Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I""""·· ~—·-·~·—
WYVONNAM BARNETT __ Lgggggg
506 EAST MCKAMEY I F{*_§(`_jE|\j py
PAYSON, ARIZONA 85541 M"
I 928 474 5609 OR I 928 978 3203
REPRESENTING SELF UCI 2 1 ZUU5
TE S ICT T
UNI D STATES DI TR COUR COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA BY LI Adm MT In Mi_I§;IDNéqpU-Ty
WYVONNAMBARNETT CASE NO. 03 2566 PHX ROS
PLAINT IFF PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO
VS DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO
MESA GENERAL HOSPITAL MOTION TO COMPEL .. AND
DEFENDANTS OTHER ISSUES.
ATTACI-IED HERETO A MOTION FOR COURT TO SCHEDUAL HEARING FOR PLAINTIFF
TO GIVE ORAL DEPOSITION BEFORE COURT REPORTER AND ALL PARTIES AS PER
PAGE 2 ARTICLES 6 THRU 9 OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FILED OCT I1, 2005
ATTACHED HERETO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE
REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR COURT TO SCI-IBDUAL A TRIAL BY JURY .....
REGARDING EXPERT WITNESSES
PLAINTIFF HAS REPEATEDLY 'IIOLD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS TI-IAT HER
{ CASE IS RES IPSA LOQUITUR } IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELFU.
1T WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR PLAINTIFF TO CALL EXPERT WITNESS,.
AND YET TI-IE DEFENDANT S CONTINUE TO FILE MOTION AFTER MOTION TO
THE COURT REGARDING (PLAINTIFFS ) EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY )
AGAIN, PLAINTIFF DID NOT NAME ANY EXPERT WITNESS IN HER DISCOVERY
TI-[EY ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR PLAINTIFF TO PROVE HER CASE BEFORE A IURY".
HOWEVER
IN I-IONORABLE JUDGE C VOSS “ SCHEDULING ORDER DATED DEC 7, 2004 HE
STATED THAT EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS WERE T0 BE IN BY AUG. 5, 2005 ....
PLAINTIFF THEREFORE PRESUMED THAT THIS ORDER (INCLUDED ) DEFENDANTS
EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS. WHICH VARIFYS PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL
HAS LEGAL BASIS AS (DEFENDANTS) LISTED NUMEROUS EXPERT WITNESSES
IN THEIR DISCOVERY.
SECONDLY ON PAGE 2
ARTICLES 5 THRU 9 WI-IEREIN DEFENDANTS STATE THAT QUOTE PLAINTIFF HAS
REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH DEFENDANTS IN ALLOWING HER ORAL DEPOSITION
TO BE NOTICED BEFORE A COURT REPORTER WITH ALL PARTIES PRESENT . “
UNQUOTE
Case 2:03—cv—02566—FIOS Document 103 Filed 10/21/2005 Page1 0f2


CONTRARY TO THESE ALLEGATIONS .... SEE PLAINTIFFS MOTION ORDER TO
APPEAR. DATED 6./ 28/04
PLAINTIFF STARTED SOME 18 MONTHS OR MORE AGO TRYING TO GET
DEFENDANT S IN COURT BEFORE A COURT REPORTER .
AS STATED IN MOTION".6/28/04
QUOTE “ IT IS PLAINTIFFS UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ORDER TO PROCEDE AND
PRIOR TO A TRIAL BY JURY AS PETITIONED , {THERE MUST FIRST BE A HEARING)
THEREFORE PLEASE SCHEDUAL A HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE " UNQUOTE
THAT MOTION WAS DENIED IN ORDER BY HONORABLE JAMES A TENBORG SEPT 24
2004
IT IS PLAINTIFFS BELIEF THAT { ALL) DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITION
(PROBLEMS } WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO COURT AND PROCEEDED TO
TRIAL LONG BEFORE TI-HS HAD THIS HEARING TAKEN PLACE.
FUTHER PLAINTIFF NOTIFIED THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS THAT SHE WAS READY
AND WILLING TO GIVE HER DEPOSITION TN COURT , WHICH PLAINTIFF FELT
WASA ( SAFE ) ENVIORMENT. CONTRARY TO WHAT DEFENDS WANTED
PLAINTIFF TO DO.
WHICH WAS FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE I-E DEPOSITION (AT THEIR PLACE OF
BUSINESS ) WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY IN A VERY UNSAFE NEIGHBORHOOD DUE TO
TI-IEFACT THE DEFENDANTS COUNSELS PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS LOCKED EVEN
DURING BUSINESS HOURS AND ONE COULD ONLY ENTER VIA INTERCOM.
FU'1"I—IER TI—lE FIRST TIME PLAIIFITIFF DELIVERED DOCUMENTS SHE WAS VERY SOON
SURROUNDED VVITH SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT FRIENDLY ( TO SAY TI-IE
LEAST ) AND ITAPPEARED THEIR OBJECTIVE WAS TO FRIGHTEN AND INITMATE
PLAINTIFF ..
PLAINTIFF NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THIS MANY MONTHS AGO AND REQUESTED
YET ANOTHER HEARING TO NO AVAH... REGARDIG PA 2 ARTICLES I0 THRU I6
TI-IE EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS ARE FOR TI-IE BENEFIT OF DEFENDANTS
( NOT PLAINTIFF) AND TO PLEASE THE COURT ,
WHY THEN, DOES PLAINTIFF HAVE TO DO ANYTI-IING WHEN HER CASE IS
( RES IPSA LOQUITUR ) IT SPEARS FOR ITSELF ANY IURER CAN
UNDERSTAND THE EVIDANCE PRESENTED AND PLAINTIFF IS SURE IURERS WOULD
RULE IN HER FAVOR IN THIS CASE.
ONCE AGADJ-——-PLAll*»ITIFF IS READY AND WILLING TO GIVE AN ORAL DEPOSITION
AT ANY TIME BEFORE A COURT REPORTER WITH ALL PARTIES PRESENT AND
HAS PETITIONED THE COURT TO SET A DATE. INCLUDED HEREIN.
¤ATE § ..
Case 2:03—cv—02566—ROS Document 103 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 103

Filed 10/21/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 103

Filed 10/21/2005

Page 2 of 2