Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alston Civil Case File - Redacted
Alston Civil Case File - Redacted
PLAINTIFF
ANSWER
Defendant Sheldon Alston (Alston) answers Complaint (“Complaint”) filed against him
as follows:
PARTIES
1. Alston does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the claims in
FACTS
Alston admits that came to his house on September 7, 2016, and that the two of them went
16. The allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
would state that bit Alston’s finger while they were walking to Alston’s house.
22. The allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint are denied. Further, Alston
would state that could leave at any time from the beginning of the night until the end of the
night and was never stopped from leaving the presence of Alston.
23. The allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during this altercation, Alston and hit each other.
2
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 7 Filed: 10/18/2017 Page 3 of 10
24. The allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
28. The allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that he and , with s consent, drove to a cabin in Lafayette County. In fact,
drove the car through the gate and up the driveway to the cabin.
29. The allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that the he and returned to the house in Oxford, Mississippi around 6 a.m.
paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore, the allegations are denied. However, Alston
36. Alston admits he has been charged and indicted with Domestic Violence –
3
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 7 Filed: 10/18/2017 Page 4 of 10
CAUSES OF ACTION
ASSULT – COUNTY I – VI
39. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Answer fully herein by
reference.
40. The allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint are denied as written. However,
Alston does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night
in question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
COUNT I
COUNT II
COUNT III
COUNT IV
48. The allegations of paragraph 48 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
4
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 7 Filed: 10/18/2017 Page 5 of 10
49. The allegations of paragraph 49 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
COUNT V
COUNT VI
53. The allegations of paragraph 53 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
54. The allegations of paragraph 54 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
55. The allegations of paragraph 55 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
56. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Answer fully herein by
reference.
5
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 7 Filed: 10/18/2017 Page 6 of 10
COUNT VII
COUNT VIII
COUNT IX
COUNT X
COUNT XI
69. The allegations of paragraph 69 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
COUNT XII
72. The allegations of paragraph 72 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during this altercation, Alston and hit each other.
6
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 7 Filed: 10/18/2017 Page 7 of 10
73. The allegations of paragraph 73 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
76. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Answer fully herein by
reference.
COUNT XIII
78. The allegations of paragraph 78 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
would admit ’s phone was thrown to the ground during the night.
COUNT XIV
COUNT XV
83. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Answer fully herein by
reference.
7
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 7 Filed: 10/18/2017 Page 8 of 10
89. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Answer fully herein by
reference.
90. Alston admits that had a cell phone on the night at issue.
93. The allegations of Paragraph 93 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
would admit phone was thrown to the ground during the night.
95. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Answer fully herein by
reference.
98. The allegations of Paragraph 98 of the Complaint do not require a response from
This answering Defendant denies any allegations within the Complaint not specifically
Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in the Complaint, and
8
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 7 Filed: 10/18/2017 Page 9 of 10
/s/Walter T. Johnson
Walter T. Johnson (MSB# 8712)
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC
Post Office Box 650
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Telephone: 601.965.1900
Email: wjohnson@watkinseager.com
9
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 7 Filed: 10/18/2017 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 18, 2017, I forwarded, via electronic mail, a true and
Jonathan S. Masters
jmasters@holcombdunbar.com
Holcomb, Dunbar, Watts,
Best, Masters & Golmon, P.A.
Post Office Drawer 707
Oxford, MS 38655
/s/Walter T. Johnson
Walter T. Johnson
10
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 1 of 11
PLAINTIFF
MOTION TO COMPEL
1. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an Order compelling Defendant Sheldon
Alston to provide complete responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
2. This lawsuit arises out of Defendant’s violent physical attacks upon the person of
Plaintiff.
3. On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendant with its First Set of Discovery
Requests which included interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for
admission. Defendant’s counsel filed responses on November 3, 2017. See discovery responses
5. In an attempt to settle the issues without the assistance of the Court, counsel for
Plaintiff communicated with Defendant’s counsel in good faith efforts to obtain full responses to
the first set of discovery. Plaintiff first sent a Good Faith letter to Defendant’s counsel, giving
Defendant until January 10, 2018 to file supplemental responses. See December 12, 2016
correspondence, attached as Exhibit 2. No response was given within the 28 days provided. In a
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 2 of 11
further attempt to obtain full responses, Plaintiff’s counsel called Defendant’s counsel on
January 12, 2018 and requested the supplemental responses. No response was given by
Defendant in the time between January 12, 2018 and the filing of this Motion to Compel on
January 30, 2018. Therefore, counsel was unable to resolve the dispute.
Defendant describe the events of the evening hours of September 7, 2016 and the morning hours
of September 8, 2016.
8. Defendant’s response merely provides that a physical fight occurred during that
time frame. Clearly, this response does not come close to answering Interrogatory No. 3.
9. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that Mississippi law “favors
discovery.” Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 942 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 2006). Rule 26 of the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ny matter not privileged, which is relevant
to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of a party” is discoverable. Miss. R. Civ. P. 26.
The scope of discovery is broad and non-privileged evidence is discoverable when it appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. West v. West, 891 So.2d
2
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 3 of 11
203, 219 (Miss. 2004). Discoverable matter need not be admissible at trial in order to be
discovery of admissible evidence.” Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control Co. Inc., 607 So. 2d 1232
(Miss. 1992).
10. The requested information is particularly relevant in the instant case and is
discoverable under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent.
Rule 26 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that the documents or
These requirements are satisfied by the Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production. The events of the evening hours of September 7, 2016 and the morning hours of
September 8, 2016 are the subject of this lawsuit. Defendant needs to augment his response and
provide additional information as to how he remembers the events of that night and the following
morning. Of course, no one is expecting Defendant to “describe every detail of any one event;”
however, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure certainly require more when answering
12. Plaintiff next seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
3
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 4 of 11
describing what Defendant did from the time he woke up on September 7, 2016 to the time he
went to sleep in the morning hours of September 8, 2016. It additionally requested a list of the
places Defendant went and the people he encountered. None of this is provided in response to
Interrogatory No. 5.
14. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that Mississippi law “favors
discovery.” Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 942 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 2006). The scope of
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. West v. West, 891 So.2d 203, 219
(Miss. 2004). Discoverable matter need not be admissible at trial in order to be discoverable so
long as “the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible
evidence.” Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control Co. Inc., 607 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 1992). It is important
that Plaintiff be allowed to investigate all possible sources of evidence, which will be assisted by
15. The requested information is particularly relevant in the instant case and is
discoverable under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent.
Rule 26 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that the documents or
Defendant’s activities on September 7 and September 8, 2016, from the time he woke up until
the time he went to sleep, stating the places he traveled to and from, the times of arrival and
departure, persons he encountered, and his activities are all directly relevant to the claims and
4
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 5 of 11
16. Therefore, pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Mississippi Rules of Civil
17. Plaintiff next seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
18. This response is incomplete and lacking. Interrogatory No. 8 requests that
Defendant describe and explain the substance and date of any admission, identify the person or
entity making the admission, and identify and describe all individuals who were witnesses or
have knowledge regarding the admission. In response, Defendant fails to provide any admission,
19. The requested information is particularly relevant in the instant case and is
discoverable under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent.
Since this information is clearly discoverable, and Mississippi law favors discovery, Defendant
20. Plaintiff next seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
5
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 6 of 11
each person involved in the incidents and describe their injuries. Defendant fails to fully respond
to this request.
22. In previous responses, Defendant stated that “he and Plaintiff had a physical fight
where both parties hit each other.” Therefore, in order to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 9,
Defendant must describe Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s injuries are particularly relevant to the
instant case. As the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated: Mississippi law “favors discovery.”
Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 942 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 2006). Rule 26 of the Mississippi
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ny matter not privileged, which is relevant to the
issues raised by the claims or defenses of a party” is discoverable. Miss. R. Civ. P. 26.
Therefore, Defendant must supplement his response and fully respond to Interrogatory No. 9 by
describing Plaintiff’s injuries that she incurred during Defendant’s brutal physical assault upon
her person.
23. Plaintiff next seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
6
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 7 of 11
cellular phone provider and cellular number and for Defendant to identify the person(s) with
whom he had any conversation at any time on the dates of the incidents described in the
25. The requested information is relevant in the instant case and is discoverable under
the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent. Rule 26 of the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that the documents or information requested
information is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence since the names
and numbers of people Defendant called during the dates specified in the Complaint can lead to
evidence regarding how Defendant’s physical assault upon Plaintiff occurred, to witnesses that
may provide information regarding admissions and statements made by Defendant during the
26. Plaintiff next seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
7
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 8 of 11
Defendant denied or qualified his responses to any of his responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Requests for Admission propounded by Plaintiff, that he set forth each and every basis for the
denial.
28. Instead of providing any information setting forth each and every basis for
Requests for Admission demonstrates that Defendant merely answered “Denied” on at least 13
of the 21 Requests for Admission, and provided not a single word of explanation to any of his
denial responses. This simply does not answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 17.
29. The requested information is relevant in the instant case and is discoverable under
the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent and will assist in
narrowing the issues in the litigation. In addition, it will provide needed information to assist in
determining the facts surrounding the events of the evening hours of September 7 and the
morning hours of September 8. For that reason this information is discoverable since Mississippi
law “favors discovery” and the scope of discovery is broad and non-privileged evidence is
evidence. Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 942 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 2006); West v. West,
891 So.2d 203, 219 (Miss. 2004). Co. Inc., 607 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 1992).
30. Plaintiff next seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
8
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 9 of 11
31. This response is completely lacking. Request for Production No. 7 requests a
copy of Defendant’s driver’s license. This information is reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, since pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Civil
Procedure and applicable precedent, the scope of discovery is broad and Defendant’s driver’s
32. Therefore, Defendant needs to supplement his response to Request for Production
No. 7.
33. Plaintiff next seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
34. This response is completely lacking. Request for Production No. 8 requests a
copy of any and all documents evidencing any violations, citations or any other infractions which
pertain to Defendant. This request sought all documents that Defendant has received from the
35. The requested information is particularly relevant in the instant case and is
discoverable under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent.
Rule 26 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that the documents or
9
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 10 of 11
36. Therefore, Defendant needs to supplement his response to Request for Production
No. 8.
be entered compelling Defendant to fully respond to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests
within five days from the entry of that Order. Plaintiff further requests all other relief the Court
Of Counsel:
10
Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 10 Filed: 01/30/2018 Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, GEOFFREY F. CALDERARO, do hereby certify that I have on this date caused the
foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent
s/ Geoffrey F. Calderaro
GEOFFREY F. CALDERARO
11