COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY COUNTY OF JEFFERSON MICHELLE RAYZOR, Plaintiff vs.

JONATHAN BLANTON, et al Defendant

) SS: )

IN THE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOTICE-MOTION-ORDER

Case No. 13-CI-003162

NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the motion will be will be heard in the above captioned court on Monday, October 14, 2013 at 2:15 P.M. or as soon thereafter as it may be heard.

MOTION TO COMPEL COMES NOW the Defendants Jonathan and Christopher Blanton, pro se (hereinafter Defendants) pursuant to CR 37 and JRP 402 and respectfully move the Court For an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendants discovery and in support states as follows: On August 07 2013, Defendants requested extensive discovery regarding the Plaintiffs claims in the above captioned case. (See Defendants Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents attached hereto as Exhibit A.) By the Defendants calculations responses to the above referenced discovery requests were due, allowing three (3) days for mailing, on or about September 09, 2013. The Plaintiff failed to respond. On or about September 13, 2013, the Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiffs counsel advising them that Plaintiff had not responded to Defendants discovery requests in this case and gave them two (2) weeks to respond under the threat of motion to compel. (See letter attached hereto

as Exhibit B. Again, Defendants received no response from the Plaintiff. Plaintiff have thirty (30) days to respond to Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure, CR 33.01(2), CR 34.02(2) and 36.01(2) respectively. The Defendants have made an extrajudicial, good faith effort to obtain a response, to no avail. Despite the clear relevancy of the discovery request propounded to the Plaintiff this case, and despite the fact that no privilege or objections are claimed, Defendants have flatly refused to produce any response to the Defendants discovery or their extrajudicial attempts to effect a response. CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated above, as well those stated in the attached Memorandum which are fully incorporated herein, the Defendant respectfully request the Court grant the Defendants motion to compel discovery responses. Respectfully submitted, ________________ ___________________

Christopher Blanton and Jonathan Blanton 7310 Maria Avenue Louisville, KY 502) 298-2916

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL On or about August 7, 2013, Defendants propounded discovery requests and have followed with extrajudicial requests to resolve discovery disputes and have not received any response. Discovery in Kentucky is broad and open. Under CR 26.02(1): Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . . It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Kentuckys leading commentator has written that [t[he discovery rules have been interpreted liberally to allow maximum discovery. Relevant is to be interpreted very broadly to mean matter relevant to anything which is or may become an issue in the litigation. Discovery requests are to be interpreted liberally. Phillips Kentucky Practice, Fifth Edition, West Publishing Co. 1995, pp. 468-469, and cases cited therein. Kentucky Rule of Evidence 501 reflects this philosophy of liberal discovery and the restricted application of claimed privileges by its provision that no person may refuse to provide or produce evidence, objects or writings unless specifically allowed by statute, Constitution or court rules. KRE 501 operates to reinforce the fundamental notion that there is a right to every person's evidence and to compulsory process for the production of evidence when needed. Robert G. Lawson, Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook 5.05, at 226 (3d ed. 1993). The Kentucky Supreme Court has noted the importance of satisfying the need for discovery information if a law suit is to be decided as a search for the truth, and the policy of the law to accommodate such need if the courts can do so . . . Riggs v. Schroering, Ky., 822 S.W.2d 414 (1991). The Plaintiff had thirty (30) days to respond to Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and

Request for Production of Documents. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, the Defendant are entitled by law to open discovery, and respectfully request the Court to order Defendants to respond to discovery Respectfully Submitted, __________________ ____________________

Christopher Blanton and Jonathan Blanton 7310 Maria Avenue Louisville, KY (502) 298-2916

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail postage prepaid, this _______ day of _________, 2013, by mailing same to: Scott A. Wallitsch c/o Cooper and Friedman 1448 Gardiner Lane Louisville, KY 40213

__________________ _______________ Christopher Blanton and Jonathan Blanton 7310 Maria Avenue Louisville, KY (502) 298-2916

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

Pursuant to JRP 402, the Defendants Jonathan and Christopher Blanton hereby certify that they have made a good faith effort to confer with opposing counsel regarding a discovery dispute, as set forth in their Motion to Compel, that they have received no response thereto and are unable to reconcile their differences and, that they have otherwise exhausted all extrajudicial means in an effort to reconcile their differences with opposing counsel. To the extent that extrajudicial means have not disposed of the matter the Defendants seek an Order pursuant to CR 37 to compel compliance with discovery as attached hereto.

__________________ _______________ Christopher Blanton and Jonathan Blanton 7310 Maria Avenue Louisville, KY (502) 298-2916