Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

M
J, _ LODGED
, · FILED ~·~" OP`,
’ WYVONNA M BARNETT -· D I C
naczwi -»
506 EAST MCKAMEY NL-,
PAYSON ARIZONA 8554I I
I 001 0 0 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT It CLERK U % gg;\RT
I msTR1cT OF ARIZONA I IIIIIIIII E DEPUTY
I1;sv~_,.....-»~»~·"“”"
WHYVONNA M BARNETT CASE NO OS
PLATNTIFF
VS. PLAINTIFFS ( 2ND ) RESPONSE TO
BASHAS INC ET AL DEFENDANT( BASHAS ) MOTION TO
DEFENDANTS EXTEND DISCOVERY PENDING
SUMIVIARY JUDGEMENT RULING
-. THIS MOTION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED . EXTENSION NOT PRUDENT..AeCA’SE-HAS-A ~ ·· —
ALREADY BEEN IN LITIGATION IN FEDERAL COURT FOR 22 MONTHS.
THE DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL ..
PLAINTIFF HAS REPEATEDLY FURNISI-IED THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS WITH
PLENTY OF EVIDANCE TO PROVE HER CASE HAS MERIT.
AND PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE A JURY
HOW CAN A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT POSSIBLE BE GRANTED ????
WAS EVEN A PRETRIAL HEARING 1, ( EVEN THO PLAINTIFF REQUESTED
ONE _. I ` I ~ `‘`;
TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO I-IONORABLE
JUDGE VOSS" RULING DATED DEC. 7 2004. WHICH STATES :
PAGE 2 ARTICLE F ALL DISCOVERY INCLUDING ANSWERS TO INTERRIOGATIONS
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DEPOSITIONS AND REQUESTS TO SUBMIT SHALL BE
COMPLETED BY SEPT 30 2005. ...FUTI—IER ON PAGE FOUR HE STATES THIS ORDER
CONTEMPLATES THAT EACH PARTY WILL CONDCT DISCOVERY TO PERMIT
CQIVIPLETATION WITHIN THE DEADLINE -- ANY DISCQVERY WHICH RESULTS IN
INSUFFIENT TIME TO UNDERTAKE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY WILL BE
MET WITH DISFAVOR.
IT IS OBVIOUS TI—IAT THERE ARE TWO REASONS THAT DEFENDANTS CONTINUE TO
PETITION THE COURT TO GRANT THEM AN EXTENSIONH.
1 ) THEY ARE AFRAID TO GO TO TRIAL AND/OR
2 ) THEY ARE I-IOPING PLAINTIFF WILL DIE FROM HER SERIOUS HEART CONDITION
IF TI-IEY CAN JUST KEEP GETTING EXTENSIONS .
. PLAINTIFFS CASE HAS MERIT ‘
PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT QUILIFIED AS A CLAIM UNDER THE ADA AND ADEA.
ACCORDING. TOORDER FROM HONORABLE JAMES A TENBORG UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE ...DATED SEPT 2004 ..
THEIR ATTEMPT TO CONVIENCE TI-IE COURT THAT PLAINTIFF S CASE HAS NO
MERIT. HAS BEEN QUASHED BY HONORABLE TENBORGS ORDER.
—-{W —- f*·&v/ J·.5' "‘
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566—ROS Document 91 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 1 of 2

PLAINTIFF HAS BECOME WEARY FROM PRESENT ING THE DEFENDANTS WITH THE
EVIDANCE NECESSARY TO PROVE HER CASE HAS MERIT.
TO GRANT TI—IE DEI-`ENDANTS A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT WOULD BE A DIRECT
DISREGARD FOR PLAINTIFFS CIVIL RIGHTS AND A GRAVE MISCARRIAGE OF
JUSTICE AND WOULD ONLY RESULT IN PLAINTIFF CONTINUING TO FILE APPEALS.
THE DEFENDANTS HAVE CONTINUALLY TRIED TO DISUADE THE COURT BY
COMPARING PLAINTIFFS PRESUNIED , ( LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ) WITH SUPPOSEDLY
THEIR HIGHER EDUCATION ..
PLAINTIFF HAS ENDEAVORED TO COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS TO TI-IE
` ` BEST OF HER ABILITY AND IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE A J1IRY...II I ____ _ ____
DEFENDANTS REALIZE IF THIS CASE GETS BEFORE A JURY THAT PLAINTIFF WILL
WIN THE CLAIMS BECAUSE I-[ER EVIDANCE IS SO SIMPLE EVEN A LAYMAN CAN
UNDERSTAND THAT PLAINTIFF SUEFERED GREAT AND IRREPAQABLE DAMAGE
DUE TO NUMEROUS GROSS NEGLIGENCES BY DEFENDANTS , AND THEREFORE
PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO c0M1=•ENsAT10N FOR THOSE DAMAGES ..
LETS SET A TRIAL DATE .
_;
DATE @974 C2? J. Id
COPYS MAILED TI-IIS DATE SEPT 27 TH 2005 TO :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
2401 W. WASH.
PHOENIX AZ. 85003 7
SHERMAN {HOWARD
ISSUNORTH CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 500
PHOENIX ARIZONA 85004-2003
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566—ROS Document 91 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 91

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 91

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 2 of 2