Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

i Q4 LDDGED
I a:2ss¤~.·=;o M_ COPY
NDV 0 7 2005
1 Scott M. McNair _ _ W ,_ ______,, NQURT
5401 North Black Canyon Highway QQ; A
2 Phoenix, Arizona 85015 Bq, U " ` lib"` ` js rggpgw
3 602.433.7992 i-——·¥¥>·*;*'**:’ I
4
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
8 SCOTT M. MCNAIR No. CV-03-2119-PHX-NVW
Plaintifi
9 RESPONSE T0 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
V. PRECLUDE I'LAIN'I`IFF’S DISCOVERY
10 ATTEMPTS
County of Maricopa, et al,
jj Defendants, Assigned to the Hon. Neil V. Wake
12
13
14
15 I. PLEA FOR LENIENCY AND WAIVER OF FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
16 In that the Plaintiff l(McNair) is neither represented by counsel nor had any formal legal training,
17 he does hereby request leniency from the Court for the form and content of this pleading. Plaintiff
18 also requests the Court to waive and/or modify any formal procedural requirements in order to insure
19 him due process and equitable justice, and to insure that a fair and just determination can be made.
20 ("Pr0 se litigants ’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as
21 lawyers. "1)
22 ·
23
I Haines K Kerner, 92 S.Ct. 594;Jenkins VZ McKeii‘hen, 395 US 411, 421 (1969); Picking V Perma. Rwy. C0. 151
F.2d 240; Puckett PZ Cox, 456 F.2d 233.)
1
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 83 Filed 11/O7/2005 Page 1 of 4

1 H. MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY
2 Defendants’ first completely ignored then refused to comply with FRCP 26(a)(l)(A) which
3 makes it Defenda11ts’ obligation to provide plaintiff with "the name, the pfrue] address and
4 telephone number of gn individual lilcgy to have discoverable information ", and that such was to
5 be provided within 14 days of the Rule 26(f) conference.
6 Then, alter having twice received copies of plaintiff s witness list and on numerous other
7 occasions attempted to criminally extoit money from plaintiff for records he is entitled to for free,
8 they continue their complete refusal of their discovery and disclosure obligations with plaintiff
9 unabated by this court.
10 In defendants’ response (Objection) to plaintiff’ s Motion to Compel Disclosure of Witness
ll information (doc. #49), defendant’s not only continue to refiise to provide the witness’ contact
12 information, but, they also instruct plaintiff that if he really wants it he can look it up himself in the
13 ‘*telephone directory" (Id. at 3). After complying with defendants’ instruction that plaintiff find the
14 information on his own, defendants complain about him using information obtained through the
15 Intemet in order to contact his own witness. Now, when plaintiff comports with defendants’
16 obstructionist request, defendants seek an order to prevent him from complying with their own
17 (obstructionist) directives.
18 By Defendants’ own exhibit, plaintiff was merely requesting where his own witness wanted to
19 be served. No discovery was requested.
20 Up until this point, though plaintiff has asked several times before, defendants’ cotmsel has
21 continually refused to disclose which current or former Maricopa County employees they do or do
22 not gpresent. Thanks to defendants’ recent motion, this question has now been answered. In their
23 latest motion, counsel for defendants now claim they represent any and all current and former county
24 employees (ld. at 2, "such individuals are represented bythe County’s counsel ") With this in mind,
2
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 83 Filed 11/O7/2005 Page 2 of 4

1 plaintiff requests immediate clarification from defendants (and the court) as to whether or not these
2 witnesses will be appearing voluntarily or will defendants (and this court) seek to impose financial
3 hardship upon plaintiff by requiring him to have over twenty subpoenas delivered to the Office of
4 the Maricopa County Attorney?
5 III. SUMMARY
6 After successfully obstructing all discovery and disclosure of defendants’ own witnesses, they
7 accuse plaintiff of making an “end-run" around this court’s prejudicial approval of such. When in
8 fact, defendant’s motion is an attempt to obstruct plaintiffs contact with his own witnesses.
9 If defendants’ counsel wishes to use the Maricopa County Attorney? s Office as the receiver of
10 subpoenas for ALL county employees (past and present), then it needs to clearly state so.
11 IV. CONCLUSION
12 Defendants’ motion is nothing more than another "end-mn" attempt to interfere with plaintiffs
13 own witnesses. The court should deny defendants’ motion, as to grant such would serve only to deny
14 plaintiff his due process right to have contact with his own witnesses, and be a clear act of sabotage
15 against plaintiffs case by this court.
16
17 SUBMITTED this 7** clay of NOVEMBER 2005.
18
19 By éigpyi
20 con M. McNair, Plaintiff Pro Se
21
22
23
24
3
Case 2:O3—cv—O2119-NVW Document 83 Filed 11/O7/2005 Page 3 of 4

l
2
3
4 ORIGINAL and COPY FILED this day with:
5 Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
6 District of Arizona
Sandra Day O'Co1mor U.S. Courthouse
7 401 W. Washington Street, Suite 130
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118
8
9 COPY of the forgoing HANDDELIVERED this same day to:
10 Office of the Maricopa County Attorney
Attn: Dan Brenden
ll 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100
12 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(Counsel for Defendants: Maricopa County, Medlin, Peterson, & Ramsey)
1 3
14 COPY of the forgoing MAILED this same day to
15 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
Attn: Eileen Demiis GilBride
16 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800,
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
17 (Counsel for Defendants: Maricopa County, Medlin, Peterson, & Ramsey)
18
19
20
21
22
23 ~
24
4
Case 2:03-cv—O2119-NVW Document 83 Filed 11/O7/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 83

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 83

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 83

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 83

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 4 of 4