Search results

BREACH OF PROCEDURE Rule 4.7 allows the request, and by the Judge forcible showing, of documents from the opposing party. It does not allow 3rd parties to be forced into doing so.

Might we respond to the Motion? There seems to be an misunderstanding. Edit: Nevermind; I keep misreading. Tough day. Strike this request please.

DECLARATION TO AMEND: Answer 7 contains an error due to a misreading of the Facts. Answer 7 will be amended as follows: AFFIRM that Executive Order 24/23 defines "personal identifiable information (PII) is "any information related to an identifiable person"." However DENY that "The Defendant...

We also sold the technology, and no longer have the means to even access it.

The Defendant opposes an extension; Discovery has already gone on beyond the original length and we have answered all questions and shown all requested documents, within reason (we are not creating new documents that don't exist). My client has the right to a speedy trial.

The Terms of Service contain all we have, then. There were no additional documents.

Defendnat did not comply with the Plaintiff's interpretation of the Privacy Act, however as shown in the Answer to Complaint, our interpretations clearly differ. Defendant complied with the Privacy Act as far as we can tell.

We can certainly look at a list of transactions for an individual, but pulling up every single transaction and manually going through and counting out unique users is not as simple. Likewise, counting out a total of every single transaction is not easy. We didn't say it was impossible, simply...

1. When did Vanguard Securities LLC first become aware that it was operating without a Privacy Policy while requiring users to agree to one at login? April 9, 2025. 2. What specific steps, if any, did Vanguard Securities LLC take to comply with Privacy Act requirements prior to April 11, 2025...

1. All organizational charts showing the corporate relationship between Vanguard Securities LLC and Discover Bank from January 2025 to April 11, 2025. Exhibit P-005 is the only chart we have, which clearly displays all of Vanguard & Co's subsidiaries being within the single entity of Vanguard &...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT MOTION TO DISMISS The Defendant seeks dismissal of this case, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges: Rule 5.12 - Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Insufficient Standing) As per the Plaintiff's response to interrogatories, "The Plaintiffs...

BREACH OF PROCEDURE The Defendant was deported at the time of filing the Motion (as shown in the the Motion) and the Supreme Court has established that deported players have no rights to be a part of a lawsuit (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - UnityMaster v. lcn [2025] SCR 2) We request this response...

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Defendant submits the following interrogatories which the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability: 1. In what tangible and measurable way were the Plaintiffs damaged by the Defendant's alleged violations?

RELEVANCE Whether Vanguard took steps to comply is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they actually complied. RELEVANCE Any decision-making processes are irrelevant. What matters is whether or not Vanguard complied with the Privacy Act.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER Even though he is no longer deported, he was at the time. In [2025] SCR 2 (Lawsuit: Dismissed - UnityMaster v. lcn [2025] SCR 2), the Supreme Court established the following precedent: This precedent is binding to the Federal Court and Naezaratheus must be removed from...

Breach of Procedure The Defendant has not been summoned.

Your honor I have some Objections to make but I got an injury which is making it difficult to type could we have a forty eight hour extension to discovery while I go to the doctor and heal up

BREACH OF PROCEDURE These were not Objections, they were oppositions made under Rule 4.7. No response is permitted. If they had more to say, they should've included it in the original request.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT v__d Plaintiff v. RylandW Defendant I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1. AFFIRM that “RylandW was a candidate for re-election in the mayoral race of Aventura which took place between March 30, 2025, and April 1, 2025.” 2. DENY that...

MOTION TO STRIKE Naezaratheus is deported and cannot be a Plaintiff. We ask he be struck from the list as well.