Attorney's request of non-relevant information

[ccmidaho]

Hello Soc:

Idaho. Father scheduled to go to trial in Dec for a changing residential schedule to get more time with child (18 months). Mother and father were never married, nor lived together. Right now the only thing we are fighting about is time with child as father has very little.

Recently her attorney sent a letter through mine asking very detailed questions about a number of items, some of which are directly related to the motion in question, some of them are not:
Here are some examples of what was asked:

*My monthly checking account balances back 3 years before child was born, mortgage payments info, value of my home, real estate investments, stock investments, 401k balances, bonuses I've received, salary for the past 5 years, all my assets, all my bank statements, all my real estate transactions, if I'm a beneficiary of trusts and the list goes on and on.  

*Copies or records of all communication between myself and mother for 3 years before child was born until now

*Citations, speeding tickets, medical history, drugs taken, judgements against me

*Witnesses I plan to bring to trial including their contact information


Here are my questions:

Do I have to answer all the questions, particularly those that are not relevant to the motion such as the financial ones?

What could happen to me if I don't answer them and what will be a likely response by them if I don't?

Should my attorney have asked them for this same information (he only asked them to supply witness info and other motion-relevant info).

Given that the motion is about modifying the residential schedule, what do you think they are up to (is this some kind of scare tactic)?

Depending on your answers above I may have a private question for you that I do not want to post on this message board. Is that possible?

Thank you

[socrateaser]

>Here are my questions:
>
>Do I have to answer all the questions, particularly those that
>are not relevant to the motion such as the financial ones?

Under common laws of civil procedure, evidence is discoverable if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Here, if neither the current motion, nor the other party's affirmative response to the motion, contains nothing concerning the issue of child support, then no financial issue can possibly be reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of anything admissible, because the issue of child support is not yet before the court.

However, as a practical matter, if you obtain more custody/parenting time as the result of this current motion, then you will raise the support issue in order to try to reduce your current support obligation, and suddenly, all financial matters will become relevant. Similarly, if you stonewall on the issue, it is a practical certainty that opposing counsel will file an amended response requesting a support modification.

You want to avoid this, unless you are already certain that your support obligation will decrease, because, at the moment that the issue of support is raised, that is also the moment that the court can (and will) RETROACTIVELY modify your support obligation. This will result in your having to pay arrears that the court would otherwise be unable to order.

So, this is not a battle that I would choose to fight at the moment. The other attorney is trying to scare you off, but, he/she has apparently failed to move to have support modified, which is, frankly, an action upon which the attorney's client could sue for malpractice, because money is likely being left on the table.

Nuf said?

>
>What could happen to me if I don't answer them and what will
>be a likely response by them if I don't?

See above.

>
>Should my attorney have asked them for this same information
>(he only asked them to supply witness info and other
>motion-relevant info).

If filing for a support mod is in your interest, then your attorney should have filed, and the answer here is yes, otherwise it doesn't really matter, yet.

>Given that the motion is about modifying the residential
>schedule, what do you think they are up to (is this some kind
>of scare tactic)?

See above.

>
>Depending on your answers above I may have a private question
>for you that I do not want to post on this message board. Is
>that possible?

It's possible that you will win the $340 million dollar Powerball lotto this week. But, it's 20 times more likely that you'll be killed in an auto accident while driving to purchase the winning ticket (assuming a four mile round trip to the ticket vendor).

So, let's cross this bridge when we come to it, shall we?

[ccmidaho]

Thank you.

Additional info and question:  

Under no circumstances would I ever bring up the issue of child support regardless of the amount of time I win through the current motion (and I am positive I will win substantially more time). I am fine with the amount as is and I don't want/need it to go up or down. In fact, mother and father already agreed to a slightly modified child support amount in mediation. Its this surprise move by the attorney that I'm trying to understand.

I do have some additional questions that would not be prudent for me to post. May I contact you directly?

[socrateaser]

>I do have some additional questions that would not be prudent
>for me to post. May I contact you directly?

No, unless it concerns an issue for which you have already been, or you believe that it is reasonably likely that you will shortly be, charged with a crime.

[ccmidaho]

No definitely not the case. I just wanted to give you more information and my town is too small for the details not to give away my identity and thus my strategies for getting more time with child. I know it sounds crazy but everybody knows everyone in my state.

Thanks for your help.