PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL

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

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 COMPEL et cetera

Comes now the Plaintiff, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., by and through his undersigned attorney, who responds to the Defendants' Motion To Compel et cetera, saying:

1. With only 6 working days until the Meeting For Joint Pretrial Statement, desperation grows in the Defendants to derail this case. Their despair is manifested by the latest motion.

2. On July 13th of last summer, Plaintiff produced the voluminous materials demanded by the Defendants. It is an understatement to say that Defendants were poised to complain loudly and shrilly to the Magistrate Judge had Plaintiff failed to do so in even the slightest way.

3. Now, several months later, Despair - not Necessity - has become the mother of Defendants' invention. The date for the Meeting For Joint Pretrial Statement is December 15. The trial is looming. Defendants have no where to hide except in smoke of their own making.

4. The Case Management and Scheduling Report mandated that discovery was complete on September 15, 1998. For better or worse, the time for discovery is long past. We are now preparing for trial.

5. Plaintiff requested more time for discovery of his own and was turned down by the Court. Defendants sought no extra time for discovery nor have they requested any modification of the Case Management and Scheduling Order. No advance order permitting this motion has been sought, much less granted.

6. The evident purpose of Defendants' present motion is to disparage and defame Meredith T. Raney, Jr. and to sidetrack the trial of this case, as opposed to seeking any timely discovery. Defendants' harassment of Plaintiff has continued on other fronts as well; two of the latest occasions are revealed in the copies of the correspondence attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 'A'.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Meredith T. Raney, Jr. requests that the Motion To Compel 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 4th day of December, 1998.

Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Attorney

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT "A"

Allstate Insurance Company
7380 Murrell Road, Suite 101
Melbourne, FL 32940

November 30, 1998

Meredith Raney, Jr.
2488 Burns Avenue
Melbourne, FL 32935

RE: Claim Number: 53200021412 and 5320115891
Claimant: Aware Woman Center for Choice

Dear Mr. Raney:

Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Floridian Insurance Company have received a letter from your attorney Roy Lucas dated November 4, 1998 which enclosed a second amended counterclaim which Aware Woman Center for Choice (AWCC) and others seek to file against you in Case No. 97-1197 pending in federal court in Orlando, Florida. At this time, Allstate is investigating whether coverage is available for this matter. Allstate hereby reserves all rights under all policies and the law.

Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sheron Milne, AIC <signed>
Allstate Property-Casualty Claim Service Organization

SM/ms
cc: Roy Lucas, Esquire
Susan England, Esquire <Emphasis and note added.>

CHRISTOPHER F. SAPP
Attorney At Law
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
December 2, 1998

Sharon Milne, AIC
Allstate Insurance Company
7380 Murrell Road, Suite 101
Melbourne, Florida 32940

Re: Raney v. Aware Woman

Dear Ms. Milne,

You are seriously mistaken in your letter to Meredith T. Raney, Jr. which is dated November 30, 1998: Roy Lucas has never been an attorney for your insured, Mr. Raney, nor has Ms. Susan England whom you copied. All of the papers and pleadings in this case clearly show that I am Mr. Raney's attorney.

Any further communication concerning Mr. Raney should be with me. Please immediately send to me a copy of any letter in which Mr. Lucas or Ms. England referred to themselves as attorneys for Mr. Raney. Further, you should seek advice from your attorneys about reporting this apparent misrepresentation to the Court and to appropriate oversight organizations.

At first I was very surprised that you were writing to Mr. Lucas and Ms. England; however, if these people had falsely represented themselves to be Mr. Raney's attorneys, then your action appears to be reasonable.

Sincerely,
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>

From: OWLLAWYER@aol.com
To: Chris Sapp <ChrisSapp@iline.com>
Cc: TEDYPAT@aol.com
Subject: Local Rule 3.01 consultations
Date: Sunday, November 22, 1998 10:18 PM

Dear Chris:

Found your secret E-Mail address.

I could have been sending you Rule 3.01 consultations on this all along, but was misled that you had no E-Mail avenue.

Also, the phone records of Mr Raney show a lot of numbers for you.

Is there a secret active FAX in there too?

Roy Lucas
OWL LAWYER2AOL.com

CHRISTOPHER F. SAPP
Attorney At Law
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
December 2, 1998

Roy Lucas, Esquire
Post Office Box 1433
Melbourne, Florida 32902-1433

Re: Raney v. Aware Woman

Dear Mr. Lucas,

A copy of a recent e-mail communication is enclosed; it purports to be from you. if it is not, then someone else is playing a trick on us both.

If it is your communication, then I am surprised that you would send a message to my private address at 10:16 p.m. on Sunday evening and send a copy to someone else, possibly your client.

There is no e-mail address for my law office. E-mail is not a correct avenue for you to comply with Rule 3.01(g) conferences with me.

Unless I hear otherwise from you by Friday afternoon, then I will assume that this communication came from you.

Sincerely,
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>