ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Similar documents
WD79893 IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Introduction

WD79893 IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT. No. WD79893

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

Case: 4:18-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 04/12/18 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

2 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 3 Respondents, ) ) 4 vs. ) No. SC ) 5 STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 6 Appellants. )

Case: 4:18-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 01/02/18 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS EASTERN DISTRICT APPEAL NO. ED JOHN CHASNOFF, Plaintiff/Respondent

CIVIL ACTION. Defendant Jeff Carter, by and through his counsel Law Offices of Walter M. Luers, by

Defendant State of Missouri s Motion for Summary Judgment

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Case No.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT Domestic Relations Branch

Case: 4:17-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

GRANDPARENT VISITATION FORM PACKET

Case 3:07-cv SI Document 25 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LANCASTER COUNTY, NEBRASKA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CASE 0:12-cv RHK-JSM Document 9 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case: 4:16-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 07/25/16 Page: 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY Telephone:

Petitioner, Rodney L. Lincoln, by counsel, moves this Court to order an

Case 1:10-cv RMC Document 46 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR CHANGING AN ADULT S NAME

Case 3:07-cv SI Document Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:14-cv APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI

Case 1:12-cv RJL Document 14 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) ), ) ) Defendant. )

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION

Attorney for Petitioner

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY AT KANSAS CITY STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STODDARD COUNTY, MISSOURI

Case 1:17-cv DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/09/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION. STATE OF ARKANSAS ex rel. DUSTIN McDANIEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL. v. Case No.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. IN RE: ) ) Case No MISSION GROUP KANSAS, INC. ) ) Chapter 7 Debtor.

Case Doc 19 Filed 06/01/16 Entered 06/01/16 14:19:45 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND EMERGENCY RETURN OF CHILD PACKET

10/30/2017 7:04 PM 17CV47399 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PARTIES

Case 1:08-cv RPM Document 12 Filed 01/16/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/20/ :43 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/20/2017

Case: 4:13-cv ERW Doc. #: 28 Filed: 04/30/13 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 144

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/07/ :53 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2015

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION. v. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT

Case 4:04-cv CAS Document 57-1 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 1 of 14 ~-\~ IN THE UN1TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Case: Document: 26-1 Filed: 12/04/2014 Pages: 6 NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) )

Case 1:17-cv LAP Document 88 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 543 Filed 01/15/2009 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:14-cv RCL Document 48 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case bjh Doc 22 Filed 12/30/11 Entered 12/30/11 19:33:15 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 70

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 168 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2018

Case 3:13-cv JJB-SCR Document 27 09/20/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Form DC-625 MOTION AND NOTICE AND JUDGMENT Page: 1 FOR ARREARAGES

A SHORT GUIDE TO RECOVERING YOUR SECURITY DEPOSIT IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF GOOGLE INC.

Case Document 735 Filed in TXSB on 05/28/18 Page 1 of 8

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY PETITION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI

State your full name, social security number, date of birth, residence address, and telephone number.

Case 1:12-cv DJC Document 36 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

v. No. D-202-CV

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case: 4:18-cv RLW Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/25/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:14-cv KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2014 Page 1 of 7

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) )

Virginia Freedom of Information Act ( VFOIA ) Complaint Template

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 2:14-bk Doc 129 Filed 02/14/14 Entered 02/14/14 15:44:27 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7

Case 1:16-cv KBF Document 16 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 8

Case: 4:17-cv AGF Doc. #: 1 Filed: 01/23/17 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, BESSEMER DIVISION, ALABAMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER

Transcription:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR ) FREEDOM OF THE PRESS et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 14AC-CC00254 ) DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS ) ) Defendant. ) ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants, the Department of Corrections for the State of Missouri, (collectively, the Department ), through the Missouri Attorney General, provide the following answers and affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs Petition: 1. Paragraph 1 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of 2. Paragraph 2 sets forth general statements and opinions about democracy and government, not factual allegations, to which no response is required. Paragraph 2 references the Sunshine Law, which speaks for itself. The Department admits to withholding records which are closed by law. As to the remainder of the allegations, to the extent a response is required, the Department denies the allegations.

3. Paragraph 3 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of 4. Paragraph 4 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of 5. Paragraph 5 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of 6. Paragraph 6 states various opinions and conclusions about the Reporters Committee to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Department is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations. 7. Paragraph 7 states various opinions and conclusions about the ACLU to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Department is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations. 8. Paragraph 8 states various opinions and conclusions about Christopher McDaniel to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Department is without knowledge or information 2

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations. 9. Admit. 10. Paragraph 10 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of 11. Admit. 12. Paragraph 12 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of 13. Admit. 14. The Department admits to withholding records, as required by law, which could disclose the identities of pharmacies or laboratories that are involved in making drugs to be used in lethal injections. As for the remainder of the allegations, to the extent a response is required, the Department denies the allegations. 15. Admit. 16. Deny. The Department responded to the request on December 4, 2014. 3

17. The Department admits to receiving records requests from McDaniel on January 27, 2014, which speak for themselves requiring no additional response. 18. The Department admits to the allegations except that it responded on March 14, 2014 instead of March 17, 2014 as alleged in Paragraph 18. 19. The Department admits to receiving a records request from the Reporters Committee on February 13, 2014 which was dated February 7, 2014. 20. Admit. 21. The Department admits to receiving a records request from the ACLU on February 24, 2014, which speaks for itself requiring no additional response. 22. Admit. 23. As to paragraph 23, the Department is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the same pursuant to Rule 55.07. 4

24. As to paragraph 24, the Department is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the same pursuant to Rule 55.07. 25. As to paragraph 25, the Department is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the same pursuant to Rule 55.07. 26. The text of the Sunshine Law speaks for itself and requires no additional response. To the extent Plaintiffs characterize the law outside of the text, the Department denies the allegations. 27. Paragraph 27 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of To the extent Plaintiffs characterize the law outside of the text, the Department denies the allegations. 28. Paragraph 28 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of 29. Paragraph 29 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of To the extent Plaintiffs characterize the law and its purpose, the Department denies the allegations. 5

30. Paragraph 30 states various opinions and conclusions by Plaintiffs, not factual allegations, about executions and drugs to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Department denies the allegations. 31. The Department admits to revising its execution protocol in October of 2013, but denies the remainder of the allegations. 32. Paragraph 32 references a press release by the Department, which speaks for itself and requires no additional response. 33. Paragraph 33 references a press release by the Department, which speaks for itself and requires no additional response. 34. Paragraph 34 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of 35. Paragraph 35 purports to set forth statements and conclusions of To the extent a response is required, the Department denies the allegations. 36. Deny. 37. Deny. 6

38. Paragraph 38 is Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief, not a factual allegation, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Department denies the allegations. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The records requested by Plaintiffs are closed records pursuant to sections 217.075, 546.720 and 610.021(1) and (14), and therefore are not subject to disclosure under the Sunshine Law. 2. Plaintiffs Petition should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3. Plaintiffs Petition should be dismissed because the proposed relief, if granted, would violate separation of powers principles. 4. The Department reserves the right to assert further affirmative defenses as may be revealed in the course of litigation. WHEREFORE, having provided full answers and affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs Petition, the Department respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs Petition with prejudice and enter such other relief as is proper. 7

Respectfully submitted, CHRIS KOSTER Attorney General /s/stephen C. Doerhoff STEPHEN C. DOERHOFF, #63785 Assistant Attorney General P. O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Telephone: 573-751-9623 Telefax: 573-751-5660 Stephen.Doerhoff@ago.mo.gov Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed and served electronically via Missouri CaseNet, on June 20 th, 2014, to: Anthony Rothert trothert@aclu-mo.org Attorney for Plaintiff Gillian Wilcox gwilcox@aclu-mo.org Attorney for Plaintiff Mark Sableman msableman@thompsoncoburn.com Attorney for Plaintiff /s/stephen C. Doerhoff Assistant Attorney General 8