IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, FIFTH DISTRICT

PETER MEYERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

) No.: 04 M5-001064

MOSES ESPINOZA and PACELLA )

PIGGYBACK, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

DEFENDANTS’ S.C.R. 219(c) MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

NOW COME the Defendants, MOSES ESPINOZA and PACELLA PIGGYBACK, INC., by and through their attorney, LAW OFFICES LOWELL D. SNORF, III, and move this Honorable Court for S.C.R. 219(c) discovery sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders directing Plaintiff’s discovery compliance. In support of this motion, movant states as follows:

1. On September 1, 2004, Defendants sent Plaintiff standard discovery, including interrogatories, S.C.R. 214 production requests, and a deposition notice (see Exhibit “A,” attached).

2. Plaintiff did not answer written discovery, and on December 15, 2004, Plaintiff was ordered to answer written discovery by January 13, 2005 (see Exhibit “B,” attached). The case was set for status on January 14, 2005.

3. Plaintiff did not answer written discovery by January 13, 2005.

4. On January 14, 2005, the case appeared at status. Plaintiff was given a final 14 days to answer all written discovery under oath, or by January 28, 2005. The case was reset to February 15, 2005 (see Exhibit “C,” attached).

5. On February 15, 2005, the case appeared at status call. The plaintiff had not answered written discovery as ordered on December 15, 2004, and on January 14, 2005, and case was dismissed for want of prosecution (see Exhibit “D,” attached).

6. On April 8, 2005, the February 15, 2005 dismissal for want of prosecution was vacated, and written discovery was to be answered within 7 days (see Exhibit “E,” attached).

7. Some time later, Plaintiff filed interrogatory answers which were incomplete (see Exhibit “F,” attached). Defendants did not receive Plaintiff’s verified answers to their S.C.R. 214 production requests.

8. By December, 2005, Defendants still had not received Plaintiff’s complete and verified discovery responses. Defendants prepared and filed a motion to compel (see Exhibit “G,” attached). The motion was to be presented on January 17, 2006.

9. Plaintiff’s attorney called Defendants’ attorney the afternoon of January 16, 2006, asking for the entry of an agreed order. On January 17, 2006, Defendants presented their motion, and the attached agreed order was entered (see Exhibit “H,” attached). The case was reset for status to February 15, 2006.

10. By February 15, 2006, there was no compliance with the December 15, 2004, January 14, 2005, or the January 17, 2006 order. On February 15, 2006, the court again directed compliance (see Exhibit “I,” attached). There is still no compliance.

WHEREFORE, movants respectfully request the Court for the following:

a), Pursuant to S.C.R. 219(c)(ii), bar PETER MEYERS’ discovery responses in support of his injury claim against answering Defendants; and/or

b), Pursuant to S.C.R. 219(c)(iii), bar PETER MEYERS from maintaining any injury claim against answering Defendants; and/or

c), Pursuant to S.C.R. 219(c)(iv), bar PETER MEYERS from testifying and/or providing any evidence and witnesses at arbitration and/or trial; and/or

d), Pursuant to S.C.R. 219(c)(vi), strike PETER MEYERS’ pleadings relating to any claim for injury against answering Defendants; and/or

e), Pursuant to S.C.R. 219(c)(vii), compel PETER MEYERS or his attorneys to pay all expenses and attorney’s fees incurred, including all expenses and costs allowable under S.C.R. 219(e), as a result of PETER MEYERS’ discovery abuse.

LAW OFFICES OF LOWELL D. SNORF, III Respectfully Submitted,

77 West Washington Street, Suite 703

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: (312) 726-8961 Lowell D. Snorf, III

ATT #71148 Attorney for Defendants