Court Orders Limited Discovery in $18,000 Collection Case; Denies Broader Requests

A Dixon County judge granted a narrowed motion to compel discovery in a disputed $18,000 collection action, ordering the plaintiff to identify witnesses, describe who performed the work, and produce relevant tangible evidence and communications; broader interrogatories about corporate authority and entity filings were denied.

At the docket call, counsel for Stonegate pressed that the plaintiff, GreenRise, produced no documents in response to simple discovery requests and had used boilerplate objections. Stonegate’s attorney said requests sought basic items: names of witnesses, who performed the alleged work, proof invoiced amounts were mailed and received, and communications supporting the claim.

GreenRise’s counsel said the suit is a sworn account backed by invoices and an affidavit; much of the defendant’s defense, counsel said, arose from a challenge to GreenRise’s authority to do business in Tennessee and had previously been litigated in sanction hearings. GreenRise said it would make a corporate designee available for deposition and produce invoices and supporting documents.

The court reviewed the discovery and found that interrogatories 1–5 were relevant and not unduly burdensome: it ordered GreenRise to identify persons with personal knowledge, persons who performed the work, tangible evidence relevant to the complaint, whether the invoices attached to the complaint were provided before July 3, 2023, and communications with Stonegate. The judge declined to compel answers to remaining interrogatories that focused on the corporate‑authority issue and denied overly broad production requests; he granted production of documents tied to the compelled interrogatories and payroll/materials records only to the extent they directly evidence the claimed work.

On requests for admission that repeatedly included objections but ended with “denied,” the court explained a denial is a denial under the rules and that objections do not change the fact of denial; any later trial proof may create consequences under the rules. The judge told counsel that if Stonegate wished to press objections to individual admissions he could set an in‑person hearing to argue each request for admission. The court ordered counsel to prepare a written order reflecting the ruling.

The case remains set for further proceedings; the court said depositions of corporate representatives may help resolve disputed facts before trial.