Ahh the perils of a scrivener's error.
Here somebody wasted a bunch of time and money on a summary judgment motion based entirely on a rog where the defendant -- excuse me, the defendant's scrivener -- apparently left out the word "not" when responding.
Judge Marra gets to the heart of it:
Plaintiff’s motion is based solely on Defendant’s answer to Plaintiff’s interrogatory. Immediately upon receiving Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Defendant filed its amended answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, attempting to correct what it claims was a scrivener’s error which should have obviously read, “Defendant did not call Plaintiff on Easter Sunday at 9:30 pm.” (DE 12, Resp. to Plaintiff’s Mot. Ex. B.) Defendant also provided Plaintiff with a letter explaining that “[t]he [amendment to the answer] was necessitated by a scrivener’s error regarding interrogatory [number thirteen]. The word NOT was inadvertently omitted.” (Resp. Ex. D.) Defendant’s contention that the answer to interrogatory thirteen was a mistake is buttressed by Defendant’s repeated denials of Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant allegedly called at 7:00 a.m., 9:30 p.m., on Easter Sunday at 9:30 p.m., or at any other time that would violate the FDCPA or the FCCPA. (Resp. Ex. B, C.) Defendant’s answer to interrogatory number twelve is instructive as the question reads, “[w]hy did Defendant call Plaintiff at 7:00 am and 9:30 pm?” (Resp. Ex. B.) Defendant’s response states that “Defendant did not call Plaintiff at those times or at any times that would violate the call times restrictions imposed by the FDCPA or FCCPA.” Id. Further, in response to Plaintiff’s request for admissions, on or around November 19, 2009, Defendant unequivocally denied any requests to admit that calls were made at inappropriate times including on Easter Sunday. (Resp. Ex. C.)Ok, this seems ridiculous or am I missing something here?
And yes, it is a slow news day.