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.
http://journals.aol.com/rmckin2146/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.                                                     )


DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SEVERE SANCTIONS

COMES NOW Defendant, Ron McKinney,by and through himself, and hereby moves this court to impose on Plaintiff andits counsel severe sanctions for multiple violations of the Georgia Rules ofProfessional Conduct to include dishonesty, fraud misrepresentation and deceit.As is more fully set forth in Defendant's brief in support of Defendant'sResponse and Motion, Defendant respectfully requests that Defendant's Motion begranted and the Court impose severe sanctions on Plaintiff and Plaintiff'scounsel as it sees fit. This ______ day ofAugust 2006            

                Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Ron McKinney, Defendant 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA  30039 770-972-2576

Mrs. Jana Tabor, Attorney for Plaintiff 450 Arborshade Trace, Duluth, GA 30097   770-814-8134 F. Scott Young, Attorney forPlaintiff Barrickman, Allred & Young, LLC, 5775 Glenridge Drive, Building A Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30328    404-252-2230


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
UNDER PENALTY OFPERJURY, I CERTIFY that a true and exact copy of  

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SEVERESANCTIONS and all attachments was provided to Plaintiffs Attorney atthe address listed below by depositing the same in the United States Mails,with sufficient postage thereon

this ______ day of August 2006.

_____________________________ Ron McKinney, Defendant 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA  30039 770-972-2576

Sent to: Mrs. Jana Tabor, Attorney for Plaintiff 450 Arborshade Trace, Duluth, GA 30097   770-814-8134 F. Scott Young, Attorney forPlaintiff Barrickman, Allred & Young, LLC, 5775 Glenridge Drive, Building A Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30328    404-252-2230

DEFENDANT'SRESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS

COMES NOW Defendant, Ron McKinney, by andthrough himself, and hereby moves this court to DENY Plaintiff's request for anorder mandating that Defendant cease and desist in initiating any directcontact with Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses for the simple reason that Plaintiffhas failed to show good cause for such an order. Defendant also requests that sanctions not beimposed on Defendant for utilizing his wife to defend his case for the simplereason that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause that sanctions arenecessary or proper. As is more fully set forth in Defendant's brief insupport of this Response, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff'sMotion be denied. This ______ day ofAugust 2006            

                Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Ron McKinney, Defendant 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA  30039 770-972-2576

Mrs. Jana Tabor, Attorney for Plaintiff 450 Arborshade Trace, Duluth, GA 30097   770-814-8134 F. Scott Young, Attorney forPlaintiff Barrickman, Allred & Young, LLC, 5775 Glenridge Drive, Building A Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30328    404-252-2230


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
UNDER PENALTY OFPERJURY, I CERTIFY that a true and exact copy of  

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERAND SANCTIONS and allattachments was provided to Plaintiffs Attorney at the addresslisted below by depositing the same in the United States Mails, with sufficientpostage thereon

this ______ day of August 2006.

_____________________________ Ron McKinney, Defendant 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA  30039 770-972-2576

Sent to: Mrs. Jana Tabor, Attorney for Plaintiff 450 Arborshade Trace, Duluth, GA 30097   770-814-8134 F. Scott Young, Attorney forPlaintiff Barrickman, Allred & Young, LLC, 5775 Glenridge Drive, Building A Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30328    404-252-2230


VERIFICATION
I, Ron McKinney, certify thatI have read the foregoing DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE,DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FORPROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SEVERE SANCTIONS and that to the best of myknowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is wellgrounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument forthe extension, modification, or reversal of existing law and that it is notinterposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessarydelay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation. All facts plead thereinare herein incorporated.

_____________________________ Ron McKinney, Defendant 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA  30039 770-972-2576

State of Georgia, County of Gwinnett BEFORE ME personally appeared, RonMcKinney who, being by me first duly sworn and identified in accordance withGeorgia law, did execute the foregoing in my presence This ____ day of ____________2006, __________________________ Notary Public                My commission expires:


DEFENDANT'S BRIEF INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONFOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR SEVERE SANCTIONS

COMES NOW DEFENDANT RON MCKINNEY, by and through himself,and in support of his Response to Plaintiff's Motion for ProtectiveOrder and Sanctions and Defendant's Motion for Severe Sanctions, states asfollows: Introduction It is agreed that the home inspection ordered by this courtin accordance with O.C.G.A. 9-11-34(c) did take place on July 5, 2006, whichwas within the 20 days of the discovery hearing of June 19, 2006. It is agreed that prior to the inspection Plaintiffprovided the Defendant with the names and credentials of the two inspectorsPlaintiff had retained to inspect those portions of the Defendant's residencethat Plaintiff had left unsafe, substandard, defective and incomplete. Itis important to note from Mrs. Tabor's letter of June 27, 2006 to theDefendant, Mrs. Tabor states that the individuals named in the Notice of Entry,"have been associated as consultants."  She further states,"If we decide to designate either or both as experts I will let you know inaccordance with the Civil Practice Act." (emphasis added)(Ron McKinney Aff. Exh. "A" and Exh. "B") The Defendant was not present at the inspection forseveral reasons. (1) It is Defendant's understanding that an inspection isnot a legal proceeding and therefore there was no requirement for him to bepresent. (Ron McKinney Aff. ¶5) (2) At the inception of the idea of having work performedon his residence, Defendant designated his wife, Robyn McKinney, projectliaison, because of her experience obtained via her past employment with HomeDepot as a kitchen designer. She is a great deal more accomplished inconstruction work than Defendant and more capable of communicating withcontractors and inspectors than Defendant is. She was and is the logicalchoice to discuss construction issues with Plaintiff's inspectors. Mr.Tabor was informed from the beginning that Robyn McKinney was his designee forproject liaison duties and would be his point of contact.  (RonMcKinney Aff. ¶6, Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶2, ¶3, ¶4, ¶5) (3) Defendant believed there should be no discussion of thework or this lawsuit during the inspection because Defendant and Plaintiffcouldn't agree anyway and any discussion would only lead to argument. Mrs.Tabor was informed of Defendant's understanding concerning the inspection, notonce but twice and at no time prior to or during the inspection did she lodgeany sort of objection. (Ron McKinney Aff. Exh. "C", Exh."D", Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶6) (4) The fourth and primary reason Defendant chose notto be present is because Mr. Tabor is prone to rude, provocative andinsulting emotional outbursts, which both Defendant and RobynMcKinney have experienced before and subsequent to the inspection. Mrs.Tabor, by her own admission, cannot control Mr. Tabor. This admissionof her inability to control Mr. Tabor was found out subsequent to theinspection, however, Defendant highly suspected that as Mr. Tabor's wife she isunable to control him and likewise as his attorney (for all practicalpurposes) she would be equally unable to control him. Defendant believesthat it is best to avoid physical and emotional confrontations with Mr. Taboras these events could possibly escalate. A sense of Mr. Tabor'spersonality can be obtained by reading Mr. Tabor's insulting letterof January 4, 2005 which is Exhibit "F" of Defendant'sCounterclaim and attached to Ron McKinney's Affidavit as Exhibit "E". In addition, Defendant has obtained another letter from John Tabor to anothercustomer dated around the same time demonstrating his personality and itis attached to Ron McKinney's Affidavit as Exhibit "F." (Ron McKinneyAff. ¶12 - ¶17, Exh. "E", Exh. "F", RobynMcKinney Aff. ¶7 - ¶16) Defendant would also like to point out to the court thatRobyn McKinney's deposition occurred on August 9, 2006 without incident as Mr.Tabor was not present. Defendant remained working in his woodworking shop in thebackyard, which does have a window facing the back of the house, fromwhich certain portions of the inspection were observed.  Thishardly qualifies as a "secreted" location. (Ron McKinneyAff. ¶18, Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶17) Defendant agrees that Mr. Entinger and Mr. Berlyoungwere present but at the time it was uncertain if it was Mr. Entinger becauseMr. Entinger did not offer to introduce himself nor did he provide anyidentification. Defendant does not agree that an in depth constructioninspection took place. (Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶18, ¶19) Robyn McKinney denies Mrs. Taborinformed her that Mrs. Tabor had designated Mr. Berlyoung and Mr.Entinger as expert witnesses. Robyn McKinney states, "Mrs.Tabor did mention something to me as she was leaving,” and “that if shedecided to use these persons as experts she would designate them at thattime." (Id, ¶20) It is informative to point out that at no time during theinspection did Mrs. Tabor request or demand to speak with the Defendant nor didshe object to Defendant not being there. (Id ¶21) Within hours of the inspection Robyn McKinney didcontact Mr. Berlyoung by email thanking him for his "courteous andprofessional behavior" during the inspection and to explain her confusionsurrounding his employer. A confusion created by Mrs. Tabor. Plaintiff's Noticeof Entry clearly states that Mr. Berlyoung is employed by "HouseSmart" when in fact he is employed by "ChampiaCorporation." (Ron McKinney Aff. Exh. "B", S. Berlyoung AffExh. "A", Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶22, Exh. "C") Defendant agrees that the "original message" atthe bottom of Exhibit "A" of Scott Berlyoung's Affidavit is acopy of the email Robyn McKinney sent to him and a quick read of thatemail indicates that it is harmless. (Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶22", S. BerlyoungAff Exh. "A") It is informative to point out to the court that Mrs.Tabor, in her haste to present "evidence" of Defendant's wrong doinginadvertently reveals her husband's, John Tabor's, probable wrongdoing.The email she places in evidence is actually an email from Mr. ScottBerlyoung (scott@champia.com) to John J. Tabor (johnjtabor@hotmail.com). It wassent July 10, 2006 at 10:47 PM. It has a pdf file (Adobe Document file)attached entitled "10489-tabor-070506.pdf. The size of file isapproximately 270,000 bytes. It is probably Mr. Berlyoung's inspection reportfor the McKinney residence. (S. Berlyoung Aff. Exh. "A") Yet, on July, 13, 2006 Plaintiff, by and through itscounsel, Mrs. Tabor, issued a verified "Plaintiff's Second Amendment toDefendant's First Continuing Interrogatories" a copy of which is attachedto Ron McKinney's Affidavit as Exhibit "G." Under oathMr. Tabor, in the Amended Paragraph 7, states in pertinent part, "Mr.Berlyoung has not issued a report at this time."  It appears toDefendant that the report was sent to John Tabor on July 10, 2006, 3 days priorto Mr. Tabor's assertion and unless Plaintiff can produce"10489-tabor-070506.pdf" verified by Mr. Berlyoung, demonstratingthat it is not the inspection report for the McKinney residence then JohnTabor has lied under oath. Defendant has demanded this report but as ofthis writing he has not received it. (Ron McKinney Aff. Exh. "G") On July 6, 2006, Robyn McKinney did email Lynn K. Whyte,who is an attorney and Vice President Administration, for Lansing BuildingProducts, telling him, amongst other things, that Mr. Entinger (in contrast to Mr. Berlyoung) didnot offer to introduce himself and did not offer to identify himself with abusiness card and she thought that it was not only unprofessional but downright rude considering that he was about to enter her home. Robyn McKinneyhas been communicating with Mr. Whyte since the middle of 2005, overa year ago, and she has a right to her opinion and she certainly has aright to know who is entering her home, contrary to Mrs. Tabor's rude andunprofessional assertion that Mrs. McKinney had no right to ask that theconsultant be properly identified. In addition, Mr. Whyte has suppliedDefendant with an Affidavit 7 months prior to theinspection testifying to the erroneous window order placed by Plaintiff.(Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶24, ¶25, ¶26, Ron McKinney Aff. Exh. "H") In addition, Mr. Entinger and Mr. Whyte names were given toPlaintiff as Defendant's contacts in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory #1on September 16, 2005, which is filed in the Court record. It is informative to point out that Mr. Entinger isthe Branch Manager of the Buford location of Lansing Building Products, thelocation where Plaintiff purchased the materials that were un-professionally installed on Defendant's residence, a fact Mr.Entinger conveniently leaves out of his affidavit. It is alsoinformative to point out that Robyn McKinney had contacted Lansing BuildingProducts at the Buford location as early as November 2004, concerningthe window order but was completely stone walled by different individualsat that location and this necessitated her moving up the chain of commanduntil she finally found Mr. Lynn Whyte and it was Mr. Whyte who told RobynMcKinney that Mr. Entinger was the Branch Manager at the Buford location. Mr. Entinger refused to supply Robyn McKinney with anaffidavit or any information about the window order.   (Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶24,¶25, ¶26, ¶27, Ron McKinney Aff. Exh. "H") It is also informative to point out that it has taken oneand half years for Mr. Tabor to finally admit that the windows do not containargon gas as ordered by Defendant and clearly stated in the contract. As aresult of the Court wisely refusing to grant Plaintiff protection fromresponding to Defendant's 300 admissions, Plaintiff finally admitted that thewindows do not contain argon gas, a fact Plaintiff had to know or could haveknown from the beginning. Mr. Tabor began his cover up of this important feature ofthe windows in his letter to Defendant of January 4, 2005 when he states,"It has come to my attention that you[r] new windows may or may not haveargon gas." Further down in that same letter, Mr. Tabor, actually tauntsDefendant with his statement, "...it seems that there is no practical wayto test the windows to definitively determine whether the gas was actuallyinstalled in the windows." (Ron McKinney Aff. Exh. "E") Mr. Tabor further states his probable defense to thewindows not containing argon gas when he states, "It seems that the procedurefor ordering argon changed around the time your windows were ordered. Argon gashad always been automatically included with Low-e glazing." Defendanthighly suspects that Mr. Entinger may back up this story with his testimony yetwhat is enlightening here is that if Mr. Tabor's story is true and hewas unaware of the ordering change then the fault squarely lies withLansing Building Products yet at no time have they taken responsibilityfor supplying the wrong windows. Incidentally Chris Reilly from Atrium (the window manufacturer) clearly states in writing that there was no change thatwould have affected this order. (Ron McKinney Aff. Exh. "E", RobynMcKinney Aff. Exh. "B") Without implying that Mr. Entinger would testify falsely,Defendant respectfully suggests that it does not take much imagination to cometo the conclusion that Mr. Entinger probably has ulterior motives fortestifying on Plaintiff's behalf considering the amount of business Plaintiffprobably does with Mr. Entinger.  For this reason, Defendant has nomotivation to discredit Mr. Entinger with his boss as Mr. Entinger is doing agood enough job of that himself. In this vein, it is informative to pointout Mr. Whyte's comment to Mr. Entinger which appear at the top of Exhibit "A"of Mike Entinger's Affidavit and states in pertinent part, "I cannotimagine that this case is still continuing or that you are stillinvolved..." Again Defendant respectfully suggests that it does not takemuch imagination to figure out that Mr. Whyte is not exactlydelighted with Mr. Entinger's continuing involvement with this case. Andthis is not the fault of Defendant or his wife. (M. Entinger Aff Exh."A") The worst possible thingthat Robyn McKinney could be "guilty" of in contactingMr. Whyte is informing him of Mr. Entinger's "continuing"involvement and that hardly qualifies as threatening Mr. Entinger'semployment. It is Mr. Entinger who is threatening Mr. Entinger'semployment by his continuing involvement in this case. In Defendant's opinion, Mr. Entinger is caught in a classicmoral dilemma. On one hand he gets a great deal of business from Mr. Tabor. Onthe other hand he knows darn well the windows were ordered without argon gas.It is an old salesman con and historically this kind of con can occur anytimethe item being sold is invisible orpractically invisible as is the case with low-e and argon gas. Charge thecustomer $24 per window for low-e and argon gas and order the windows withoutlow-e ($16 per window) or without argon gas ($8 per window). Most folks nevernotice.   (Robyn McKinney Aff., Exh. "B") It is informative to point out thatMr. Tabor conveniently reduces the value of the argon gas to $3.00 per windowwhen he states in his letter of January 4, 2005, "it [argon gas] has nowbecome an option on these windows for an additional $3.00 per window." Defendant and his spouse specifically wanted the benefitsof windows with argon gas and were quoted $24 per window for low-e and argongas. One must buy low-e to obtain argon gas.  This amount is verified byChris Reilly, Director of Marketing at Atrium Windows and Doors (Ron McKinneyAff. Exh. "E", ¶29, Robyn McKinney Aff., Exh. "B") It isDefendant's opinion that Mr. Whyte, an attorney, saw what was happeningand decided, rightfully so, to stop it at the corporate level so it would notappear as if corporate Lansing Building Products was supporting such deception. Robyn McKinney did email Mrs. Tabor giving her a fullsummary of events of the inspection and to let Mrs. Tabor know that Mrs.Tabor's banging on the vinyl siding making water pour out was"priceless." Defendant did not observe this event, however, he wouldhave gotten a "kick" out of it if he had. (Robyn McKinney Aff.¶17, J. Tabor Aff. Exhibit "B")
Argument and Citation of Authority
PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER BARRINGDEFENDANT ANY FURTHER DIRECT CONTACT WITH PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESSES BECAUSEPLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN GOOD CAUSE
What constitutes good cause in discovery matters must beleft largely to trial judge who has latitude of discretion in determiningwhether showing has been made. (Sorrells v. Cole, 1965 111 Ga. App. 136, 141 S.E. 2d193) Good cause for issuance of protective order is notestablished by stereotyped or conclusional statements, bereft of facts. (Young v. Jones, 1979, 149Ga.App. 819, 256 S.E.2d 58) The Defendant has never contacted Mr. Berlyoung or Mr.Entinger and Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that he has. (RonMcKinney Aff. ¶19) Mr. Berlyoung and Mr. Entinger both state that it wasRobyn McKinney with whom they had contact. Indirectly in the case of Mr.Entinger. (S. Berlyoung Aff ¶4; M. Entinger Aff. ¶4; Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶22,¶23) Both emails Plaintiff alleges are from "theMcKinneys" to its expert witness and to the legal departmentof the other expert witness are in fact "signed" with the name"Robyn McKinney." The name Ron McKinney does not appear on either oneof them. (S. Berlyoung Aff. Exh. "A", M. Entinger Aff. Exh."A") Defendant was completely unaware of either email. And RobynMcKinney, not being an attorney, saw absolutely nothing wrong with her actionsand neither does Defendant. (Ron McKinney Aff. ¶20, Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶22,¶23) Plaintiff's counsel has not cited the Georgia CivilPractice Act or any case law to support her contention that itis professional for Georgia Bar Attorneys to communicate legal matterssuch as expert witness designation to opposing counsel"vis-à-vis" the Defendant's wife and Plaintiff's counsel has theunmitigated gall to come before this court with the claim that her tellingDefendant's spouse is the same thing as professionally notifying opposingcounsel. And for completeness Defendant has searched the Georgia CivilPractice Act and cannot find where it is professional to pass legal messages toopposing counsel "vis-à-vis" opposing counsel's spouse. As previously mentioned, Defendant didreceive notification "in accordance with the Georgia CivilPractice Act," of Plaintiff's July 13, 2005 expert designation on orabout July 15, 2006 and Plaintiff has not and cannot produce any evidencethat Defendant or anyone on his behalf has contacted either of Plaintiff'sdesignated experts since that date. (Ron McKinney Aff ¶21, Exh."G") Upon receipt of Plaintiff's expert witness designation Defendantinformed Robyn McKinney to never contact Mr. Entinger or Mr. Berlyoung as isprofessional under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. Defendantbelieves Robyn McKinney has every right to continue her communication withMr. Whyte and therefore he has not "ordered" her not tocommunicate with Mr. Whyte.  (Ron McKinney Aff. ¶22, Robyn McKinney Aff.¶28) It is Mrs. Tabor who does not know how to navigate her waythrough this case and with her 15 years of experience as alicensed attorney she has no excuse. Defendant highly suspects that theemotional burden on Mrs. Tabor is greatly affecting her legaljudgment considering the fact that she has allowed herself to be caughtbetween a controlling husband (the rock) and a pro se Defendant (the hardplace) which is a partial reality of this case regardless of what theCaptions say. It is informative to point out that Mrs. Tabor has "retiredfrom the practice of law as of this month [June, 2006] with the exceptionof this case."  It is also informative to point out that Mrs.Tabor has filed a Notice of Change Address from the law firm ofBarrickman, Allred and Young to her residence. Of course, Defendant can onlyspeculate that her "retirement" and "change ofaddress" are in any way related to this case, however, retirement inand of itself is an emotional life changing event for mostfolks. (Ron McKinney, Aff. Exh. "I") Be that as it may, clearly Mr. and Mrs. Tabor AKAPlaintiff's representative and Plaintiff's counsel have failed to showgood cause to this court for an order of protection to be issued which isrequired by O.C.G.A. 9-11-26(c). What they are doing is maliciously attemptingto bring fraud on this honorable court by the use of deceit and dishonestyand for these reasons Plaintiff should be denied its motion forprotection.
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AGAINSTDEFENDANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN GOOD CAUSE
Opposing counsel's inability to understand the meaning ofwords, her inability to perform deductive reasoning and her inability toaccept personal responsibility for her own actions are fully apparent inthis section of her brief. In Defendant's mind "force" always refers tothe physical. Defendant was trained in Engineering and force has alwaysbeen and always will be equal to mass times acceleration (F=MA). It issimple physics. Since representing himself, Defendant has become aware ofthe fact that words can have different meanings depending on their commonusage as opposed to their legal usage. However, in this case, even Black's LawDictionary defines "force" in physical terms. Therefore, itis just a blatant lie that Defendant has, in any shape, form or fashion"forced" Plaintiff to deal with Robyn McKinney as his legal counseland Plaintiff and its counsel cannot present one shred of evidence to thecontrary. The Defendant, acting Pro Se is merely using his wife ashis secretary, file clerk, work liaison and research assistant allfunctions allowed under the Georgia Civil Practice Act and utilized byattorneys everywhere. (Ron McKinney Aff. ¶28, Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶29) Plaintiff's counsel then switches to the word"demand" when she states "the Defendant...demands that thePlaintiff and undersigned counsel correspond and directly deal with his wife,Robyn McKinney." This too is a blatant lie. Plaintiff and its counselcannot produce one shred of evidence that Defendant has ever demanded that theydeal with his wife as his legal attorney. The only thing that Exhibit "A" attached tothe Affidavit of Jana Tabor proves is Mrs. Tabor communicating withboth Mr. McKinney and Mrs. McKinney as the letter is addressed to both. Ifanyone should know that she is not suppose to deal with Mrs. McKinneyconcerning Defendant's legal matters, it should be Mrs. Tabor, yet there inblack and white in Exhibit "A" of Mrs. Tabor's Affidavit she isaddressing a non-party and a non-attorney concerning the legalmatters of the Defendant. (J. Tabor Aff. Exh. "A") Opposing counsel demonstrates her inability to performdeductive reasoning in her analysis of Defendant's alleged "conduct"during the inspection. The email she provides as evidence (J. Tabor Aff. Exh."B") is clearly signed "Ron and Robyn McKinney." Given thisambiguity she has no way to determine which person is being associated with anyparticular action unless she personally witnessed those actions. Intruth, for her to accuse Defendant of unprofessionalbehavior based on this unknown is simply wrong. As previously mentioned,prior to the inspection, Mrs. Tabor was told that Mrs. McKinney would be escorting theparty through the property prior to the inspection. At no timeprior to or during the inspection did Mrs. Tabor object.  (RonMcKinney Aff. Exh. "C", Exh. "D", Robyn McKinney Aff. ¶6). Party's failure to object to a discovery request within thetime required will result in a waiver of the right to object. (O.C.G.A. 9-11-26(b)(1).Kennestone Hosp. v. Hopson 2000, 273 Ga. 145, 538 S.E. 2d 742.) Mrs. Tabor completely fails to understand that Mrs.McKinney lives at this house and has every right to do what she did during theinspection. Mrs. Tabor's protestation of she had "no choice" but todeal with Robyn McKinney clearly indicates an inability to take responsibilityfor her own actions. Mrs. Tabor then states, "This happened after the Courtwarned the McKinneys during the June 19th hearing that Mrs. McKinney hadno business before the Court and compelled her to physically remove herselffrom the Court's bar." Defendant did not take the Court's action as a warning toDefendant. Defendant saw the Court's action as an object lesson on how theCourt deals with non-parties and non-attorneys. It simply does not recognizethem, cannot hear them and therefore will not respond to them. Apparently theobject lesson was completely lost on Mrs. Tabor because she continues to allowherself to deal with Robyn McKinney concerning Ron McKinney's legal matters. Itis Plaintiff's counsel who has freely chosen to deal with Robyn McKinney.It is not Defendant's fault that Plaintiff's counsel made that choice. Andcertainly the Court did not "compel" Mrs. McKinney to"physically remove herself from the Court's bar." What the Courtdid was ask Mrs. McKinney to remove herself to the gallery and shecomplied.  And I must add that the Court did it respectfully, anotherlesson apparently lost on Mrs. Tabor. Opposing counsel would do wellto consult a dictionary and reality prior to writing her briefs. It is Defendant's belief that Mrs. Tabor has continued toengage Robyn McKinney in Defendant's legal matters for the express purpose ofsetting up a legally unknowledgeable Robyn McKinney for a threatof criminal prosecution under O.C.G.A. 15-19-58 and for the filing ofPlaintiff's Motion knowing full well that Robyn McKinney is fiercely willing todefend her husband and protect her own interest against all attackers includinglawyers regardless of the personal consequences to herself. However, even acursory read of O.C.G.A. 15-19-58 reveals that consideration is required andDefendant certainly is not paying his wife to be his attorney, licensed orunlicensed and Plaintiff has not and cannot produce any evidence that he has.Actually, it appears that John Tabor "vis-à-vis" his corporation,Insulated Wall Systems, is in fact, paying his wife to be his licensed attorneyfor the purpose of bringing a lawsuit against Defendant knowing full well thatDefendant was not and is not in breach of contract. And Mrs. Tabor, who should have known Defendant is notin breach or could have known by the simplest of due diligence, is thelast person in the world to be lecturing the McKinneys on "standards ofconduct." It is Mrs. Tabor who freely chooses to represent her husband'ssham alter ego of a company providing her law educatedhusband and herself with an effective zero cost method of utilizingthe legal system as their own personal bullying system regardless of thefinancial and emotional impact it has on Defendant and hisfamily all in the name of some arcane legal theory called "breach isgood."  This is a massive breach of professional ethics andthe public trust by an Officer of the Court and bringssuch disgust to the hearts of principled people it makes anything thenon-lawyer Defendant and the non-lawyer Defendant spouse has done in thislitigation completely insignificant. Clearly Mrs. Tabor is choking ona gnat while she swallows an elephant. (Ron McKinney Aff.  ¶23, ¶24, ¶25) For these reasons, Defendant moves this court to denyPlaintiff's request for sanctions against Defendant.
SEVERE SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED AGAINSTPLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL FOR DECEPTION AND DISHONESTY
It has been shown that Plaintiff's Brief in Supportof Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions contains multiple countsof blatant lies, half-truths and twisted meanings AKA dishonesty anddeceit. In fact, the entire brief appears to Defendant as the ravings of ahysterical and emotionally charged female as opposed to an objectivestatement of facts and conclusions supported by evidence and written by aprofessionally licensed attorney. Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of ProfessionalConduct states in pertinent part: "It shall be a violation of the Georgia Rules ofProfessional Conduct for a lawyer to...engage in professional conduct involvingdishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;"(emphasis added by Defendant) In Defendant's opinion Plaintiff and Mrs. Tabor'sattempt to bring this dishonesty and deceit to the Court amounts to fraud andmisrepresentation before the Court and should be punished with severesanctions. Defendant respectfully reminds this honorable Court,"the maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(2) through Rule 8.4(c)is disbarment." For these reasons Defendant moves this Court to grant hismotion and impose severe sanctions on Plaintiff and it'scounsel as the Court sees fit. This ______ day of August2006                                   Respectfully submitted,




























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.                                                )


MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS

COMES NOW Plaintiff Insulated Wall Systems, Inc. by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this court for an order mandating that the Defendant cease and desist in initiating any direct contact with Plaintiff's designated Expert Witnesses. Plaintiff also request this Court impose sanctions upon the Defendant as he continues to attempt to defend this case by and through his wife, Robyn McKinney, who is neither a party nor a licensed attorney. As is more fully set forth in Plaintiff's brief in support of this Motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Motion be Granted.

Date July 25, 2006

PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF INSULATED WALL SYSTEMS, INC., by counsel and in support of its Motion for Protective Order and for Sanction, states as follows:

Introduction

This Motion was filed subsequent to a home inspection of Defendant's residence. The inspection took place in accordance with OCGA 9-11-34(c) and within 20 days after a hearing on other discovery issues that took place on June 19, 2006.  It was at that hearing that the Court ordered that the inspection take place during that time frame.

The parties agreed that the inspection would go forward on July 5, 2006. In accordance with the Court's instructions, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant the names and credentials of the two inspectors Plaintiff had retained to inspect those portions of the Defendant's residence which the Plaintiff had renovated. (J. Tabor Aff. p4)

Mr. McKinney was not "present" at the inspection. Id. at 6. Instead, his wife Robyn McKinney and Nathan Gooch, who was introduced as Defendant's expert were present. Id. Mr. Entinger and Mr. Berlyoung were present and inspected the premises. At the conclusion of the inspection undersigned counsel verbally informed Mrs. McKinney that both Mr. Entinger and Mr. Berlyoung had been designated as expert witnesses for the Plaintiff and that if the Defendant wished any discovery or contact with these individuals, they must now be accessed through undersigned counsel and not directly. Id at p 7.

Within hours of the inspection, the McKinneys had directly contacted Mr. Berlyoung. (S. Berlyoung Aff. p4).  The had also contacted the legal department of Mr. Entinger's employer questioning his professionalism.  (M. Entinger Aff p 4) Mr. McKinney also emailed undersigned counsel to let her know what a kick he got out of watching the inspection from a secreted location. (J. Tabor Aff. Exh. "B").

Argument and Citation of Authority

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER BARRING DEFENDANT AND FURTHER DIRECT CONTACT WITH PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESSES

At the time of the home inspection, Defendant vis-a-vis Mrs. McKinney (an issue to be discussed later) knew that Plaintiff had designated Mr. Berlyoung and Mr. Entinger as its Experts in this case. (J. Tabor Aff p7).  The Civil Practice Act is very clear, when an expert witness is designated certain specific rules of discovery are engaged regarding those individuals which sets them apart from fact witnesses. OCGA 9-11-26 (b)(4) and (4)(A)(ii) states in relevant part as follows:

TRIAL PREPARATION; EXPERTS. Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under paragraph (1) of this subsection and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:

A party may obtain discovery under code Section 9-11-30, 9-11-31, or 9-11-34 from any expert described in this paragraph, the same as any other witness, but the party obtaining discovery of an expert hereunder must pay a reasonable fee for the time spent in responding ...

(Emphasis added).

Within hours of the designation the Defendant had made direct contact with both of Plaintiff's experts. (S. Berlyoung Aff p4); (M. Entinger Aff. p 4). More troublesome than the contact with each of these experts is the fact that in Mr. Entinger's case, the Defendant not only made contact, but implied to his employer that Mr. Entinger was unprofessional.  The Defendant's email to Mr. Entinger's employer stated, in part:

"The person being introduced (misquote) to me as Mr. Entinger did nothing of the sort. He neither introduced himself or offered his business card. When I questioned Mrs. Tabor, she told me I had no right to ask for confirmation of his identity. I find all of this very strange, and very unprofessional conduct. Not the conduct I would be expecting to come from a manager of Ted Lansing location ..."

(M. Entinger Aff p4, Exh. "A").

This was an obvious attempt to influence Mr. Entinger's testimony at the very least or to excluded his testimony altogether by causing him potential problems with his employer. Such constitutes witness tampering. Again, the Code is very clear:

A person who, with intent to deter a witness from testifying freely, fully, and truthfully to a matter pending in any court ... communicates, directly or indirectly, to such witness any threat of injury or damage to the person, property, or employment of the witness ... shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

OCGA 16-10-93(a) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff is asking this Court to issue an order instructing the Defendant that he is to have no further direct contact with these witnesses and any contact with them can only be made through the discovery devises set forth in the Code. This Court has wide latitude in its overseeing of the discovery process. The Plaintiff is not being afforded the proper process in this case as Defendant continues to navigate his way through this case. His ignorance of the law and failure to read the instructions provided by the legislature as to how to proceed with litigation is no excuse.

SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AS HE CONTINUES TO FORCE THE PLAINTIFF TO DEAL WITH ROBYN MCKINNEY WHO IS NEITHER A PARTY NOR A LICENSED ATTORNEY.

Throughout the course of this litigation, time and time again, the Defendant, who chooses to represent himself in this case, demands that the Plaintiff and undersigned counsel correspond and directly deal with his wife, Robyn McKinney, who is neither a party nor a licensed attorney. As evidence by Exhibit "A" to the Affidavit of Jana Tabor, within a month of the filing of this lawsuit, Defendant attempted to have his wife represent his interests. That course of conduct continues through today and after the way in which Mr. McKinney conducted himself at the home inspection, the Plaintiff is left with no choice but to ask for intervention on this issue. Mr. McKinney did not attend the inspection but watched it from a secreted location. He then admitted to undersigned counsel that he had done such a thing. (J. Tabor Aff. Exh. "B"). Such is the height of unprofessionalism. This happened after the Court warned the McKinneys during the June 19th hearing that Mrs. McKinney had no business before the Court and compelled her to physically remove herself from the Court's bar.

This lawsuit is serious business. This lawsuit must be conducted by both sides in accordance with the standards of conduct required by legislature and this honorable court. The unauthorized practice of law is criminally punishable. OCGA 15-19-58. This Court has broad discretion in controlling discovery, including the imposition of sanctions. Butler v. Biven Software, Inc. Given the McKinney's total disregard for the standards of conduct imposed for the conducting of a lawsuit, Plaintiff requests that the Defendant be sanctioned and ordered that all future dealings made by or on behalf of the Defendant be made by him alone or legal counsel, should he decide to seek such in the future.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, the Plaintiff requests that its motion be GRANTED.

DATE July 25, 2006

Notice of Filing
Affidavit of Jana B. Tabor
Exhibit "A" September 21, 2005 letter noting receipt of Power of Attorney
Exhibit "B" July 9, 2006 Email Summary of Events McKinney Project Inspection
Affidavit of Mike Entinger
Exhibit "A" July 6, 2006 Email from Lynn Whyte to Mike Entinger, attached is a pasted in copy of July 6, 2006 email to Lynn Whyte from Robyn McKinney
Affidavit of Scott Berlyoung  ( not even notarized ! Should be challenged as well)
Exhibit "A" July 10, 2006 Email from Scott Berlyoung to John Tabor
Attached to the email is the inspection report pdf file and a forwarded copy of July 5 email to Scott Berlyoung from Robyn McKinney


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