Free Witness List - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 1 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO Interim United States Attorney RICHARD LEPLEY Assistant Branch Director DANIEL BENSING D.C. Bar No. 334268 STEVEN Y. BRESSLER D.C. Bar No. 482492 KYLE R. FREENY California Bar No. 247857 Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-0693 Facsimile: (202) 616-8460 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Hon. James B. Peake, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Hon. James P. Terry, Hon. Daniel L. Cooper, Bradley G. Mayes, Hon. Michael J. Kussman, Ulrike Willimon, the United States of America, Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, and Hon. William P. Greene, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE and ) VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Hon. JAMES B. PEAKE, Acting Secretary ) of Veterans Affairs, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ____________________________________ ) Introduction Defendants hereby respond to plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents (RFP) numbered 1 - 191. Due the number of plaintiffs' RFPs and their enormous scope, defendants have been unable to complete their search for all documents responsive to these requests at this time. Therefore, defendants reserve the right to assert additional objections should they identify other responsive documents that are subject to objection on grounds other than those asserted herein.
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

No. C 07-3758-SC DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NUMBERED 1 ­ 191

-1-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 2 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

General Objections to All of Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents A. APA Record Review Objections

The only basis for plaintiffs' challenge to "policies, practices and procedures" of the VA is under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and discovery is not permitted in APA actions, which are, instead, resolved on the administrative record of the agency action in question. Therefore, defendants object, on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to: (1) any discovery at all in this action; and, in the alternative, (2) any discovery outside of documents that would be included in the administrative record(s) of the final agency action(s) challenged by plaintiffs. This objection applies to all of plaintiffs' RFPs. B. Application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 C. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. "All Documents Concerning" Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Defendants object on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to all of plaintiffs' requests to the extent that they seek "ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING" (as well as to the definitions of "document(s)" and "concerning") the topics listed in the requests, as they do not describe the requested documents with "reasonable particularity" within the meaning of Rule 34. Defendants will, subject to other objections, produce those documents most directly relevant and responsive to each request, but will not attempt to search for, identify and produce all documents that might in some way concern the subject matter of each request. The VA employs approximately 256,000 employees and many of these employees may have created "documents" (such as emails) related to subjects identified in plaintiffs 191 RFPs. Defendants will search the files of those components of the VA that are responsible for the subject matter of the request. However, defendants will not ask every employee of the VA to search his or her files for "all documents concerning" any of plaintiffs' 191 requests for production of documents. This objection applies to all of plaintiffs' RFPs. 2. "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection Defendants object on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to the scope of documents requested by virtue of plaintiffs' definition of the words "COMMUNICATION" OR "COMMUNICATIONS" as they do not describe the requested documents with "reasonable particularity" within the meaning of Rule 34. Defendants also object, on grounds of undue burden and relevance, as well as deliberative process privilege, to plaintiffs' requests to the extent that they seek "communications" relating to specific, written agency VA policies, practices, procedures, investigations or other activities (hereafter "policies"). Defendants will produce the core documents relevant to such policies, including those maintained by: (1) those officials responsible for developing the policy in question; and (2) and author or project leader who actually drafted the policy. Defendants object and will not produce all drafts of policies, all
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

Defendants object to plaintiffs' definitions, instructions and interpretation sections to the extent that these purported definitions, instructions and interpretations impose any obligations different or greater than those of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable law. This objection applies to all of plaintiffs' RFPs. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), defendants will not produce documents consisting of electronically stored information from backup tapes which are not reasonably accessible. This includes, but is not limited to backup tapes for all of VA's file servers and email servers. As discovery proceeds, defendants expect to identify additional sources that are not reasonably accessible and from which documents need not be produced and will supplement these responses accordingly. Objections to Plaintiffs' Definitions and Preamble

-2-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 3 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

comments on drafts of polices and similar documents that preceded the adoption of the policy. 3. "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Defendants object on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to the scope of documents requested by virtue of plaintiffs' definition of the word "MEETING" as they do not describe the requested documents with "reasonable particularity" within the meaning of Rule 34. 4. "Identify" Overbreadth Objection Defendants object on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to plaintiffs' definition of "IDENTIFY" to the extent that it requests information about: (a) a person's last know employer, that employer's address and telephone number and or position with that employer (assuming that the last known employer is not the VA), and the person's home address and telephone number; and (b) a document other than title, subject (if not clear from the title), date and author. D. Objections to All Requests for Production of Documents

1. Facial Challenge Objection Defendants object on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to the production of any documents relevant solely to plaintiffs' facial challenge to the constitutionality of the VJRA. See Complaint paragraph 30. This objection applies to all of plaintiffs' RFPs. 2. Time Frame Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection. Defendants object on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to all discovery requests for documents dated or relating to events prior to January 1, 2005. As plaintiffs seek solely declaratory and injunctive relief, absent unique and special circumstances, the relevance of documents dated before January 1, 2005 is extremely attenuated, and their limited relevance is outweighed by the undue burden of their production by defendants. This objection applies to all of plaintiffs' RFPs. 3. Claim Ambiguity Objection Plaintiffs challenge various "illegal policies and practices," of the VA, Complaint, ¶ 31, and list four such policies, Complaint, ¶ 31a-d, and then purport to also challenge "[v]arious other illegal practices and procedures as outlined below," Id. ¶ 31e, but never expressly identify any such policies, in the balance of their 278-paragraph complaint. Consequently, defendants are unable to determine whether many of plaintiffs' RFPs seek documents "relevant to a claim or defense" in this action. Accordingly, defendants object to all of plaintiffs 191 RFPs as vague and ambiguous since plaintiffs' complaint fails to provide an unambiguous and definitive list of all of the "illegal policies and practices" they purport to challenge. Defendants therefore will interpret plaintiffs' challenge to various "illegal policies and practices," of the VA to be only those practices identified in paragraph 31a-d of the complaint. This objection applies to all of plaintiffs' RFPs. E. Additional Objections to Certain Requests for Production of Documents

1 VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection As plaintiffs are "precluded from challenging any regulations promulgated by the Secretary" of the Department of Veterans Affairs, (see January 10, 2008 Order at 14:14-15, citing 38 U.S.C. § 502), activities and policies of the VA that are governed by rules are outside the scope of this litigation and hence defendants object to producing documents relating to such activities and policies as irrelevant and burdensome. 2. Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection. Defendants object on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to all discovery requests for documents to the extent that they do not relate to PTSD and mental health claims by veterans. 3. Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection This Court cannot and should not review the quality or precise nature of medical treatment recommended or
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-3-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 4 of 64

1 2 3 4

provided by VA's professional staff (see 38 U.S.C. § 511; Order at 24-25; 28). Allegations of negligence which call into question the quality of VA care are subject to review in actions under the Federal Torts Claims Act. Consequently, defendants object on relevance and budensomeness grounds to requests for documents relating to individual medical care determinations made by the VA as well as to the overall quality of medical care provided by VA as evidenced through individual medical care determinations. 4. "Policies, practices and procedures" Objection

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. Computer Inspection Burdensomeness and Relevance Objection Defendants object on burdensomeness and relevance grounds to plaintiffs' requests to the extent that they seek to compel physical inspection of defendants' computer systems and similar systems for the storage of ESI.
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

a. Defendants object to plaintiffs' document requests to the extent that they seek documents on VA agency "practices policies and procedures" as the meaning of this phrase is vague and ambiguous and also does not clearly constitute final agency action within the meaning of the APA. Defendants will interpret the phrase "practices, policies and procedures," or portions thereof, to mean a written, and finalized agency policy that, by its own terms, applies not solely to an individual claim or matter, but to a category of claims or matters. b. Defendants object, on grounds of relevance and burden to such requests except to the extent that they seek documents relevant to identified VA policies and procedures (such as guidelines, Fast Letters) that are maintained by: (1) those officials responsible for developing the policy in question; and (2) and author or project leader who actually drafted the policy. Defendants will not attempt to search for all communications from all other components of VA relating to these policies. 5. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Defendants object on relevance and burdensomeness grounds to plaintiffs' requests for documents contained within individual claim files, medical treatment files and similar individual case files. This Court cannot review individual claims for benefits and health care (see 38 U.S.C. § 511; Order at 2425; 28) and hence claim files and other claim-specific documents are not relevant to this litigation. This objection does not apply to documents providing aggregations of data about the processing of individual claims. This objection also applies to any written guidance provided by superiors to VA officials making determinations on individual claims for benefits or medical care, unless such guidance applies to an entire category of individual claims for benefits. 6. Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Proposals or discussions and other activities by officials of agencies other than the Department of Veterans Affairs that do not relate to or affect actions of the VA at issue in this litigation are not relevant. 7. CAVC Objection Objection, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) is not a proper defendant in this action since it is a court of the United States, not an executive branch agency subject to suit under the APA. Additionally, the Court is immune from discovery of communications among judges and staff about court business due to the doctrine of judicial privilege. Consequently, the CAVC cannot be compelled to respond to a Rule 34 request for production of documents. 8. ESI Format Burdensomeness Objection Defendants object, as unduly burdensome, to plaintiffs' request that electronically-stored information (ESI) be produced in "searchable (using OCR) single-page TIFF images with accompanying Concordance load files," as well as to a listing of particular metadata fields and all other instructions related to ESI production contained in plaintiffs' letter of October 10, 2007 to Steven Y. Bressler. Defendants will consult with plaintiffs in the near future about the format for future ESI production.

-4-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 5 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

10. Publically-Available Documents Objection. Defendants will not produce documents, such as press clippings, GAO reports, Congressional Committee Reports, articles from published scientific journals and similar documents that are in defendants' possession but also available to the public and plaintiffs. 11. Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product Objection. Defendants object to all discovery requests to the extent that they seek documents or information covered by the attorneyclient privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. Defendants will prepare an appropriate privilege log. 12. Deliberative Process Objection Defendants object to all discovery requests to the extent that they seek documents or information covered by the Deliberative Process privilege which applies to communications within the VA and between the VA and other agencies of the Executive Branch. Defendants will prepare an appropriate privilege log. 13. Privacy Act Objection. Defendants object to the production of all documents retrieved from a "system of records," as that term is defined by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5), as such disclosure of prohibited by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), and, as to certain documents, by 38 U.S.C. § 7332. Defendants will produce such documents upon the Court's entry of a Order, under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), authorizing disclosure. 14. Objection to Duplicative Requests Lodged by Plaintiffs Plaintiffs have repeatedly lodged requests that are substantively duplicative of other requests. See e.g. RFPs 74 and 77; 112 and 113; 105 and 107; 67 and 138; 49 and 173; 139 and 182. Defendants Specific Responses to Each of Plaintiffs' Requests Plaintiffs' unedited and unrestrained discovery requests, neither limited to the issues raised in the complaint nor presented in any organized and non-repetitive manner, make identification of responsive and non-objectionable documents impossible in the short period since the Court's 10, 2008 decision narrowing the issues in the case. Defendants have asserted relevant objections in responding to each of plaintiffs' 191 individual requests, but in doing so, do not waive any other objections that may become apparent when documents are located and reviewed. Additionally, many of defendants' objection apply to all of plaintiffs' discovery requests and are so noted when the objection is described. The sentence "Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced." in defendants' responses means that, if all of defendants' objections to that request (i.e. those relevant General Objections as well as specific objections identified in response to the particular request and any additional or amended objections asserted in supplemental responses) are overruled or withdrawn, defendants will produce non-objectionable and responsive documents. This sentence is only included where it appears, from the information currently available to
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-5-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 6 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

defendants that, even if all of defendants' objections are sustained, some documents may be responsive and non-objectionable.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1: Lists, databases, computer systems or printouts showing pending SCDDC claims based on PTSD or mental health disorders, including, without limitation, those containing information regarding the stage of proceeding (e.g., regional office, BVA, CAVC, etc.) and/or similar lists maintained, generated, dated, or printed between January 1, 2000 and the present. Response: This responses will constitute a Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189 and responses to those RFPs will be referred back to this response. Privacy Act Objection Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Computer Inspection Burdensomeness and Relevance Objection At this point, defendants have not completed their examination and analysis of the computer databases responsive to determine what specific databases contain documents responsive to this request, as well as to the format in which responsive and nonobjectionable ESI will be produced. Defendants reserve their right to supplement this responses with that information after they have completed that examination and analysis. Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. Additional response to RFP 1 only: CAVC Objection. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: Lists, databases or printouts of all resolved SCDDC claims based upon PTSD or mental health disorder sorted, including, without limitation, information CONCERNING the stage of proceeding (e.g., regional office, BVA, CAVC, etc.) at the time of resolution, and/or similar lists maintained, generated, dated, or printed between January 1, 2000 and the present. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: Circulars, directives, letters, VA Fast letters, policy directives or other written COMMUNICATIONS concerning rules, procedures or practices for evaluating and/or
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-6-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 7 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

adjudicating PTSD claims. VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection "Policies, practices and

procedures" Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: The number of PTSD claims currently pending at each regional office of the VA, and the number of days each claim has been pending starting from the original filing date. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5: The number of SCDDC claims pending at each regional office of the VA, and the number of days each claim has been pending starting from the original filing date. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6: Beginning with the filing of a Notice of Disagreement, the number of days each PTSD claim appeal has been pending starting from the original filing date. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7: Beginning with the filing of a Notice of Disagreement, the number of days each SCDDC claim has been pending at the BVA starting from the original filing date. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8: Beginning with the Notice of Appeal, the number of days each SCDDC appeal has been pending starting from the original filing date. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187;
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-7-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 8 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9: Beginning with the Notice of Appeal, the number of days each PTSD appeal has been pending starting from the original filing date. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: The number of days required to adjudicate PTSD claims resolved at VA regional office and average time of each between 2000 and present, beginning on the date of receipt of the claim. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: The number of days required to adjudicate SCDDC claims resolved at VA regional office and average time of each between 2000 and present, beginning on the date of receipt of the claim. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: The number of days required to decide each resolved PTSD claim appeal, beginning on the date of the Notice of Disagreement, and average time, between 2000 and present. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: The number of days required to decide each resolved SCDDC claim appeal, beginning on the date of the Notice of Disagreement, and average time, between 2000 and present. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189.
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-8-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 9 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: The number of days required to resolve every PTSD claim appeal to the CAVC, beginning on the filing of the Notice of Appeal, and average time between 2000 and present. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. Additional response to RFP 14 only: CAVC Objection. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: The number of days required to resolve every SCDDC claim appeal to the CAVC, beginning on the filing of the Notice of Appeal, and average time between 2000 and present. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. Additional response to RFP 15 only: CAVC Objection. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: The average number of days for VA regional offices to complete action on remands of PTSD claims from the BVA, and from the CAVC between 2000 and present. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: The average number of days for VA regional offices to complete action on remands of SCDDC claims from the BVA, and from the CAVC between 2000 and present. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Examples or incidents involving a failure or delay in providing medical diagnosis or treatment to a veteran claiming he or she has PTSD, and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same, including letters to and from elected officials, veterans service officers, and the press. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous in the meaning of " failure or delay in providing medical diagnosis or treatment." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents describing aggregate studies of delay in providing medical diagnosis or treatment to a veteran
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-9-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 10 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

claiming he has PTSD. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection. Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection. "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Privacy Act Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: COMMUNICATIONS between DEFENDANTS and the executive branch, including the Office of the President of the United States, CONCERNING VA annual budgets and/or supplemental appropriations between 2002 and present. Response: Objection, these documents are irrelevant since the Court has no authority to order the Executive or the Legislative branch to order additional appropriations for VA programs. Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Process Objection Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Policies, practices or procedures CONCERNING implementation of or compliance or noncompliance with the two-year medical care statute identified in Paragraph 91 of the Complaint. Response: See Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection. VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Publically-Available Documents Objection Deliberative Process Objection Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product Objection Nonobjectionable and responsive documents will be produced. See also Response to RFP 91 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: The grant rate for PTSD claims at the regional office level, BVA, CAVC, and/or Federal Circuit between 2000 and present, with the date sorted by combined degree of disability (CDD) in increments of 10 percent from 000 to 100. Response: See Consolidated Response to RFPs 1-2; 4-17; 21; 96; 97; 117; 127; 187; 189.
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

Deliberative

-10-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 11 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Reports, papers, research and studies CONCERNING PTSD by the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Response: Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Publically-Available Documents Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: The filing and/or allegations contained in the Complaint herein, and any amended complaints, if any. Response: Objection, overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product Objection Deliberative Process Objection CAVC Objection. Non-objectionable and relevant documents the mention plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel will be produced in response to other requests. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: The discharge of soldiers from the Iraq or Afghanistan theaters of combat based upon the alleged existence of a personality disorder, and policies and procedures related to personality disorder discharges ("PDDs"), and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection NonPTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Objection, decisions on personality disorder discharges by DOD are not relevant to plaintiffs' claims against the VA. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: COMMUNICATIONS between Defendants and the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense CONCERNING the subject of personality disorder discharges. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-VA Defendant
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-11-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 12 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Relevance Objection Objection, decisions on personality disorder discharges by DOD are not relevant to plaintiffs' claims against the VA. Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: The VA's acceptance or non-acceptance of Personality Disorder Discharges from the military branches for purposes of determining a veteran's or veterans' eligibility for medical care and/or SCDDC for PTSD. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Objection, decisions on personality disorder discharges by DOD are not relevant to plaintiffs' claims against the VA. Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: The diagnosis, epidemiology, assessment, treatment, co-morbidities, treatment outcomes, and/or psychopharmacology of PTSD in general and/or as handled by the VA. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection. Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Nonobjectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: The two VA-10M contracts of PTSD. Response: Defendants understand this RFP to refer to Contract No. V101(93)P-2136, Task Order No. 9, entitled Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Diagnosis and Assessment. Deliberative Process Objection Publically-Available Documents Objection Nonobjectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Efforts or attempts by Defendants to have PTSD removed, changed, or reclassified as a disorder under any edition of the DSM and/or in any other context.
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-12-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 13 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Response: Objection, documents created or obtained by VA employees who served in their individual capacities on any non-federal government organization relevant to changes in the DSM criteria are not VA agency records responsive to this request. Publically-Available Documents Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: The interpretation or application of regulations pertaining to personality disorder discharges, including Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13 (Separation Because of Personality Disorder), Navy Military Personnel Manual 1910-122, Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual Chapter 6, Section 2, Subsection 6203, Air Force Regulation AFI 36-3208, or any similar DoD regulations, including DoD Directive 133.2.14 (December 21, 1993). Response: Objection, ambiguous as to the meaning of "interpretation or application of regulations pertaining to personality disorder discharges." We interpret this to mean VA's interpretation of the administrative separation regulations of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the various military service departments concerning personality disorder discharges. VA does not review the administrative separation regulations of either DoD or the service departments, Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: The IDENTITY and claim files for all veterans with PTSD claims or symptoms who have asserted that their consent to personality disorder discharges was not knowing or voluntary, and all COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous in that defendants cannot know which former service members "asserted that their consent to personality disorder discharges was not knowing and voluntary," and additionally all personality disorder discharges are, by their nature, involuntary. Defendants interpret this request to seek some, unspecified documents from the claim files of veterans with PTSD who received a personality disorder discharge. Individual
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-13-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 14 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection Privacy Act Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: The complete claim files of the veterans listed on Attachment "A." Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Diagnostic criteria for PTSD applied by the VA, and all changes since 2004. Response: Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Screening protocols or checklists for PTSD prepaid, received or used by the VA, and all changes made since 2004. Response: "Policies, practices and procedures" Objection Objection, vague and ambiguous in the meaning of "[s]creening protocols or checklists for PTSD prepaid, received or used by the VA." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents describing Screening protocols or checklists for PTSD prepared, received or used by the VA. Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Statistical data and reports concerning suicides or attempted suicides by veterans with PTSD or other mental health disorders, the VA's policies or practices CONCERNING suicide or threatened suicides, and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Deliberative Process Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting"

Definition Overbreadth Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents were produced to plaintiffs on February 4, 2008; additional non-objectionable and responsive documents identified by defendants will be produced.
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-14-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 15 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Survey or statistical data or reports concerning unreported or under-reported cases of PTSD or mental health disorders amongst veterans and the reasons or explanations for the same. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Publically-Available Documents Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST F OR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Congressional testimony by YOU concerning PTSD and drafts, reports, correspondence, summaries, and comments CONCERNING the same. Response: Deliberative Process Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: The claim files and death certificates of all veterans who have attempted suicide or committed suicide since January 1, 2000. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: The availability or lack of availability of medical care and treatment for veterans with symptoms of or a diagnosis of PTSD or other mental disorders at each VA outpatient clinic and hospital. Response: Objection, vague, ambiguous and overbroad in the use of the phrase "availability or lack of availability of medical care and treatment for veterans." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents describing aggregate studies of availability and lack of availability of medical care and treatment for veterans with symptoms of or a diagnosis of PTSD or other mental disorders. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Nonobjectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-15-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 16 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Protocols and procedures for the exchange of information between the VBA and the VHA CONCERNING veterans filing SCDDC claims based on PTSD, and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection "Policies, practices and procedures" Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. Responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Assessments, audits, analyses, critiques or evaluations of the VHA's health care system for PTSD and other mental health disorders. Response: Publically-Available Documents Objection Deliberative Process Objection. Non-privileged and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: The incidence and manifestations of PTSD or mental health disorders amongst members of the Reserves called to active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, including, without limitation, veterans' under VA or private care, and YOUR tracking of medical problems experienced by members of the Reserves who served in OEF/OIF. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection. Privacy Act Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Non-privileged and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: The complete investigation and prosecution files regarding Lawrence Gottfried and Jill Rygalski, as identified in Paragraphs 231 and 232 of the Complaint, and any other persons known or suspected to have tampered with or destroyed any document or portion of a veteran's claim file. Response: Objection, irrelevant in that the Gottfried/Rygalski incident was an isolated
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-16-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 17 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and unusual incident of VA employee misconduct, occurring approximately 15 years ago, and hence has no relevance to plaintiffs' claims herein. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: The IDENTITY of all veterans whose claims were affected by the illegal actions of Lawrence Gottfried or Jill Rygalski, as described in the Complaint, and the claim files of each. Response: Objection, irrelevant in that the Gottfried/Rygalski incident was an isolated and unusual incident of VA employee misconduct, occurring approximately 15 years ago, and hence has no relevance to plaintiffs' claims herein. Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: The complete investigation files of the Department of Justice and the VA relating to Jill Rygwalski and Lawrence Gottfried, and any similar investigations of other VA employees. Response: Objection, irrelevant in that the Gottfried/Rygalski incident was an isolated and unusual incident of VA employee misconduct, occurring approximately 15 years ago, and hence has no relevance to plaintiffs' claims herein. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: The complete investigation and prosecution files of all other VA employees known or suspected to have tampered with or destroyed documents in VA claim files. Response: Objection vague and ambiguous in the meaning of "tampered with or destroyed documents." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents describing formal investigations of allegations, supported by serious and credible evidence, that VA employees destroyed or altered official agency records in violation of statute, regulation or established VA policy. Subject to that interpretation, defendants object as irrelevant and unduly burdensome except as to: (1) documents related to a formal investigation by VA's Office of Inspector General of an employee who is alleged to have improperly destroyed or altered official agency records; and (2) any other formal investigation initiated by a VA employee with authority to discipline the
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

Individual Claim File Relevance and

-17-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 18 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

employee who is alleged to have improperly destroyed or altered official agency records. Law Enforcement Privilege objection. "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Regarding bonuses to management level VA employees, the bonus amounts, names of recipients, dates of awards, supporting justifications of awards, and name of person who signed the approval of award between 2002 and present. Response: Objection, notwithstanding defendants' timeframe overbreadth objection, unduly burdensome and irrelevant except as to any bonus awarded from January 1, 2007 to the present. Objection as unduly burdensome and irrelevant except as to any bonus paid to employees of the VA responsible for adjudicating claims for benefits and processing claims for medical care. Privacy Act Objection. Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: The criteria for the award of incentive bonuses to VA employees and productivity or performance goals, standards, data, and reports. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous in the meaning of "performance goals, standards, data and reports". Defendants interpret this phrase to refer to performance standards and goals employees of the VA responsible for adjudicating claims for benefits and processing claims for medical care. Objection, notwithstanding defendants' timeframe overbreadth objection, unduly burdensome and irrelevant except as to any bonus awarded from January 1, 2007 to the present. Objection as unduly burdensome and irrelevant except as to any bonus paid to employees of the VA responsible for adjudicating claims for benefits and processing claims for medical care. Privacy Act Objection. Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: The minimum qualifications for each class or type of VA mental health specialist or
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-18-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 19 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

professional. Response: Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Nonobjectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: Errors or erroneous practices regarding the tracking or recording of dates CONCERNING veteran health care appointments as shown in the Patient Appointment Information System, all corrections made thereto, and MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous in the meaning of "erroneous practices." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents relating to systemic or widespread errors in the PAIS database. Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Computer Inspection Burdensomeness and Relevance Objection Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection. Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: All data fields, definitions, and operational manuals CONCERNING databases used by the VA relating to the adjudication of PTSD claims including, without limitation, any and all original claims, appeals at regional offices, appeals at the BVA, appeals to the CAVC, and the delivery of health care to veterans at VA hospitals or outpatient clinics. Response: Objection, irrelevant. Notwithstanding that objection, where defendants provide plaintiffs with electronic data from VA databases, defendants will provide plaintiffs with operational manuals and similar documentation for such databases. Computer Inspection Burdensomeness and Relevance Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: All data fields, definitions, and operational manuals CONCERNING databases used by the VA regarding the timing and disposition of veteran appeals by the BVA, including, without limitation, the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System.
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-19-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 20 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Response: Objection, irrelevant. Notwithstanding that objection, where defendants provide plaintiffs with electronic data from VA databases, defendants will provide plaintiffs with operational manuals and similar documentation for such databases. Computer Inspection Burdensomeness and Relevance Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Patterns or examples of abuse of the VA's record purpose disallowance procedure, and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Objection, irrelevant as to information concerning record purpose disallowances is irrelevant because it exists only in a VA manual implementing instructions for education benefit programs assigned to the Education Service and, is irrelevant to the issues in this litigation Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection "Policies, practices and procedures" Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Record purpose disallowance or any denial of a SCDDC claim based upon the claimant's failure to provide information requested by the VA within a specified time period. Response: Objection, irrelevant as to information concerning record purpose disallowances is irrelevant because it exists only in a VA manual implementing instructions for education benefit programs assigned to the Education Service and, is irrelevant to the issues in this litigation Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection "Policies, practices and procedures" Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Studies, audits, or reports CONCERNING problems or issues associated with remands of SCDDC claims by the BVA or CAVC, including, without limitation, delays or improper claim development by VA regional offices, failing to address and correct continuing failures of the regional offices to make the same or similar errors, and the issue of multiple remands respecting
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-20-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 21 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the same claim or same veteran. Response: CAVC Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Allegations or evidence of retaliation against VA employees or witnesses, including, without limitation, any release of information or speech activities CONCERNING the VA, medical care and treatment for veterans or the adjudication of SCDDC claims. Response: Objection, unduly burdensome in the absence of a showing by plaintiffs that there have in fact been acts of retaliation against VA employees or witnesses. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: The institution or conduct of special or supplemental reviews of SCDDC claims by the VA Central Office, including reviews of approvals of grant or denial of service connection for PTSD or TDIU, "second signature" requirements, or special review of prior grants of service connection, and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection "Policies, practices and procedures" Objection Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Document preservation instructions and measures based upon the filing of this action, any reported violations of such instructions or measures, and all COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Objection, irrelevant to plaintiffs claims relating to the processing of claims for benefits by veterans. Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59:
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-21-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 22 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Congressional inquiries regarding the care or treatment of SCDDC claims of veterans with PTSD or mental health disorders and all responses to the same. Response: Deliberative Process Privilege Objection, unduly burdensome if defendants are required to search every Congressional correspondence file. Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Any analysis of possible measures to reduce VA budget outlays for SCDDC and/or mental health care, including re-review of previously granted SCDDC or PTSD claims, and changes in eligibility, substantive requirements or rating criteria. Response: Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Privilege Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Instances of alleged or confirmed misconduct or improper actions by a VA employee, regarding productivity, production or timeliness respecting a veteran or a veteran's claim, including, without limitation, dismissals or disciplinary action taken. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous in the meaning of "alleged or confirmed misconduct or improper actions by a VA employee, regarding productivity, production or timeliness respecting a veteran or a veteran's claim." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents describing allegations supported by serious and credible evidence that VA employees violated laws, regulations or established agency policy in processing a veteran's claim for monetary benefits or medical care due to a claim of PTSD. Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Disputes between any Union and the VA concerning alleged misconduct regarding the productivity, production and timeliness of VA employees. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous in the meaning of "alleged misconduct
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-22-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 23 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

regarding the productivity, production and timeliness." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents describing allegations supported by serious and credible evidence that VA employees violated laws, regulations or established agency policy in processing a veteran's claim for monetary benefits or medical care due to a claim of PTSD. Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Changes or proposed changes in the requirements or rules for attorneys or agents to practice before the VA, BVA or CAVC, and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection "Policies, practices and procedures" Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: The VA's investigation and actions taken in response to claims of malpractice or other veterans' complaints about service officers or representatives. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous in the meaning of "claims of malpractice." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents describing documents related to any complaint that resulted in an inquiry pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 14.633. VA Rule Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: The VA's central office's supervision, statistical analysis of, or monitoring of grants of service connection for PTSD and appeals of PTSD grant decision or requests for increased ratings at its regional offices and all actions taken with respect to regional offices exhibiting
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-23-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 24 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

higher than average grant rates or any perceived statistical abnormalities. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous. Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents related to VA central office's oversight and supervising of determinations by regional offices as to service connectedness in the case of PTSD claims. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: The substantive content of application and problems experienced with the Clinician's Guide provisions regarding PTSD, including, without limitation, Chapter 14 regarding PTSD. Response: Objection, vague and ambiguous in the meaning of "[t]he substantive content of application and problems experienced with the Clinician's Guide provisions regarding PTSD." Defendants understand this RFP to seek documents related to any problems in the application of Clinician's Guide to PTSD claims. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: The production or productivity standards, goals, or requirements for personnel involved in deciding SCDDC claims at regional offices and at the BVA, and for employees assigned to provide health care for veterans and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Objection, overbroad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant except as performance standards, job descriptions, criteria for performance awards and similar documents for VA staff deciding SCDDC claims, and health care claims. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68:
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-24-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 25 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Studies, reports, analyses, or predictions of the number and percentages of existing and future veterans from OEF/OIF likely to file SCDDC and or PTSD claims. Response: Deliberative Process Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Publically-Available Documents Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: Studies, reports, analyses or predictions of the numbers and percentages of veterans from OEF/OIF likely to seek health care for PTSD or other mental health disorders. Response: Deliberative Process Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Publically-Available Documents Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: The adequacy of past, present and future staffing levels at the DVB and VHA to handle anticipated numbers of returned or returning OEF/OIF veterans, and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Deliberative Process Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection "Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Reports, studies, information and examples of the issuance of less than honorable discharges to soldiers exhibiting symptoms of PTSD or mental health disorders by the armed services, and/or their eligibility for SCDDC and VA medical care. Response: Objection, irrelevant in that actions by DOD in issuing less than honorable discharges are irrelevant to decisions by VA on SCDDC claims and request for medical care. Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

-25-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 26 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: Any link between PTSD and violent or illegal behavior or conduct by soldiers, including reports, studies, information and examples. Response: Objection, irrelevant as the VA provides care to veterans not "soldiers." Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection NonVA Defendant Relevance Objection Deliberative Process Objection responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: Data CONCERNING the incidence of, estimates, projections or instances of suicides and attempted suicides amongst OIF/OEF veterans. Response: Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents were produced to plaintiffs on February 4, 2008; additional documents will be produced if and when they are located. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS within the VA or between the VA and any third party CONCERNING the June 2007 Report of the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health. Response: Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: The DOLE/SHALALA REPORT, and all MEETINGS and COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection
Case No. C-07-3758-SC Defendants' Responses and Objections to VCS and VUFT's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

Non-objectionable and

-26-

Case 3:07-cv-03758-SC

Document 139-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 27 of 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Those DOCUMENTS that mention Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' Counsel. Response: Objection, irrelevant. Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Individual Claim File Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Privacy Act Objection Individual Medical Care Relevance and Burdensomeness Objection Deliberative Process Objection Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product Objection Nonobjectionable and relevant documents the mention plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel will be produced in response to other requests. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77: The DoD Task Force On Mental Health dated June 2007, and all COMMUNICATIONS and MEETINGS CONCERNING the same. Response: Non-PTSD/Mental Health Overbreadth and Burdensomeness Objection Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection "Meeting" Definition Overbreadth Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and responsive documents will be produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: Reports I, II, III and IV of the Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) for OEF and/or OIF by the office of the Surgeon General and all COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING the same. Response: Objection, irrelevant as these reports deal with mental health issues of activeduty solders, not veterans. Non-VA Defendant Relevance Objection Communication" Definition Overbreadth Objection Publically-Available Documents Objection Deliberative Process Objection Non-objectionable and