PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER
FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE
Defendants.

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM et cetera

Comes now the Plaintiff, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., by and through his undersigned attorney, who in response to the Defendants' Motion To File Second Amended Counterclaim et cetera, says:

NO COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 3.01(g)

1. There was no conference with the undersigned attorney as required by the Local Rules. Defendants' attorney made the following statement in the certificate attached to the motion in question:

"Above-signed counsel has telephoned and conferred with Messrs Sapp and Sift concerning the filing of this counterclaim, pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g) ....."

This statement, if true, would establish compliance with Local Rule 3.01(g). This Court has already specifically informed the lead counsel for Defendants about this requirement. Unfortunately, the Defendants' attorney has not only failed to confer with the undersigned attorney, but worse yet, has misstated that fact to the Court. Plaintiff has no way of knowing whether this error is intentional or accidental; however, there has been no compliance with Local Rule 3.01(g) and that in itself is sufficient to preclude this Motion.

VIOLATION OF CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER

2. After reviewing the Case Management Report of the attorneys for the Plaintiff and for the Defendants, this Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order which provided that no motion to bring in additional parties should be filed after April 23, 1998. Obviously the Defendants' present motion has been filed long after the April 23, 1998 deadline.

3. Additionally, all discovery was required to be completed no later than September 15, 1998. While Plaintiff has requested additional time for discovery, the Court has denied that request. Thus the Defendants' motion to expand the pleadings in this cause is brought well after the deadline in the Case Management and Scheduling Order and after the Plaintiff's request for additional time for discovery was denied.

4. The deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case was October 15, 1998. Thus no motion can now he filed to dispose of what appears at cursory glance to be more venomous slurs by the Defendants against the Plaintiff and more smoke and mirrors attempting to hide the Defendants' wrongful actions, which pleading would normally be subject to dismissal or summary judgment for the Plaintiff.

5. The deadline in the Case Management and Scheduling Order for the filing of motions to amend any pleading was April 23, 1998. While the Defendants' motion at hand contains no date of service in its certificate, to the best knowledge and belief of the undersigned this motion was filed in the month of November and not prior to April 23, 1998.

6. There has been no modification of the Case Management and Scheduling Order requested by the Defendants other than leave to delay the filing of certain reports for sixty (60) days after the July 15 deadline. Such modification furnishes no excuse or justification for filing the present motion. The attorneys in this case have been notified that any change in the deadlines, dates or requirements of the Case Management and Scheduling Order must be approved in advance by the Court upon written application of one or more parties. This has not been done by Defendants.

OTHER FORUMS

7. For several years now, one or more of the Defendants has been plaintiff in the Florida circuit court civil action which resulted in the Madsen decision by the United States Supreme Court. That case was brought against those persons demonstrating or protesting abortions at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida. That case is ongoing at this time. At least one of the present attorneys for the Defendants is attorney for the plaintiffs in that state case. The latest activity in that case occurred only a few days ago. A copy of the docket therein and some recent papers filed in that case are attached hereto for reference as Composite Exhibit "A".

8. Plaintiff has learned that one or more of the Defendants in this case are plaintiffs in the case of N. O. W. et al. v. Scheidler, et al., No. 86C7888, held before the United Sates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in which Federal case one or more of the Defendants are therein suing demonstrators and protestors for their activity at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida. A copy of a portion of the transcript of the testimony of Patricia Windle is attached hereto for reference as Exhibit "B".

9. Defendants may or may not be plaintiffs in other eases concerning activity at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida; at this time, only those cases mentioned above have been uncovered thus far by Plaintiff.

DISFAVORED MOTION

10. Defendants' present motion is brought more than four (4) months after the Plaintiff produced all documents sought by the Defendants. There is no justification offered by the Defendants for any delay this long. According to the Court, this motion is clearly 'disfavored'. Its obvious purpose is to distract and deceive the Court in a desperate attempt to avoid responsibility for the Defendants' three violations of FACE.

WHEREFORE, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., the Plaintiff, respectfully requests that the Motion To File Second Amended Counterclaim et cetera be denied.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher F Sapp <signed>
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar No. 0097823
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Roy Lucas, Esquire, Post Office Box 1433, Melbourne, Florida 32902, Susan England, Esquire, 2805 Lakeview Drive, Fern Park, Florida 32730 and to Lawrence M. Sift, Esquire, O'Connor & Meyers, PA, 2801 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor, (Coral Gables) Miami, Florida 33134 this 17th day of November, 1998.

Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Attorney