify each question by number and provide a supplemental answer for each of Defendants prior interrogatory questions, request for admissions, and request for production of documents that Plaintiff now knows that its prior response given was incorrect when made or is now made incorrect due to new information.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No.26, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-33.

Interrogatory No. 27
Please identify and list by title, date, topic or subject sufficient to identify any and all documents previously produced or produced herewith that Plaintiff intends to use or may use as evidence at the trial.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No.27, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-33.

Interrogatory No. 28
Please list as if on a privilege log the title, date, topic or subject sufficient to identify and assess the privilege status for any and all documents objected to or withheld from discovery under a claim of privilege in this action.
Plaintiffs response: In responding to Interrogatory No. 28, Plaintiff objects to it in its entirety to the extent that it exceeds the number of interrogatories allowed pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-33.
http://
memb
ers.aol
.com/r
mckin
2146/
Lawsu
it.htm
l,
http://
homet
own.a
ol.co
m/rmc
kin21
46/La
wsuit.
html

 

page created with Easy Designer