The Place Where Ludington Talks
Interrogatories to John Shay
PLAINTIFF' S/COUNTER-DEFENDANT INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF JOHN SHAY
NOW COMES Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Swiger and Rotta, pursuant to
Michigan Court Rules 2.309 and 2.310 demands that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff John Shay answers the following Interrogatories in writing and under oath and requests the
production of certain documents. It is expected that said lnterrogatories and Request for
Production will be answered within twenty-eight (28) days from the date received.
The information sought must be supplied regardless of whether the information is
within your immediate possession and/or control or whether the information is within the
immediate possession and/or control of your agent, your representative or attorney, or
any other person who has made this knowledge known to you or from whom you can
attain said information and who is competent to testifly as to the facts stated.
INSTRUCTIONS
A. "You", "your" and "yourself' shall mean Defendant/Counter Plaintiff John Shay
B. "Person" or "persons" shall mean any natural person, partnership, firm,
association, joint venture, corporation, goveffrment agency or other organization or entity.
C. "Document" shall mean any written, recorded or graphic information or
representation either produced or reproduced and any copy thereof, whether or not
privileged or work product, now or formerly in your actual or constructive possession,
custody or control.
D. "Communication" shall mean any verbal, non-verbal or written statements by
one person to or in the presence of one or more other persons, including discussions,
letters, conversations, consultations, meetings, conferences, telephone calls, or any
transfer of information from one person to another as well as the transfer of documents
from one person to another.
E. "Fact" shall mean an event, condition, data, observation or state of affairs
including subsidiary facts, ultimate facts, facts mixed with law or which involve the
application of legal principals.
F. "Reason" shall mean an explanation of a belief, conclusion or assertion. It
includes opinions, conclusions and contentions including those involving ultimate facts,
facts mixed with law with the application of legal principals.
G. "Identify" when used with respect to a document shall mean to state:
1. The author of the document,
2. The recipient of the document, including all copes thereof,
3. The date on which the document was written,
4. A description of the general subject matter of the document.
H. "Identify" when used with respect to a person shall mean to state the name,
address and business title, if applicable, of such person.
I. "Identify" when used with respect to a communication shall mean to state,
1. The nature of the statement, i.e. whether verbal,
non-verbal or written,
2. Identify the person making the statement,
3. Identify the person to whom the statement was made,
4. Identify all persons in whose presence the statements
were made.
Please state all facts or reasons in support of this allegatlon, and for each fact or
reason:
a. Identify all persons having knowledge thereof;
b. State the substance of the knowledge of each person identified;
c. Identify all documents relating thereto;
d. Attach copies of each document identified in your answer to this
interrogatory.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify all persons answering or providing answers to these
Interrogatories.
ANSWER:
2. State with specificity the exact fee you asked for on the 9-13-2011 E-mail FOIA Response that your counsel insists was asked for, and your 9-15-2011 response refers to in its last sentence.
ANSWER:
3. State with specificity the exact method you, as FOIA Coordinator, used to determine that fee, real or implied, and how it is a legitimate fee through the State or City's FOIA law.
ANSWER:
4. State with specificity the reason why the 9-13-2011 FOIA response sent by you to Plaintiff SWIGER refers to a 11-29-2010 request that Defendant's exhibit 1 does not have a match for (i.e. according to your records, there is not a FOIA request made by the Plaintiffs on that day).
ANSWER:
5. If it exists, produce the document from either plaintiff dated 11-29-2010 your FOIA response of 9-13-2011 referred to. If it does not exist, state that fact.
ANSWER:
6. State with specificity, as per the four requests you referred to in the 9-13-2011 FOIA response, why you believe the 1-24-2011 FOIA request, which was purchased for $2.75 by Plaintiff SWIGER, was multiple or duplicative requests for the same information of the prior requests.
ANSWER:
7. State with specificity, the reason why a FOIA request that has a fee of $2.75 is multiple or duplicative of one whose fees are calculated at $228.90 and $367.25 and $57.23.
ANSWER:
8. State with specificity, the rationale per FOIA policy and law for charging $228.90 and $367.25 and $57.23 for the inspection of the exact same request as was done in 2010 for three FOIA requests, two of which were referred to in the 9-13-2011 FOIA response.
ANSWER:
9. State with specificity, the basis for which you decided on your 9-15-2011 E-mail that the response on 9-13-2011 had, in fact, granted the request, and not denied it by application of MCL 15.235(3).
ANSWER:
10. State with specificity, the basis for not clarifying any sort of fee required to process the FOIA request in the original response or at any time since, even after being asked to by both plaintiffs.
ANSWER:
11. State with specificity, the process and the rationale by which the FOIA administrative appeal initiated by plaintiffs was removed from the agenda at the last minute for the 9-26-2011 Ludington City Council meeting.
ANSWER:
12. State with specificity, the basis by which you decided to not allow Plaintiff ROTTA, who requested to be at the 9-26-2011 meeting on 9-19-2011, to attend and was denied by your office by your non-response.
ANSWER:
13. State with specificity the basis behind the Letter of Trespass issued on 3-1-2011 to Plaintiff ROTTA under the Workplace Safety Policy, approved by the Ludington City Council the night prior, which disallows those who it is issued against to not set foot on the property of a public facility without written permission from you.
ANSWER:
14. State with specificity, the basis of why the Letter of Trespass does not violate the FOIA and OMA to those that it is served to.
ANSWER:
15. State with specificity, the basis of why Defendants believe that Exhibit 2 of the original Complaint is incomplete and redacted. Please make account of any such redaction.
ANSWER:
16. State with specificity, the reason why you believe that the documents requested in 2010 are duplicative (i.e. the exact, same documents) of those requested on 9-07-2011 or those requested on 1-24-2011.
ANSWER:
17. State with specificity, the reason why you believe the FOIA requests in 2010 are multiple requests (i.e. the exact, same request) of those requested on 9-07-2011 or those requested on 1-24-2011.
ANSWER:
18. State with specificity, the rationale for claiming in your affirmative defenses that Plaintiff SWIGER has "repackaged and resubmitted" FOIA requests to avoid previously determined FOIA requested fees when in fact she never has during the period you honored her Affidavit of Indigency (1-28-2011 to 10-4-2011). Produce any such pairs of FOIA requests.
ANSWER:
19. State with specificity, the reason why the defendant believes the effort of Plaintiffs to gain information by the rights granted to them by the FOIA are intentionally trying to excessively and unreasonably interfere with the defendant's functions as a public body, rather than just being the efforts of a newsblog doing investigative reporting to verify or dismiss facts.
ANSWER:
20. State with specificity, the reason why you believe you can operate in your ninth year as the Ludington City Manager and FOIA Coordinator without having an Oath of Office on file with the City Clerk as revealed in a recent FOIA request (Exhibit G).
ANSWER:
21. State with specificity, the reason why you believe you have not vacated the office of Ludington City Manager and FOIA Coordinator since 2003 by refusing to take the Oath of Office you are required to take as a prerequisite for public service.
ANSWER:
22. State with specificity the basis you used for denying on 10-4-2011 Plaintiff SWIGER's rights under having an Affidavit of Indigency on file with the City of Ludington.
ANSWER:
23. State with specificity the basis you used for denying on 12-2-2011 the FOIA request for a inspection of or a copy of Plaintiff SWIGER's Affidavit of Indigency on file with the City, particularly since the City did not supply her with a copy on its submission in January 2011.
ANSWER:
24. State with specificity, the basis for why the City of Ludington FOIA policy was changed in December 2010.
ANSWER:
25. State with specificity the reason why many rights available to FOIA requesters by State Law were modified or eliminated by the City's new FOIA policy, and many discretionary powers were granted to the FOIA Coordinator, as #9 in Counter-Defendant's Affirmative Defenses details.
ANSWER:
26. State with specificity the basis for determining the fees for inspection on the 10-18-2010 request, the 11-15-2010 request and what you have labelled the 11-29-2010 request.
ANSWER:
27. State with specificity the basis for determining the fees for inspecting the 9-07-2011 request.
ANSWER:
28. Produce documents covering what other persons who made FOIA requests to the City of Ludington and the Ludington Police Department during all of 2010 and 2011, showing who they were, what they requested, what they got, when they requested, the nature of the response and what they were charged, much like Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's have made for 9-26-2011 City Council meeting and later on, the court for Exhibit 1 on the Plaintiffs' FOIA requests.
ANSWER:
These Interrogatories shall be deemed continuing in nature, and in the event
further knowledge and/or information relating to the questions asked in these
Interrogatories or the Request for Production comes to your attention after you have
answered these Interrogatories andlor Request for Production, you shall be obligated to
file supplemental answers to these Interrogatories andlor Request for Production
immediately upon your receipt of such knowledge and/or information.
WHERFORE, Plaintiffs demand that Defendant/Counter-plaintiff, John Shay, answer these interrogatories within 28 days of their receipt.
Dated: ___________________ Signed: ___________________________________
Views: 112
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
