Free Response to Discovery - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00239-JJF

Document 45

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RICHARD E. CLARK, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WARDEN RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 07-239-JJF Jury Trial Requested

STATE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [RE: D.I. 39] Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, State Defendants Raphael Williams, Patrick Sheets and Jim Welch (the "State Defendants") hereby respond to Plaintiff's Request For Production Of Documents (D.I. 39) (the "Document Request") as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following general objections apply to and are hereby incorporated by reference into each individual response herein, whether or not expressly incorporated by reference in such individual response: 1. State Defendants object to the Document Request to the extent it seeks to

obtain information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable protections or privileges. 2. State Defendants object to the Document Request to the extent it seeks

information not in State Defendants' possession, custody or control on the ground that any such request exceeds the obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 1:07-cv-00239-JJF

Document 45

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 2 of 4

3.

State Defendants object to the Document Request to the extent it seeks

information that is already in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiff or information that is equally available to Plaintiff. 4. State Defendants object to the Document Request to the extent it seeks to

impose requirements not otherwise required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 5. State Defendants object to the Document Request to the extent it is vague,

ambiguous, or otherwise incomprehensible. 6. State Defendants object to the Document Request to the extent it is overly

broad, unduly burdensome, or seeks information that is neither relevant to the issues raised in the Original Complaint or the First Amended Complaint (together, the "Complaints"), nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7. In providing responses to the Document Request, State Defendants do not

waive, and expressly reserve, all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality and admissibility thereof, as well as all objections to any other discovery request. 8. State Defendants' assertion that they will produce documents in response

to a particular request is not to be construed as an admission that any document exists within any requested category or categories, but solely as an assertion that State Defendants will make available for inspection and copying responsive, nonprivileged documents within their possession, custody or control should any such documents be located after a reasonably diligent search. 9. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, State Defendants reserve the right to supplement or amend these responses

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00239-JJF

Document 45

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 3 of 4

and assert additional objections as they complete their review and analysis in response to the Document Request.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION REQUEST: Produce the medical records of the Plaintiff.

RESPONSE: State Defendants incorporate by reference the foregoing general objections and further object to this request on grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. State Defendants also object to this request on grounds that the documents requested are neither relevant to the issues raised in the Complaints nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, State Defendants refer Plaintiff to his medical records produced and attached hereto, Bates stamped D00001 ­ D00158.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE OF DELAWARE /s/ Erika Y. Tross Erika Y. Tross (#4506) Deputy Attorney General 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8400 Attorney for the State Defendants Dated: January 16, 2008

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00239-JJF

Document 45

Filed 01/16/2008

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Erika Y. Tross, Esq., hereby certify that on January 16, 2008, I caused a true and correct copy of the attached State Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents [Re: D.I. 39] and Documents Bates stamped D00001 ­ D00158 to be served on the following individual in the form and manner indicated: NAME AND ADDRESS OF RECIPIENT(S): Inmate Richard E. Clark Jr. SBI # 477726 Howard R. Young Correctional Institution P.O. Box 9279 Wilmington, DE 19809 MANNER OF DELIVERY: One true copy by facsimile transmission to each recipient Two true copies by first class mail, postage prepaid, to each recipient Two true copies by Federal Express Two true copies by hand delivery to each recipient

/s/ Erika Y. Tross Erika Y. Tross (#4506) Deputy Attorney General Delaware Department of Justice Carvel State Office Building 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 302-577-8400