Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 17

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 1 of 26

Marshall A. Martin, Esq. #010055 2 LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL A. MARTIN 8930 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 100 3 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 4 Attorney for Plaintiff
5 6 7 8 9

1

^3K>S?. A*>£

APR - 6 2005
ITTLER MENDELSON, P.C PHOENIX. A2_

Zf&ta&JS*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUI DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 1) Bobbie M. Golden, et al., Plaintiffs

10 11 12

v.

2) Arizona Department of 13 Administration, et al.,
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Defendant.

) ) No. CIV-04-0320-PHX-PGR ) ) PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO ) DEFENDANT STAUBITZ ) FIRST SET OF ) INTERROGATORIES AND ) REQUESTS FOR ) PRODUCTION OF ) DOCUMENTS ) ) )

Plaintiff, BOBBIE M. GOLDEN, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby serves upon counsel for Defendant, her Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Documents.
INTERROGATORIES

22
23 24 25

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: In response to Defendant's Requests for Admission for each and every request for admission you denied, please state with particularity all facts supporting each denial, including the identity of any individual with knowledge relevant to your denial and all documents that relate in any way to your denial.

26
27 28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 2 of 26

·

1·
3
4

·

ANSWER:

A contractual employment relationship exists between

·

the Arizona Capitol Police, State of Arizona and Bobbie Golden based upon the employment process and offer of employment by Arizona Capitol Police, the Arizona Post Standards for Entry Level Police Officers, the
6

probationary period established by policy being fulfilled and fulltime status granted, adherence to the operational policies of Arizona Capital Police and Arizona Department of Administration, and the payment of compensation to Plaintiff, without which an existing employment contract would constitute an illegal gift of State monies.

7
8

9 10

12 13

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Identify all facts, documents, and witnesses

supporting your claim that "Defendant Staubitz had the duty to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline Defendant Corcoran and knew or should have known of the harassment to which Defendant Corcoran subjected J Plaintiffs. Defendant Staubitz had the power to prevent or aid in the

14 15
16

17 18
19

prevention of such harassment, and could have done so by reasonable diligence, but neglected or refused to do so, thus resulting in the constitutional violations..." as alleged in Paragraph 47 of your First Amended Complaint.

20

22 23
24 25

Identify what provisions of the Constitution you claim were violated. Identify what Constitution you allege was violated. Identify each and every action or inaction you claim forms the basis for your hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and A.R.S. §41-1401. ANSWER: Object: the compound interrogatory contains no less than three (3) separate interrogatories which are confusing and overbroad.

26

27 28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 3 of 26

l' Notwithstanding the objection, Plaintiff states that the established chain
2

of command within Arizona Capitol Police includes approximately five Sergeants, two of which are or were in an administrative capacity. There were or are two Lieutenants and one Captain reporting directly to Chief

*

3
4

61

Staubitz at the time in question. The Chief position in turn reports to the Director of the Department of Administration. Chief Staubitz, in his

7
8

capacity, was ultimately responsible for all activities engaged in by his command. It was part of his management responsibilities to conduct

9 10

weekly meetings with his supervisors during which items of interest,
12 i

significant events, past problems, opportunity events, personnel issues

13 | and other matters relating to the Agency were discussed. Meetings were
14

followed up with typical Minutes of the Meeting, which were then placed in the Memo Book for all employees to read and sign. Chief Staubitz's chain of command encompassed only five sergeants, two lieutenants, and

15 16
18 i

one captain in one square mile of physical space. For Chief Staubitz to

19 I claim no knowledge in memos articulating problems with supervisors as
20

well as rank and file officers, is simply not believable and constitutes either misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance, resulting in complete dereliction of duty. Defendant Staubitz knew of the actions engaged in by his

21
22 23
24

25 I subordinate officers constituting a hostile work environment including
26

sexual harassment of female employees, the failure of the Department to take any proper remedial action in response to complaints thereto and the retaliatory environment, which was allowed to exist thereafter. All of
3

27

28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 4 of 26

1' these actions constitute a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights
2

under the United States Constitution due to a denial of equal protection based upon race and gender. (See all documents attached hereto identified as responsive to Interrogatory No. 2, Bates Numbers 12, 16, 17, 57-60 and 70, and DPI, 26, 1O32-1O36, 1O38, 1O4O, 1O44, 11OO, 1101, 11O3-11O6). INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify all facts, documents, and witnesses

*

9

10 supporting your claim that "Chief Staubitz and the Capital Police, under the 11 direction of the DOA, fostered and condoned a policy and practice of refusing to
12

13
14

investigate and reasonably remedy known cases of sexual harassment, and then retaliating against employees who complained about discriminatory practices in' the workplace" as alleged in Paragraph 51 of your First Amended Complaint.

16 17 18 19

ANSWER: A previous sexual harassment case was filed during Chief Staubitz's term as Chief. Chief Staubitz passed it on to Human Resources for investigation. Subsequent to this particular investigation, Anna Moreno, who investigated the case, informed Plaintiff Golden that all sexual harassment cases were investigated by Human Resources. However, this did not occur

20
21
oo

23 24 25

with Plaintiffs case. See Plaintiff Golden's deposition testimony for further elaboration of the retaliation which has been alleged. (See also, DF1032-1034 attached hereto).

26
27 28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 5 of 26

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Identify all facts, documents, and witnesses

2

supporting your claim that "The failure by Chief Staubitz, the Capitol Police, and the ADOA to take Actions to investigate, prevent, reprimand, and/or remedy discreet acts of sexual harassment by Corcoran effectually sanctioned Corcoran's
6

conduct" as alleged in paragraph 51 of your First Amended Complaint. Specify
8

1 your basis for claiming Corcoran's conduct was sanctioned.

Specify what

9

10 11 remedied. Specify what actions you contend should have been taken that were
12 13
14 i 15

"discreet acts" should have been investigated, prevented, reprimanded or

not.

ANSWER: Numerous comments relating to past experiences of Sgt.

> Corcoran's inappropriate commentary and actions by employees inside and outside of Capitol Police went uninvestigated. Defendant Staubitz's glowing letter of recommendation for Sgt. Corcoran after these issues were brought the Chiefs attention in writing and the lack of any investigative effort being pursued underscored the fact that Sgt. Corcoran's actions were sanctioned by the Chief together with the lack of investigation or prompt remedial action. (See Bates Stamp Nos. 001,13,14,15 and DF1032-1034). INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify all facts, documents, and witnesses

16
17 18 19

20

21 2z
23
24 25

26
27 28

supporting your claim that Defendant Andrew Staubitz intentionally discriminated against you, violated your clearly established rights under the Civil Rights Act of

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 6 of 26

1

· 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985(3), Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, and A.R.S. §41-1401 et seq. as alleged in your First Amended Complaint. ANSWER: See Answers to Interrogatories 1-4 above. Despite an

2

ongoing hostile work environment brought to his attention by various means, Chief Staubitz took no action to curtail the activities in question.
9 10

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Identify all facts, documents, and witnesses

11 supporting your claim that Defendant Andrew Staubitz acted in his individual
12 13 14 15

capacity in allegedly intentionally discriminating against you as alleged in Paragraph 69 of your First Amended Complaint. ANSWER: Actions undertaken by Chief Staubitz were not in accordance with the Department of Administration policy orders or Arizona Capitol Police policies, procedures or state and federal law. They were committed by Chief Staubitz, presumably without the authority from the State of Arizona to intentionally discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiffs. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identity all facts, documents, and witnesses supporting your claim that Defendant Andrew Staubitz acted under the color of

16
17 18

19
20

21 2z
23

25

law in allegedly intentionally discriminating against you as alleged in Paragraph
69 of your First Amended Complaint.

26
27
28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 7 of 26

1

ANSWER: Chief Staubitz used his position of power vested in him by
the State of Arizona to act under the color of law when intentionally discriminating against and retaliating against Plaintiff. (See also answers to Interrogatories 1-6 above).

2

6
7

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Identify all facts, documents, and witnesses

supporting your claim that Defendant Andrew Staubitz "failed to remedy the
9 10

hostile work environment created by Defendant Corcoran's actions" as alleged in

11 Paragraph 69 of your First Amended Complaint.
12

ANSWER: See answers to Interrogatories 1-7 above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify all non-economic damages that you claim to have suffered as a result of Defendant Staubitz's alleged wrongful conduct as set forth in your First Amended Complaint.

13
14 15 16

18 19
20

ANSWER: Plaintiff has suffered from emotional distress including sleeplessness and irritable bowel syndrome, as more fully testified to in
Plaintiffs deposition. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify all witnesses and documents supporting your claim that you have suffered any non-economic damages as a result of Defendant Andrew Staubitz's alleged wrongful conduct as set forth in your First Amended Complaint.

21
22

23
24 25

26
27 28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 8 of 26

1

·

ANSWER: Plaintiff has previously provided A medical release to Defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 11; Identify all witnesses and documents supporting your claim that you have suffered any economic damages as a result of Defendant

2 3

6

Andrew Staubitz's alleged wrongful conduct as set forth in your First Amended
8

Complaint. ANSWER: The actions of Defendant Staubitz ultimately resulted in Plaintiff Golden's resignation from Capitol Police and the loss of part-time annual salary of approximately $20,000.00. Plaintiff earned $19.50 per hour

9 10 11

13 14 15

working approximately 1,040 per year equaling $20,280.00 annually. Prior to going half time, Plaintiff Golden had four years of service as a full time employee. Plaintiff planned on returning to full time service in 2007 and serving another sixteen (16) years in that capacity to obtain a pension with twenty (20) years of full time service. Plaintiff has denied additional salary at the 2004 rate of pay of $40,560.00 for an additional sixteen (16) years and $608,400.00 in lost pension benefits for a total economic loss of $1,318,200.00, less actual earnings and alternative employment. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all health care providers, psychologists,

16
17 18
19
20

21 22 23 24 25
26
27

psychiatrists, or counselors from whom you have sought counseling or treatment from for any alleged emotional distress for any reason during the past seven years.

28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 9 of 26

1

ANSWER:

Plaintiff identified health care providers within her

2

deposition and signed the appropriate medical releases. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Describe with specificity the "severe mental

anguish, embarrassment, loss of esteem in the eyes of the community and of the
6

plaintiffs' fellow officers, physical discomfort, the inability to effectively carry out
8

their offices, and other damages, mental, physical, and emotional" as alleged in Paragraph 70 of your First Amended Complaint. Identify each and every physical

ll
12

symptom. For each and every item of damage, identify the amount of damages you are seeking. Identify your factual basis for alleging a causal connection between any action or omission by Defendant Andrew Staubitz and the "severe mental anguish, embarrassment, loss of esteem in the eyes of the community and of the plaintiffs' fellow officers, physical discomfort, the inability to effectively carry out their offices, and other damages, mental, physical and emotional" you claim to have suffered. Explain with specificity how Defendant Andrew

13
14 15

16 17 18 19
20

21
22 23 24 25

Staubitz's actions or omissions were the "proximate cause" of these "injuries" as alleged in Paragraph 70 of your Complaint. ANSWER: The actions taken against Plaintiff caused severe mental anguish, embarrassment, loss of esteem and other issues previously discussed in detail in Plaintiffs deposition. Failure to act upon issues raised by Plaintiff to her command staff and the Governor's office resulted in stress causing

26
27
28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 10 of 26

1

· medical issues previously identified in her deposition. The loss of authority and standing within the Agency resulted in the lack of trust between fellow officers and respect from subordinates. Andrew Staubitz was deliberately indifferent to the results of his actions taken against Plaintiff, and as the head

2

6

of the Agency, was bound to protect all employees under his command.
8

' Plaintiff will seek all compensatory damages available pursuant to state and federal law.

9

10 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Describe with specificity how you suffered physical
12 13 14 15

injury and medical expenses as alleged in Paragraph 70 of your First Amended
Complaint. ANSWER: The physical effect suffered by Plaintiff included stress, headaches and internal medical issues and other results which were identified through prior discovery as well as the answers in the deposition. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Explain with specificity how "the actions of

16
17

18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25

Defendants Corcoran and Staubitz were intentional, willful, spiteful and in reckless disregard to Plaintiffs rights such that Defendants should be assessed punitive damages" as alleged in Paragraph 17 of your First Amended Complaint. State each and every action you allege supports your claim for punitive damages. Identify all witnesses and documents supporting your claim for punitive damages.

26
27 28

10

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 11 of 26

1

Identify each and every piece of evidence supporting your characterization of Defendant Andrew Staubitz's state of mind.

·

2
3 4 5

ANSWER:

See answers to Interrogatories 1-10 above.

Defendant

Corcoran intentionally, willfully and recklessly disregarded Plaintiffs rights despite having been told not to physically measure females for ballistic vests. This was reported to Chief Staubitz and no action was taken. Defendant Corcoran further engaged in demeaning verbal comments including bra cup size, referencing something to the effect of a 16 oz, 32 oz or 44 oz cup. That Defendant Staubitz is believed to have known of this conduct and not taken any proper remedial action. Furthermore, Defendant Staubitz evidenced his willful and intentional disregard of Plaintiffs rights, by his removal of certain duties assigned to Plaintiff Shelly Hebets. (See also Staubitz letter of

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

recommendation for Defendant Corcoran and the attempt to retrieve it, which underscores his willfull disregard of Plaintiffs rights. See Bates No. 001,0099, DF1 and DF1100-1106). INTERROGATORY NO 16: Explain how you "face a realistic probability that the type of harassment and retaliation they have suffered as a result of Defendant

19
20

21 2^ 23

25

Staubitz's actions will continue in the future unless the injunctive relief requested in this Complaint is granted." For each and every factual allegation, include any

26
21 28

11

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 12 of 26

1

' documentation and witnesses supporting your contention. Indicate whether you continue to seek injunctive relief.

2

*

4

ANSWER: This Interrogatory has now become moot with Plaintiffs resignation and constructive termination.

6
7 8

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify any allegations of harassment you have experienced not identified in your Complaint. For each and every occurrence, identify the factual circumstances, any witnesses supporting your allegations, and

9

11 any documentation supporting your allegations.

ANSWER: Refer to the timeline produced herewith.
13
14 15

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Explain how Defendant Andrew Staubitz treated "Plaintiffs differently than similarly situated non-Hispanic employees" as alleged in Paragraph 74 of your First Amended Complaint. For each and every factual

16

18
19
20
21 22

allegation that supports that assertion. For each and every action or inaction, identify any witnesses or supporting documentation. Identify each and every person who claim is a "similarly situated non-Hispanic" that you claim was treated better than you. For each and every person, explain the factual basis for your belief they were treated better. Identify any witnesses or documentation that you

23

2 5 contend supports your assertions.
26

ANSWER: In December 2003, Officers Cheryl Judd filed a complaint

27
28

against Sgt. James Warner alleging a possible incident of sexual harassment.
12

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 13 of 26

1

' Sgt. Warner was immediately placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated. Plaintiffs were interviewed regarding this incident during which the ADOA Human Resources investigator, Anna Moreno stated all sexual harassment clients were to be investigated. Plaintiffs were not

+

2

6
7 8

afforded this opportunity. On February 26, 2004, Plaintiff Golden received a Memorandum of Concern for speaking with Sgt. Neus regarding the Warner investigation. The Memorandum stated that Plaintiffs breach of confidentiality effected the integrity of the investigation. Cheryl Judd, the complainant in the Warner investigation, compromised the investigation by contacting a future witness, Tracy Woody Carmen. Officer Judd had called Officer Carmen informing her that she would be contacted by Human Resources regarding the sexual harassment complaint she had filed on Sgt. Warner. Details of the complaint were given Officer Carmen by Officer Judd. Officer Judd was allowed to resign without receiving any discipline. This clearly compromised the

9 10 11 12 13 14
15

16 17 18 19
20

21

Warner investigation yet the investigation resulted in Warner being
23

terminated. Officer Carmen spoke to Sgt. Neus about her concerns and the
25

integrity of the investigation being violated by allowing Officer Judd to call and coach Officer Carmen about the details of the investigation. Prior to

26
27 28

Plaintiffs resignation in December of 2004, Plaintiff Golden spoke with
13

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 14 of 26

1

Officer Carmen and said she was not spoken to or given any discipline for talking about the Warner investigation. Officer Carmen went on to say that it was not reflected in her evaluation or any other written document. (See Bates Stamp No. 00073-74, DF1416 and WSC000318 produced herewith).

·

2

6

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Explain how Defendant Andrew Staubitz acted in
8

'his individual capacity" as alleged in Paragraph 74. Explain your factual and legal basis for that assertion. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 6 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Explain how Defendant Andrew Staubitz treated

9 10 11

13
14 i 15

"such disparate treatment was not in accordance with the custom or usage of the

I Capitol Police Division and was contrary to the customary treatment received by other officers who were members of the non-Hispanic majority" as alleged in Paragraph 75 of your First Amended Complaint. For each and every factual

16 17 18 19
20
21I 22

allegation that supports that assertion. For each and every action or inaction, identify any witnesses or supporting documentation. Explain what the factual

basis is for "the customary treatment received by other officers.' ANSWER: Other officers and individuals sought relief due to issues
*

23 24

raised and investigations were completed per policy and procedure. Plaintiffs
26
27 28

brought forth several issues and never received relief from the Agency or its

14

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 15 of 26

1

' officials. (See answers provided above and the timeline produced herewith regarding specific incidents). INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Explain how Defendant Andrew Staubitz denied "to Plaintiffs their rights to due process of law guaranteed under the Fourteenth

2

6
7i 8

Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that [Andy Staubitz] have and

1 continue to discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of national origin in making, performing, modifying, and terminating contracts of employment with the

9

10 11 Capitol Police Division and in the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and
12

conditions of the contractual employment relationship" as alleged in Paragraph 76 of your First Amended Complaint. For each and every factual allegation that ' supports that assertion. For each and every action or inaction, identify any

13
14 15

16

witnesses or supporting documentation. Explain what "rights to due process" you claim were denied. Identify each and every benefit, privilege, term, and/or
condition of the contractual employment relationship you claim you were denied by the acts or omissions of Defendant Andrew Staubitz. For each and every benefit, privilege, term, and/or condition, specify how you were denied it, to the extent you were denied it, what damages flowed from the alleged denial, and the amount of damages claimed for each and every denial. Identify each and every action or omission made by Andrew Staubitz that you claim is the "proximate

18 19
20 21 22 23 24
25

26
2 28

15

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 16 of 26

1

' cause" of the denial of each and every benefit, privilege, term, and/or condition as alleged in Paragraph 79. ANSWER: Objection. Interrogatory No. 21 contains numerous

2 3
4

separate interrogatories within it, and is overly broad and confusing.
6
7 8

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff does intend to provide the following: Plaintiffs rights to due process were denied when violations of law and incidents were outlined and brought forward, and no action was taken. Retaliatory actions were taken against those who were witness to sexual harassment and who reported these incidents, including Jim Warner, Eric Reed and Brian Neus. Defendant Staubitz attempted to get the letter of recommendation for Defendant Corcoran back so as to hide his condoning of

9 10 11 12 13 14

16
17 18

Defendant Corcoran's actions.

As set forth above and in Plaintiffs

deposition, Plaintiff was not treated the same as similarly situated nonHispanic employees and was constructively discharged based upon the environment in which Plaintiff was forced to continue working. (See all

19,
20

21
ry o

answers to interrogatories 1-20 above, and Plaintiffs deposition. See also
23

documents Bates Stamp No. DF357-360 and 00026).
25

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Identify each and every action you claim "were

26
27 28

intentional, willful, spiteful and in reckless disregard to Plaintiffs' civil rights, such that Defendants should be assessed punitive damages." For each and every
16

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 17 of 26

1

* action describe your factual and legal basis for claiming the action was intentional, willful, spiteful and/or in reckless disregard to Plaintiffs' civil rights.

2| 3 4 5

ANSWER: See answers to Interrogatories 1-21 above, the timeline of events provided herewith, and Plaintiffs deposition testimony.
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

6

8

9
10

REQUEST NO. 1: Produce all documents identified in any of your responses to the above interrogatories.

11
12 13 14
_L o

RESPONSE: See those documents identified and produced with these interrogatory answers.
REQUEST NO. 2: Produce all documents you relied upon in answering the above interrogatories.

16

RESPONSE: See response to number 1 above.
18

19
20

REQUEST NO. 3: Produce the notebook used at your deposition, referred to on pages 6-7 of your deposition. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs notebook was already provided in response to Request Production from Defendant Corcoran.

21

22

24

REQUEST NO. 4: Produce the "three to four other Manila folders" that contain other documents relating to your employment at the Capitol Police Department, as referred to on page 9 of your deposition.
17

25

26
27

28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 18 of 26

1

·

RESPONSE: These documents were provided in response to Request for Production from Defendant Corcoran.

2 3 4

REQUEST NO. 5: [Produce the "pocket or a purse-type Daytimer" that contains notations on a calendar, as referred to on page 10 of your deposition.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

RESPONSE: See copy of Daytimer produced herewith. Only certain portions have been provided since large blocks of time have no entries recorded since the Daytimer was not used for those periods of time during both early and late 2004. REQUEST NO. 6: Produce copies of any documents contained on your home personal computer that has any relationship to the Claims made in this case. RESPONSE: See timeline produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 7: Produce all documents supporting your claim that you were subjected to a hostile work environment as alleged in your First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: See documents provided with and identified in Responses 'i to Interrogatories. REQUEST NO. 8: Produce all documents supporting your claim that you suffered "severe mental anguish, embarrassment, loss of esteem in the eyes of the

13
14 15 16 17 18

19
20

21
2z

23

26
21 28

community and of the plaintiffs' fellow officers, physical discomfort, the inability

18

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 19 of 26

1

· to effectively carry out their offices, and other damages, mental, physical, and emotional" as alleged in Paragraph 70 of your First Amended Complaint.

2
3 4 5

RESPONSE: There are no documents responsive to this request available to Plaintiff at this time. REQUEST NO. 9: Produce all documents supporting your claim that Defendant Andrew Staubitz treated "Plaintiffs differently than similarly situated non-Hispanic employees" as alleged in Paragraph 74 of your First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: See those documents referred to and supplied with Responses to Interrogatories Numbers 18 and 20 above. See also documents produced herewith Bates Stamp No. DF6850709. REQUEST NO. 10: Produce all documents supporting your claim that Defendant Andrew Staubitz "failed to remedy the hostile work environment created by Defendant Corcoran's actions" as alleged in Paragraph 69 of your First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: See those documents referred to and provided with Responses to Interrogatories Numbers 2,3,4 and 8 above. REQUEST NO. 11: Produce all documents supporting your claim that Defendants intentionally discriminated against you because of your sex as alleged in your First Amended Complaint.
19

6|
7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14 15
16

17 18
19
20

21 22 23 24 25
26

2' 28

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 20 of 26

1

"

RESPONSE: See documents produced with Answers to Interrogatories, specifically, Neus Memo to Staubitz dated 9/12/02 and Staubitz Memo to Ron Lloyd dated 9/16/02. REQUEST NO. 12: Produce all documents supporting your claim that

2

6

Defendants intentionally discriminated against you because of your national origin
8 9

as alleged in your First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: See all documents identified in and produced with Responses to Interrogatories Numbers 18 and 20 above. See also produced herewith documents Bates Stamp No. DF685-709. REQUEST NO. 13: "Chief Staubitz and the Capitol Police, under the discretion of the DO A, fostered and condoned a policy and practice of refusing to investigate and reasonably remedy known cases of sexual harassment, and then

10 11 12 ,
13 14 15

16

181 retaliating against employees who complained about discriminatory practices in
19
20

the workplace" as alleged in Paragraph 51 of your First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: See documents identified in and provided with Response to Interrogatory Number 3 above. REQUEST NO. 14: Produce all documents supporting your claim that

21
Oo

23

25 26 2' 28

Defendants violated your clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as alleged in your First Amended Complaint.

20

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 21 of 26

1

·

RESPONSE: See those documents identified and produced generally

2 3 4 5 6

with all interrogatories set forth above.
REQUEST NO. 15: Produce all documents supporting your claim that Defendants violated your clearly established rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. §1981, as alleged in your First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: See those documents identified and produced generally

9

10 11
12

with all interrogatories set forth above. REQUEST NO. 16: Produce all documents supporting your claim that Defendants violated your clearly established rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1871,42 U.S.C. §§1983 as alleged in your First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: See those documents identified and produced generally with all interrogatories set forth above. REQUEST NO. 17: Produce all documents supporting your claim that Defendant Andrew Staubitz acted under the color of law in allegedly intentionally discriminating against you as alleged in Paragraph 69 of your First Amended Complaint. RESPONSE: See those documents identified and provided with Response to Interrogatory Number 7 above.

13
14 15

16
17 18
19
20

21 2^ 23 24 25 26 21 28

21

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 22 of 26

< < ! ··
2|

REQUEST NO. 18: Produce all documents supporting your claim that you have suffered economic damages as a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful

4

conduct as set forth in your First Amended Complaint.

RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory Number 11 above.
6
7 8

Plaintiff will need to supplement this response with additional income information relative to any income earned in mitigation of her damages. REQUEST NO. 19: Produce all notes, diaries, memos, or other documents

9

11 that refer to, reflect, or mention your employment with the Defendant Capitol
12 13
14 15

Police Department.

RESPONSE: See response to Request Number 5 above and other notes and memos provided herewith.
REQUEST NO. 20: Produce all notes, diaries, memos, or other documents

16

18
19
20
21
OO

that refer to, reflect, or mention any alleged harassment, discrimination, or retaliation that you claim to have experienced at any time during your employment with the Capitol Police Department. RESPONSE: See response to Number 5 above and refer to those documents identified and produced in response to Interrogatories Number 3,

23

25
26
27

4,5,8,15,21 and 22. REQUEST NO. 21: Produce all documents supporting your claim that Defendants retaliated against you as alleged in your First Amended Complaint.
22

2g

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 23 of 26

' -1 '
2
·j

RESPONSE: See response to number 20 above. REQUEST NO. 22: Produce all documents that you contend support any

4
6
7
8

of your claims against Defendants. RESPONSE: See response to number 20 above, and all documents produced herewith together with all documents produced and/or disclosed previously to Defendants. REQUEST NO. 23: Produce all meeting notes, memoranda, or diary

9

111 entries relating to meetings held with your attorney in which third parties were
12

present, including but not limited to Jay Swart. RESPONSE: No documents exist responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 24: Produce all notes, calendars, journals, memorandum, and documents regarding the conversations between you, Jay Swart and Barbara

13
14 15

16

18
19
20
21
o'

Bagdon. RESPONSE: No documents exist responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 25: Produce all notes, calendars, journals, memorandum, and documents regarding the conversations between you, Brian Neus and Barbara Bagdon. RESPONSE: No documents exist responsive to this request.

23
24

25 |
26
2' 28

23

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 24 of 26

1

'

REQUEST NO. 26: Produce all notes, calendars, journals, memorandum, and documents regarding the conversations between you, Jim Warner and Barbara

2
O

Bagdon. RESPONSE: No documents exist responsive to this request.
6
7

DATED this J^hlay of April, 2005.
LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL A. MARTIN
0VL
/(A s\

8 9 10
1 1

12 13 14 15 16 17

Marshall A. Martin 8930 E. Raintree Dr., Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480)444-9980 Attorney for Plaintiff ORIGINAL and ONE COPY of the foregoing mailed this x/^ay of April, 2005, to: Steven G. Biddle, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 2425 East Camelback Road,' Suite 900 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Attorneys for Defendants Staubitz ' COPIES of the foregoing mailed this /**> day of April, 2005, to:

-AA/i 1 ^ /'

IP
19
20

21
22

23

Lisa K. Hudson, Esq. Michael M. Walker, Esq. 24 Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General 25 1275 West Washington Street 26 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Attorneys for Defendants Arizona Department of Administration and Capital Police
28
24

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 25 of 26

1

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

- Georgia A. Staton, Esq. Rebecca J. Herbst, Esq. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendant Corcoran

M**£^ij/ri^-k^
1

'··'·V^'VL /

I

25

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-12

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 26 of 26