Sample Answers to Interrogatories (Product Defect)

Below are sample answers to interrogatories in a product defect case against Walt Disney.  Our client has a catastrophic brain injury.

We make few objections to these interrogatories because most of the inquiries is very reasonable.  If you are facing interrogatories that are less reasonable, we provide a complete list of interrogatory objections.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

Civil Division

RICHARD DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

v.

DISNEY THEATRICAL PRODUCTIONS LTD d/b/a DISNEY THEATRICAL GROUP, et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 24-C-18-007147

PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES

TO: BUENA VISTA THEATRICAL GROUP, LTD., Defendant
FROM: RICHARD DAVIS, Plaintiff

Now comes the Plaintiff, Richard Davis, by and through his attorneys, Laura G. Zois and Miller & Zois, LLC, and hereby answers Interrogatories propounded upon him by Defendant Hyland Foundation, Inc., as follows:

1. The information supplied in these Answers is not based solely on the knowledge of the executing party, but includes the party’s agents, representatives and attorneys unless privileged.
2. The word usage and sentence structure is that of the attorney and does not purport to be the exact language of the executing party.

ANSWERS

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State your full name, address, date of birth, marital status, and social security number.

ANSWER NO. 1: Richard Murray Davis; 540 Park Avenue, White Hall, Maryland 21161; January 28, 1990; single; 210-61-8096.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Give a detailed statement of all facts upon which you rely to show that each defendant was negligent.

ANSWER NO. 2: Plaintiff refers the Defendant to his Complaint and Amended Complaint and incorporates that pleading into these answers. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State the full name and last known address of every person known to you or your attorneys who were eyewitnesses to all the occurrence referred to in the complaint and state their location at the time thereof.

ANSWER NO. 3: Based upon information and belief, Barry Bruch 410-297-6249; David Frey, 1590 Robinson Road, Severna Park, MD, 410-975-5702; Dave Mattel 410-499-1658; and Mike Pollack 443-662-2099.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State the full name and last known address of every person known to you or to your attorneys who arrived at the scene of the occurrence within two (2) hours of the happening of the occurrence.

ANSWER NO. 4: Plaintiff is unaware of who arrived at the scene of the occurrence within the two hours of the happening of the occurrence other than those individuals listed in Plaintiff’s Answer No. 3, and local government emergency personnel.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State the full name and last known address of every person known to you or to your attorneys who has any knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the happening of the occurrence referred to in the complaint.

ANSWER NO. 5: Kelly Clark (girlfriend); David and Joanne Clark (parents of girlfriend); Michelle and Mike Davidson, (friends); Megan and Kevin Glass (friends and neighbors); Mark Hutton (friend and neighbor); Bernie Trump (friend) and are expected to testify as to Plaintiff’s condition prior to the accident; pain and suffering following the accident; and how his activities of daily life changed after the accident.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify by name and address every expert that you expect to call as witnesses at trial and state the subject matter about which the expert is expected to testify, the substance of the findings and opinions about which the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

ANSWER NO. 6

1. James G. Cushman, M.D., Joseph Catino, M.D. and/or representatives of University Physicians at University of Maryland Medical Center, Shock Trauma, 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, 800-492-5538, experts in the field of Emergency and General Surgery, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are based upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
2. Stuart Mirvis, M.D., Stacy Smith, M.D., Clint Sliker, M.D., Lisa A. Miller, M.D., K. Shanmuganathan, M.D. and/or representatives of University Physicians at University of Maryland Medical Center, Shock Trauma, 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, 800-492-5538, experts in the field of Diagnostic Imaging and Interpretation, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are based upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
3. Mike F. Aldrich, Ryan P. Tanner, M.D. and/or representatives of University Physicians at University of Maryland Medical Center, Shock Trauma, 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, 800-492-5538, experts in the field of Neurosurgery, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are base
   d upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
4. Marcus F. Sciadini, M.D., Kurt Wohlrab, M.D. and/or representatives of University Physicians at University of Maryland Medical Center, Shock Trauma, 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, 800-492-5538, experts in the field of Orthopedic Surgery, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are based upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
5. Eduardo D. Rodriguez, M.D., Robert Simmons, M.D., Jeffrey Schreiber, M.D., Ryan Katz, M.D. and/or representatives of University Physicians at University of Maryland Medical Center, Shock Trauma, 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, experts in the field of Plastic Surgery, 800-492-5538, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are based upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
6. Michael Christy, M.D. Corcoran, M.D., Michael Moses, M.D. and/or representatives of Kernan Orthopedics and Rehabilitation Hospital, 2200 Kernan Drive, Baltimore, Maryland 21207, 888-453-7626, experts in the field of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are based upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
7. Amy C. Sisley, M.D. and/or representatives of the Trauma Clinic at University of Maryland Medical Center, Shock Trauma, 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, 800-492-5538, experts in the field of Trauma Injuries, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are based upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
8. Inna Gendelsman, M.D., 1205 York Road, Suite 38, Lutherville, Maryland 21093, 410-825-4979, an expert in the field of General Medicine, is expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and the medical treatment rendered. His doctor is also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctor is expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctor is also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctor’s opinions are based upon her review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
9. Danilo Espinola, M.D. and/or representatives of Advanced Radiology, Fairmount Place, 515 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 100, Towson, Maryland 21286, 410-580-2241, experts in the field of Diagnostic Imaging and Interpretation, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff following the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are based upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
10. Marilyn A. Godfrey, RPT and/or representatives of An Invitation to Heal, 72 N. Main Street, Stewartstown, Pennsylvania 17363, 717-993-0240, experts in the field of Massage Therapy, are expected to testify as to the treatment rendered to Plaintiff follow
    ing the accident, the fairness, reasonableness, necessity and causal relationship between the injuries sustained in the accident and their medical treatment rendered. His doctors are also expected to testify as to the permanent nature of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of this accident; future medical expenses and treatment which are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Additionally, his doctors are expected to testify that he suffered from a pre-existing condition and this pre-existing condition was exacerbated in the accident. His doctors are also expected to testify that this pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. The doctors’ opinions are based upon their review of the medical records, treatment or examination of Plaintiff, history taken from Plaintiff and years of experience and medical training. Plaintiff incorporates all of his medical records as though fully set forth herein.
11. Plaintiff reserves the right to call an expert in the field of Theatre Safety Management, however, discovery is ongoing and this answer may be supplemented.
12. Plaintiff reserves the right to call an expert in the field of Engineering, however, discovery is ongoing and this answer may be supplemented.
13. Plaintiff reserves the right to call an expert in the field of Human Factors, however, discovery is ongoing and this answer may be supplemented.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State with precision the nature and location of bodily injuries suffered by you as a result of the occurrence.

ANSWER NO. 7: As a direct result of the occurrence, the Plaintiff sustained a depressed parietal skull fracture with pneumocephalus, bilateral epidural hematomas, a left hemothorax, left fourth and fifth rib fractures, right first and second rib fractures, a left lateral maxillary sinus wall fracture, a left parietotemporal skull fracture extending into the left orbital apex, a left parasymphyseal and right subcondylar mandibular fracture, left ankle medial and posterior malleolus fractures, which injuries required three subsequent surgeries. Plaintiff contends his injuries are permanent in nature.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If you have any complaints on account of injuries received as a result of the occurrence, state in detail the nature of such present complaints.

ANSWER NO. 8: Plaintiff continues to suffer from headaches, weakness, and chronic pain in his jaw, head, neck, back and left ankle. The Plaintiff generally has limited endurance, difficulty sleeping, and emotional distress. Ankle: problems with walking, standing, and ankle swelling, difficulty with balance, arthritic changes have set in and are accelerated, at night Plaintiff has cramps and spasms. Jaw: ongoing pain, numbness, difficulty chewing, and occasional choking, difficulty with speech. Head: Headaches, vision issues, memory lapse, difficulty concentrating.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State which of your injuries, if any, you contend are permanent.

ANSWER NO. 9: Plaintiff contends the injuries to his head, ankle and jaw are all permanent in nature.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all hospitals, physicians, health care providers and any other persons or institutions who have rendered treatment to you as a result of the occurrence for which this suit has been brought providing their full names and addresses and state the dates and nature of such treatments.

ANSWER NO. 10: Plaintiff refers Defendant to his medical records and bills attached to his Responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, incorporated herein by reference, for the details of his medical treatment.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Itemize all expenses, loss of earnings or earning capacity, and other economic damages, past and future, that you claim are a result of the occurrence and as to each item claimed identify the item, the amount claimed for that item, the method, if any, by which you computed the amount, the figures used in that computation, and the facts and assumptions upon which your claim is based.

ANSWER NO. 11

	PROVIDER	DATES OF SERVICE	TOTAL
1	City of Baltimore Ambulance	09/05/2019	410.00
2	UMMS	09/05/2019- 09/11/2019	83,188.83
3	University Physicians	09/05/19 – 09/27/2020	28,554.00
4	C.R.N.A.	09/05/2019; 09/06/2019	1,491.00
5	Anesthesia Associates	09/06/2019	Will supplement
6	Shock Trauma Associates	09/05/2019	Will supplement
7	Kernan Hospital	09/13/2019- 09/27/2019	15,607.24
8	Diagnostic Imaging Specialist, PA	12/22/2019-01/04/2020	418.00
9	Advanced Radiology	10/28/2019	88.00
10	Lab Corp	10/28/2019	48.00
11	An Invitation To Heal	11/03/2019- 02/09/2020	5,800.00
12	Kernan Hospital CLINIC	11/17/2019	221.54
13	David Williams, DDS	11/30/2019-01/09/2020	767.00
14	Maryland Orthotics & Prosthetics	01/23/2019	493.63
15	Michael Spodak, MD, PA	01/31/2020 -08/22/2020	2,092.00
16	UMMS	10/03/2019-03/08/2020	4,529.36
	MEDICAL EXPENSES TO DATE:		$143,708.60
	Mike’s Family Markets	178 days, 8 hour days@ $10.25 an hour	$14,956.00
	Stage Hand, Etc.	$50,000 a yr. 40 yrs	$2,000,000

Plaintiff claims these costs in economic damages and reserves the right to supplement this response as discovery is ongoing, his treatment is ongoing, and Plaintiff is not in possession of all the medical records and bills. Additionally, plaintiff claims pain and suffering in the past as well as pain and suffering in the future, past medical bills, future medical bills, future loss of earning capacity, and past lost wages. Plaintiff may require a future ankle fusion.

[Editor’s note: This new case, albeit unreported, that came in late 2020 has led to a change in practice on the specificity of our expert designations in state court.]

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State whether prior or subsequent to the occurrence you have sustained any accidental injury for which you received medical care or treatment. If so, describe the date and circumstances of the accidental injury and identify all healthcare providers, including hospitals and other institutions, that furnished care to you.

ANSWER NO. 12: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as the information sought is irrelevant, and the discovery of which is not likely to lead to information which would be admissible at trial. Furthermore, the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial effect; however, without waiving said objections; Plaintiff had a boating accident in or around 2016 where he suffered a broken left wrist.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: If you have ever had any serious illness, sickness, disease, or surgical operation, either prior or subsequent to the occurrence referred to in the complaint, state the date and place when and where this occurred and set forth a detailed description of your symptoms, the names and addresses of all physicians, surgeons, osteopaths, chiropractors, medical practitioners and hospitals rendering treatment, the approximate date of your recovery or if you did not recover fully, the date you achieved maximum recovery and/or disability and a description of your condition at that time.

ANSWER NO. 13: Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein his Answer to Interrogatory No. 12; and further states that he has not had any serious illness, sickness, disease, or surgical operation, subsequent to the occurrence that is unrelated to the occurrence.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: If you contend that a previous injury or condition was aggravated by the occurrence for which this suit has been brought, describe such previous injury or condition, and give the names and addresses of all persons or institutions who treated or examined you for the previous injury or condition and the approximate dates of such treatments or examinations.

ANSWER NO. 14: Plaintiff makes no such contention. However, Plaintiff anticipates an expert to be hired by the defense to say that he had degenerative conditions that pre-existed the accident. In anticipation of this defense, Plaintiff reserves the right to argue that any pre-existing condition that he may have had before the accident was aggravated by the accident with the Defendant and that the pre-existing condition made him more susceptible to injury. Any pre-existing condition that the Plaintiff may have had before the date of the accident was asymptomatic.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: If you were an insured (or beneficiary) under any policy of insurance under which you received benefits or reimbursement for medical expenses or any other losses resulting from the occurrence referred to in the Complaint, state the name and address of the company paying the benefits and whether the company required you to assign to it any rights of recovery you may have against others.

ANSWER NO. 15: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as it seeks to violate the Collateral Source Rule, the information sought is irrelevant, and the discovery of which is not likely to lead to information that would be admissible at trial. Furthermore, the information’s probative value would be outweighed by its prejudicial effect; however, without waiving said objections, Plaintiff received benefits from Gallagher Basset through the Workers’ Compensation Commission, and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to each of the past five (5) years, state your yearly gross income and yearly net income as reported on your federal income tax returns and state the name and address of the person, firm or corporation having custody of any papers pertaining to your income. If you did not file any federal income tax returns during this period explain why.

ANSWER NO. 16: Plaintiff’s gross income was $69,587.00 in 2018; $39,949.00 in 2017; $46,183.00 in 2066; $16,261.00 in 2015; $47,015.00 in 2044; and $34,600.00 in 2013.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: With respect to each of the past five (5) years, and at the present time, state the names and addresses of each of your employers, the dates of commencement and the termination of each employment, a detailed description of the work performed at each employment and set forth weekly wages or earnings from each employment.

ANSWER NO. 17: Plaintiff was employed by Mike’s Family Markets from 3/17/2015 to 9/20/2018 as a deli clerk and earned $15.25 an hour. Plaintiff resigned from Mike’s Family Markets for a better opportunity with McDonald’s on a management track.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If you have lost any time from your employment, business or occupation since the occurrence referred to in the complaint, state the cause of such loss of time, the date(s) of such loss of time and the amount of wages or income lost.

ANSWER NO. 18: See above.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: State the names and addresses of all persons known to you or to your attorneys who have given signed or recorded statements relative to all or any part of the occurrence and state the date the signed or recorded statement was given, to whom it was given and the present custodian of each such signed or recorded statement. Attach hereto a copy of all signed statements made by the party propounding these Interrogatories.

ANSWER NO. 19: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as it seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney-work product doctrine. However, without waiving said objection, Plaintiff is not aware of any such statements other than the incident report completed by David Holtman, Sr. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this Answer as discovery continues and additional information is made available.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If you know of the existence of any pictures, diagrams or objects (real evidence) relative to the occurrence or its consequences, state the nature, subject matter, date produced or obtained and the name and address of the present custodian of each.

ANSWER NO. 20: Plaintiff is in possession of photographs of the scene of the accident, photographs of Plaintiff’s injuries, a single photograph of the set cart, and video footage taken by security cameras at the Hyland during the load out on September 4 and 5, 2017.

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: If you contend that any document, letter, report, writing or any written instrument of any type or description is relevant to any issue in this case, identify each such written instrument, including the date and identity of the person preparing or signing such written instrument.

ANSWER NO. 21: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as it seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney-work product doctrine. However, without waiving said objection, Plaintiff will rely on any documents exchanged during the course of discovery.

INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State whether you have ever been convicted of any crimes, other than for violations of the Motor Vehicle Laws, and if so, set forth the nature of such crimes, the dates of each conviction and the name and address of the Court wherein each conviction occurred.

ANSWER NO. 22: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as the information sought is irrelevant, and the discovery of which is not likely to lead to information that would be admissible at the trial of this matter. Furthermore, the information’s probative value would be outweighed by its prejudicial effect. However, without waiving said objections, Plaintiff has not been convicted of any such crime.

INTERROGATORY NO. 23: If you consumed any alcoholic beverage of any type, or any sedative, tranquilizer or other drug, medicine or pill during the 48 hours immediately preceding the incident referred to in the Complaint, state the nature, amount and type of item consumed, the amount of time over which each was consumed and the names and addresses of any and all persons who have any knowledge as to the consumption of these items.

ANSWER NO. 23: Plaintiff denies the use of any such substance during the forty-eight (48) hours preceding the occurrence.

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State whether you have within your control, or have knowledge of any transcripts of testimony in any proceeding arising out of the occurrence. If so, state the date, the subject matter, the name and business a
ddress of the person recording said testimony, and the name and address of the person who has present possession of each such transcript of testimony.

ANSWER NO. 24: Plaintiff did testify at his Worker’s Compensation Hearing.

INTERROGATORY NO. 25: If you have ever made claim for any benefits under any insurance policy or against any person, firm or corporation for personal injuries and/or bodily injury which you have not heretofore listed in your answers to these interrogatories, set forth the nature of the injury or condition for which such claim was made, the name and address of the person, firm or corporation to whom or against whom the claim was made, the nature and amount of any payment received therefore and the date it was received.

ANSWER NO. 25: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as the information sought is irrelevant, and the discovery of which is not likely to lead to information which would be admissible at trial. Furthermore, the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial effect; however, without answers to previous interrogatories.

INTERROGATORY NO. 26: If you contend that the party propounding these Interrogatories at any time made an admission against interest with respect to any issue involved in this litigation, state the date and place and in whose presence the admission against interest was made and the nature thereof.

ANSWER NO. 26: Defendant did make an admission as to the mishandling of evidence in this case. Discovery is ongoing and this Answer may be supplemented.

INTERROGATORY NO. 27: If any of the persons named in response to the preceding Interrogatories are known or related to you, or to each other, state the nature of such acquaintanceship or relationship.

ANSWER NO. 27: Plaintiff knows Defendants from instituting the instant action and being involved in the accident, and has doctor-patient relationships with his healthcare providers. The individuals identified in these Answer to Interrogatories are identified by the nature of their relationship to Plaintiff.

INTERROGATORY NO. 28: State the identity, part number and description of all of the components and parts of the product which is the subject of this suit which you alleged to have been defective in materials, workmanship, manufacture, design, or otherwise, specifying in your answer the exact nature of each such defect or defective condition and the manner in which you contend such defect affected the operation or safety of the road case and state the names and addresses of all persons having personal knowledge thereof and identify all documents that evidence your answer.

ANSWER NO. 28: Plaintiff claims that the set cart in question was defectively designed, defectively manufactured, and did not contain adequate warnings. Plaintiff has not been provided with any documentation as to the set cart. Discovery is ongoing and this Answer will be supplemented.

INTERROGATORY NO. 29: If you contend that any product or any of its component parts were defective by reason of design, then identify those parts and state in what manner you contend that such design was inadequate, improper or defective and include in your answer all facts or opinions relied upon by you in determining the state of the art, or advancement in technology, as of the time the product was designed and/or manufactured and all facts or opinions upon which you rely in asserting that the design of the product, or any of its component parts, deviated from or failed to meet or comply with the state of the art at the time of its design and/or manufacture and identify all documents that evidence your answer.

ANSWER NO. 29: Plaintiff claims that the set cart in question was defectively designed, defectively manufactured, and did not contain adequate warnings. Plaintiff has not been provided with any documentation as to the set cart. Discovery is ongoing and this Answer will be supplemented.

INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Name any person, not heretofore mentioned, having personal knowledge of facts material to this case.

ANSWER NO. 30: None other than those identified in these answers to interrogatories.

Respectfully submitted,
Miller & Zois, LLC
___________________________

 

OATH

I do solemnly declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

___________________________________
RICHARD DAVIS