Free Status Report - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

1
Case 1:06-cv-00263—GI\/IS-I\/IPT Documem 82 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 1 of 1
M"‘“?"“’¢·n
P .r;’ + fQ·"'°;& :¥`l` " = i

\i‘?"g;?E 1
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-B500
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CML |BA“::|§ggg sérgé2;gf¤;·B4u¤
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Ill s20NN%Â¥z$:?=iaIizIi~1(cl7i|LbI*|r11;iaEr FAX(302)g77-0630
Arroauev GENERAL wnrmnuerou, ¤Er.AwARs mm TTY (302) 577-5783
November 13, 2007
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge I
U.S. District Court 1
844 N. King Street
Lock Box 8
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Sminkey v. DOC, et al., , C.A. No. 06-263*** .
I Dear Judge Thynge;
Please allow this to serve as defendants’ status report in anticipation of the
teleconference scheduled for November l·6, 2007 @ 8:30 am.
Presently the parties are involved in paper discovery with some disputes.
Pending before your Honor is plaintiffs discovery dispute to which defendant :
responded to on October 23, 2007. The next day, this counsel sent defendants’ F
discovery dispute letter to plaintiff and asked that he supplement his discovery
responses by November 7, 2007. (Defendants’ October 24 Discovery Dispute
Letter attached)
The plaintiff has not responded nor has he requested more time to respond.
Other than paper discovery, defendants will depose plaintiff and some other
witnesses. It is anticipated that plaintiff will also depose a number of witnesses. l
do not foresee any problem with completing discovery within the framework of
the present scheduling order.
Respectfully submitted, I
/s/ Marc P. Niedzielski I
Deputy Attorney General I
I Cc: Jack E. Sminkey (via e—mail)

E
Case 1:06-cv—00263-GIVIS-IVIPT Document82-2 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 1 of 3 l
Eigg-§!:43"€.° i
° I,. +
{r>f » 1
`2 Q3. I
T
T°‘Lnzr<2;`T Q-
CRIMINAL DNISION (302) 577-8500 =
EEEAETMENT °E*’“ET'°E C....t%“&‘.t131?§§g?t$$8..¤
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III SZONNEAII;-?|°3iIqIkEN€;gU$hI1|¥ET r=Ax(z02)sTr-sean
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 TTY (302) 577-5783
October 24, 2007
Jack Sminkey, Ph.D.
3402 Edgemont Ave. #333 i
Brookhaven, PA 19015-2804
Re: Sminkey v. State of Delaware, et al, C.A. 06-263- *** _ I
Dear Mr. Sminkey:
In a letter dated July 23, 2007, I asked you to have your responses to
defendants’ lst set of discovery conform to the Local Rules. You will recall that I
wrote:
LR 26.l(c) requires a responding party restate the interrogatory (or
request for production) and then state the response. I ask that you
rewrite your responses to defendant’s discovery to comply with the `
local rule.
For whatever reason, you have not done what I requested. I turn your attention to
defendants’ request for production:
Request No. 4 asks you to produce: Any and all statements, in writing or A .
oral, by any party or witness, in any form, relating to the incidents that form the
basis of this lawsuit.
You responded: "Will Provide" Have you sent me anything?
I Request No. 5 asks you to produce: Any and all videotapes, audiotapes, or I I
photographs taken by you that refers or relates to any claim or defense in the ,
present matter.
You responded with statements that do not make any sense. Do you have I
any of the items requested?
I 1
1
a
r
- 1 -

l
Case 1:06-cv—00263-GIVIS-IVIPT Document 82-2 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 2 of 3
Request No. 6 asks you to produce: Any and all medical records or reports
regarding the examination or treatment of plaintiff. E
You responded: "’Unduly Burdensome"’ etc. I am only asking you to E
produce medical records and reports in your possession. I am not asking you to
acquire all such records.
Request No. 7 asks you to produce: Any and all documents or physical
evidence that supports any claim of Plaintiff for damages of any nature.
You responded: "Sa1ne as question #1" (the response to Request No. 1 is
"Objection: This question is over broad, vague and not likely to produce
discoverable information or documents.” This request asks you to produce any
documents or tangible evidence that you will use to establish any damages that E
you claim. lf you do not have such evidence, you should state that. Otherwise,
you need to produce any evidence you intend to use to support your claims for
damages.
Request No. 8 asks you to produce: Any and all applications for
employment or self-employment for the last 7 years.
You responded: "Plaintiff does not have these documents? This request ;
is seeking copies of any such materials. If you are telling me you do not have any
copies, simply state that. ¤
Request No. 9 asks you to produce: Any and all federal and State tax
returns for the last 5 years.
You responded: "This question invades the privacy of my family. It is not i
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Additionally, I claim spousal
privilege since our tax returns are filed jointly and my wife is not a party to this
litigation." Your tax returns and W-2 will provide evidence of your earning over `
the last 5 years and are signed under penalty of peijury. This evidence is directly
related to your claims of any economic losses you are claiming. Spousal privilege
does not apply, since is it documentary evidence and publicly tiled. Please `_
produce complete copies of your federal and state tax returns for the last 5 years.
Please produce a supplemental response with the above items by November
7, 2007. Thank you for your cooperation.

é
Case 1:06-cv—00263-GIVIS-IVIPT Document 82-2 Filed 11/13/2007 Page 3 of 3
L
3

1
Sincerely,
/s/ Marc P. Niedzielski
Deputy Attorney General
1 1
i

1