IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION. vs. CAUSE NO. IP T/L

Similar documents
NO. Defendants. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES. To:, Defendant, by and through its attorney of record,,

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

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division : : : : : : : : : PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

vs. OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS DISCOVERY AND DOCKET CONTROL PLAN FOR LEVEL 3 CASE ( PLAN )

Effective September 1, 2018 TABLE OF RULES II. TRANSFER TO ARBITRATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF ARBITRATOR

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2017. Exhibit D

Dated: Dated: DEFINITIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk

Information or instructions: Motion Consent of Client & Order to substitute counsel PREVIEW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

LegalFormsForTexas.Com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure.

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY. Peter S. Holmes, Kent C. Meyer, Jessica Nadelman, Attorneys of Record for Defendant

Case 2:08-cv RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [INSERT PROPERTY] JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION (JUDGE HAYES)

UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRE-TRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

Case 1:08-cv RLY-TAB Document 19 Filed 12/23/2008 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. ELAINE SCOTT, Plaintiff, Case No. 4:09-cv-3039-MH v.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENT S EXPERT AND WITNESS INTERROGATORIES GENERAL OBJECTIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Civil Action No. 6:09-CV LED

OBJECTION TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND APPROVAL OF ATTORNEYS FEES. COMES NOW, Bert Chapa, Objector, by and through counsel of record, files

25 8/15/05 2 7/ /17/06 3 4/ /24/06 4 4/ /21/06 5 8/ /1/07 6 1/22/ /21/08 7 1/22/ /18/09 8 1/26/98

WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS

Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION


CASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER (JURY TRIAL) for Plaintiff.

UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. * Case No. 17-cv-2006-EH * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[CAPTION] INTERROGATORIES [NAME AND ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY] Attorneys for Plaintiff TO:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

Case 1:06-cv DFH-TAB Document 11 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 24

Case bjh Doc 69 Filed 04/29/16 Entered 04/29/16 19:18:10 Page 1 of 10

CAUSE NO V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423

GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products; that many of the

Case 3:16-cv CWR-FKB Document 79 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 4

Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form

APPENDIX I SAMPLE INTERROGATORIES

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. : Plaintiff : vs. : FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER : Case No. Defendant :

PREPARATION OF A TRIAL STATEMENT

SPRINGLEAF FINANCE CORP

being preempted by the court's criminal calendar.

NO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION (CPS Trial)

2:15-cv CSB-EIL # 297 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION

AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

The parties to this case, through their respective counsel, have conferred by regarding

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv JVB-JEM document 62 filed 04/05/18 page 1 of 12

Case RLM-11 Doc 95 Filed 12/19/18 EOD 12/19/18 16:04:52 Pg 1 of 8. Chapter 11

Case RLM-11 Doc 94 Filed 12/19/18 EOD 12/19/18 16:01:23 Pg 1 of 7 ) ) ) ) )

Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (BEAUMONT DIVISION) vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV0295

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case CSS Doc 783 Filed 09/07/18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:18-cv RJL Document 28 Filed 11/07/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Information or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories

JUSTICE JEFFREY K. OING PART 48 PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

Case 7:15-cv Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 12/02/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION

In the Superior Court Allen County, Indiana Cause No.. 02D PL-499

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION

Docket Number: 3900 THOMAS DIDIANO, THOMAS DIDIANO, JR. AND THOMAS DIDIANO & SON, INC. Carlyle J. Engel, Esquire VS.

Defendants Final Motion for Enlargement of Time. The Marion County Election Board and Marion County Voter Registration Board

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO FRANK AVELLINO S NOTICE OF PRODUCTION TO NON-PARTY UNDER RULE 1.351

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1294 v.

Docket Number: 4010 PENN STATE CONSTRUCTION, J&D, LLC. John G. Milakovic, Esquire Charles O. Beckley, Esquire VS.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA

DEFENDANT MANAL MOHAMMAD YOUSEF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. COMES NOW, Manal Mohammad Yousef (hereinafter "Manal Yousef'), by and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Docket Number: Philadelphia Suburban Water Company. Keith E. Gabage CLOSED VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Department of Transportation

Have you received a request for discovery?

STANDING ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS Department of Family and Protective Services Cases

CAUSE NO PC-3848

GETTING THE ARBITRATION YOU WANT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Unofficial Copy Office of Chris Daniel District Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX

NO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION [Required For Bench Trials over two (2) hours]

NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN RE JOHN DOES 1 AND 2, RELATORS. From the Ninth Court of Appeals, Beaumont, Texas No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Defendant, Imperial Woodpecker, LLC, by its attorneys, EUSTACE, MARQUEZ, EPSTEIN, PREZIOSO & YAPCHANYK, answers the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION GARY L. BRANHAM, Plaintiff vs. CAUSE NO. IP01-0152-T/L JOHN W. SNOW, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY/INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant PLAINTIFF S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT RELATING TO OFFER OF INSTATEMENT TO: Defendant, John W. Snow, by and through its attorney of record, Jeffrey L. Hunter, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, 10 West Market Street, Suite 2100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3048 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby propounds the following discovery upon Defendant to be answered in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of service. These requests are continuing in nature. If further information or documents come into your possession or are brought to your attention during preparation for trial or at trial, supplementation of your answers or responses is required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, HOUSTON, MAREK & GRIFFIN Post Office Box 2329 One Twenty Main Place, Suite 301 Victoria, Texas 77902 (361) 573-5500 [telephone] (361) 573-5040 [facsimile]

Elizabeth Russell KRIEG DeVAULT L.L.P. One Indiana Square, Suite 2800 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2079 Telephone: (317) 636-4341 Fax: (317) 636-1507 By: John W. Griffin, Jr. Federal Bar No. 2238 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Requests for Admission 1. REQUEST NO. 1: Admit or deny that attached Exhibit A is Defendant s official position regarding instatement or reinstatement (both of which are defined as to mean Gary Branham s placement in a special agent position). 2. REQUEST NO. 2 : Admit or deny that Defendant had prior to February 1, 2006, informed Plaintiff s counsel and the Court that reinstatement was not feasible and not an option. 3. REQUEST NO. 3 : Admit or deny that Defendant, through its counsel, stated that Plaintiff is not qualified to be a special agent, in an interview with WISH television after the verdict in this case. 4. REQUEST NO. 4 : Admit or deny that Defendant has no written waiver from the Secretary of Treasury or designee, regarding the age limit for entry into special agent positions. 5. REQUEST NO. 5 : Admit or deny that the IRS has not amended it medical standards relating to diabetes for special agent positions since this case was tried to a jury. 6. REQUEST NO. 6 : Admit or deny that the IRS has not amended or supplemented its answers to discovery to disclose any changes to the medical standards for individuals with diabetes who have been selected as special agents. RESPONSE

7. REQUEST NO. 7 : Admit or deny that Defendant still contends that Plaintiff s placement as a special agent would pose a direct threat to the public, to others and to himself. 8. REQUEST NO. 8 : agent. Admit or deny that Defendant still contends that Plaintiff is not qualified to be a special 9. REQUEST NO. 9 : Admit or deny that Plaintiff, who will be 42 years old as the end of the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2007, will be in training at Glynco, will be training with and/or competing with men and women in their 20's and 30's. 10. REQUEST NO. 10 : Admit or deny that the IRS views individuals with diabetes who have A1C values in the 8-10 range as a direct threat. 11. REQUEST NO. 11: Admit or deny that the IRS views Plaintiff as a danger due to its view that Plaintiff is subject to dangerously high and dangerously low blood glucose values. 12. REQUEST NO. 12 : Admit or deny that the IRS again considered the exact same facts as were disclosed to it by Plaintiff during the qualification process in 1999 and 200, that it would again medically disqualify him.

13. REQUEST NO. 13: Admit or deny that Defendant, through it counsel, while in the elevator at the Seventh Circuit, following oral argument, informed John Griffin that reinstatement was not possible due to the fact that Plaintiff was above the age limit of 37. 14. REQUEST NO. 14: Admit or deny that the front pay/retirement number calculations by Charles Bullock is necessary to make him whole (i.e. to place him in the position he would have been in but for the revocation of the selection to special agent).

Interrogatories Interrogatory No.1: Describe precisely the procedure by which Defendant will evaluate Plaintiff medically if he were to be instated to the special agent position, including the precise criteria under which he will be evaluated. Interrogatory No. 2: Please state the names of any physician who will participate in Plaintiff s medical qualification if he is instated to the position of special agent. Interrogatory No. 3: Describe precisely the process by which Defendant grants waivers for those above the age of 37 to allow them to enter the special agent position. Interrogatory No. 4: Please state the dates and all current scheduled CID training classes at FLETC. Interrogatory No. 5 : Precisely when does Defendant request Plaintiff to actually be instated. Interrogatory No. 6 : Does the IRS intend that Plaintiff should be instated regardless of whether th it appeals this case fo the 7 Circuit.

Requests for Production 1. Request for Production No. 1: Produce any and all waivers or other documents describing Defendant s authority to instate Plaintiff to special agent at the age of 42 and above. 2 Request for Production No. 2: Produce all documents describing the medical review process under which Plaintiff will be judged in connection with any instatement to the position of special agent. 3. Request for Production No. 3 : Produce all documents detailing statements made by Defendant or counsel to the press or the public after the verdict in this case.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true, correct and complete copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all parties of interest on this the day of 2006. Jeffrey L. Hunter Assistant United States Attorney OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 10 West Market Street, Suite 2100 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3048 John W. Griffin