Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00175-JJF Document 161-10 Filed 06/20/2008 Page 1 014
EXHIBIT I

Case 1:04-cv-00175-JJF Document 161-10 Filed 06/20/2008 Page 2 of 4
CON NOLLY BOVE LODGE 8: HUTZ LLP
*'Aé€i ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILMINGTON, DE
. The Nemours Bu`ldin
1007 North Orarige Si.
FAX (3Cg;)n6t;>18-6.*gig com Eox 2207
Eemgiiffo lrirl¤%$gl¤A omg E39
FAX: (302) 658 5614
WEB: www.cblh.com
May 7, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Daniel A. Griffith, Esquire
Whiteford Taylor & Preston
1220 N. Market Street
Suite 608
Wilmington, DE 19801
· Re: Curry v. Hopkins jC.A. 1:04-CV-00175-JJF)
Dear Daniel:
On May 5, 2008, we received the Defendant’s responses to the Plaintiffs
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Items (Nos. 1-26). This
letter points out defects in the asserted responses and objections.
The defendant’s failure to provide proper and timely objections means that
all such objections are waived.
A. Reguests Nos. 6-8
Requests 6-8 seek documents and things relating to: 6) K-9 procedures or
protocol; 7) the Defendants K—9 specifically (the dog involved in Mr. Curry’s
arrest); and 8) the training of the Defendant’s K-9. ln response to these
4 requests, the Defendant points to a November 4, 2005, letter which was attached
to the Defendant’s response. However, that letter does not provide any of the
requested information. Attached to that letter is an "lnitial Crime Report" and a
"Use of Force Report." The defendant has not produced any manuals regarding
protocols for K—9 ofhcers. The Defendant has also not produced any documents
relating to the training and use of the specific K-9 officer involved in Mr. Curiy’s
arrest. Please produce all responsive documents without further delay.
l
5 WILMINGTON, DE WASHINGTON, DC LOS ANGELES, CA

Case 1:04-cv-00175-JJF Document 161-10 Filed 06/20/2008 Page 3 of 4
% l e¤NNor.r.v e;);5qEr;5`p$5_g_ggrz r.r.r=_
Daniel A. Griffith, Esquire
May 7, 2008
Page 2
B. Reguests Nos. 9-12
Requests 9-12 seek documents and things relating to any previous
‘ allegation against the Defendants for: 9) misuse of his l<—9; 10) abuse; 11) police
brutality; and 12) police brutality against the Plaintiff. The Defendant responds to
Request No. 9 by stating documents have been previously produced to l\/lr.
Curry. However, the only documents previously produced are ll/lr. Jenkins’ arrest
report, and not any documents regarding his allegations of abuse, which are
clearly requested. Please produce all responsive documents without further
delay.
The Defendant responds to each of Requests 10-12 by first stating that
claims against the Dover Police Department have been dismissed. This
objection is immaterial. The Defendant also objects to Requests 10-12 by stating
that they seek information which is "irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." These objections are
not well taken as the Defendant fails to specify any aspect of any of these
Requests that is either irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. On the contrary, the requests are relevant and
clearly seek discoverable documents. Please produce all responsive documents
without further delay.
C. Reguest No. 18
Request No. 18 seeks documents related to the injury the Defendant
: suffered to his hand or arm on or about January 13, 2004. The Defendant
objects to this request as being "overly broad, unduly vague and not capable of a
g meaningful response." This objection is not well taken as the Defendant fails to
specify any aspect of the Request that is vague or not capable of a meaningful
l response. This Request clearly seeks documents relating to a specific injury that
“ occurred on or about a specific day, including the Defendant’s medical records
pertaining to the injury in question. Please produce all responsive documents
without further delay.
D. Reguests Nos. 19-23
The Defendant objects to Requests 19-23, in part, based on the attorney-
client privilege and work product doctrines. The Defendant does not, however,
provide a privilege log. Please produce a complete privilege log without further
delay.

Case 1:04-cv-00175-JJF Document 161-10 Filed 06/20/2008 Page 4 of 4
% Z....'—LF;
Daniel A. Griffith, Esquire
May 7, 2008
Page 3
The Defendants also objects to these Requests as being "overly broad,
unduly vague and not capable of meaningful response? These objections are
not well taken as the Defendant fails to specify any aspect of the Requests which
are broad, vague or not capable of a meaningful response. Please provide all
responsive documents without further delay.
E. Reguest No. 25
The Defendant simply responds to this request by stating "To be
provided." The Defendant did not seek an extension of time in which to respond
to this Request. Please provide all responsive documents without further delay.
Sincerely,
Brian R. Lemon
cc: Scott E. Swenson, Esquire
Mr. Joseph Curry

Case 1:04-cv-00175-JJF

Document 161-10

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00175-JJF

Document 161-10

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00175-JJF

Document 161-10

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00175-JJF

Document 161-10

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 4 of 4