Despite the case being under interlocutory appeal and discovery already being implicated in the review, opposing counsel served discovery responses that were riddled with boilerplate objections, irrelevant denials, and evasive answers. Nearly every interrogatory was met with blanket claims of irrelevance, undue burden, or privilege—without a proper privilege log—and in some cases, they objected and then answered anyway, which by rule waives the objection. The responses were also filled with false and misleading statements, including inaccurate claims about inspections, responsibility for repairs, and denials of documented habitability violations. Many requests for production were either denied or only partially answered, with no explanation, and key documents like inspection records, city compliance communications, and evidence related to tenant complaints were omitted or substituted with unrelated or publicly available information.
What made this more egregious is that I had no way to compel proper responses due to the automatic stay. Opposing counsel knew that, which is why they felt comfortable submitting such bad-faith responses. They were effectively using discovery to obstruct, not comply. I sent an immediate response by email pointing out the deficiencies, warning of potential sanctions, and notifying him that I would file a grievance if the responses weren’t corrected. I also noted that, as he signed off on knowingly false information, this constituted a serious ethical breach. His conduct—and the way the responses were structured—was a clear attempt to manipulate the process, obstruct the record, and delay meaningful review of the facts in the case.
Examples of Material Falsehoods in Discovery Responses
Below are just a few examples of statements made under oath by Anna De Santis that are provably false, misleading, and made with the intent to obstruct or distort the record. Each of these was submitted in sworn discovery responses and may constitute perjury under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-209.
- Chimney Repair and City Approval
“…a chimney cap replacement was recommended and performed. City of Raleigh inspectors later approved the chimney repairs as part of the certificate of compliance issued in October 2024.”
📌 Fact: The City’s housing report actually stated: “I sent the following email to Anna De Santis Thank for taking the time today to speak with me about this property. The pictures you provided show a repair of the chimney vent cap, no permits are required for this work. You will need a certified chimney company to complete an inspection of the chimney and all its parts to ensure it’s in a good/ safe working order. If repairs or replacement are needed, they will need to be verified by the certified chimney company. The certified chimney company will need to provide documentation stating they have physically inspected the chimney and all its part and the chimney system is in a good/ safe working order at this time. If any chimney parts are replaced, a mechanical permit will be required. If you abandon the chimney all the following apply; the fireplace opening will need to be sealed off, the chimney vent cap will have to be completely removed, the chimney opening shall be watertight and closed in an approved method.”
2. Qualified Chimney Contractor Claim
“The chimney cap replacement recommended by Mr. Smokestack Chimney was completed by a qualified contractor recommended by the handyman used for the property, who is also a licensed home inspector.“
📌 Fact: In Small Claims Court she claimed this was Jay Story, and stated in email that he did not recommend or perform the work, and home inspectors are not licensed to inspect fireplaces or chimneys in North Carolina. In addition, a qualified contractor would be someone with evidentiary experience and no where on their website does it say they perform chimney repair.
3. Pest Infestation Evidence
“Plaintiff was asked several times to send photographic evidence of the alleged pest infestation. She did not do so.” “The City of Raleigh also did not find such evidence.”
📌 Fact: I was never asked for photos, and I did send photographic evidence of pill bugs. The City of Raleigh’s housing report specifically cited pest infestation as a code violation.
More examples are highlighted in green in the attached copy. Note: I didn’t include the documents she provided because they contain financial numbers and were not all what I requested.
NC Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.3. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
A lawyer shall not:
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.
A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;
(d) in pretrial procedure,
(1) make a frivolous discovery request,
(2) fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party
NC GS § 14‑209. Punishment for perjury.
If any person knowingly and intentionally makes a false statement under oath or affirmation in any suit, controversy, matter or cause, or in any unsworn declaration deemed sufficient pursuant to G.S. 7A‑98 depending in any of the courts of the State; in any deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law; in any oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing where such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, that person is guilty of perjury, and punished as a Class F felon.