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

FILED __ LooeEo
___ RECEIVED __ COPY
1
DC T 0 3 ZUU5
2 Scott M. McNair CLERK u s orsraucr oounr
3 5401 North Black Canyon Highway BY Dlsmlm QF “”€Z¤'F*—¤f~ A €
Pnoaax, Arizona 85015 _
4
1
5 I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
g I SCOTT M. MCNAIR No. CV-03-2119-PHX-NVW
Plaintiff,
9 . REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
V. DISCLOSURE OF WITNESS INFORMATION
10
County of Maricopa, etal, Assigned to the Hon. Neil V. Wake
1] Defendants,
12
13 1
14 1
15 I. PLEA FOR LENIENCY AND WAIVER OF FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
16 In that the Plaintiff (McNair) is neither represented by counsel nor had any formal legal training,
17 he does hereby request leniency Hom the Court for the form and content of this pleading, and does
18 request the Court to waive and/or modify any formal procedural requirements in order to insure
19 McNair due process and equitable justice, and to insure that a fair and just determination can be
20 made. Moreover, as McNair is a pro se litigant and not an attorney, his pleadings must be considered
21 1 Without technicality. ("Pro se litigants ’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of
22 perfection as lawyers. "l)
1
1 Haines V. Kerner, 92 S.Ct. 594; Jenkins V. McKeithen, 395 US 411, 421 (1969); Picking V. Penna. Rwy. Co. 151
F.2d 240; Puckett V. Cox, 456 F.2d 233.)
1
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 66 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 II. MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY
2 I The right to due process includes the right to present witnesses. Richmond v. Embry, 122 F.3d
3 I 866, 871 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 (1967)).
4 I As the Supreme Court has stated, the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel
5 their attendance, if necessary, is a fundamental element of due process of law. Washington, 388 U.S.
6 at 19.
7 Defendants’ refusal to disclose the names and addresses of its employees to prevent plaintiff
8 I hom calling them as witnesses is a blatant attempt to deny plaintiff due process.
9 All of the witnesses in question are persons named by Defendants in their own documents or are
10 I employees of defendants with testimony crucial to show the acts of defendants were unlawful. Under
11 i the rules of discovery and disclosure, defendantsf had a duty to provide this information voluntarily
12 E to plaintiff without his asking. Plaintiff previously requested disclosure of witness infomation and
13 defendants’ have continually refused to fulfill his requests. Such acts are sanctionable where a party
14 has failed to comply with a discovery request, and the failure is "willful and motivated by a desire to
15 I obtain a tactical advantage" at trial. Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 414-15 (1988)
16 i Defendants’ wrongfully assert (misrepresent) to this Court that plaintiff failed to request
17 I disclosure witness information previously, or, that plaintiff s previous requests were not "properly"
18 I submitted. As plaintiff is a pro-se party, even if his requests lacked in some purely technical
19 requirement, the court is reminded that a "state may not apply a rule mechanistically to defeat the
20 ends of justice. " Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 149 (1991)
21
22
23 i
24
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 66 2 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 III. CONCLUSION
2 E Plaintiff has a due process right to call witnesses. Defendants’ attempt to deny him that basic
3 , legal right by withholding the true names and addresses of witnesses that are or were in defendants’
4 l employ is a sanctionable offense. As such, this court should order defendants to immediately provide
5 p such information and as sanction for their acts, order defendants to pay all costs related to their
6 U appearance.
7
8 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3"I day of OCTOBER 2005.
9 By 4/w&. @ iw/'
10 Scott M. McNair, Plaintiff Pro Se
1 1 i
12 I ORIGINAL and COPY FILED with:
13 Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
14 , District of Arizona
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse
15 401 W. Washington Street, Suite 130
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118
16
17 COPY of the forgoing HAND~DELIVERED to:
18 Office of the Maricopa County Attorney
Attn: Dan Brenden
19 V 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
20 I (Cotmsel for Defendants: Maricopa County, Medlin, Peterson, & Ramsey)
21
22 COPY of the forgoing MAILED to
23 Z Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P,L.C.
Attn: Eileen Dennis Gi1Bride
24 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800,
Phoenix, Arizona 85012,
3
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 66 Filed 10/O3/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 66

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 66

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 66

Filed 10/03/2005

Page 3 of 3