The Linebarger GoGgan Blair & Sampson LLP lawsuit, which has been brought against the owner of The Linebarger Group, the parent company of the popular clothing retailer, is currently in the process of discovery. Discovery is the process in which an opposing party is allowed to make known its claims to prove their case in a court of law, and when the party in question is involved in a legal action, this is considered part of the discovery process. With that being said, let’s discuss how discovery works in this case.
When a lawsuit is filed against another person, this is referred to as “complaint.” The complaint may also be referred to as a “writ of summons.” At some point in the litigation, a party may be required to answer questions about their case. However, before answering these questions, the parties are required to appear at a deposition.
The Linebarger GoGgan Blair & Sampson LLP case involve a deposition that took place in 2020. This deposition was conducted by a plaintiff named John M. Connell. This person has sued The Linebarger Group for various reasons, including his claim that the clothing retailer failed to properly pay him for the sales he made at one of its stores. This case has a complex history and is currently being fought in the court system. As such, the information in the complaint that is relevant to the current lawsuit was obtained through discovery.
When the complaint was filed, it contained information that included statements by John M. Connell. One of the statements that Mr. Connell testified in 2020 was that The Linebarger Group had failed to pay him for sales he made at one of its stores. Another of the statements he testified to was that he had a written agreement with the company whereby he received a certain percentage of sales he made at the company’s store. In addition to these statements, the complaint included a video recording. This recording contained a portion of an interview that Mr. Connell had with an investigator from the plaintiffs’ attorney, as well as a portion of an interview with an investigator for The Linebarger GoGgan Blair & Sampson LLP.
The complaint stated that The Linebarger failed to pay Mr. Connell for the sale of the items he sold to his store, and that he also alleged that this failure to pay resulted in him being denied a job after he had applied at the company’s location. The complaint then included copies of letters from various employers.
The investigator hired by The Linebarger was supposed to gather all evidence that was pertinent to the case and turn over the findings to the plaintiffs. However, according to Mr. Connell, this individual failed to do so. Instead, he gave Mr. Connell a DVD. on which he could hear the investigator talking about his case, but apparently failed to record the conversation. The investigator then asked Mr. Connell questions pertaining to his case, but did not ask him any questions about the contents of the videotape.
The investigator then went on to question Mr. Connell about a number of other matters unrelated to the case, and during the course of the conversation, he mentioned a letter written by the attorneys representing The Linebarger. He mentioned that The Linebarger lawyers represented the company and then asked him about the letter. He then asked Mr. Connell if he had received the letter.
When Mr. Connell replied that he had received the letter, the Linebarger investigator said that he did not believe that the letter actually mentioned the plaintiffs’ legal rights or had anything to do with the case. According to Mr. Connell, he left the store and did not see the letter. In addition to these allegations, Mr. Connell also claimed that he was never given a copy of the letter by the investigator, and that he asked for it several times. Finally, he alleged that he was never provided with a copy of the letter at any time during his time with The Linebarger, and that he believed that he would have received such a document from the company if he had requested it.
