You are on page 1of 7

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ) SS:

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
)

IN THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

CHRISTOPHER F. MAPLES,

)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF
vs.
PAYNE FAMILY PROPERTIES LTD, et al
DEFENDANTS

NOTICE-MOTION-ORDER

)
)
)

Case No. 15- CI-01625

NOTICE
Please take notice that the undersigned will, on Monday, May 11, 2015 at 11:45 a.m., or
as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, make the following motion and tender the Order
attached hereto.
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECONSIDER APRIL 27th ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS DISCOVERY
COMES NOW the Plaintiff Christopher Maples, pro se (hereinafter Plaintiff or Mr.
Maples) and moves this Court to reconsider its Order dated April 27, 2015, granting the
Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs discovery in its entirety and in support states as follows:
The motion by the Defendants for reconsideration of the Order(s) made herein on April
27, 2015, by the Honorable Judge Audra J. Eckerle granting Defendants Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production for
inadvertently serving them directly on the Defendants personally rather than their counsel.
Plaintiff hereby moves this Court to reconsider its April 27th Order(s) and reverse its ruling to
deny the Defendants procedurally improper motion which the fact and law do not support. The
attached memorandum is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. (See Order(s) collectively

attached hereto as Exhibit A)


Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Christopher Maples
1642 Beechwood Ave Apt 2
Louisville, KY
40204
(812) 207-9886

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES


1. On or about April 21, 2015, the Defendants, without contacting the Plaintiff to
resolve any discovery dispute(s), filed a procedurally deficient Motion to Strike
the Plaintiff's combined discovery requests served on the Defendants, apparently
because it was sent directly to the clients.
2. Pursuant to the Jefferson Rules of Practice (JRP), Rule 402:
Counsel in civil and criminal cases shall make a good faith effort to resolve
disputes among themselves which arise in the course of discovery. No
motions pertaining to discovery shall be made to the Court without a
certificate of counsel that she has conferred with opposing counsel, that they

are unable to reconcile their differences and that she has otherwise exhausted
all extrajudicial means in an effort to reconcile her differences with opposing
counsel. To the extent that extrajudicial means have not disposed of the
matter, a party may file an appropriate order under CR 37.
3. On or about April 27th the Plaintiff responded pursuant to CR 37 and objected to
Defendants said Motion to Strike and objected on the grounds that Defendants
Motion to Strike violated JRP Rule 402 and also was filed without any good-faith
certificate of conference with the Plaintiff, nor a memorandum of points and
authorities.
4. On April 27, 2015, this Court issued Order(s) granting the Defendants Motion to
Strike and denying Plaintiffs sound objection and thereby flagrantly disregarding
the scope and purpose of JRP 101. This mandates by law that this Court enforce
the JRP including JRP 402. This Courts Order(s) disregards the very Kentucky
Supreme Court which promulgated and approved the JRP.
5. Both the Defendants and the Courts misplaced reliance on a Motion to Strike as
vehicle to have the Plaintiffs discovery stricken from these proceedings raises a
serious mixed question of both fact and law of constitutional proportions.
6. Outside of CR 12.06, a Motion to Strike is relied on for striking briefs for
improper practice, e,g., CR 11 and is generally permanent. See Jones v.
Commonwealth, 593 S.W.2d 869 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
7. Thus, without a reversal of this Order it effectively ends the Plaintiffs pursuit of
discovery and without an amendment that alters or vacates the April 27th Order(s),
appears to bar the Plaintiff from resubmitting his discovery.
8. Furthermore, this Courts April 27, 2015, Order prejudicially reprimands and
penalizes the Plaintiff for merely sending discovery to the Defendants two (2)
days before Plaintiff was ever officially notified of the appearance of Defendants

counsel in this case.


9. Moreover, this Courts April 27th Order(s) effectively sends a message to opposing
counsel that the Court is biased against the Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, which every
pro se litigant expects to some degree anyway.
10. But the Courts Order(s) goes much further. It openly encourages opposing
counsel to violate the rules and law with impunity in this particular case, while the
Plaintiff is subject to arbitrary application and enforcement of rules for any
unsubstantiated allegations the Defendants can conjure.
11. Such conduct by this Court effectively discourages pro se litigants from seeking
justice in the Jefferson County Courts. More importantly, the effect of this Courts
granting the Defendants motion to strike Plaintiffs discovery in its entirety
directly and egregiously interferes and negatively impacts the Plaintiff due
process rights secured under the authority of the due process clauses of both the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
12. Had the Defendants first contacted the Plaintiff in a timely manner discussed the
problem and then certified to this Court they were unable to resolve such an
imagined discovery dispute, the proper avenue and vehicle for the Defendants
remedy to prevent the Plaintiff from contacting the Defendants directly and
bypassing counsel would be a motion for protective Order. JRP Rule 402 and CR
26.03 of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure provide for this remedy.
Although, even in that case a court may only issue a protective order for good
cause shown. CR 26.03(1).
13. The burden of establishing good cause pursuant to CR 26.03(1) rests with the
movant, and to show good cause, a movant for a protective order must articulate
specific facts showing clearly defined and serious injury resulting from the
discovery sought and cannot rely on mere conclusory statements. Something the

Defendants could not demonstrate for a protective Order or a motion to strike.


14. The burden of establishing good cause rests with the movant, and to show
good cause, a movant for a protective order must articulate specific facts showing
clearly defined and serious injury resulting from the discovery sought and
cannot rely on mere conclusory statements.
15. But the Defendants did not even attempt to establish good cause for any motion
relating to discovery. Plaintiff did nothing so egregious on April 18, 2015, to
warrant a protective order or a motion to strike discovery simply because the
discovery was sent directly to the clients a few hours before Plaintiff was notified
of opposing counsels appearance in the case.
16. If this Court wanted to maintain a semblance of neutrality it could have simply
granted the Defendants a couple of extra days to respond to respond to discovery
rather than obstructing and Plaintiffs discovery with its perceived intimidating
and compromisingly biased April 27th Order(s).
17. WHEREFORE, based in the foregoing, justice demands this Court vacate its April
27th Order(s) and allow discovery to proceed without further obstruction or
impediment.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________
Christopher Maples
1642 Beechwood Ave Apt 2
Louisville, KY
40204
(812) 207-9886

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail
postage prepaid/hand delivered ,________________________this _____day of __________,
2015, by certified mailing same to:

CERTIFIED MAIL#:____________________________________

_______________________
Christopher Maples
1642 Beechwood Ave Apt 2
Louisville, KY
40204
(812) 207-9886

JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT


CASE NO. 15- CI-01625
Division 7
CHRISTOPHER MAPLES

PETITIONER

v.
PAYNE FAMILY PROPERTIES LTD, et al

RESPONDENT

ORDER
Motion having been made and the Court being sufficiently advised: IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT THE PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS
GRANTED
.
____________________________________
JUDGE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
DATE_______________________
TENDERED BY:
_______________________
Christopher Maples
1642 Beechwood Ave Apt 2
Louisville, KY
40204
(812) 207-9886

You might also like