Kavadas Kavadas Our ans to Supp Rogs JOHN J. HOFFMAN ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street P.O. Box 116 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Attorney for Defendants Raymond P. Martinez New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission John Jay Hoffman, Esq. State of New Jersey Natasha Johnson Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, Office of Child Support Services By: Shana Bellin (907512012) Deputy Attorney General 609-292-8565 Shana.Bellin@lps.state.nj.us ANDREANA KAVADAS, ALISHA GRABOWSKI, LAQUAY DANSBY, and PAULO AREDE, v. Plaintiffs, RAYMOND P. MARTINEZ, THE NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION, JOHN J. HOFFMAN, ESQ., THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NATASHA JOHNSON, and the DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - MERCER COUNTY Docket No. MER-L-1004-15 CIVIL ACTION ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Defendants. DISCLAIMER None of the attached documents should be viewed as an adoptive admission on the part of Defendant Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, Office of Child Support Services (hereinafter, "DFD" or "Defendant") or any of its employees. See Skibinski v. Smith, 206 N.J. Super. 349, 352-54 (App. Div. 1985);
Sallo v. Sabatino, 146 N.J. Super. 416, 418-19 (App. Div. 1976). Same are being produced in discovery due to Plaintiffs' various discovery requests, as required by Court Rule. Defendant does not vouch for the truth of any statement contained in the documents. Ibid. The word usage and sentence structure contained in the discovery responses may be that of the attorney assisting in the preparation of the answers and thus, does not necessarily purport to be the precise language of the executing party. Defendant reserves the right to amend all answers to these interrogatories during the course of pretrial discovery according to the Rules. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Defendant objects to the instructions attached to and made part of the interrogatories to the extent they are contrary to and differ from the Court Rules. 2. Defendant objects to the instructions attached to and made part of the interrogatories to the extent they define words used within the request for the production of documents to give them a meaning that differs from that meaning generally applied to such words. 3. Defendant objects to the interrogatories to the extent the requests are not comprehensible in and of themselves, by a person with knowledge of the incident, but instead require him or her to make reference to the instructions or some other source beyond the request for the production of documents themselves. 2
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1 How many driver's licenses have been suspended each year since 1997 as the result of child support related orders of any type (including warrants, direct orders, etc)? ANSWERS: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections set forth above, Defendant answers these interrogatories as follows: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Defendant further notes that information responsive to this interrogatory was supplied in response to Plaintiffs' Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") requests. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant hereby identifies the following documents and records from which the answer to this interrogatory may, in substantial part, be ascertained: DFD007 Responding further, to the extent that the answer to this interrogatory may not be fully ascertained from the documents and records identified above, Defendant answers the remaining portion of the interrogatory as follows: Defendant does not have access to information responsive to this interrogatory prior to Year 2010 as indicated in DFD007. Accordingly, no further response is given responsive to the request for information regarding the years 1997-2010. Interrogatory No. 2 Provide the reason that the responses to the Open Public Records Act requests to the Division of Family Development and the Motor Vehicle Commission resulted in the following divergent numbers for those suspended: 3
According to DFD (OPRA w95220) According to MVC (OPRA R4S-091) Difference 2014 20,498 45,634 25,136 2013 22,024 42,081 20,057 2012 20,483 39,780 19,297 2011 21,037 34,668 13,631 2010 18,668 31,328 12,660 ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections set forth above, Defendant answers this interrogatory as follows: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it calls for an interpretation of numbers outside of the knowledge of the Division of Family Development Office of Child Support Services ("OCSS"). The request is also unduly burdensome. Accordingly, no response is given. Interrogatory No. 3 Provide a breakdown by race as to all persons who have had a license suspension imposed "by operation of law" for defaulting on a child support obligation. For example, how many people suspended are African-American, how many Hispanic, how many are Caucasian, how many are Asian, etc. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pursuant to R. 4:10-2. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is unduly burdensome, overly broad, and vague because the request does not require a breakdown specific to a certain time period. Accordingly, no response is given. 4
Interrogatory No. 4 Provide a breakdown by race as to all persons who have had a license suspension imposed following a hearing for defaulting on a child support obligation. For example, how many are Caucasian, how many are Asian, how many people suspended are African-American, how many Hispanic, etc. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pursuant to R. 4:10-2. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is unduly burdensome, overly broad, and vague because it request does not require a breakdown specific to a certain time period. Defendant also objects to the use of the term "hearing" as undefined, out of context and therefore ambiguous. Accordingly, no response is given. Interrogatory No. 5 Please set forth how many licenses were suspended following a hearing during the past five years, and how many were suspended "by operation of law" upon the issuance of a warrant. ANSWER: Defendant objects to the usage of the terms "hearing" and "license" as undefined, out of context and therefore ambiguous. Defendant further notes that information responsive to this interrogatory was supplied in response to Plaintiffs' OPRA requests. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant hereby identifies the following documents and records from which the answer to this interrogatory may, in substantial part, be ascertained: DFD007 5
Interrogatory No. 6 Provide a list, including names and docket numbers, of the persons who had an erroneous driver's license suspension imposed in 2014. ANSWER: Defendant objects to the use of the terms "erroneous" as undefined, out of context and therefore, ambiguous. Defendant further objects to producing the names and docket numbers of family court matters to the extent that this information is confidential. Accordingly, no response is given. Interrogatory No. 7 Provide a copy of any non-privileged communications from 2005-2009 regarding the constitutionality of the current process for suspension by operation of law. Include memorandum, emails from then-sitting Family Part judges, and any other related documents. If you contend any such documents exist but are privileged, provide a privilege log and preserve such records. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the deliberative process privilege. Defendant further objects to the portion of this interrogatory demanding documents from Family Part Judges as Family Part Judges are not employees of Defendant. Accordingly, no response is given. Interrogatory No. 8 Provide a copy of any directives, instructions, manuals, memorandum or like document(s) as to the process or procedures for the issuance of document(s) as to the process or procedures for the issuance of warrants as the result of a default on a child support obligation. (Exclude Directives 02-14, 15-08, 02-04 and 10-95, and the Child Support Hearing Officers' Manual). ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is not directed at information within the defendant s possession or control. The Office of Child Support Services does not enforce child support obligations, rather the Probation Division which is part of the judicial branch of the government enforces such obligations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant hereby identifies the following 6
documents and records from which the answer to this interrogatory may, in substantial part, be ascertained: DFD008-DFD177 Interrogatory No. 9 Explain exactly what provisions of Rules 1:10-3 and 5:4-1(c) authorize the issuance of an arrest warrant for a defaulted child support obligor without additional notice. ANSWER: Defendant objects to the usage of the terms "additional notice" as vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for legal interpretation. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is not directed at this defendant but rather to the judicial branch of the government. Accordingly, no response is given. Interrogatory No. 10 Explain exactly what provisions of Rules 1:10-3 and 5:4-1(c) authorize the issuance of an arrest warrant for a defaulted child support obligor rather than the issuance of a summons. ANSWER: See Response to Interrogatory No. 9. Interrogatory No. 11 Set forth the basis for your belief that changing the current process by which licenses are automatically suspended will decrease child support collections. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request on the basis that it calls for speculation. Defendant further objects to the use of the term "automatically" as driver s licenses may be suspended by operation of law. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Division of Family Development is unsure what would occur if the law is changed whereby driver s licenses would no longer be suspended by operation of law when a warrant is issued. a) Describe any non-privileged communication the Division of Family Development has had with the United States Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement regarding this issue generally, and/or the issue of re-evaluating the effectiveness of the use of coercive measures to pursue child 7
support collections. regarding this issue. Attach any written communication ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the deliberative process privilege. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Accordingly, no response is given. Interrogatory No. 12 Provide copies of any and all documents (including statements, expert reports, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes, film or any other form of reproduction in a tangible medium) you intend to introduce at the time of trial, whether as part of your case or on rebuttal). ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information about Defendant's trial strategy, and is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the basis that no "trial" is currently scheduled or anticipated in this matter. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: AKDFD 001-AKDFD 142 AOC Documents: Andreana Kavadas LDDFD 001-LDDFD 089 AOC Documents: LaQuay Dansby PADFD 001 PADFD 101 AOC Documents: Paulo Arede AOC001-AOC 006 AOC Documents AK-DP001 AKDP098 AOC Documents re: Andreana Kavadas Cape May County Case with Daniel Pietrangelo AK-PP001 AKPP062 AOC Documents re: Andreana Kavadas Cape May County Case with William Gerry AK-CUM001 AKCUM112 AOC Documents re: Andreana Kavadas Somerset County Case with David Pietrangelo AW001 AW078 - AOC Documents re: Alisha Wagner AW079 AW109 AOC Response to DPD Email Request of 8/7/15 PA001-PA170 AOC Documents re: Paulo Arede LD001-LD165 AOC Documents re: LaQuay Dansby DFD 001- DFD 006 Case Records from DFD on all plaintiffs DFD 007 Table data on drivers' license suspensions for Y2010-2015. 8
DFD 008-DFD 020 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 - Handout 1: Enforcement of Litigants Rights: cash and Medical Support DFD 021-DFD 034 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 2A: Updating and Maintaining the Member Address History (AHIS) Screen DFD 035-DFD 042 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 2B: EHIS and OTHP DFD 043-DFD 063 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 3: Bench Warrants DFD 064-DFD 066 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 4: Case Processing after Court Hearing DFD 067-DFD 077 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 5: Compliance Schedule (COMP) Screen DFD 078-DFD 083 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 6: Member Licenses (MLIC) Screen DFD 084-DFD 103 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 7: License Suspension and Non Renewal DFD 104-DFD 116 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 8: Employer Enforcement DFD 117-DFD 124 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 9: Project Save Our Children (PSOC) DFD 125-DFD 129 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 10: Bankruptcy DFD 130-DFD 135 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 11: Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) DFD 136-DFD 139 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 12: Arrears Payback Amount Increased DFD 140-DFD 149 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 13: National Medical Support Notice (NMSN) DFD 150 - NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 14: Suspension of Enforcement DFD 151-DFD 154 NJ Child Support Institute 11/17/2014 Handout 15: Exclusions vs. Exemptions DFD 155-DFD 178 - NJ Child Support Institute 5/8/15 - Judicial Enforcement Remedies and Other Enforcement Actions Powerpoint Presentation DFD 178-DFD 179 Informational Transmittal No. 09-35 from Alisha A. Griffin, 4/15/09 9
DFD 180-DFD 187 Memo Re: License Suspension Process from David C. Heins to County Welfare Agency Directors, 5/1/01 DFD 188-DFD 189 Notice of Proposed License Suspension for child Support Purposes DFD 190-DFD 197 Driver's License Suspension Forms DFD 198 - Sample License Status Statistical Report DFD 199-DFD 204 - Sample ACSES Query Forms DFD 205 DFD Explanation of ACSES and NJKIDS reports regarding License Suspensions DFD 206 Table showing collections of child support in FFY 2007 DFD 207 Table showing collections of child support in FFY 2006 DFD 208 Table: Support collected from warrants without suspension, Year 2010-2014 DFD 209 Table showing collections of child support in FFY 2014 DFD 210-DFD 212 Bench Warrant Alternatives Workgroup Status Report 6/5/15 DFD 213-DFD 214 Memo from Patricia Risch to Natasha Johnson Re: Child Support Topics for Budget Hearing, 5/4/15 Interrogatory No. 13 Provide copies (or links, as appropriate) to any studies, statistics or other similar information that you intend to rely on at the time of trial. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information about Defendant's trial strategy, and is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the basis that no "trial" is currently scheduled or anticipated in this matter. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: Motor Vehicles Affordability and Fairness Task Force Final Report, February 2006 New Jersey Judiciary Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Suspension of Licenses Due to Child Support Arrears State Fiscal Years 2006 and 2014 10
New Jersey Courts: Your Guide to the New Jersey Judiciary Child Support Enforcement Program Understanding Child Support Debt: A Guide to Exploring Child Support Debt in Your State, May 2004 Child Support Enforcement and Driver's License Suspension Policies Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, April 11, 2011, by Carmen Solomon-Fears Defendant reserves the right to rely upon all documents Plaintiffs produce in discovery or rely upon in this matter. Interrogatory No. 14 Do you assert that the suspension of driver's licenses has an additional coercive effect on obligors over and above the issuance of an arrest warrant? If so, set forth the basis for this belief. ANSWER: Defendant objects to the use of the term "coercive effect". Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, DFD operates upon the Legislature's apparent belief that the possible suspension or loss of driving privileges provides an incentive to some child support obligors to pay their child support obligations in a timely manner. Interrogatory No. 15 Provide the data used to compile the New Jersey Judiciary Report to the Legislature on the Suspension of Licenses Due to Child Support Arrears for FY 2006, 2007/2008 and 2014. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that Defendant is without knowledge of the manner in which AOC compiles its reports. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: DFD 180- DFD 187 A) The 2006 Report states "In the past state fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, 19,843 drivers' licenses were suspended and 22,626 were restored resulting in collections of $35,492,677 directly attributable to these actions." 1. What is the basis of this information? Please provide all source data relied on in making these assertions. 11
2. How did the report conclude that $35,492,677 was directly attributable to the suspension of licenses? 3. How much support was collected in 2006 via the use of alternate means such as wage garnishments, unemployment garnishments, tax offset, direct pay, etc. ANSWERTO A1: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the basis that Defendant is without knowledge of the manner in which AOC compiles its reports. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: DFD 180- DFD 187 ANSWERTO A2: See response to Interrogatory No. 15.A.1. Defendant is not in possession of any responsive documents and accordingly, no response is given. ANSWER TO A3: See response to Interrogatory No. 15.A.1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: DFD 207 B) The 2007/2008 Report states that in the state fiscal year 2008, 22,589 licenses were suspended resulting in collections of $39,603,539 being collected. ANSWER: See Response to Interrogatory No. 15. 1. What is the basis of this information? Please provide all source data relied on in making these assertions. 2. How did the report conclude that $39,603,539 was directly attributable to the suspension of licenses? 3. How much support was collected via the use of warrants alone without suspensions? 4. How much support was collected in 2007 via the use of alternate means such as wage garnishments, unemployment garnishments, tax offset, direct pay, etc. ANSWER TO 15.B.1: See answer to Interrogatory No. 15. Defendant is not in possession of any responsive documents and accordingly, no response is given. 12
ANSWER TO 15.B.2: See answer to Interrogatory No. 15.A.1. ANSWER TO 15.B.3: See answer to Interrogatory No. 15. Defendant is not in possession of any responsive documents and accordingly, no response is given. ANSWER TO 15.B.4: See answer to Interrogatory 15.A.1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: DFD 206 B) The 2007/2008 Report states that in the state fiscal year 2007, 20,880 licenses were suspended resulting in collections of $46,796,355 being collected. 1. What is the basis of this information? Please provide all source data relied on in making these assertions. 2. How did the report conclude that $36,796,355 was directly attributable to the suspension of licenses? 3. How much support was collected via the use of warrants alone without suspensions? 4. How much support was collected in 2007 via the use of alternate means such as wage garnishments, unemployment garnishments, tax offset, direct pay, etc. ANSWER TO 15.B.1 15.B.4: Defendants have provided an answer to Interrogatories No. 15.B.1-15.B.4 above and accordingly no response is given. C) The 2014 report states "In state fiscal year 2014 (ending June 30, 2014), a total of 20,498 drivers' licenses were suspended, resulting in collections of $4,333,543." 1. What is the basis of this information? Please provide all source data relied on in making these assertions. 2. How did the report conclude that $4,333,543 was directly attributable to the suspension of licenses? 3. How much support was collected via the use of warrants alone without suspension? 4. How much support was collected in 2014 via the use of alternate means such as wage garnishments, unemployment garnishments, tax offset, direct pay, etc. 13
ANSWER TO 15.C.1: See answer to Interrogatory No. 15.A.1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: DFD 205 ANSWER TO 15.C.2: See answer to Interrogatory No. 15.C.1. ANSWER TO 15.C.3: See answer to Interrogatory No. 15.A.1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: DFD 208 ANSWER TO 15.C.4: See answer to Interrogatory No. 15.A.1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: DFD 209 Interrogatory No. 16 Has the Division of Family Development conducted any studies as to the relative effectiveness of warrants and license suspensions as compared to job training, employment counselling, educational assistance and like measures? A) Does the Division of Family Development communicate with the United States Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, office of Child Support Enforcement as to reviewing license suspension policies? ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as unclear, vague and therefore ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant identifies the following documents to be produced: DFD 210-DFD 214 14
B) Attach a copy of any non-privileged communications (emails, memos, etc) between the Division of Family Development and the United States Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement as to reviewing license suspension policies to coerce payment of support. ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. 16.A. 15