Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona JOHN R. MAYFIELD Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 4848 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Martha Slaughter-Payne, CIV-03-2300 PHX ROS Plaintiff, v. Anthony Principi, Secretary Department of Veteran's Affairs, Defendant. EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY DISPUTE MEMORANDUM

Defendant, Anthony Principi, Secretary Department of Veteran's Affairs, by and
through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits his exhibits to his Discovery Dispute Memorandum. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff has served two distinct and different sets of written interrogatories. These two sets of interrogatories were not identical, as suggested by the plaintiff's argument and the Position Statement submitted to the Court prior to the September 2, 2005 Hearing. The first set (formal) was served by mail on October 4, 2004 and consisted of a total of twenty-three (23) written interrogatories, many of which had numerous sub-parts, and her First Request for Production. The defendant's responses were served on November 8, 2004, which was within the time period established by Rules 6(a) and 33(b)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P. However, in a letter dated January 11, 2005 plaintiff took the erroneous position that the defendant had "waived" his objections by failing to serve timely responses. By letter dated 1

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 1 of 62

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

February 8, 2005 the defendant demonstrated that plaintiff's assertions of "waiver" lacked a good faith basis in fact and law. EXHIBIT 9. Plaintiff's counsel, however, repeated his assertions during the initial settlement conference before the Honorable Earl H. Carroll. The defendant's November 8, 2004 response to plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories was supplemented on December 3, 2004, January 12, 2005 and February 8, 2005. EXHIBITS 3, 6, 9. On October 4, 2004, the plaintiff also served her First Request for Production. The defendant timely responded on November 8, 2004. EXHIBIT 1. Request for Production # 3 was supplemented on February 8, 2005 and Request number 1 was supplemented on February 10, 2005. EXHIBITS 8, 11. Plaintiff's second set of interrogatories were set forth in a thirteen (13) page letter from plaintiff's counsel dated April 12, 2005 (as amended). This request consisted of twenty-seven (27) interrogatories, each with multiple sub-parts. This informal set of interrogatories was the end product of a failed attempt to further mediate this case before a private mediator. Ms. Slaughter-Payne advised the mediator, after several hours of mediation, that she did not wish to proceed until the defendant produced additional information. Counsel for the parties, with the assistance of the mediator, agreed that they would exchange additional discovery requests. Counsel for the defendant advised that, based on the general nature of her request, that the Veteran's Administration might need as much as ninety (90) days to respond. In fact, the defendant served it's written responses on June 16, 2005 by certified mail, well within the estimated time period. EXHIBITS 13, 14, 15, 16, p.5. Contrary to the assertions in his June 2, 2005 letter, the defendant has appropriately provided all of the information and documents requested. For his part, the defendant served his first set of interrogatories and first request for production on November 1, 2004, and his informal interrogatories were served by a four (4) page letter dated April 14, 2005 consisting of fifteen (15) interrogatories. On November 30, 2004 the plaintiff served her response to the defendant's first set of interrogatories and requests for production. In an effort to avoid a discovery dispute regarding plaintiff's responses, a letter dated December 9, 2004 was sent to her attorney. EXHIBIT 4. Even

2

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 2 of 62

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

though plaintiff's counsel was reminded in letters dated January 6, 2005and March 7, 2005, EXHIBITS 5, 11 that he had not responded to the December 9, 2004 letter, plaintiff counsel has refused to any of these letters. However, the defendant did respond to each of plaintiff's discovery dispute letters. EXHIBITS9, 11, 15, 16.

Likewise, subsequent to the September 2, 2005 hearing, defense counsel requested plaintiff's counsel to prepare an agenda for the "meet and confer" conference ordered by the Court. EXHIBITS 19,21 22. The obvious reason for this request to allow the defendant to focus on plaintiff's specific discovery issues. Although Mr. Patterson did agreed, during a phone conversation, to provide something in the "morning" nothing was ever received. Subsequent to the September 22, 2005 meeting, both defense counsel sent confirming letters to plaintiff's counsel in an effort to avoid any misunderstandings or miscommunications. EXHIBITS 23,24. Mr. Patterson chose not to respond to these letters. On several occasions both verbal and written requests were made to plaintiff's counsel asking him to withdraw the erroneous assertions set forth in the Position Statement and verbally to the Court, on September 2, 2005, regarding the defendant's responses to plaintiff's discovery requests. As of the time of filing, he has refused to do so. As a result, the defendant, in an effort to respond to the possible impositions of sanctions by the Court, is left with task of setting forth his responses, supplemental responses and objections raised to plaintiff's discovery requests to demonstrate that he has not waived objections and certainly did not " .... after waiting almost ten (10) months, on June 16, 2005 submitted several objections for not providing the answers or the requested documents." EXHIBIT 20. Furthermore, plaintiff's reliance on the Protective Order, EXHIBIT 7, issued by this Court on January 27, 2005, is improper. Defendant's letters to him, regarding the form and content of the Protective Order have been ignored. EXHIBITS 10, 11, 13, 14,16, pp.5-6. Likewise, defendant's letters regarding the unresponsive nature of many of the

3

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 3 of 62

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

plaintiff's discovery response have simply been ignored. EXHIBITS 4, 5, 11, 16, 18. The defendant's responses to plaintiff's October 4, 2004 Interrogatories are listed first, followed by the April 12, 2005 interrogatories. Additionally, supplemental answers by defense counsel letter, or otherwise, are also noted where appropriate. Copies of the supplemental responses (without copies of the documents produced) are attached as Exhibits 3,6,8,11. Finally, a copy of the defendant's November 8, 2004 response to plaintiff's first request for production dated October 4, 2004, is attached as EXHIBIT 1 as it may also contains objections which may be a part of this discovery dispute. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS

INTERROGATORIES
October 4, 2004 INTERROGATORY NO.1: State the name and title of the person that is answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: Dana C. Heck, Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, Department of Veteran's Affairs.
April 12, 2005 Interrogatory 1. During the period of 1994 to present did the Equal Employment Opportunity (sic) find any violation of Title VII that occurred at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center? If you answer is "yes," please: (a) State whether John R. Fears signed the notice. (b) State if any other Medical Center Director signed the posted notice. © Produce copies of all notices received by The Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona Medical Center. (d) If you are unable to produce the notices, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the document;

4

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 4 of 62

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

iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977).Without waiving said objections, the defendant has not located any cases which involve violations based upon race (African-American), gender (female) and/or retaliation. At this time, the following information is available: (a) The defendant has located one notice signed by John R. Fears pursuant to a settlement agreement not as a result of a finding by EEOC. (b) No. © The Notice dated March 17, 2000. However, this document is irrelevant, immaterial and inadmissible as the plaintiff is not similarly situated to the involved individual (African-American -male). ATTACHMENT A. (d) After reasonable inquiry, defendant's employees do not recall any other notices. A review of records did not reveal any notices.

10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO.2: State whether the person answering these interrogatories was involved in any way in the

5

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 5 of 62

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

collection of documents provided in response to Plaintiff Request for Production of Documents served in this case. If your answer is in the affirmative, state whether you received a copy of Plaintiff's document request, what directions you received and from whom, and whether those directions were oral or written. If your answer is in the negative, state the name, business address or last known home address of the person who collected the information identified above. ANSWER: Mr. Heck served as the collection at the agency for the responses to Plaintiff's discovery. Any discussion between the U.S. Attorney's office and Mr. Heck, and Mr. Heck and management officials of the agency are protected by attorney client privilege. Mr. Heck received a copy of the Plaintiff's discovery requests. 04/12/05 Interrogatory 2. During the period of 1994 to present did the Office of Resolution Management find any violation of Title VII that occurred at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center? If you answer is "yes," please: (a) State whether John R. Fears signed the notice. (b) State if any other Medical Center Director signed the posted notice. © Produce coopies of all notices received by The Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona Medical Center. (d) If you are unable to produce the notices, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the document; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the

6

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 6 of 62

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

requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Without waiving said objections, the DVA Office of Resolution Management does not make determinations of violations of Title VII, it merely investigates the facts of Title VII complaints. Therefore, there are no known documents responsive to this request. 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO.3: During the period from October 1, 1994 through the date of your response, has an EEO audit, special site visits or other examination of your EEO and/or personnel policies been conducted? If your answer is "yes" produce a copy of any reports of such audits and for each audit state the date of completion, identify the person(s) or firm in charge of the audit, summarize the conclusion of the audit and identify your employee(s) who assisted in the audit. ANSWER: Based on a report by the Plaintiff, DVA Office of Equal Opportunity in

central office conducted a special site visit from September 15 through 19, 1997. A copy of the site visit report is being located and will be furnished under separate cover. The DVA Office of Equal Opportunity also conducted a Technical Assistance Review on October 4 through 7, 1999. A copy of the report is being located and will be furnished under separate cover. In addition, Mr. Louis Curry, an employee at the Carl T. Hayden VAMC made a complaint to a member of Congress which regarded race. A copy of the

7

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 7 of 62

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

complaint is being located and will be furnished under separate cover. The information in this response was provided by Roberto Peart. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 3 served on December 3, 2004. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 3 served on January 12, 2005 and February 8, 2005.
04/012/05 Interrogatory 3. During the period of 1994 to present did the United

States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission find any violation of Title VII that occurred at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center? If you answer is "yes," please: (a) State whether John R. Fears signed the notice. (b) State if any other Medical Center Director signed the posted notice. © Produce copies of all notices received by The Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona Medical Center. (d) If you are unable to produce the notices, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the document; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: Asked and answered . This request is a duplicate of Request No. 1. See objections and response to Request No. 1. Therefore, no additional response is required. 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO.4: For the period from May 1, 1994 through the date of your response, please list all governmental investigation in which any employee, former employee, or prospective

8

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 8 of 62

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 has alleged race discrimination that have been conducted by or are pending against you with the Arizona Civil Rights Division, Equal Employment Opportunity, Office of Resolution Management, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the United States Justice Department, the United States Labor Department, and/or any other state or federal governmental entity that has conducted an investigation of you. With respect to each investigation, describe all relevant facts, including but not limited to the following: (a) Charging parties; (b) Dates of charge and complaint; © Charged parties; (d) Type of discrimination alleged; and (e) Outcome of case, or if case pending, status of case. ANSWER: The Arizona Civil Rights Division is without jurisdiction to conduct an investigation of a federal agency. Defendant is unaware of any investigation by the other federal entities mentioned.

Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 4 served on December 3, 2004. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 4 served on February 8, 2005. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 4 served on February 10, 2005.
04/12/05 Interrogatory 4. During the period of 1994 to present did the United States Department of Labor find any violation of Title VII that occurred at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center? If you answer is "yes," please: (a) State whether John R. Fears signed the notice. (b) State if any other Medical Center Director signed the posted notice. © Produce copies of all notices received by The Department of Veterans Affairs,

9

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 9 of 62

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

Phoenix, Arizona Medical Center. (d) If you are unable to produce the notices, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the document; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Furthermore, the Department of Labor does not have Title VII jurisdiction as to employment discrimination claims filed by federal employees. Therefore, there are no known documents responsive to this request. Without waiving said objections, defendant answers negatively regarding violations based upon race (African-American), gender (female)and/or retaliation. 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO.5: For the period from May 1, 1994 through the date of your response, please identify each instance in which the Arizona Civil Rights Division, Equal Employment Opportunity, Office of Resolution Management, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

10

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 10 of 62

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

Commission, the United States Justice Department, the United States Labor Department, and/or any other state or federal governmental entity that has conducted an investigation of you has determined you have discriminated against any employee or applicant or retaliated against any employee who has complained about race discrimination. ANSWER: The Arizona Civil Rights Division is without jurisdiction to conduct an investigation of a federal agency. Defendant is unaware of any investigation by the other federal entities mentioned.

Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 5 served on February 8, 2005.
04/12/05 Interrogatory 5. During the period of 1994 to present did any other

state or federal governmental entity find any violation of Title VII that occurred at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center? If you answer is "yes," please: (a) State whether John R. Fears signed the notice. (b) State if any other Medical Center Director signed the posted notice. © Produce copies of all notices received by The Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona Medical Center. (d) If you are unable to produce the notices, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the document; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Response: Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997).

11

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 11 of 62

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

Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Furthermore, state agencies, as previously pointed out to the plaintiff, have no jurisdiction over federal employee allegations of Title VII violations. Without waiving said objections, defendant answers negatively regarding violations based upon race (African-American), gender (female) and/or retaliation.

10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO.6: For the period from May 1, 1994 through the date of your response, has any civil action been filed in which it is or has been claimed that you have discriminated against any employee or applicant or retaliated against any employee who has complained about race discrimination, or discharged an employee without just cause? If your answer is "yes", please state relevant facts about each such action, including the names of the plaintiffs and defendants, case numbers, dates suits were filed and name of court. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad in its time frame and is not relevant nor likely to lead to discoverable information nor is it calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 6 served on February 8, 2005.
04/12/05 Interrogatory 6. During the period of 1994 to present has the Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center ever been ordered by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to post notice that they were found to be in violation of Title VII? If the answer is "yes," please: (a) State whether John R. Fears signed the notice.

12

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 12 of 62

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

(b) State if any other Medical Center Director signed the posted notice. © Produce copies of all notices received by The Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona Medical Center. (d) If you are unable to produce the notices, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the document; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection, asked and answered, see response and objections to Request No. 1.

10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO.7: During the period since May 1, 1994 through the date of your response, have any affirmative action plans, upward mobility plans, or other similar policies existed that have applied to you? If your answer is "yes," please identify who maintains authority over implementation of such plans or policies and produce copies of each such affirmative action plan, upward mobility plan, or policy and all related documents including but not limited to the following: (a) (b) © All target position under such plan List applicants that applied by race List applicants selected by race

ANSWER: No. However, the Department of Veteran's Affairs and the Carl T. Hayden VAMC does have general requirements that its operations comply with applicable federal employment laws. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 7 served on February 10, 2005.

13

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 13 of 62

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

04/12/05 Interrogatory

7. During the period from October 1, 1994 through to

present has the Department of Veterans Affairs of Equal Opportunity conducted a Technical Assistance Review on the Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center? If your answer is "yes." please: (a) Produce a copy of any reports of such audits (b) For each audit state the date of completion © Identify the person(s) or firm in charge of the audit (d) Summarize the conclusion of the audit (e) Identify your employee(s) who assisted in the audit. (f) If you are unable to produce the information on the audits. Please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the document; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977).

14

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 14 of 62

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

Objection: asked and answered, see objection and answer to plaintiff's Interrogatory #3, previously produced to plaintiff.

10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO.8: Have you filed or maintained any of the documents listed below for the period from May 1,1994 to the date of your response? EEO-1 reports; Documents kept pursuant to Federal Executive Order 11246; Reports filed with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance ("OFCC") of the United States Department of Labor; Documents; and Documents required to be kept under Federal Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. 1607. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad in its time frame and is not relevant nor likely to lead to discoverable information nor is it calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. Further Objection: Document (a) is a privileged
document protected by the self-critical analysis privilege and will not be produced. Documents (b) and © are irrelevant and immaterial as they deal deals with contractors with the federal government and plaintiff was and is an employee. Therefore, these two requests are simply to broad and non-specific to be of any relevant or material value in the issues framed by the Amended Complaint and Case Management plan in this action. Therefore, these two requests violate the provisions of Rules 26(b)(1) and 34 F.R.Civ.P. as it has no non-frivolous relationship to any issue in this matter which is supposed to be a disparate treatment racial discrimination action based upon an alleged failure to promote.

Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 4 served on February 8, 2005. Exhibit
04/12/05 Interrogatory 8. During the period from October 1, 1994 through to present has special purpose site visit reports been conducted? If your answer is "yes" please: (a) Produce a copy of any reports of such audits

.

15

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 15 of 62

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

(b) For each audit state the date of completion © Identify the person(s) or firm in charge of the audit (d) Summarize the conclusion of the audit (e) Identify your employee(s) who assisted in the audit. (f) If you are unable to produce the information on the audits, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) ii) iii) Date of destruction; Person who destroyed the document; Under what authority the document was destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Objection: asked and answered, see objection and answer to plaintiff's Interrogatory #.3, previously produced to plaintiff. 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO.9: Did Plaintiff ever communicate with any of the following persons, orally or in writing, about Rafael Martinez and Martin Lieberman conduct, including but not, limited to threats, violence or retaliation for complaining about Rafael Martinez and Martin

16

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 16 of 62

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

Lieberman conduct? (a) Paul H. West, John R. Fears, Smith Jenkins, Jr., Kurt Hodges, Randy

Brumm, Roberto Peart, and John Flowers; (b) Any other person not named above in Interrogatory #9a ANSWER: Presently available documents, if any, are being located and any remaining documents will be copied and forwarded under separate cover.

Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 9 served on January 12, 2005.
04/12/05 Interrogatory 9. For the period from May 1, 1994 through the present, please list all governmental investigations in which any employee, former employee, or prospective employee has alleged race discrimination that has been conducted by or is pending against you with the Equal Employment Opportunity (sic). With respect to each investigation, describe all relevant facts, including but not limited to the following: (a) Charging parties; (b) Charging parties race; © Dates of charge and complaint; (d) Charged parties; (e) charged parties race; (f) Type of discrimination alleged; and (g) Outcome of case, or if case pending, status of case. (h) Please produce all copies of the cases. (I) If you are unable to produce the cases, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was

17

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 17 of 62

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 document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Rules 33 and 34, F.R.Civ.P., do not require a party to generate specific data or review existing records to generate a new document in response to a discovery request.. See, e.g., 8A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2174 at 303. Response: Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Without waiving said objections, and pursuant to Rules 33 (d) and 34(b) F.R.Civ.P., the documents presently known to be responsive to this request for production will be made available at the location(s) where they are maintained, by a custodian of records, at a mutually agreeable time and date for plaintiff's counsel to conduct an inspection of said documents. A listing of the presently known documents which may be responsive to this request for production is attached as ATTACHMENT B. 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If your answer to the interrogatory #9 directly above is "yes," please state the following with respect to each communication: (a) otherwise; Form of communication, such as whether by phone, in person, by letter or

18

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 18 of 62

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

(b) Date of communication; © Statement of what was discussed or otherwise communicated; and (d) Whether any action was taken as a result of the communication, and if so, what action was taken? (e) Please provide copies of communication. ANSWER: See response to interrogatory #9. 04/12/05 Interrogatory 10. For the period from May 1, 1994 through the present, please list all governmental investigations in which any employee, former employee, or prospective employee has alleged race discrimination that has been conducted by or is pending against you with the Office of Resolution Management. With respect to each investigation, describe all relevant facts, including but not limited to the following: (a) Charging parties; (b) Charging parties race; © Dates of charge and complaint; (d) Charged parties; (e) charged parties race; (f) Type of discrimination alleged; and (g) Outcome of case, or if case pending, status of case. (h) Please produce all copies of the cases. (I) If you are unable to produce the cases, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which

19

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 19 of 62

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

allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Rules 33 and 34F.R.Civ.P., do not require a party to generate specific data or review existing records to generate a new document in response to a discovery request.. See, e.g., 8A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2174 at 303. Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Without waiving said objections, and pursuant to Rules 33(d) and 34(b), F.R.Civ.P, the documents presently known to be responsive to this request for production will be made available at the location(s) where there are maintained, by a custodian of records, at a mutually agreeable time and date for plaintiff's counsel to conduct an inspection of said documents. A listing of the presently known documents which may be responsive to this request for production is attached as ATTACHMENT B. 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify each and every criticism Defendant has had with respect to Plaintiff's job performance over the course of her employment with Defendant and with respect to each, state who had the criticism, what it was based on, whether the criticism resulted in any verbal or written counseling or warnings and if so, whether the warnings were verbal or written and whether Plaintiff then corrected the alleged deficiency in her performance.

20

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 20 of 62

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

ANSWER: Responsive documents are being collected and will be copied and furnished under separate cover.

Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 11 served on December 3, 2004.
Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 11 served on February 8, 2005.

04/12/05 Interrogatory 11.

For the period from May 1, 1994 through the

present, please list all governmental investigations in which any employee, former employee, or prospective employee has alleged race discrimination that has been conducted by or is pending against you with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. With respect to each investigation, describe all relevant facts, including but not limited to the following: (a) Charging parties; (b) Charging parties race; © Dates of charge and complaint; (d) Charged parties; (e) charged parties race; (f) Type of discrimination alleged; and (g) Outcome of case, or if case pending, status of case. (h) Please produce all copies of the cases. (I) If you are unable to produce the cases, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents?

21

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 21 of 62

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: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Rules 33 and 34, F.R.Civ.P., do not require a party to generate specific data or review existing records to generate a new document in response to a discovery request.. See, e.g., 8A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2174 at 303. Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Without waiving said objections, and pursuant to Rules 33(d) and 34 (b), the documents presently known to be responsive to this request for production will be made available at the location(s) where there are maintained, by a custodian of records, at a mutually agreeable time and date for plaintiff's counsel to conduct an inspection of said documents. A listing of the presently known documents which may be responsive to this request for production is attached as ATTACHMENT B. 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Indicated each applicant by race, sex, age, other, and indicate each individual selected by race, sex, age, date, other, and every reason why the individuals were selected for the Position Vacancy Announcement: (a) (b) © 97-175B1 97-148B1 97-139B1 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9/11 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9/11 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9

22

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 22 of 62

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

(d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (I) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) ®

97-137B1 97-115B1 97-068B1 98-204B1 98-165B1 98-166B1 98-105B1 98-114B1 98-060B1 98-028B1 98-007B1 99-023B1

Computer Specialist, GS-334-7/9 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9/11 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9/11 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9/11 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9/11 Computer Specialist, GS-334-7/9 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9/11/12 Computer Specialist, GS-334-7/9 Computer Specialist, GS-334-7/9/11 Computer Specialist, GS-334-9 Computer Specialist, GS-334-7/9 Computer Specialist, GS-334-5/7/9

2000-279B1 Computer Specialist, GS-334-7/9/11 2001-020B1 Computer Specialist, GS-334-7/9//11 2001-169C2 Computer Specialist, GS-334-7/9/11

Answer: Objection. This interrogatory seeks race, gender and age information

regarding specific employees which is not regularly kept by the defendant. As a result, it would not only be unduly burdensome to produce this information, it would expose the defendant to possible discrimination claims to collect this information. By way of further answer, potentially responsive documents, if any, are being collected, redacted and will be furnished under separate cover if still in existence. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 12 served on January 12, 2005 and February 8, 2005.
04/12/05 Interrogatory 12. Do you contest any of the plaintiff's EEO cases are closed? If your answer is "yes," please provide: (a) The date the case was closed.

23

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 23 of 62

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

(b) © (d)

What was the outcome of the case. Please produce the cases that are closed. If you are unable to produce the information, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents?

Response:

Plaintiff has one EEO case that is not closed. Since 1998, she has

previously filed Agency Case No. 200P-2674, Agency Case No. 200P-0644-2002100409, EEOC Case No. 01A01398, Agency Case Nos. 200P-1544, 200P--0644-2001123656, and 99-1321, and Agency Case Nos. 200P-1542, 200P-0644-2001123654, and 99-3654. (a) Agency case files were closed on various dates when the plaintiff's administrative case was decided adverse to her and she did not further appeal. For Agency Case No. 200P-2674 and Agency Case No. 200P0644-2002100409 See, defendant's Answers to plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents previously provided. For the remainder of cases listed above, those documents are available for review at a mutually agreeable time and date at the document's location. (b) The plaintiff lost at various stages in each of these cases and did not further appeal. © For Agency Case No. 200P-2674 and Agency Case No. 200P-06442002100409 See, defendant's Answers to plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents previously provided. For the remainder of cases listed above, those documents are available for review at

24

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 24 of 62

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

a mutually agreeable time and date at the document's location. (d) N/A.

10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Regarding the positions stated in Interrogatory #12 state the reasons why the employee was selected over Plaintiff for the position, the starting salary for each position and each salary increase for each position from the date the position was filled with the person indicated or the person who was selected for each position through the present. ANSWER: See response to interrogatory # 12. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 13 served on February 8, 2005.
04/12/05 Interrogatory 13. For the period of May 1, 1994 through the present, please identify each instance in which the Equal Opportunity(sic) has determined you have discriminated against any employee or applicant or retaliated against any employee who has complained about race discrimination. If you answer is "yes" please: (a) State the person (sic) who advanced each claim. (b)State the race of the person who advanced the claim. © Set forth the jurisdiction, caption, and file number of each claim. (d) Identify each writing relating to each claim. (e) Identify the present custodian of the writing relating to each claim. (f) Describe the disposition of each claim. (g) Please produce the documents. (h)If you are unable to produce the information, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was

25

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 25 of 62

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 document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: This request essentially duplicates Request No. 1and 3 above. See responses and objections to Request No. 1 and 3 above. Objection: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Rules 33 and 34, do not require a party to generate specific data or review existing records to generate a new document in response to a discovery request.. See, e.g., 8A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2174 at 303. Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify each and every person involved in the decision making and selection of the successful applicants indicated in Interrogatory #12 above. ANSWER: See response to interrogatory #12.
Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 14 served on February 8, 2005.

04/12/05 Interrogatory 14.

For the period of May 1, 1994 through the present,

please identify each instance in which the Office of Resolution Management has determined you have discriminated against any employee or applicant or retaliated against any employee who has complained about race discrimination. If

26

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 26 of 62

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

you answer is "yes" please: (a) State the person (sic) who advanced each claim. (b)State the race of the person who advanced the claim. © Set forth the jurisdiction, caption, and file number of each claim. (d) Identify each writing relating to each claim. (e) Identify the present custodian of the writing relating to each claim. (f) Describe the disposition of each claim. (g) Please produce the documents. (h)If you are unable to produce the information, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: This request essentially duplicates Request No. 2. See prior response and objections set forth above. Response: Objection: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Rules 33 and 34 F.R.Civ.P., do not require a party to generate specific data or review existing records to generate a new document in response to a discovery request.. See, e.g., 8A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2174 at 303. Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an

27

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 27 of 62

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

improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please state whether within the last ten years, Defendants have been made aware of any complaints which alleged that the selection, promotion, and/or hiring employment practice regarding race was in any manner wrongful. (a) If your answer was yes, please IDENTIFY the PERSON who advanced each claim. (b) If your answer was yes, please describe the means by which each claim was advanced. © If your answer was yes, please IDENTIFY any WRITING relating to each claim (d) If your answer was yes, please IDENTIFY the present CUSTODIAN of each WRITING relating to each claim. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad in its time frame and is not relevant nor likely to lead to discoverable information nor is it calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.

Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 12 served on January 12, 2005 and February 8, 2005.
4/12/05 Interrogatory 15. For the period of May 1, 1994 through the present, please identify each instance in which the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined you have discriminated against any employee or applicant or retaliated against any employee who has complained about race discrimination. If you answer is "yes" please:

28

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 28 of 62

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

(a) State the person (sic) who advanced each claim. (b)State the race of the person who advanced the claim. © Set forth the jurisdiction, caption, and file number of each claim. (d) Identify each writing relating to each claim. (e) Identify the present custodian of the writing relating to each claim. (f) Describe the disposition of each claim. (g) Please produce the documents. (h)If you are unable to produce the information, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: This request essentially duplicates Request No. 1 above. See response and objection to Request No. 1 above. Objection: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Rules 33 and 34, F.R. Civ.P., do not require a party to generate specific data or review existing records to generate a new document in response to a discovery request.. See, e.g., 8A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2174 at 303. Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn.1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is

29

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 29 of 62

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

inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). 10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state whether within the last ten years, Defendants have been made aware of any complaints which alleged that the selection, promotion, and/or hiring employment practice regarding race was wrongful that resulted in a formal legal proceeding? (a) If your answer was yes, please IDENTIFY each PERSON who advanced each (b) If your answer was yes, please set forth the jurisdiction, caption, and file number of each claim. © If your answer was yes, please IDENTIFY each WRITING relating to each claim. (d) If your answer was yes, please IDENTIFY the present CUSTODIAN of the WRITING relating to each claim. (e) If your answer was yes, please describe the disposition of each claim. ANSWER: Objection: This interrogatory is overbroad in its time frame and is not relevant nor likely to lead to discoverable information nor is it calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.

Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 16 served on February 8, 2005.
04/12/05 Interrogatory 16. For the period from May 1, 1994 through the present, has any civil action been filed in which it is or has been claimed that you have racially discriminated against any employee or applicant or retaliated against any employee? If your answer is "yes," please state relevant facts about each such action, including: (a) The names of the plaintiffs and defendants. (b) Case numbers

30

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 30 of 62

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

© Dates suits were filed (d) Name of the court (e) The date the case was closed. (f) What was the outcome of the case. (g) Please produce the documents. (h) If you are unable to produce the information, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection: Please contact the office of Richard H. Weare, Clerk of Court United States District Court District of Arizona, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 322-7100 as the requested information would be on file at the courthouse. Further, the court files can be searched in the public counter area. As you know, the only proper named defendant is the Secretary of the involved federal agency. For your requested time frame the following individuals served as the Secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs: Jesse Brown 1993-1997; Togo D. West, Jr. 1998-2000; Anthony J. Principi, 2001-2005; Jim Nicholson , 2005. Objection: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Rules 33 and 34, F.R.Civ.P., do not require a party to generate specific data or review existing records to generate a new document in response to a discovery request. See, e.g., 8A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2174 at 303. Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g.,

31

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 31 of 62

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

Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Without waiving said objections, and pursuant to Rules 33 (d)and 34(b), F.R.Civ.P., a listing (based upon a defendant name computer search at the Clerk's office for the requested time period and the respective VA Secretaries) of the presently known documents which may be responsive to this request for production is attached as ATTACHMENT C (consisting of 25 pages total).

10/03/04 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: (prior to entry of Protective Order) How many employees performed the same job function as Plaintiff at the time of the adverse action Reduction-in-Force, Voluntary Incentive Separation Payment Offer, Job Offer, and Direct Reassignment? (a) What is the age composition, ethnicity, or sex of all employees who were similarly situated to Plaintiff? (b) Are these similarly situated employees still employed by Defendant? © If these employees are not employed by Defendant, were they terminated or did they voluntarily separate their employment? (d) In what capacity are these similarly situated employees currently employed? Were they promoted? ANSWER: There were no adverse actions or Reduction-in-Force, however, the following is a list of the employees in the Compensated Work Therapy/Incentive Therapy (CWT/IT) program

32

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 32 of 62

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

when it was abolished: (a):
Name Age

David Knapp, CWT/IT Program Coordinator (GS-11) Martha Slaughter-Payne, CWT/IT Vocational Therapist (GS-9) Carol Wares, CWT/IT Vocational Therapist (GS-9) David Hardt, CWT/IT Temporary Employee (GS-7)

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Ethnicity Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sex Male Female Female Male

(b): David Knapp: Still employed by the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center. Martha Slaughter-Payne: Still employed by the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center. Carol Wares: No longer employed by the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center. David Hardt: No longer employed by the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center.

©: Carol Wares: Voluntarily separated her employment. David Hardt: Temporary appointment expired. (d) David Knapp: Applied for and was selected for promotion in another Service Line. Martha Slaughter-Payne: Was moved to another position at the same grade in another Dept. (Human Resources) within the Medical Center. February 8, 2005. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 17 .
DATED OCTOBER 4, 2004(Supplemental)(SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES # 17 ,18, 19 and 20) unredacted

ANSWER: (Subsequent to Protective Order) There were no adverse actions or Reduction-in-Force, however, the following is a list of the employees in the Compensated Work Therapy/Incentive Therapy (CWT/IT) program

33

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 33 of 62

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

when it was abolished: (a):
Name Age

David Knapp, CWT/IT Program Coordinator (GS-11) Martha Slaughter-Payne, CWT/IT Vocational Therapist (GS-9) Carol Wares, CWT/IT Vocational Therapist (GS-9) David Hardt, CWT/IT Temporary Employee (GS-7)

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Ethnicity Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Sex Male Female Female Male

(b): David Knapp: Still employed by the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center. Martha Slaughter-Payne: Still employed by the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center. Carol Wares: No longer employed by the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center. David Hardt: No longer employed by the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center. ©: Carol Wares: Voluntarily separated her employment. David Hardt: Temporary appointment expired. (d) David Knapp: Applied for and was selected for promotion in another Service Line. Martha Slaughter-Payne: Was moved to another position at the same grade in another Dept. (Human Resources) within the Medical Center. Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory 17 served on February 10, 2005. 04/12/05 Interrogatory 17. Has the The (sic) Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center, for the fiscal year of 1997, developed an Affirmative Employment Program for Minorities and Women; Multi-year Affirmative Employment Program? If your answer was "yes," please; (a) State whether the plan was signed by John R. Fears; (b)From 1994 to present has any Medical Center Director developed an Affirmative Employment Program for Minorities and Women; Multi-Year

34

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 34 of 62

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

Affirmative Employment Program for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, Medical Center? © Please produce all copies. (d) If you are unable to produce copies, please state the location of the documents. If the documents have been destroyed, please provide: I) Date of destruction; ii) Person who destroyed the documents; iii) Under what authority was the document destroyed. For instance, was the document destroyed according to a C.F.R., an RCS or any other authority which allows for the destruction of documents? Response: Objection, compound question as two or more separate requests are included in this request. Objection: The time frame, before and after the justiciable claims, for the requested information is excessive, improper and contrary to federal Title VII law. See, e.g., Raddatz v The Standard Register Company, 177 F.R.D. 446 (D. Minn. 1997). Objection, This interrogatory seeks information regarding theories of discrimination which are not alleged in Plaintiff's amended complaint and therefore, are not discoverable, i.e., an improper "fishing expedition." Objection, This interrogatory seeks information which is inadmissable, irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 404(b) F.R.Evid. See, e.g., Miller v. Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla., 1977). Objection: While one or more responsive documents are believed to still exist, such documents are protected from disclosure by the self-critical analysis privilege and constitute privileged and confidential information. Furthermore, such documents are neither relevant to the issues present in this matter nor admissible in evidence. See, e.g., McClain v. Mack Trucks Inc.,85 F.R.D. 53 (E.D.Pa., 1979).

35

Case 2:03-cv-02300-ROS

Document 36-2

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 35 of 62

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

10/03/04 INT