Judge Rossi warns Pro Se Defendant of the Perils in Court

Added: 2026-05-18

[00:00:00]Everyday in the USA, people find themselves in court.

[00:00:05]>> [music] [music] >> We are here in the case of Vicky Kirkster versus Progressive Marathon Insurance Company case number 25-21194-CK.

[00:00:21]This hearing is being recorded on Zoom and live streamed on YouTube.

[00:00:25]And we are here today on motions from the defendant to compel discovery and also to deem requests to admit admitted.

[00:00:40]So, Mr. Johnson, would you place your appearance on the record, please? I will, your honor. May it please the court, Robert Johnson on behalf of defendant Progressive at P42458.

[00:00:50]Very good. Thank you. And Ms. Kirkster, you are here uh representing yourself, that is pro se.

[00:01:02]These are Mr. Johnson's motions. I did not receive a written response from you, Ms. Kirkster.

[00:01:12]So, I guess as initial matter, what's your stance on whether or not I should grant these motions at this time? Um I did I did file on several documents into the e-filing system like on Monday.

[00:01:28]Were they titled a response to this or were they responses to the I mean, were they responses to Mr. Johnson's motion that he's arguing today or were they responses to the underlying information?

[00:01:40]No, they were responses to his motion.

[00:01:43]Okay. All right, and I did not pull those up in the e-filing system and I don't know exactly why. I'm still I have to admit I am still getting used to that. Normally, we have this somewhat inefficient system here of also filing a judges copy which I did get from Mr. Johnson in this matter.

[00:02:06]Um Uh once you summarize your arguments for me Miss Cookster. Um well that they the documents that I uploaded um showed that there were times um at the beginning um Mr. Johnson's associate um had emailed me and asked for an extra 2 weeks to um provide the answers that the interrogatories that I had sent and I Yep, I gave them additional time.

[00:02:38]Um as well I also Um I did send supplemental responses and I I had all those um exhibits in in my filing. Um I we have had communication via email. I offered to meet and confer. Um He he did not accept that offer. I did serve additional requests regarding payment lean holder documentation that I still have not gotten. That's why I didn't >> those are your your requests to him and I guess the the you know the key things today are well first these requests for admission. If I deem those admitted today is your argument that I mean are you in agreement that you didn't file responses at all to the requests for or I mean the only response I have is is Mr. Johnson indicated that you did respond to um request to admit number one uh says that admit that the insurance policy attached as exhibit one is the policy that was in effect on October 9th, 2024. Your response was my plaintiff admits that the insurance policy attached as is one appears to be the policy in effect on October 9th, 2024.

[00:03:54]Uh uh Uh and you say subject to confirmation by defendant which maintains the official policy records.

[00:04:00]Um that would be an admission to that.

[00:04:03]Uh and it appears that um that uh on the other requests for admit either you didn't answer the um same uh questions.

[00:04:16]Uh and uh I guess let's take that first. Uh are you going to stand on those answers at this point or did you supplement them?

[00:04:25]>> No, I did supplement them and I also yes, and Mr. Johnson got all those supplementations. I didn't realize I was supposed to send them to the court, too.

[00:04:32]I but I did supplement all of those of his his um his requests. Yeah, well, and that's one of the difficulties in uh of course doing it the way you're doing it representing yourself is that well, technically we don't send all of the discovery documents to the court until uh there's a dispute about it, which is what you're here for today. And then I need all the discovery documents at issue so I can analyze um what's going on. All right. Well, let me take these one at a time. Uh what's your uh current argument on the requests for admission, Mr. Johnson? I take it that uh your I mean, obviously uh supplemental answer is probably late at this point. Um is it still a situation where I just simply need to deem those one through four admitted?

[00:05:18]Yeah, if if I may, Your Honor. And I I think And normally I don't when I do motions to compel or motions to uh for more specific information relative to discovery, I don't go into a lot of background relative to the case.

[00:05:31]But I think in this particular for this particular motion, I think context is needed. And so background information is necessary for me to discuss so that you then can appreciate the discovery requests that we've made and the responses that I think are insufficient or lacking or just not provided. Uh so if I may um Miss uh Kirkstra was a named insured of Progressive on October 9th, 2024 for a 2019 Kia vehicle.

[00:06:00]That vehicle was uh being driven by Miss Kirkstra and was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained damage to the vehicle.

[00:06:07]Progressive deemed that the damage to be resulting in a total loss of the vehicle.

[00:06:13]My client issued a payment uh to the Hyundai Leasing uh company because they were the listed title owner of the vehicle with the Michigan Secretary of State.

[00:06:22]Uh and they had a lien uh because of a lease of that vehicle.

[00:06:27]Um Miss uh Kirkstra was married to an individual by the name of York Lynch.

[00:06:33]Um and it's important to understand that because York Lynch is the individual that leased the vehicle on January 26th, 2019 from the Hyundai Leasing Company.

[00:06:42]He did it through the Seely uh uh Hyundai Kia dealership down in Kalamazoo.

[00:06:49]Uh uh >> know I read somewhere in in perusing these answers last night that she denies that she was married to him. It really isn't a substantive matter in this other than that's how you know that York Lynch's name even comes up is that you know arguably he's the husband or he's not the husband. Uh you know there's no argument here. Miss Kirkstra appears to have had permission to drive this vehicle one way or another and when she was involved in this accident but the fact is is that York Lynch is the lessee on the document. Right but if I may though it does become relevant regarding the marriage issue. Okay. Mr. Lynch filed for divorce uh in Kent County Circuit Court. The case was assigned to uh the Honorable Patricia Gardner. Uh a a non-jury trial occurred uh with regards to that divorce uh on September 25th of 2020.

[00:07:38]Uh a judgment of divorce was entered on November 6th, uh 2020.

[00:07:42]In the answer that the Ms. Kirkstra provided to the divorce complaint, she admitted that she was married to York Lynch, married in 2017 in Hudsonville, Michigan. That's important because she later in an answered interrogatory said she's not married, which of course is contrary to the the judgment records.

[00:08:02]But more importantly, uh Mr. Lynch filed a motion before the uh Judge Gardner uh in which he requested that this particular vehicle be returned uh to him because he was obligated to return the vehicle uh to the Hyundai Leasing Company. The judge issued an order ordering Ms. Kirkstra to return this vehicle uh and she had to do so by June 15th, 2022.

[00:08:31]So, 3 years prior to this I'm Yeah, I'm sorry. 2 years prior to this loss, she was under court order to return the vehicle. She wasn't even supposed to be in possession of this vehicle because it wasn't her vehicle. It was a leased vehicle in which the lease required it to be returned.

[00:08:47]She She She did disobeyed that court order.

[00:08:52]All right? And so, that becomes important with regards to the discovery responses.

[00:08:57]Uh after she filed her lawsuit, in her lawsuit, she identifies the vehicle as a 2019 uh Hyundai. I'm sorry, 2019 Kia. She puts a VIN number in the complaint. That becomes important in a minute, too.

[00:09:11]Um she then filed initial disclosures uh in February of 2026. She produced no records with her initial disclosures, contrary to the Michigan court rules requiring her to produce records in support of her claim.

[00:09:24]I then submitted interrogatories, request to produce, and request for admissions uh on March 19th, 2026. And the questions are very specific.

[00:09:33]Uh they're less than the number allowed under the uh the court rules. The request to produce were very specific.

[00:09:39]In the request to admit uh I don't I wouldn't describe as being uh overwhelming. There was just four of them.

[00:09:46]Um she did not respond to those within the 28-day period. She didn't ask for an extension uh during the 28 period. She did file responses on April 21, 2026.

[00:09:58]And that's the subject of this motion.

[00:10:00]First, with regards to the request to produce, she produced no records.

[00:10:05]Zero.

[00:10:06]What she said in her response was, "I will produce records." Well, that's that's not how it works. She's required to produce the records that she has to support of her allegations uh and more specifically, produce the records that I asked for. And and she didn't. And and she didn't supplement those answers to say, "Oh, here they are." She hasn't sent me an email with any of the records that purportedly support her claim. So, as of today, now yet uh what, almost a month after she filed her answers, I still don't have any records.

[00:10:37]And why this is important is is that her deposition scheduled uh for next Wednesday, uh May 20th. And it And the deposition was pushed back to that date to accommodate Ms. Kirksey, so that she could produce all this information prior to her deposition, because obviously that would streamline the deposition. It would help reduce the number of questions that would be asked at her deposition. We could use the records, for example, as exhibits in the deposition to help uh the court maybe later understand when we file certain motions.

[00:11:07]Um so, she hasn't done that. Uh with regards to the request for admissions, the answers either have to be admit, deny, or she can neither admit nor deny and explain why she can't admit or deny it. But, she gives equivocal answers.

[00:11:22]Like, for example, the court already read the one answer where we actually gave her a copy of the policy, attached as an exhibit, referenced that as exhibit, and asked her to admit that that in fact is the policy. And then she qualifies the answer as such as if, "Well, if it's subject to law." That's That wasn't what the request to admit simply asked. Just asked her, "Is this the policy?"

[00:11:42]So, she could either admit it that is in fact the policy.

[00:11:46]And she is the policy holder. She would have a possession of her policy. Or more importantly, she could access the policy from her agent.

[00:11:53]Um she has a duty under the discovery rules to obtain that information. She's provided no explanation as to why she couldn't do that.

[00:12:01]With regards to interrogatories, if you were to go through each interrogatory, uh first thing you would recognize is she changed the questions.

[00:12:11]Under the court rules, she has to restate the question and then cite and then give her answer.

[00:12:18]When she types the question, she typed the questions differently than how my questions read. That's important because it changes the context for what I'm asking for.

[00:12:27]But then when you look at her answers, she doesn't even uh respond to them fully. As an example, interrogatory two asked her to identify the policy number of the policy that she's claiming was breached by my client.

[00:12:41]She doesn't identify the policy number.

[00:12:44]She has access to that information. She claims that she is the policy holder.

[00:12:48]She should identify the policy number.

[00:12:50]Why is that important? So that I can make sure it matches up with the policy that we're showing as the policy to make sure we're talking about the same policy number.

[00:12:58]Interrogatory three asked her to identify the VIN number of the vehicle that is in dispute. She says she doesn't know the the VIN number in response.

[00:13:07]That's either a patently false answer uh uh because she's already put a VIN number in the complaint. So, that the discovery request is important because she has to answer that question so that when I ask questions at deposition, I know I'm talking about the same vehicle.

[00:13:21]Uh she has access to that information.

[00:13:23]She didn't do that.

[00:13:25]Uh she says that uh uh in response to number four, uh uh, that, uh, she doesn't have documents relating to the, uh, her, what she claims is her ownership interest in the vehicle. Uh, she has access to the Michigan Secretary of State. Uh, she can FOIA their records. She could go down to them. She can go online and get the information. And if she would have done so, she would have discovered the same thing we discovered. The only title to this vehicle that's ever existed is the title that the Hyundai Leasing Company has on the vehicle.

[00:13:54]So, she should be able to admit that she's not the titled owner of the vehicle.

[00:13:59]Uh, with regards to number six, uh, the answer, uh, that she provides is patently false when she says she's not aware of a lease or lien holder or title owner of the vehicle. She's certainly aware. She was under court order to return the vehicle so the vehicle could be returned to the leasing company. She clearly was aware. So, when she answers she she doesn't know that that there's a lease or title to the vehicle, uh, it's just a false answer.

[00:14:23]Uh, and number seven is also a false answer for the same reason. She was ordered to return the vehicle. She knows who the owner of the vehicle is.

[00:14:31]Uh, number eight, she doesn't answer the, uh, the interrogatory. Number nine, she doesn't explain her answer. She's just she makes a contention but she provides no factual basis for her contention, which she's required to do. In fact, my my my question asked her to list the facts and she doesn't list any facts.

[00:14:48]Number 10, she doesn't provide, uh, a full answer. Number 11, uh, she doesn't she's asked what she thinks the value of the vehicle is, uh, for purposes of, uh, this case and she doesn't provide her her value. She just says she just disputes how Progressive valued the vehicle. Well, that becomes important because if she thinks the value is different, she has to provide the facts for that, identify the witnesses that can support that. She doesn't provide any of that information.

[00:15:14]Number 12, she doesn't respond fully.

[00:15:16]Number 13, she doesn't identify any specifics in regards to her contention.

[00:15:21]Uh, in in 14, 15, 18, and 19, the same thing. She provides no explanation for her contention. She just makes the contentions. And as I pointed out before, she's provided absolutely no records, none, in response to the request reduced. And she certainly has records in her possession. Or the minimum, she should respond by saying, "I don't have any records."

[00:15:42]Right? She has a duty under the discovery rule, and that's why you have 28 days to make inquiry to obtain the records so that they can be produced so that I can compare those records to records that I have to see if they are the same. For example, if they're different, why they're different, so that I can analyze it. More importantly, I can use those records during the course of the deposition of either this party or of other witnesses.

[00:16:05]And she hasn't given me that availability. So, that's why I'm asking the court, A, to deem all of her requests for admissions as admissions, not not equivocal, but unequivocal. These are admissions.

[00:16:18]Um, and she's provided She said she provided supplemental responses. I admit she did. This is what she did. Other than she removed the word plaintiff from preceding the word admitted, she bold printed the answers. Otherwise, the answer is the same.

[00:16:36]She didn't change the answers. She just bold printed them as if that's somehow to distinguish that's different than the previous answer. So, they're still equivocal answers.

[00:16:46]Uh, they should be unequivocal. Um, and so I'm asking the court to order her uh to deem those admitted. With regards to my motion to compel, I know that I could ask the court to to dismiss Ms. Kirkstra's litigation for violation of the discovery rules. Uh, I've already had to file one motion relative to discovery, which the court has already ordered her to comply with the discovery rules. But I know realistically that's a harsh request to make, and I know that the courts are reluctant to to dismiss cases for discovery violations. So, I'm not asking the court at this time to dismiss, but what I am asking the court to do is A, order Ms. Kirkstra to respond to the interrogatories fully and completely, and to do so prior to the start of her deposition on on May 20th.

[00:17:38]Two, I want the I'd ask the court to order her to produce all records that I've requested, and records that support her allegations against my client, and to do so on or before the start of her deposition on May 20th.

[00:17:52]Three, I'd ask that the the court order Ms. Kirkstra to pay my client for the fees that they're incurring for my time of having to file this this motion, to attend this hearing, and I think a a fair amount is $500, and I'd ask that that that the court order her to pay that $500 on or before the start of her deposition on May 20th.

[00:18:13]And then uh four, I'd ask that the court order her to appear for the deposition on May 20th uh as properly noticed, and that in the event that that she doesn't comply with the court's orders that I'm asking that the court order, I'd ask that the court then dismiss this case if she doesn't comply with that those court orders.

[00:18:30]Thank you.

[00:18:30]>> All right, very good. And you said I've already issued a previous discovery order. Was it on the same material, Mr. Johnson, or was it on a different different requests? I It was on regards to initial disclosures and her duty to respond uh in compliance with the Michigan court rules.

[00:18:49]Um she wasn't following the court rules as far as where she was sending things to, not giving me copies.

[00:18:55]Um And that's uh at least you're getting the you're getting the documents now, or they're getting filed properly.

[00:19:04]So, she's not violating that. She still hasn't made the initial disclosures per your argument today. And on top of it, uh you're asking for another order regarding this uh discovery. Uh um the responses that those be uh provided and you've got a deposition date, it sounds like next uh 20th is Wednesday, maybe. So coming right up. Okay. All right, Ms. Kirksey, your response.

[00:19:28]Um I'm going to say um there is I uh uh there's so much there. Um I have responded. I've asked for specifics for things that he wanted.

[00:19:40]This is the first that I heard of anything that anything specific that he wanted from me. And he has >> Well, when he's requesting those documents, I mean, uh it doesn't take uh you know, at the end of the day, if you've got documents, policies, um any ownership um you know, indications regarding um this vehicle, repair bills, if you know, things of that nature that would point to um things like that that are in your control, uh those just simply have to be sent to Mr. Johnson. You can't endlessly ask him, "Oh, well, clarify or narrow down or uh whatever else uh you request here." Uh at the end of the day, if you're not making a legal objection to producing them, then you just simply need to send them to him. Do you have documents in your possession that have not been sent to Mr. Johnson or is it a simple a case where you don't have anything more? Um no, like the policy, I did it all online, so I did not have an agent I could talk to. Um and once this once this claim was filed, the policy was done, so I could not even access my online account. So there that's a fair answer to say um you don't have a a different policy, in other words, in your in your possession.

[00:20:53]>> Right. So that that's just an example. I I did not have the policy number.

[00:20:57]So um and and and somebody did send me from Progressive a copy of the policy, but I don't believe it had the number on there.

[00:21:06]Um but I'm I'm happy to go through and I I've been trying to write notes here what he's looking for. And like I said earlier, he I still do not have answers um to things that I requested from him and and I did give them like I said his his attorney or his associate or assistant asked for an extra 2 weeks and then he also said that I I did not like send him the stuff and he actually sent me a letter that he was taking over as counsel that you had not even signed yet and I I conferred with the court clerk to to make sure that that was right and she said yes that you had not even signed it yet when he said sent me something in the mail that said he was taking over.

[00:21:52]So, I just wanted to let you know >> is and and I I don't want to interrupt you much. I mean, you have the same legal mechanism that's available to Mr. Johnson here in that if you think he's you know, not timely responding to your request or you can file a similar motion to what he's filed, but the fact is is he's filed it.

[00:22:12]It is before the court now and I've got to make a an order and when I issue that order, you know, and I put deadlines in there and things like that, Ms. Kirksey, you have to know if Mr. Johnson argues you know, a couple weeks down the road that you didn't follow that then one of the options I have to consider is the dismissal of the entirety of your claim because it's non-responsive. So, um you know, and and and part of it is you know, and I I would encourage, you know, and and Mr. Johnson's heard this lecture before from me that you know, I don't view the discovery process and the litigation process as game playing. It's it's an exchange of information at the end of the day.

[00:22:51]Um, if you have information rather than, you know, trying to point out you know, a way you think the other side should have asked for it better or um, you know, you don't think it's necessary for them.

[00:23:03]Uh, if you have information in your possession, uh, you should send it to them. It's that simple.

[00:23:09]Uh, you know, so that, uh, you know, and and his motive there, might that information be used against you? Somewhat like in a criminal case, of course it might, I guess. You know, and the best example would be at a deposition. Well, if he walks in there with the insurance policy that you sent him, he might ask you a question like, is this the only copy you've ever received? And you'd say, yes, as far as I know. Uh, that's the insurance policy. That's what Progressive sent me, and uh, and you're stuck with that policy terms then. You can't, uh, you know, necessarily go back and say, well, no, I think there was another policy or you know, different policy that preexisted. But, you know, that's the end of the day in what we're doing here is it's a fact discovery process and that we're trying to figure out, um, you know, what documents are in the and information are in the possession of the other party. So, I am going to order you to produce what you have cuz you have said, well, Progressive sent me a policy. Well, if they sent you one along the way here, you know, in your efforts to get a copy of it or whatever, and you've got a copy, be it electronic or uh, a paper copy, you need to provide that to Mr. Johnson. Uh, that's all there is to it. So, um, and because your deposition's coming up, I'm going to have you do it by close of business on Monday so he can examine those documents at least during the day on Tuesday, uh, and then he's ready to take your deposition on Wednesday of next week at which you'll be under oath and of course required to answer those those questions. So, I will order that the documents and any supplemental written answers um, to his interrogatories, I would encourage you at this point because we're late in the game, focus on getting him those documents. He'll likely ask you uh, some of the questions um, that are in the interrogatories, you know, again, and it's not the most efficient way to do this, but it's happened to me before, uh, where you might be asked those same questions during your deposition, and again, you're under oath, and you're obligated to answer because of the you know, the situation in the deposition. You're not having an attorney there to object to, you know, Mr. Johnson, the form of his questions, and frankly, uh because it's discovery, uh he's got a lot of leeway to ask you a lot of questions about stuff that you might not think is related, you know, the marriage, divorce, etc. Mr. Johnson's pointing out to me, well, he believes it's it's closely related to the coverage and stuff like this. You you might disagree with him, but at that deposition, you're obligated to answer the question and to answer it honestly, uh or again, you can expose yourself to sanctions in this process. So, and you know, I'm I'm going to decline to enter those sanctions at this time. However, you know, I will expect, like I say, disclosure of all documents in your possession that are responsive to his request for production no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday.

[00:25:58]Um and you know, what I would advise you to do is if you've got a home file that's got, you know, all the stuff that you saved here, uh you know, that may go back a ways or whatever, hand it over to Mr. Johnson, now even if you're not sure it's relevant or whatever, and and he can do with it what he what what, you know, he thinks is you know, the the appropriate and the most important thing he's going to do is review those documents and then use them to formulate questions to you under oath when you give your deposition in this case.

[00:26:29]I'll also ask you to supplement any interrogatory answers that you have more information, but I'd like you to focus on the documents just given the timing here.

[00:26:37]And and you know, what I'll do is I'll say supplemental documents no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, interrogatory answers no later than 5:00 p.m. Tuesday. That way, Mr. Johnson can look at those in the evening and modify his questions and things, but I think the documents are far and away the most important part of this and they have to be, you know, somehow delivered to his office and I don't know if you've got them electronically, I'm sure he can receive them email wise, otherwise you may have to hand hand deliver them to Mr. Johnson's office or utilize an overnight delivery service or something of that nature over the weekend to get them there by 5:00 p.m. Monday.

[00:27:18]With regard to those four requests for admission because of the answers those being equivocal and not in compliance with the court rule, I don't have any choice at this point but to deem those admitted.

[00:27:30]They're only four of them. They're just kind of basic was this the insurance policy or not type questions and you know, it appears that you know, given the responses that you gave that that I have no choice at this point but to deem those admitted. So Did you Those four Those are just the four requests for admission, not the other ones and there's nothing further you need to do with those.

[00:27:59]If you think you need to modify your responses after your deposition and those things, you can file them. There is a way to go about that and to modify file amended answers and things like that, but for the moment they'll be deemed admitted and you know, that has what Mr. Johnson's doing here is all lawyers would do is he's trying to build a case where he can then ask me to dismiss the case without going to trial based on those answers and the policy documents, you know, that you're going to provide him and that that he's already got. And if, you know, it's okay to say I don't have those or the defendant's in the possession of those documents, that's an acceptable answer, but if you've got something you've got to produce it. Don't just say well, you've got this too, you're the insurance company because he wants, you know, your best response as to here's the policy document I'm I'm relying on I'm reading when I come to my conclusions about the case. So, don't don't always rely on him. If there are documents that you don't have, just say I don't have anything. I've got zero at that, you know, regarding this particular request that you've made. So, and that then is helpful because then Mr. Johnson knows that you're not going to you know, a week after the deposition's taken, you're not going to come across and say, "Well, you know, I you know, now have this document and here's, you know, additional information or supplemental information." It's It's trying to do this in an efficient way so he can only take has to take your deposition one time, not a bunch of times because documents keep kind of dribbling out the case. So, do you understand what's required there, Ms. Kirkstra? Um by the end of the day on Tuesday, the interrogatories and the day Monday, any documents that I have. Yep. And >> And sit for your deposition on Tuesday and you know, you're going to have to answer those questions honestly because you're going to be under oath and of course subject to perjury. The court reporter will swear you in before you take the deposition. So, and you know, what we're trying to do is keep the case moving, get that information exchanged and then we determine, you know, if there's enough of a case here to put a question in front of a jury. I don't know if this Did you file a jury demand with your lawsuit, uh Ms. Kirkstra?

[00:30:15]Or is it going to be in front of me?

[00:30:17]I think it's just in front of you. No, it's I believe that we filed a jury >> filed a jury demand. Okay. All right.

[00:30:24]Well, so there is a jury demand, you know, and that's another thing.

[00:30:27]Should this case progress past the motion stage, you know, a motion is where I decide that, you know, you know, if Mr. Johnson was to file it to dismiss the case, then what he is saying is, "Judge, look at this enormous pile of evidence I have that says everything I'm arguing is correct. Uh Ms. Kirkster doesn't have, you know, enough evidence that, you know, that would make a difference if we put it in front of a jury. You can just decide this one." Uh that that's the motion, you know, he's working towards down the road here. And then uh uh ultimately, if I deny that motion, then the case does go in front of a jury cuz Mr. Johnson's requested it. And uh if I grant that motion, then the case ends uh at that point because, you know, I've decided legally there just isn't any more uh question to be decided by a jury um in the matter. So, uh you know, and uh that's kind of where we are in the process, but uh what we're doing now and what Mr. Johnson's doing um is, you know, he's just simply nailing down, you know, these are the final and for this case uh you know, end-all be-all responses to the questions and requests for um productions of documents. So, um It is advocacy, but it's nothing nefarious or underhanded. It's just a way um basically every um insurance type, you know, case like this would work uh in this court. So, uh Anything um Mr. Johnson, you can send me an order. Although, it's probably going to arrive, you know, after the fact uh here by the time I sign it and everything and uh get it back to you uh granting the motion. I am not going to grant uh like I said, I'm going to hold off on granting that $500 in costs. I I will caution you, Ms. um Kirkster that, you know, it's a totally legitimate um request by Mr. Johnson because he's arguing essentially and has to justify, you know, when he goes back and reports to his client that uh you know, we spent this time with this wishy-washy judge wouldn't grant me costs on this particular motion. Um you know, I try to, you know, this discovery in a normal case is expected to happen without a whole lot of motions like this in the court's involvement. It should just kind of happen. And when every time he has to come in court and file a motion and do what he did to get this hearing today, you know, he does expend his client's money and his client's going to expect him to ask me to recover that. I'm not going to do it now because granted I'm going to hold it under advisement because of your status as an unrepresented plaintiff in the matter.

[00:33:00]You don't have counsel and I the court rules allow me to give you some leeway.

[00:33:05]But I'm here to warn you you know, I'm not going to tolerate any game playing with answers or production of documents going forward. I will impose sanctions and then you're going to run into a situation, you know, where if I impose those sanctions then it becomes not I get money if I win but you just simply have to pay them as part of the litigation or Mr. Johnson will just lump it in there and say that's another reason judge you should dismiss this case. So the stakes are are high and particularly for Ms. Kirkster as an unrepresented individual, you know, it's a you know, like navigating you know, in some ways trying to go through a you know, a new city without any kind of map or anything. You're just kind of guessing at the next turn and like I said I'm allowed to give you some leeway but I also need to follow you know, the case law is very clear that I need to follow the court rules and hold you to the same standard I would hold you know, an attorney to. So I'm trying to balance those two issues in this ruling today. But I do want to let you know, Ms. Kirkster that indulgence is not you know, going to be a the kind of thing that um you know, protects you forever. In other words at some point I got to enforce the rules. So And did you say I need to file a motion to get him to answer Yeah, if you want him to answer, you know, if you think his answers are deficient, you know, you can file a you know, in essence the same motion that the he filed here as you know it's the motion to compel and it says that judge in in you and attach his answers and an explanation of why they are not responsive to the question that you answered. And then you can also then you contact Wendy and get a date on a Friday and I'll hear your motion as well.

[00:34:51]Right. Your honor, if I could just for clarification first responding that I I just want to make sure the record is clear that by my silence I'm somehow agreeing that that we've not complied with her discovery request. We've answered all of her in No, no, no, I I I I know, but I just want to make sure that's not in front of me right now. So I'm I'm not making any ruling on your compliance or non-compliance and I would expect that I should add Miss Kirkstra that and I did find your response in actually in the stack of documents. I had just buried it in that cuz I have so many documents involving this case, but I I did find your response Miss Kirkstra and if you file that of course Mr. Johnson can file a a response as to why his responses are adequate. So you know, but I'm not I'm not ruling on that cuz it's not in front of me today and as I was going to say the last step would be you're right. You'd contact Wendy and and get a date and time to have the motion heard before the court and that's assuming you and Mr. Johnson can't work it out because sometimes in conversing back and forth um you know, if it's a non-controversial document or something of that nature or or you know, you can just simply he can send you a copy of it and you know, then that's suffices. So Right. It for clarification of the order then I'm going to submit to the court today for entry granting defendant's motion to deem the request for admissions as admitted. And then I will submit a separate order to the court for entry today motion granting the defendant's motion to compel in which the plaintiff has until 5:00 p.m.

[00:36:31]on May 18th, 2026 to produce all documents and records that she has in her possession that are responsive to our request. That the plaintiff has until 5:00 p.m. on May 19th, 2026 in which to produce supplemental answers to our interrogatories.

[00:36:50]And that uh third, I didn't hear the court indicate that that she is ordered to appear for her deposition on May 20th as ordered. I think it's sort of implied in in the timelines you've given.

[00:37:03]And so I would indicate that she is to appear for a deposition as noticed on May 20th. And then the final is that pursuant to the court's ruling that defendant's motion for $500 in sanctions is denied, but it's denied without prejudice. Meaning that if I believe that there's further discovery requests, I have the right to re-ask for financial sanctions.

[00:37:27]That is sounds all accurate to me. Do you agree, Ms. Kirkstra?

[00:37:31]Um I didn't remember that that it was without prejudice, but okay or with or without.

[00:37:39]>> that's right. That that means simply that he can ask for it again down the road. So, does he want me to go through with the the entire all the pages of the interrogatories or does he have specific things? He mentioned some things today.

[00:37:52]No, he wants you to go through them all and answer and an important thing here is that not not if you're trying to reformulate his question and I know in a part of it might just be you're trying to get a neat copy or a typed copy out there of his question, but in retyping it, obviously, you got to do it word for word and there might be little sub parts of the question or whatever that you did not respond to. You can reference the motion he filed today and it's a totally if you don't have information or you can't remember information in in regard to the interrogatories, it is okay to say, you know, I don't recall this date or time at this time. You know, that that's an acceptable answer.

[00:38:40]You know, and and then as I said that then that notifies Mr. Johnson that, you know, he can follow up with it again at the deposition or cross-reference it against the documents you provided. Like I said, it's just a it's an attempt to get as much information as possible exchanged between the parties.

[00:38:59]You know, without having to do a hearing like this. So, Okay.

[00:39:06]All right, I'll get that submitted for the court's entry today, Your Honor.

[00:39:09]Thank you. Very good. And you're planning on attending that doc we're not going to be back here on a motion to compel your attendance at the deposition, Ms. Kirkstra.

[00:39:17]No, it's going to be really tough for me to rewrite all of those interrogatories and answers and everything and be back Well, here's my one little tidbit is if you can even, you know, I've seen individuals sometimes supplement with handwritten answers.

[00:39:31]You know, as long as you're doing that and signing them at the end cuz you are bound by the answers, you know, you once you do them and sign them, they become your answers. But, you know, there's no hard and fast rule that those must be typed out. You know, I would hold a a lawyer to that standard, but an individual trying to do a case like this, you again get some leeway. If the way you can do it is give yourself a little bit of space and write an answer.

[00:39:57]But, just the most important thing being is it's responsive you know, to Mr. Johnson's question and some parts of that question entirely, you know, not not you know, trying to be a shortcut or something.

[00:40:09]Your Honor, I'll make I'll make this even easier for Ms. Kirkstra. I will send over to her our interrogatories and our request for dues in word format so that she'll have electronically and then she can just simply in that word format format document type in her answers.

[00:40:26]>> answers. Can you manipulate the Microsoft Word document, Ms. Kirkstra?

[00:40:30]Pardon me? Can you deal with a Microsoft Word document with your computing? Okay.

[00:40:34]All right. Well, then Mr. Johnson will email that to uh you know, at least give you a a running start on on getting those answers in.

[00:40:41]Okay. Thank you. All right.

[00:40:43]>> Thank you both. Have a good one. Take care.

[00:40:48]>> [music] >> This is the people of the state of Michigan versus Daniel Vaughn, case numbers 26-00971-FH and 25-10345-FH.

[00:40:59]And this hearing is being recorded on Zoom and live-streamed on YouTube.

[00:41:04]And uh this matter comes uh before the court today on uh motion by uh Mr. Vaughn to counsel Mr. Gears uh requesting a modification uh of uh bond and release decision um at this time. So, uh at this time I'd invite counsel to place your appearances on the record.

[00:41:27]Tiffany Burks on behalf of the people.

[00:41:30]Frank Gears on behalf of Mr. Vaughn.

[00:41:32]All right. And uh Mr. Gears, this is your motion. I do have um it looks like I have Mr. Vaughn on two separate cases. Although um your motion only comes up in the 25 case. I got a 25 and a 26 case. And it's a scenario where um he he just simply I revoked bond because of a positive drug test. Was that the the situation here?

[00:42:05]That and a tether and a curfew violation, Your Honor. Yes.

[00:42:09]>> Okay. All right. And I believe he has three cases up with you now. um Um, for whatever reason my colleague Jason Seifert has two of the more the most recent ones. I have the oldest case and the less significant one. Um, that happened first though. I see and I've already set bond on the other cases. I just revoked bond on the oldest. That's correct.

[00:42:34]>> stuff came up.

[00:42:36]Okay. And um, and and the So I just need to set a bond here and and then we'll deal with the bond. I take it Do you know the bond terms on the other cases? I believe one is a $2,000 um, 10% bond and the other one is a $500 cash surety. Um, my understanding he has posted both of those um, before they came up to circuit court. Um, and then yes.

[00:43:06]So $2,500 all together I guess.

[00:43:10]Got it and um, so obviously uh, because the charge well, I mean uh, and those were mandatory non-PR bonds because he was on bond already.

[00:43:21]Um, right. Uh, in that case but this case I don't have that restriction necessarily.

[00:43:27]Um, Ms. Burke, what's the people's position um, on bond on this matter?

[00:43:33]The people have no position.

[00:43:34]Okay. All right. Well, I am uh, you know, do think he is entitled to a bond.

[00:43:44]Um, Do you think he can manage the tether this time Mr. Gears?

[00:43:50]Um, I believe he can. I know um, his his rationale for this current incident was that there's his niece had something to do with it.

[00:44:03]Um, I I think he has resolved that and he would not be in contact with her. So, hopefully that would not be an excuse or a reason this time. Um I would also say I I received something um from uh the MAP program, a Mr. Anthony Sledge, indicating that he has been fully engaged in that process, and um if he were to be able to post bond, he would be looking into inpatient treatment um in the interim for a substance abuse.

[00:44:33]Okay. All [clears throat] right. Well, uh certainly in favor of that. Um Yeah, just um thinking out loud, these are all And these are all substance abuse charges.

[00:44:46]Is that accurate, Mr. Gears? Uh that's the underlying um problem here for sure, and um over the majority of his uh criminal history, um going back to I believe the the '80s.

[00:44:59]So, um Yeah.

[00:45:01]>> it's a long-term problem.

[00:45:03]Yeah, and I see it it manifest kind of as um retail fraud, and well, and uh troubling here. I mean, he does have a as you're dealt with painfully aware, a huge record.

[00:45:15]Uh none of it, at least in uh recent history here, appearing to be any violent offenses, a combination of uh theft and uh and drug, you know, a uh unfortunate story.

[00:45:29]Um so, uh I will uh uh uh and set bond uh in the amount of personal recognizance bond in this case um for um $5,000, provided he's fitted with the GPS tether before release, abides by the uh uh tether program, avoids contact with Denise, um who has been uh problematic.

[00:45:53]Do you know what her name is by chance, Mr. Gears? I don't, Your Honor. No. All right.

[00:45:59]>> have that in front of me. If you can find it and stick it in the order for me.

[00:46:03]>> Sure. So, you know, we can kind of memorialize that with no contact with her and that he continues receiving treatment through medication assisted treatment. I will set that as bond terms in the current case.

[00:46:19]Now, regarding the tether your honor, I know we had a motion a month or two ago on that regarding the waving of the fees.

[00:46:27]It was determined um favorably I guess that because he is on some sort of assistance that that would excuse him from those fees.

[00:46:38]Um Would that remain accurate?

[00:46:40][clears throat] Okay.

[00:46:42]Um you know, if it worked before I'm willing to do it again. Although, you know, my understanding cuz it's a bond tether they do it through um house arrest services. Okay.

[00:46:55]I don't know who picks up the fee if it's the county or um you know, if it's court services if they have a means of uh paying for that for people that are qualified for disability. I'm in favor of it. But, if he can't, you know, if that's not available for him, then um uh you know, he's going to have to pay it. So. Okay.

[00:47:20]Sounds good.

[00:47:21]All right. And you'll send me an order Mr. Kirsch? I will. We'll get that out this morning hopefully.

[00:47:28]Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good weekend everyone. You too. Judge, was that just in the 25 case? No.

[00:47:35]Just in the 25, yes. Right.

[00:47:37]>> Okay. Okay. Cuz the other ones he's got bond I think set already. I believe so.

[00:47:42]Yes. Yeah, I I just revoked him cuz of the various issues.

[00:47:47]Okay. All right. Thanks.

[00:47:50]You [music] kept the car you didn't own.

[00:47:56]And now your secret scheme is known.

[00:47:58][music and singing] You hid the papers from [music and singing] the court.

[00:48:08]Now time is [music and singing] running very short.

[00:48:13]>> [music] >> The judge demands the file by five >> [singing] [music] >> if you want your lawsuit to survive.

[00:48:26]Got [music] to survive, yeah.

[00:48:31]Mhm.