Ms. Anthony admitted that the first statement is true, and denied that the second statement is true.
Lighthouse Point, FL (PRWEB) February 07, 2012
Texas Equusearch’s lawsuit (Case# 2011-CA-8475) against Casey Anthony has brought the parties to court several times since the complaint was filed last summer. At the outset, Casey Anthony moved to dismiss the case, and Texas Equusearch opposed the motion to dismiss. The court held a hearing, and issued an order denying Mrs. Anthony’s motion. The order required Texas Equusearch to slightly modify its complaint, which the organization quickly did.
Texas Equusearch then asked Mrs. Anthony to answer written questions, known as interrogatories and requests for admissions. When she refused, Wites & Kapetan, P.A. filed a motion to compel her to do so, and the court held hearings on the issue in December 2011 and January 2012. The court recently ruled on the motion, granting in part and denying in part Texas Equusearch’s motion. The Court’s order requires Casey Anthony to admit or deny two statements, including (1) “Admit that you did not observe or hear George Anthony call 911 at any time to report that he or you had discovered that Caylee Marie Anthony had drowned in the swimming pool at your parents’ house on or about June 16, 2008” and (2) “Admit that you were aware in September 2008 and October 2008 that EquuSearch was conducting searches for your daughter, Caylee.” Ms. Anthony admitted that the first statement is true, and denied that the second statement is true.
Further, Casey Anthony attempted to compel Mr. Miller to appear for a deposition in Orlando, Florida. Mrs. Anthony, through her counsel, served Mr. Miller with a subpoena for the deposition while he was in the Orlando airport. Her lawyers argued that they could depose Mr. Miller, in his individual capacity – and not as a representative of TES – in Orlando because they had served the subpoena there. Texas Equusearch and Mr. Miller filed a motion for protective order, arguing that under Florida law an individual may only be deposed in the county where they reside. The court agreed, and ruled that if Mrs. Anthony wishes to depose Mr. Miller in his individual capacity, such deposition must be in Texas, in the county where Mr. Miller resides. The Court also ruled that if the parties cannot agree on the scope of Mr. Miller’s deposition, a Special Master will be appointed to oversee the deposition.
Mr. Wites reports that Texas Equusearch continues to pursue the case, which is not presently set for trial.