STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF GREENVILLE ) FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT)

Patricia Peacock, individually and as Guardian ad litem for Conner Peacock, a minor under the age of 14 years,

))))) C.A. No. 2014-CP-23-1983

Plaintiff, )) RESPONSES TO

vs. ) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION)

David Diamond, )))

Defendant. )

TO: PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY:

Defendant, David Diamond, by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 34

of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, herewith responds to Defendant’s first request

for production:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Defendant objects to each of Plaintiff’s requests to the extent they seek to place burdens,

duties, and obligations upon Defendant in excess of, different from, and beyond the scope of

those imposed by applicable law and the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant

will respond in accordance with the applicable law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local

Rules and Orders.

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent the requests seek information

regarding matters about which the Plaintiff already has knowledge.

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent the requests seek to discover

attorney work product, including the discovery of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions

1

and/or legal theories of attorneys for Defendant which is not discoverable under Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 4905 (1947).

Defendant objects to these requests to the extent they seek information protected by the

attorney-client privilege, or any other applicable privilege. No response by Defendant is intended

to, or shall waive any such applicable privilege.

Defendant objects to these requests to the extent that they seek information that is equally

available to Plaintiff and the burden on Plaintiff to obtain the requested information is no greater

than the burden on Defendant.

Defendant objects to these requests to the extent that they do not, on their face, restrict

themselves either to an identifiable time or reasonable, rationally based time.

Defendant objects to these requests to the extent they are oppressive and were designed to

place an unreasonable burden on Defendant where the burden is not commensurate with the value

of the information sought and outweighs the likely benefit of the proposed discovery.

Defendant objects to these requests to the extent that they are overly broad, unduly

burdensome, vague, cumulative, duplicative, expensive to respond to, and to the extent that they

seek information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

RESPONSES

1. Any and all veterinary records for animals in the Defendant’s care and keeping for

the past ten years.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Request to Produce No. 1 to the extent that it is overly

broad, unduly burdensome, vague, cumulative, duplicative, expensive to respond to, and to

the extent that they seek information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any

2

party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Notwithstanding, and without waiving the objections, see attached records from Richland

Creek Animal Clinic dated 9/20/2010 and 10/01/2010. See also record from Stanford Grist

Veterinary Services, LLC dated 5/10/2010.

Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response at a later date.

2. Any and all photographs, video recordings, sketches, plats and other written or

recorded documents that relate to any claim or defense in this case including but not limited

depictions of the Defendant’s dog; the Defendant’s yard; any signage on the Defendant’s

property; the Defendant’s fence; and the latch on the Defendant’s gate.

RESPONSE:

See the attached pictures of Defendant’s Dog, Max. See also pictures of Defendant’s

fence, gate, and gate with latch. Also see veterinary records from Richland Creek Animal

Clinic dated 9/20/2010 and 10/01/2010; record from Stanford Grist Veterinary Services,

LLC dated 5/10/2010. See Animal Control Record dated May 9, 2012; City of Greenville

Tickets dated May 13, 2012; and statements given to Animal Control by Paul Peacock and

Patricia Peacock dated May 5, 2012.

Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response at a later date.

3. All state and federal income tax returns, including W-2 forms and schedules, for

the past five years.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Request to Produce No. 3 because it is not relevant to

the subject matter in the pending litigation, is not related to the claims or defenses of any

party, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

3

4. Copies of any and all complaints, reports, citations or other documentation

received by the Defendant from the Sherriff’s Department, Police Department, Animal Control

and/or any other city, county and/or state agency with regard to any pet he has owned or had in

his care and keeping in the past ten (10) years.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Request to Produce No. 4 to the extent that it is

overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, cumulative, duplicative, expensive to respond to,

and to the extent that they seek information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense

of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Notwithstanding, and without waiving the objections, see attached Animal Control Record

dated May 9, 2012. See also City of Greenville Tickets dated May 13, 2012 for violation of

Section No 4-4 and 4-33. See also statements given to Animal Control by Paul Peacock and

Patricia Peacock dated May 5, 2012.

Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response at a later date.

5. All exhibits the Defendant intends to use at trial.

RESPONSE:

Defendant’s counsel has yet to determine any materials responsive to this request.

Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response at a later date.

6. Any and all documents received in response to a subpoena issued to a third party

in this case.

RESPONSE:

Defendant has no responses to any subpoenas issued to a third party in this case.

Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response at a later date.

4

7. All statements of any witnesses or other persons claiming to have knowledge of

any issue in this case.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent the requests seek to discover

attorney work product, including the discovery of mental impressions, conclusions,

opinions and/or legal theories of attorneys for Defendant which is not discoverable under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 4905 (1947).

Notwithstanding, and without waiving the objections, See Statements given to Animal

Control by Paul Peacock and Patricia Peacock dated May 5, 2012.

8. The Curriculum Vitae of each and every expert the Defendant intends to call or

list as a witness to testify in this case.

RESPONSE:

Defendant has not retained any expert witnesses at this time. Defendant reserves the

right to supplement this response at a later date.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________Susan Davis (SC Bar No. 420) DAVIS, DONOVAN & DUBOIS, PA 100 North Main Street Greenville, SC 29601(864) 555-9580Attorney for Defendant

November 24, 2014Greenville, South Carolina

5