Refusing to fill out interrogatories--deadline issue

[rey]

This concerns a CS mod that I (CP) initiated. I'm pro se, NCP has retained an attorney--this is in Washington state. Court date is November 4. Interrogatories (to be answered) are due 28 days before court. I received interrogatories from them in September. I answered, and penned my own for them. I mailed them Oct. 6 (priority mail, for what that's worth). They apparently weren't received until Oct. 12.

Received a letter from attorney last Friday (14th) stating that they were received after deadline and thus wouldn't be answered. Specifically, he states, "The cut-off date was October 7, 2005 for this case (see page 4 of the case schedule. Since documents sent via mail are presumed to take three calendar days to be received, your request for Interrogatories was submitted after deadline to complete discovery; therefore [NCP] is under no obligation to respond , and your Interrogatories will not be answered."

The '28 days' was in the case schedule, and I was clear on that. I'd never heard of any '3 days for mail' rule, and I suspect it's a convention and not a 'rule', per se.

1. Do you know if this is a case where an attorney is trying to 'pull one over' on a pro se adversary (I know there is some gray area in the dates my interrogatories were mailed/received), or is this a clear and simple screw-up on my part?

2. Is there any way at this point that I can compel them to answer the interrogatories? (Filing a motion?)

Thanks.

[socrateaser]

>1. Do you know if this is a case where an attorney is trying
>to 'pull one over' on a pro se adversary (I know there is some
>gray area in the dates my interrogatories were
>mailed/received), or is this a clear and simple screw-up on my
>part?

Opposing counsel is a real ass. The three-day rule is real, but if you were an attorney, your opponent wouldn't use this sort of bullshit tactic, and would have made a good faith effort to comply. Write back (fax followed by mail) and state that there's plenty of time to reasonably answer the interrogatory, but that if the attorney insists on form, that you will file a motion to shorten time or for a continuance in the alternative, both if which will only cost his client unnecessary litigation expenses. Copy your ex on this, too, because people just hate to discover that their attorney is wasting their fee money.

[rey]

Thanks! My understanding is tyhat, since ex retained an attorney, all correspondence re. this motion needs to be addressed to the attorney.

1. Is it legal (kosher?) to copy my ex on this correspondence?

[socrateaser]

>Thanks! My understanding is tyhat, since ex retained an
>attorney, all correspondence re. this motion needs to be
>addressed to the attorney.
>
>1. Is it legal (kosher?) to copy my ex on this
>correspondence?

Only attorneys are prohibited from contacting a represented opposing party directly. If you are the actual party, you have the right contact the other party directly, however if you're represented, your attorney can withdraw from the case if you refuse to cooperate. If you're pro se, then you can do as you wish.