ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
DEFENDANTS'S MOTION TO COMPEL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
AWARE WOMAN CENTER
FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE
CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B
DEFENDANTS'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendants, AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation, EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and PATRICIA B. WINDLE, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby move the court, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Court Procedure, for an order compelling the Plaintiff to respond to the following, and in support thereof would state:
1. On January 13, 1998, Defendants served their first set of Interrogatories upon the Plaintiff.
2. On February 13, 1998, Plaintiff served his Answers to Interrogatories which failed to comply with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as it contained non-responsive or incomplete answers, to wit:
a. Interrogatory number 2 states that: "If your answer is in the affirmative, describe with specificity the 'facility' that you were providing services in." Plaintiff s answer states: "I was inside the boundaries of the facility at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida where reproductive health services are available." This answer is incomplete as it fails to describe with specificity the boundaries or the structure that Plaintiff claims comprises the "facility."
b. Interrogatory number 3 requests that: "If you contend that the 'facility' that you were providing services in is located at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida; state whether you were authorized by the owners and/or tenants of the property located at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida, to provide such reproductive health services." Plaintiff s answer states: "I did not need Defendants' authorization to provide reproductive health services at 1564 Dixie Way as I was there lawfully." This is not a responsive answer as either he was or was not authorized by the owners or tenants of the property located at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida. Whether or not Plaintfff feels authorization was necessary is of no consequence. Plaintiff s response is an attempt to evade the question.
c. Interrogatory number 8 requests that Plaintiff: "List all training you have received to facilitate your role as a provider of 'reproductive health services,' including dates and locations of training, specific topics covered in. the training, and sponsors or providers of the training." Plaintiffs answer states: "I took a reproductive health services counseling course in 1992 at Pregnancy Resources, Inc., 110 Bry-Lynn Dr., W. Melbourne, Florida 32904. Course topics included: Pregnancy Testing; Fetal Development; Prenatal Care; Abortion Procedures; Birth Control; Community Resources for pregnant women; Biblical teaching on abortion; Decision making. Raising three daughters has given me quite a bit of practical 'training' as has my study of the Bible." Plaintiff has listed one reproductive health services counseling course he took in 1992 and provided a supplemental answer to interrogatory number 8 which was served on March 11, 1998, in which he states "In addition to the information which I previously provided, I would like to also add that my awareness and sensitivity to the problems of people at reproductive health services facilities has been increased by viewing video tapes such as 'The Silent Scream' and 'Houston Proud?'. I saw these videos before 1995." Plaintiff failed to list in connection with what training course he viewed these films, the date, location, and specific topics covered in the training, and the sponsors and/or providers of the training. Further, the video tapes Plaintiff references in his supplemental answer to interrogatory number 8 are films used by anti-abortion/pro life enthusiasts to support their views and gain other supporters, followers, sympathizers, etc. If said tapes are responses to Defendant's interrogatory number 8, Plaintiff should be compelled to fully answer interrogatory number 8 by providing the date and locations of other anti-abortion/pro-life training he received, the specific topics covered in the training, and the sponsors and/or providers of the training.
II. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
1. On February 27, 1998 Defendants served it's Requests for Admissions upon the Plaintiff.
2. On March 30, 1998, the Plaintiff served his responses to Defendants' Request For Admissions which failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, as it contained non-responsive answers and denials based on semantics, to wit:
a. Request for Admission No. 1 states: "Plaintiff did not obtain authorization from Defendants to provide services in conjunction with its facility located at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida." Plaintiff's answer states: "Neither admitted nor denied. This request assumes that defendants had the authority to lawfully prevent Meredith T. Raney, Jr. from performing reproductive health services such as counseling and referral at the facility located at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida which is not true. Meredith T. Raney, Jr. admits that he lawfully provided reproductive health services at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida." Rather than admit or deny the statement Plaintiff sets forth his legal conclusions regarding Plaintiff s right to perform "services" for the clinic without its authorization.
b. Request for Admission No. 2 states: At all times pertinent to the Complaint Plaintiff was aware that Defendants did not want Plaintiff on its property or in the buffer zone." Plaintiff s answer states: "Neither admitted or denied. With hindsight Meredith T. Raney, Jr. can say that defendants did not warn him performing reproductive health services within the facility since they harassed, threatened and physically mistreated him by use of Melbourne City Police officers. However, since Meredith T. Raney, Jr. was lawfully performing these reproductive health services, he did not expect defendants to violate his rights under FACE. Further, Meredith T. Raney, Jr. does not admit that he was unlawfully on the property of defendants."
c. Request No. 6 states "Plaintiff is, and at all times pertinent to the Complaint was, a member of the anti-abortion movement. Plaintiff avoids admitting the statement by denying same based on semantics. His response states "Denied. Meredith T. Raney, Jr., is pro-life. Persons such as Paul Hill are anti-abortion and feel that they can solve problems by killing other innocent human beings."
d. Request for Admission No. 7 states "Plaintiff is, and at all times pertinent to the Complaint was, a participant in the anti-abortion movement." Plaintiff responds "Denied. The response is basically identical to number 6. Meredith T. Raney is pro-life and shares that view with most Americans."
e. Request for Admission No. 8 states "Plaintiff is, and at all times pertinent to the Complaint was, a demonstrator in the anti-abortion movement." Plaintiff responds "Denied. This response is basically the same as the previously two items. Meredith T. Raney, Jr. is pro-life.
f. Request for Admission No. 9 states: "Plaintiff is, and at all times pertinent to the Complaint was, a supporter of the anti-abortion movement." Plaintiff responds: "Denied. This response is basically the same as the several proceeding ones."
g. Request for Admission No. 10 states: "Plaintiff is, and at all times pertinent to the Complaint was, a spokesperson for a group or groups aligned with the anti-abortion movement." Plaintiff's responds: "Denied. This response is basically the same as the several proceeding ones."
h. Request for Admission No. 11 states: "Plaintiff is, and at all times pertinent to the Complaint was, an organizer or facilitator of anti-abortion demonstrations." Plaintff responds: "Denied. This response is basically the same as the proceeding ones. Meredith T. Raney, Jr. does not believe that violence and the intentional destruction of innocent human beings are the appropriate way to solve problems. The problems of our fellow innocent human beings, large or small, bom or unborn, male or female, are solved by expressions of love and by compassion. Meredith T. Raney, Jr. does not believe that killing fellow innocent human beings can be a legitimate means to an end."
3 . The denials set forth in answers to Request for Admissions 6 through 11 are all predicated on Plaintiffs contention that the words "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" are distinct. Plaintiff feels it is proper to deny he is a member, participant, demonstrator, supporter, spokesperson for, and organizer or facilitator of demonstrations for the anti-abortion movement based on this imagined distinction. By Plaintifrs manner of responding, one would imagine that if Defendants put these same questions to Plaintiff replacing the word "anti-abortion" with "pro-life" that these statements would be admitted. However, this is not a certainty as Plaintiff could find other distinctions and reasons to evade what should be admitted by contesting the commonly understood definition of the words member, movement, participant, demonstrator, supporter, spokesperson, organizer, facilitator or demonstrations. Rather than face this uncertainty, Defendants request that Plaintiff be compelled to either adniit or deny based on these words' common meanings and treating the word "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" as synonymous.
4. Defendants have employed the undersigned attorney and are obligated to pay the attorney a reasonable fee in prosecution of this motion, to which Plaintiff is liable to Defendants.
5 . Defendants' counsel has complied with Rule 37(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and local rule 3.01(g) by conferring with opposing counsel in an attempt to resolve this issue prior to filing this motion with the Court. Defendants furnished Plaintiff with a proposed Motion to Compel on April 15, 1998, along with a letter which requested a response if counsel wished to resolve the issue, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A." Plaintiff's counsel responded in a letter dated April 24, 1998, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "B," stating Plaintiff had complied with discovery requests and complaining that counsel had not directed the criticism to him at a meeting which never materialized. However, our Motion to Compel was not an issue on the date of that proposed meeting (scheduled by Sapp for April 1, 1998). Further, prior to filing this Motion counsel attempted to reach Sapp regarding the motion on May 20, 1998, at 2:30 p.m., and again on May 21, 1998 at 11:40 a.m., leaving messages for a return call. However, Sapp failed to return the calls.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request this Court enter an Order compelling Plaintff's to fully answer all interrogatories and admissions; and further award Defendants their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in bringing this motion.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Christopher F. Sapp, Esq., P.O. Box 1012, Lehigh Acres, FL 33970, this 22nd day of May, 1998.
FRESE, NASH & TORPY, P.A.
BY: LISA L. HOGREVE
Florida Bar No. #0104840
930 S. Harbor City Blvd., Suite 505
Melbourne, FL 32901
Attorney for Defendants
|TOP OF PAGE| |HOME| |DISCLAIMER| |SEARCH| |LINKS| |NEWS|
|EMAIL US| |SUNTREE| |AWARE WOMAN| |ABORTIONISTS| |LAWSUITS|
|VICTIMS OF CHOICE| |SURVIVORS| |INVESTIGATIONS|