Alston Civil Case File - Redacted

Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 2 Filed: 08/17/2017 Page 1 of 17

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
PLAINTIFF
vs. CAUSE NO.: 17-505
SHELDON ALSTON DEFENDANT
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF SHELDON ALSTON
ANSWER
Defendant Sheldon Alston (Alston) answers Complaint (“Complaint”) filed against him
as follows:
PARTIES
1. Alston does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the claims in
Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies same.
2. Denied. Alston admits he is an adult resident citizen residing in Hinds County.
JURIDICTION AND VENUE
3. Alston admits that the venue is proper in Hinds County.
FACTS
4. The allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint are denied as written. However,
Alston admits he was a student at the University of Mississippi.
Alston admits that he and ) were involved in a dating relationship beginning
in the Spring of 2016.
6. The allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint are denied.

Alston admits that came to his house on September 7, 2016, and that the two of them went
to a bar in Oxford, Mississippi.
16. The allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
would state that bit Alston’s finger while they were walking to Alston’s house.
22. The allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint are denied. Further, Alston
would state that could leave at any time from the beginning of the night until the end of the
night and was never stopped from leaving the presence of Alston.
does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night in
question, and during this altercation, Alston and hit each other.
2
question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
does admit that he and , with s consent, drove to a cabin in Lafayette County. In fact,
drove the car through the gate and up the driveway to the cabin.
does admit that the he and returned to the house in Oxford, Mississippi around 6 a.m.
32. Alston is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and therefore, the allegations are denied.
paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore, the allegations are denied. However, Alston
admits he was arrested on the morning of September 8, 2016.
36. Alston admits he has been charged and indicted with Domestic Violence –
Aggravated Assault and Kidnapping.
3
CAUSES OF ACTION
ASSULT – COUNTY I – VI
39. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Answer fully herein by
reference.
Alston does admit that a physical fight broke out between he and at his house on the night
in question, and during the altercation, Alston and hit each other.
COUNT I
COUNT II
COUNT III
COUNT IV
4
COUNT V
COUNT VI
BATTERY – COUNTS VII – XI
reference.
5
COUNT VII
COUNT VIII
COUNT IX
COUNT X
COUNT XI
COUNT XII
question, and during this altercation, Alston and hit each other.
6
FALSE IMPRISONMENT – COUNTY XIII – XV
reference.
COUNT XIII
would admit ’s phone was thrown to the ground during the night.
COUNT XIV
COUNT XV
INTERNTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS – COUNT XVI
reference.
7
CONVERSION – COUNT XVII
reference.
90. Alston admits that had a cell phone on the night at issue.
91. The allegations of Paragraph 91 of the Complaint are denied.
93. The allegations of Paragraph 93 of the Complaint are denied. However, Alston
would admit phone was thrown to the ground during the night.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES – COUNT XVIII
reference.
98. The allegations of Paragraph 98 of the Complaint do not require a response from
Defendant, but out of an abundance of caution, the allegations are denied.
This answering Defendant denies any allegations within the Complaint not specifically
admitted regardless of paragraph number or subparagraph.
Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in the Complaint, and
therefore denies the paragraph beginning “WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED”.
This 18th day of October 2017. Respectfully submitted,
SHELDON ALSTON, JR.
8
/s/Walter T. Johnson
Walter T. Johnson (MSB# 8712)
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC
Post Office Box 650
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Telephone: 601.965.1900
Email: wjohnson@watkinseager.com
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 18, 2017, I forwarded, via electronic mail, a true and
correct copy of the foregoing pleading to:
Jonathan S. Masters
jmasters@holcombdunbar.com
Holcomb, Dunbar, Watts,
Best, Masters & Golmon, P.A.
Post Office Drawer 707
Oxford, MS 38655
/s/Walter T. Johnson
Walter T. Johnson
10
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
PLAINTIFF
VS. CAUSE NO.: 17-505
SHELDON ALSTON DEFENDANT
MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff, , files this Motion to Compel against Defendant, Sheldon Alston,
and in support thereof, Plaintiff would state as follows:
1. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an Order compelling Defendant Sheldon
Alston to provide complete responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents propounded to Defendant.
2. This lawsuit arises out of Defendant’s violent physical attacks upon the person of
Plaintiff.
3. On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendant with its First Set of Discovery
Requests which included interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for
admission. Defendant’s counsel filed responses on November 3, 2017. See discovery responses
of Defendant, attached collectively as Exhibit 1.
4. In responding to the discovery requests, Defendant failed to give full and
complete responses. See Exhibit 1.
5. In an attempt to settle the issues without the assistance of the Court, counsel for
Plaintiff communicated with Defendant’s counsel in good faith efforts to obtain full responses to
the first set of discovery. Plaintiff first sent a Good Faith letter to Defendant’s counsel, giving
Defendant until January 10, 2018 to file supplemental responses. See December 12, 2016
correspondence, attached as Exhibit 2. No response was given within the 28 days provided. In a
further attempt to obtain full responses, Plaintiff’s counsel called Defendant’s counsel on
January 12, 2018 and requested the supplemental responses. No response was given by
Defendant in the time between January 12, 2018 and the filing of this Motion to Compel on
January 30, 2018. Therefore, counsel was unable to resolve the dispute.
6. Plaintiff first seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
complete and full response to Interrogatory No. 3:
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please describe in detail how you

contend the events of the evening hours of September 7, 2016 and
the morning hours of September 8, 2016 occurred. Furthermore, if
you contend that Plaintiff or any other person acted in such a
manner as to justify your physical attacks on Plaintiff, give a
concise statement of the facts upon which you rely to justify your
actions.
RESPONSE: Alston objects to this interrogatory as being overly

broad. It is simply impossible to describe every detail of any one
event, much less an entire series of events. Without waiving this
objection, Alston would state that he and Plaintiff had a physical
fight where both parties hit each other.
7. This response is incomplete and lacking. Interrogatory No. 3 requested that
Defendant describe the events of the evening hours of September 7, 2016 and the morning hours
of September 8, 2016.
8. Defendant’s response merely provides that a physical fight occurred during that
time frame. Clearly, this response does not come close to answering Interrogatory No. 3.
9. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that Mississippi law “favors
discovery.” Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 942 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 2006). Rule 26 of the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ny matter not privileged, which is relevant
to the issues raised by the claims or defenses of a party” is discoverable. Miss. R. Civ. P. 26.
The scope of discovery is broad and non-privileged evidence is discoverable when it appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. West v. West, 891 So.2d
2
203, 219 (Miss. 2004). Discoverable matter need not be admissible at trial in order to be
discoverable so long as “the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to
discovery of admissible evidence.” Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control Co. Inc., 607 So. 2d 1232
(Miss. 1992).
10. The requested information is particularly relevant in the instant case and is
discoverable under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent.
Rule 26 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that the documents or
information requested be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
These requirements are satisfied by the Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production. The events of the evening hours of September 7, 2016 and the morning hours of
September 8, 2016 are the subject of this lawsuit. Defendant needs to augment his response and
provide additional information as to how he remembers the events of that night and the following
morning. Of course, no one is expecting Defendant to “describe every detail of any one event;”
however, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure certainly require more when answering
discovery than what Defendant’s response provides.
11. Therefore, Defendant needs to supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 3.
12. Plaintiff next seeks the Court’s assistance in compelling Defendant to make a
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please describe in detail (by

providing a timeline) your activities on September 7 and
September 8, 2016, from the time you woke up until the time you
went to, stating the places you traveled to and from, the persons
you encountered, the times of arrival and departure , and your
activities.

broad. It is simply impossible to describe every detail of any one
event, much less an entire series of events. Without waiving this
3
objection, Alston would state that he and Plaintiff had a physical

fight where both parties hit each other.
13. This response is completely lacking. Interrogatory No. 5 requested a timeline
describing what Defendant did from the time he woke up on September 7, 2016 to the time he
went to sleep in the morning hours of September 8, 2016. It additionally requested a list of the
places Defendant went and the people he encountered. None of this is provided in response to
Interrogatory No. 5.
14. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that Mississippi law “favors
discovery.” Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 942 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 2006). The scope of
discovery is broad and non-privileged evidence is discoverable when it appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. West v. West, 891 So.2d 203, 219
(Miss. 2004). Discoverable matter need not be admissible at trial in order to be discoverable so
long as “the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible
evidence.” Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control Co. Inc., 607 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 1992). It is important
that Plaintiff be allowed to investigate all possible sources of evidence, which will be assisted by
the timeline requested.
Defendant’s activities on September 7 and September 8, 2016, from the time he woke up until
the time he went to sleep, stating the places he traveled to and from, the times of arrival and
departure, persons he encountered, and his activities are all directly relevant to the claims and
defenses set forth in the Complaint and Defendant’s Answer.
4
16. Therefore, pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Mississippi Rules of Civil
Procedure, Defendant needs to supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 5.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If you contend that any admission

has been made by any party to this action, with respect to each
such admission, describe and explain the substance and date
thereof, identify the person or entity making the admission, and
identify and describe all individuals who were witnesses or have
knowledge regarding the admission.
RESPONSE: Alston does not allege any admission against interest

has been made. However, there were many arguments during the
night that may or may not be described as an admission, and
therefore Alston reserves the right to raise a statement made during
the arguments between the parties on the night in question.
18. This response is incomplete and lacking. Interrogatory No. 8 requests that
Defendant describe and explain the substance and date of any admission, identify the person or
entity making the admission, and identify and describe all individuals who were witnesses or
have knowledge regarding the admission. In response, Defendant fails to provide any admission,
but indicates that admissions exist.
Since this information is clearly discoverable, and Mississippi law favors discovery, Defendant
must supplement his response and fully respond to Interrogatory No. 8.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Were you hurt or injured in

the incidents that are alleged in the Complaint? Identify each
person involved in the incidents who was hurt or injured and
5
describe their injuries. Identify all documents regarding any

injuries to each person identified.
RESPONSE: Alston objects to this interrogatory as being vague

and ambiguous. Without waiving this objection, Alston does not
allege he has any lasting physical injuries from the night in
question.
21. This response is incomplete. Interrogatory No. 9 requests that Defendant identify
each person involved in the incidents and describe their injuries. Defendant fails to fully respond
to this request.
22. In previous responses, Defendant stated that “he and Plaintiff had a physical fight
where both parties hit each other.” Therefore, in order to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 9,
Defendant must describe Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s injuries are particularly relevant to the
instant case. As the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated: Mississippi law “favors discovery.”
Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 942 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 2006). Rule 26 of the Mississippi
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ny matter not privileged, which is relevant to the
issues raised by the claims or defenses of a party” is discoverable. Miss. R. Civ. P. 26.
Therefore, Defendant must supplement his response and fully respond to Interrogatory No. 9 by
describing Plaintiff’s injuries that she incurred during Defendant’s brutal physical assault upon
her person.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: With respect to any and all

conversations which you had at any time on the dates of the
incidents described in the Complaint, state the following:
a. identify your cellular phone provider and also your cellular
number;
6
b. identify the person(s) with whom you had any conversation

whatsoever, and state their telephone number, and the time
and duration of the call.
broad. Without waiving this objection, Alston’s cell phone number
is 601-213-7033 and his provider is C-Spire.
24. This response is incomplete. Interrogatory No. 14 requests both Defendant’s
cellular phone provider and cellular number and for Defendant to identify the person(s) with
whom he had any conversation at any time on the dates of the incidents described in the
Complaint. The second part of Interrogatory No. 14 was not answered.
25. The requested information is relevant in the instant case and is discoverable under
the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent. Rule 26 of the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that the documents or information requested
be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The requested
information is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence since the names
and numbers of people Defendant called during the dates specified in the Complaint can lead to
evidence regarding how Defendant’s physical assault upon Plaintiff occurred, to witnesses that
may provide information regarding admissions and statements made by Defendant during the
applicable timeframe, and other relevant evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: If Defendant denied or qualified

his responses to any of his responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Requests for Admission propounded by Plaintiff, please set forth
each and every basis for the denial.
RESPONSE: See responses to Request for Admissions.
7
27. This response is completely lacking. Interrogatory No. 17 requests that if
Defendant denied or qualified his responses to any of his responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Requests for Admission propounded by Plaintiff, that he set forth each and every basis for the
denial.
28. Instead of providing any information setting forth each and every basis for
Defendant’s denial, Defendant’s response merely instructs Plaintiff to review Defendant’s
responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission. A review of Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s
Requests for Admission demonstrates that Defendant merely answered “Denied” on at least 13
of the 21 Requests for Admission, and provided not a single word of explanation to any of his
denial responses. This simply does not answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 17.
29. The requested information is relevant in the instant case and is discoverable under
the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and current Mississippi precedent and will assist in
narrowing the issues in the litigation. In addition, it will provide needed information to assist in
determining the facts surrounding the events of the evening hours of September 7 and the
morning hours of September 8. For that reason this information is discoverable since Mississippi
law “favors discovery” and the scope of discovery is broad and non-privileged evidence is
discoverable when it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Capital One Services, Inc. v. Page, 942 So.2d 760, 765 (Miss. 2006); West v. West,
891 So.2d 203, 219 (Miss. 2004). Co. Inc., 607 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 1992).
complete and full response to Request for Production No. 7:
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce a copy

of your driver’s license (and state whether it is identical to the
driver’s license you possessed at the time of the physical attacks).
8
RESPONSE: Alston objects to this request as being irrelevant and

not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
31. This response is completely lacking. Request for Production No. 7 requests a
copy of Defendant’s driver’s license. This information is reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, since pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Civil
Procedure and applicable precedent, the scope of discovery is broad and Defendant’s driver’s
license is discoverable and should be provided to Plaintiff.
32. Therefore, Defendant needs to supplement his response to Request for Production
No. 7.
complete and full response to Request for Production No. 8:
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce a copy

of any and all documents evidencing any violations, citations or
any other infractions which pertain to you.
RESPONSE: Alston objects to this request as being ambiguous.
34. This response is completely lacking. Request for Production No. 8 requests a
copy of any and all documents evidencing any violations, citations or any other infractions which
pertain to Defendant. This request sought all documents that Defendant has received from the
prosecutor or any governmental entity regarding the assault upon Plaintiff.
9
36. Therefore, Defendant needs to supplement his response to Request for Production
No. 8.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that an Order
be entered compelling Defendant to fully respond to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests
within five days from the entry of that Order. Plaintiff further requests all other relief the Court
deems proper and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, this the 30th day of January, 2018.
BY: s/ Geoffrey F. Calderaro

JONATHAN S. MASTERS MSB #99419
GEOFFREY F. CALDERARO MSB #104883
Of Counsel:
HOLCOMB, DUNBAR, WATTS,

BEST, MASTERS & GOLMON, P.A.
400 Enterprise Drive
Post Office Drawer 707
Oxford, Mississippi 38655
Telephone: (662)234-8775
Facsimile: (662)238-7552
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, GEOFFREY F. CALDERARO, do hereby certify that I have on this date caused the
foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent
notification of such filing via electronic mail to:
Walter T. Johnson, Esq.

Watkins & Eager, PLLC
Post Office Box 650
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Email – wjohnson@watkinseager.com
Counsel for Defendant
THIS, the 30th day of January, 2018.
s/ Geoffrey F. Calderaro
GEOFFREY F. CALDERARO
11

Alston Civil Case File - Redacted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alston Civil Case File - Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 2 Filed: 08/17/2017 Page 1 of 17

Case: 25CI1:17-cv-00505-WAG Document #: 2 Filed: 08/17/2017 Page 2 of 17

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

vs. CAUSE NO.: 17-505

SHELDON ALSTON DEFENDANT

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF SHELDON ALSTON

Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies same.

2. Denied. Alston admits he is an adult resident citizen residing in Hinds County.

JURIDICTION AND VENUE

3. Alston admits that the venue is proper in Hinds County.

4. The allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint are denied as written. However,

Alston admits he was a student at the University of Mississippi.

5. The allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are denied as written. However,

Alston admits that he and ) were involved in a dating relationship beginning

in the Spring of 2016.

6. The allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint are denied.

7. The allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint are denied.

8. The allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint are denied as written. However,

to a bar in Oxford, Mississippi.

9. The allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint are denied.

10. The allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint are denied.

11. The allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint are denied.

12. The allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint are denied.

13. The allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint are denied.

14. The allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint are denied.

15. The allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint are denied.

17. The allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint are denied.

18. The allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint are denied.

19. The allegations of paragraph 19 of the Complaint are denied.

20. The allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint are denied.

21. The allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint are denied.

25. The allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint are denied.

26. The allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint are denied.

27. The allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint are denied.

30. The allegations of paragraph 30 of the Complaint are denied.

31. The allegations of paragraph 31 of the Complaint are denied.

32. Alston is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and therefore, the allegations are denied.

33. Alston is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 33 of the Complaint, and therefore, the allegations are denied.

34. Alston is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and therefore, the allegations are denied.

35. Alston is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

admits he was arrested on the morning of September 8, 2016.

Aggravated Assault and Kidnapping.

37. The allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint are denied.

38. Alston is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore, the allegations are denied.

41. The allegations of paragraph 41 of the Complaint are denied.

42. The allegations of paragraph 42 of the Complaint are denied.

43. The allegations of paragraph 43 of the Complaint are denied.

44. The allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint are denied.

45. The allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint are denied.

46. The allegations of paragraph 46 of the Complaint are denied.

47. The allegations of paragraph 47 of the Complaint are denied.

50. The allegations of paragraph 50 of the Complaint are denied.

51. The allegations of paragraph 51 of the Complaint are denied.

52. The allegations of paragraph 52 of the Complaint are denied.

BATTERY – COUNTS VII – XI

57. The allegations of paragraph 57 of the Complaint are denied.

58. The allegations of paragraph 58 of the Complaint are denied.

59. The allegations of paragraph 59 of the Complaint are denied.

60. The allegations of paragraph 60 of the Complaint are denied.