Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Document 20-3 Filed 12/06/2007 IN 1:06-cv-00312-TCW
MULTISERVICE JOINT VENTURE LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Derendant. )

Page 1 of 28

No.06-312C (Judge Wheeler)

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), the United States submits the following objections and responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories ("Plaintiff's Interrogatories"), dated January 24,2007. Defendant reserves the right to supplement, correct, or clarify its responses to these interrogatories as it continues to investigate and discover the facts in this case. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant incorporates the following general objections into each of its specific responses to plaintiffs interrogatories. Defendant objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product protection, or is otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable J.aw or any other privileges. The inadvertent disclosure of any privileged information shall not signify any intent by defendant to waive the rights to such privilege. Defendant also objects to these interrogatories to the extent they seek facts or contentions presently outside of defendant's knowledge, and which will be
known or formed only after completion of discovery.

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 2 of 28

Defendant also objects to plaintiff's requests, definitions, and instructions to the extent that they would require defendant to take actions and/or provide information not required by RCFC 26 and 34 and to the extent that they are over-broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant further objects to plaintiff's definition of the term "identify" to the extent it requires disclosure of the home address, home telephone number, race, or gender of any person. Such information is not relevant to this case and is protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act, 5 V.S.C. § 552a. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Without regard to the manner by which the information has been obtained, identify each and every person who the defendant believes has knowledge of any facts in any way relating to any issue raised by the Complaint herein, by including, but limited to, the names, addresses, home and business telephone numbers of such person, a detailed description of the knowledge believed to be possessed by each such person; all issues contained in the Complaint as to which each such person is believed to possess facts; and all documents, if any, which such person is believed to have examined or has in his or her possession. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information, including "a detailed description of the knowledge believed to be possessed by each such person" and "all issues in contained in the Complaint as to which each such person is believed to posses facts" to the extent it would require counsel to describe any information obtained through interviews conducted by counsel and would therefore be exempt from disclosure under the work product doctrine. Finally, defendant objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent it

2

Case if any, which such person Document have Filed or has in his Page 3 of 28 seeks "all documents, 1:06-cv-00312-TCW is believed to20-3 examined12/06/2007 or her
possession." Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant refers plaintiff to the persons listed in defendant's initial disclosures and states as follows: 1. Margaret Gervais, Eileen Cox, Iris Jenkins, David Julian, Dean Koepp, Joann Polk, Cindy Dukes, and Danny Stubbs are believed have generalized knowledge of facts relating to most or all of the allegations in the complaint. To the best of defendant's knowledge and belief, all documents which have been reviewed or are in the possession of these individuals - and which are not subject to an objection - have been produced in response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents. 2. Madalyn Hawkins, Mary Knott, Roxanne Laddonia, Mary Waddel, and Linda Washington are believed to have knowledge of plaintiff s and its employees' performance of janitorial duties under the contract and the deductions taken for nonperformance of those duties. To the best of defendant's knowledge and belief, all documents which have been reviewed or are in the possession of these individuals - and which are not subject to an objection ~ have been produced in response to Plaintiff s First Request for Production of Documents.

3

Case NO.2: INTERROGATORY 1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 4 of 28

Identify, by including, but not limited to, the names, addresses and home and business numbers, each and every person the defendant, his agents, representatives, or other persons acting on his behalf have had conversations with, or from whom written statements have been taken relating in any way to this lawsuit, including the dates all such conversations were had or statements were taken and describe in detail the subject matter covered in each conversation or statement. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous insofar as it seeks "conversations" or "written statements" of any agent of the United States "relating in any way" to this lawsuit. Because such an interrogatory would be unduly burdensome and impossible to answer, we construe this interrogatory as requesting information on "conversations" and "written statements" that counsel for the United States, or agents acting under counsel's direction, have taken from potential witnesses or other persons in anticipation of this lawsuit. So construed, we object to this interrogatory because it seeks material that is protected by the attorney-client . privilege and/or the work product doctrine. See RCFC 26(b)(3); Upiohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). Further, we object to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks home phone numbers and home addresses, which are protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

4

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW JNTERROGATORYNO.3;

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 5 of 28

Does the defendant deny that the wages of janitorial service workers employed by Multiservice Joint Venture, LLC, ("MJV") at the United States Naval Academy rose from $II.79/hour to $I2.49/hour on MarGh 1, 2004 pursuant to the MJV Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") with the U.S. Naval Academy Cleaning Employees Bargaining Unit ("NACE")? Does the defendant deny that the health and welfare contributions for these employees also rose from $2.15/hour to $2.85/hour on March 1, 2004 pursuant to the MJV CBA? If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to answering this contention interrogatory before the close of discovery. Defendant will seek discovery regarding whether the wages paid to and health and welfare contributions made on behalf of plaintiff's janitorial service workers actually rose, and, if so, to what extent. Defendant will be in a position to answer this interrogatory only after obtaining such discovery. Defendant notes, however, that plaintiff is in the best position to have this information. Subject to and without waiving this objection, defendant does not possess sufficient knowledge regarding the wages actually received by plaintiff's employees or the health and welfare contributions that plaintiff made on behalf of its employees to answer this interrogatory. Defendant reserves the right to supplement and modify this response. Plaintiff was obligated to pay $12.33 per hour in wages before March 1,2004 pursuant to the predecessor collective bargaining agreement and the Service Contract Act.

5

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 6 of 28

Does the defendant deny that on March 1,2005, the employees' wages increased to $12.8l/hour and their health and welfare contribution increased to $3.05/hour pursuant to the MJV CBA? If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to answering this contention interrogatory before the close of discovery. Defendant will seek discovery regarding whether the wages paid to and health and welfare contributions made on behalf of plaintiff s janitorial service workers actually rose, and, if so, to what extent. Defendant will be in a position to answer this interrogatory only after obtaining such discovery. Defendant notes, however, that plaintiff is in the best position to have this information. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant does not possess sufficient knowledge regarding the wages actually received by plaintiff s employees or the health and welfare contributions that plaintiff made on behalf of its employees. Defendant reserves the right to supplement and modify this response.

6

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 7 of 28

Does the defendant deny that the United States Departm~nt of Labor C'DOL") duly recognized the MJV CBA as the substantive grounds for its revised February 9, 2004 Wage Determination, and/or that this Wage Determination determined the employees' wages and benefits for the period from March 1, 2004 to August 31 ,2005? If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory insofar as the term "substantive grounds" is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving this objection, DOL's February 9, 2004 Wage Determination recognized the MJV eBA as providing the level of wages and benefits for plaintiff's employees for the period from March 1,2004 to August 31, 2005.

7

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO.6:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 8 of 28

Does the defendant deny that on or about February 24, 2004 MJV submitted a $326,629.47 price adjustment proposal to the Navy reflecting the aforementioned increases in labor and health care costs during the period from March 1,2004 to February 28,2005 (the first option year under the Contract and the first year of the MJV CBA); that the Navy only paid MJV $184,975.35 of the aforementioned increased labor and benefit costs for this twelve month period in 2004-05; and/or that MJV suffered a consequential loss of $141,653.92 in un-reimbursed labor and fringe benefits costs for this twelve month period? If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous insofar as it uses the term "consequential loss." We construe "consequential loss" to mean a loss for which the United

States allegedly is liable under the theories asserted in this action. Defendant also objects to answering whether MJV has "suffered a ... loss ... in unreimbursed labor and fringe benefits costs" before the close of discovery because, as stated above, the wages and fringe benefits provided by MJV are beyond defendant's present knowledge. Defendant intends to seek discovery regarding whether the wages paid to arid health and welfare contributions made on behalf of plaintiff s janitorial service workers actually rose, and, if so, to what extent. Defendant will be able to fully answer this interrogatory only after obtaining such discovery. Subject to and without waiving these objections, MJV submitted a $326,629.47 price adjustment proposal to the Navy based upon alleged increases in labor and health care costs during the period from March 1, 2004 to February 28,2005 (the first option year under the
8

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW Document 20-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 9 of 28 Contract and the first year of the MJV CBA). The Navy paid MJV $184,975.35 on this claim.
Defendant has no basis to determine whether plaintiff incurred "$141,653.92 in un-reimbursed labor and fringe benefits costs," but denies that it is liable for any such costs. Plaintiff is referred to the April 22, 2005 decision of contracting officer Dean E. Koepp (Exhibit A), which explains in detail the basis for this denial.

9

Case NO. 7: INTERROGATORY 1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 10 of 28

Describe in detail what explanation, if any, the Navy had for denying MJV full reimbursement for increased labor and benefit costs the aforementioned twelve month period in

2004-05. RESPONSE: Plaintiff is referred to the April 22, 2005 decision of contracting officer Dean E. Koepp (Exhibit A), which provides the Navy's explanation of its denial.

10

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO.8:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 11 of 28

Does the defendant deny that MJV similarly suffered a consequential loss of $60,310.98 in actual, increased costs for wages and health care for the period from March 1 to August 31, 20057 If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous insofar as it uses the term "consequential loss," We construe "consequential loss" to mean a loss for which the United States allegedly is liable under the theories asserted in this action. Defendant also objects to answering whether MJV has "suffered a ... loss ... in unreimbursed labor and fringe benefits costs" before the close of discovery because, as stated above, the wages and fringe benefits provided by MJV are beyond defendant's present knowledge. Defendant intends to seek discovery regarding whether the wages paid to and health and welfare contributions made on behalf of plaintiff's janitorial service workers actually rose, and, if so, to what extent. Defendant will be able to answer this interrogatory only after obtaining such discovery. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant has no basis to determine whether plaintiff actually incurred $60,310.98 in actual, increased costs for wages and health care benefits for the period from March 1 to August 31, 2005, but denies that it is liable for any such costs. These purported costs were not presented to the contracting officer. Additionally, these purported costs are the subject of modification P00058 to the contract, dated July 18,2005, which increases the contract by price by the amount claimed by the plaintiff and, therefore, appears to adjust the contract for any such costs.

11

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW
,
1

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 12 of 28

INTERROGATORY NO.9:
Describe in detail what explanation, if any, the Navy had for denying MJV full . reimbursement for increased labor and benefit costs for the aforementioned six month period in

2005. RESPONSE: See defendant's response to Interrogatory No.8.

1 2

Case NO. 10: INTERROGATORY1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 13 of 28

Does the defendant deny that MJV had an obligation under the Service Contract Act ("SCAli), 41 V.S.C. § 353(c), to maintain the same level of health care insurance and other fringe benefits during the period from March 1 to September 30, 2003, the apparent balance of the five year term of the CBA between NACE and EPES Building Maintenance Co., Inc. ("EPES") (irrespective of the fact the $2. 15/hour allocated by the Navy for said fringe benefits did not cover the escalating expense of providing this premium level of health care insurance); that MN incurred $53,105.24 in additional costs associated with maintaining this level of benefits during this period; and/or that the Navy refused to reimburse MN for the additional expenditures for maintaining the employees' health care coverage during said period? If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent it asks defendant to admit that "MJV incurred $53,105.24" in additional costs before the close of discovery because this alleged fact is, as stated above, beyond our present knowledge. Defendant intends to seek discovery regarding the wages paid to and health and welfare contributions made on behalf of plaintiff s janitorial service workers. Defendant will be able to fully answer this interrogatory only after obtaining such discovery. Subject to and without waiving this objection, defendant denies that the Service Contract Act required plaintiff "to maintain the same level of health care insurance and other fringe benefits during the period from March 1 to September 30,2003, the apparent balance of the five year term of the CBA between NACE and EPES Building Maintenance Co., Inc. (nEPES")

13

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW Document 20-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 14 of 28 (irrespective of the fact the $2.1S/hour allocated by the Navy for said fringe benefits did not cover the
escalating expense of providing this premium level of health care insurance)." Defendant refused to reimburse plaintiff for these alleged costs. Plaintiff is referred to the April 22, 2005 decision of contracting officer Dean E. Koepp (Exhibit A), which explains in detail the basis for defendant's denial of liability and refusal to reimburse plaintiff.

14

Case NO. 11: INTERROGATORY 1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 15 of 28

Describe in detail what explanation, if any, the Navy had for denying MJV full reimbursement for the increased health insurance costs for the aforementioned seven month period in 2003.
RESPONSE:

Plaintiff is referred to the April 22, 2005 decision of contracting officer Dean E. Koepp (Exhibit

A), which provides the Navy's explanation of its denial.

15

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 16 of 28

Does the defendant deny that the Navy repeatedly refused to allow MJV re-performance and/or to compensate MJV for its re-performance; and/or that the Navy's refusal in this regard caused MJV to lose $22,359.10 in revenue? Ifso, detail the basis for the defendant's denials. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is argumentative, vague, and ambiguous, to the extent it asks defendant to admit or deny that it "repeatedly refused" to allow MJV an opportunity to re-perform unsatisfactory on incomplete work. Subject to this objection, defendant did not allow re-performance in all circumstances where re-performance was requested by plaintiff. The contract provided that the Government could allow re-performance solely in its discretion. See Contract No. N62477 .. 02-R-0558 § B.S( c )(2) ("[T]he Government ... may, at its option, allow the Contractor an opportunity to reperform the unsatisfactory or non-performed work."). Plaintiffs failure to perform work or to perform work according to the contract's requirements resulted in deductions approximately in the amount of$23,359.10.

16

Case NO. 13: INTERROGATORY 1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 17 of 28

Describe in detail what explanation, if any, the Navy had for refusing to allow MN
...

re-performance and/or to compensate MJV for its re-performance. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff is referred to the April 22, 2005 decision of contracting officer Dean E. Koepp (Exhibit A), which provides the Navy's explanation of its denial.

17

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 18 of 28

Does the defendant deny that the Navy withheld $10,000.00 from !viJV's February 2004 Invoice without providing any justification for the withholding; that on or about September 12, 2004, the Navy ultimately indicated that it had decided to "forego" the inexplicable $10,000.00 deduction and it would release these funds to MJV; and/or that irrespective of its stated, written intention to refund these monies to MJV as explained in its September 14, 2004 correspondence, the Navy continued to refuse to reimburse the $10,000.00 to MJV. If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as argumentative, vague, and ambiguous insofar as it asks defendant to admit that it provided no 'justification for the withholding" and made an "inexplicable" deduction. Subject to and without waiving this objection, defendant withheld $10,000.00 from MJV's invoice, but resolved the issue when it settled MJV's request for the $10,000.00 and provided payment to plaintiff in the amount of$8,075.11, via check number 79647549, issued on April 13, 2005.

18

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 19 of 28

Describe in detail what explanation, if any, the Navy had for refusing to refund the aforementioned $10,000.00 deduction to MN. RESPONSE: Defendant did not refuse to refund the aforementioned deduction, but rather settled the matter. Plaintiff is referred to the April 22, 2005 decision of contracting officer Dean E. Koepp (Exhibit A), which provides the Navy's explanation of its denial.

19

Case NO. 16: INTERROGATORY 1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 20 of 28

Does the defendant deny that Section 52.245-2(a) (1) of the FAR compelled the Navy to provide MJV with suitable storage facilities to house cleaning supplies and equipment; that MJV utilized storage space provided by the Navy; that by refusing MN access to its equipment and supplies, the Navy interfered with MJV's ability to protect its property and otherwise mitigate any damage thereto; and/or that as a consequence, MN suffered $71,158. 04? If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to answering this contention interrogatory before the close of discovery. Defendant intends to seek discovery regarding the nature and value of any property lost, if any, by MJV. Defendant will be able to answer this interrogatory only after obtaining such discovery. Subject to and without waiving this objection, defendant denies that FAR 52.245-2(a)(l) requires the provision of "suitable storage facilities," as that provision does not refer in any way to "storage facilities." Further, the facilities provided by defendant were in fact "suitable" for the purpose for which they were to be used. Access to these storage facilities was restricted during and after Hurricane Isabel. Defendant denies liability for any loss allegedly incurred by MJV, as plaintiff bore the risk of any such loss pursuant to 48 C.P.R. § 52-246-16.

20

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 21 of 28

Describe in detail what explanation, if any, the Navy had for refusing to reimburse MJV for its cleaning supplies and equipment discarded by the Navy foHowing Hurricane Isabel. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff is referred to the April 22, 2005 decision of contracting officer Dean E. Koepp (Exhibit A), which provides the Navy's explanation of its denial.

21

Case NO. 18: INTERROGATORY1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 22 of 28

Does the defendant deny that the Navy tasked MJV to strip and refinish the Seventh and Eighth Wings of Bancroft Hall at Naval Academy on an accelerated schedule, i.e., the period between August 5 and August 15,2003; that under this schedule mandated by the Navy,
MJV had to work seven days a week and had to assign additional employees to this stripping and

refinishing project during this period; and/or that MN consequently incurred $7,383.20 in labor costs for the additional hours utilized in stripping and refinishing by the Navy's August 15,2003 deadline? If so, detail the basis for the defendant's denials. RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous insofar as it requires defendant to state whether the Navy tasked MN to strip and refinish Bancroft Hall on "an accelerated schedule." Defendant also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks facts beyond the current knowledge of defendant, that defendant may obtain only through discovery. Subject to and without waiving this objection, defendant tasked plaintiff with stripping and refinishing the seventh and eighth wings of Bancroft Hall between August 5 and August 15, 2003. Defendant denies that MJV "consequently incurred" $7,373.20 in additional labor costs on the ground that the work could have been completed, in the time requested, without additional expense to plaintiff. Additionally, defendant currently has no knowledge of whether MJV actually incurred such costs and expects to obtain knowledge of these alleged facts only through discovery. MJV provided the Navy with no documentation to substc:mtiate its claim of increased labor costs.

22

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO. 19

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 23 of 28

Describe in detail what explanation, if any, the Navy had for refusing to reimburse MJV for its additional labor costs expended in connection with the aforementioned expedited stripping and refinishing work in Bancroft Hall. RESPONSE:

Plaintiff is referred to the April 22, 2005 decision of contracting officer Dean E. Koepp (Exhibit A), which provides the Navy's explanation of its denial.

23

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 24 of 28

IdentifY all documents and/or witnesses which you base your response to these in terro gatories.

RESPONSE:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to discover the opinions and mental impressions of counsel. Subject to and without waiving this objection, defendant has relied upon the documents produced in response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents the personal knowledge ofIris D. Jenkins to respond to these interrogatories.

24

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW INTERROGATORY NO. 21

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 25 of 28

If you interpose any other claim(s) or assertion(s) relevant to this case which is not otherwise mentioned or alluded to above, state all facts that you contend support such claim(s) or assertion(s). RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous insofar as it asks what "other claim(s) or assertion(s)" defendant "interpose[s]." Defendant also objects to the extent that this interrogatory seeks the thoughts, opinions, and mental impressions of counsel. Subject to and without waiving this objection, defendant notes that MJV has signed agreements releasing its claims for certain deductions taken for uncompleted or unsatisfactory work and that MJV currently is involved in administrative proceedings with the Department of Labor concerning what wages MJV was required to pay pursuant to the Service Contract Act. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this interrogatory when it learns more about the proceedings with the Department of Labor, which counsel recently discovered and which are not so much as mentioned in plaintiff s complaint. Defendant further reserves the right to assert any additional claims or assertions of fact or law about which we may learn through the courts of discovery in this litigation.

PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

25

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW

Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 26 of 28

~~~~~~.Assistant Director

~·.b·.' ~'"
'. ,I

... Al~
./ '. \.
','

\
~,

//

/
/'

May 30, 2007

BRIAN T. EDMUNDS Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 616-8253 Fax: (202) 307-0972 Attorneys for Defendant

26

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW Document 20-3 CERTIFICATION

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 27 of 28

I, Iris D. Jenkins, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read "Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories" and that the infonnation contained in those responses is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Executed on May 30, 2007, in Washington, DC.

~O.~
Iris D. Jenkins

NA VFAC Washington 1314 Harwood Street, SE Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5018

·

Case 1:06-cv-00312-TCW OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE Document 20-3

Filed 12/06/2007

Page 28 of 28

I hereby certify under penalty of" perjury, that on this 30th day of May, 2007, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage prepaid) a copy of the foregoing UDEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES" to:

Janice Davis Davis & Steele 1100 15th S1. , N.W. Suite

300
Waashington, DC 20005-1720