Thursday, March 29, 2007
Public Education Pending Law Suits
TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE
Submitted in good faith and for public policy
Trust in your government?
Steinhauser v. Kelly04-2632_113
harrilal v Magner 05-00461_66
Gallagher v Magner 05-01348_77
www.adobe.com to download
LEGAL NOTICE: Document's are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, press releases, and knowledge gained as financial journalists, Private Attorney Generals, Candidates for Public Offices, and may contain errors. Investment decisions should not be based solely on these documentexpressly forbids its writers from having financial interests in securities they recommend to readers, affiliated entities, employees, and agents an initial trade recommendation published on the Internet, after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation.Disclaimer by blogger's all records filed and served on City of St. Paul, any errors,omissions
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. MOTION TO
City of St. Paul, et al., COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs in the above-referenced cases (except Plaintiffs Bee and Lamena Vue in the Harrilal, et al. case) respectfully move the Court for an order compelling Defendants to produce documents and
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 39 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
2
answer interrogatories, and requiring Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees. Counsel for the parties have met and conferred in good faith in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute, but it appears that the assistance of the Court is required to compel Defendants to comply with the Rules by providing answers and responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. This motion is based on the arguments of counsel, their memorandum of law, and upon all the files, records and proceedings herein.
THE ENGEL FIRM, PLLC
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /s/ Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorney for Plaintiffs Gallagher, et. al.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /s/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South, Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harrilal, et. al.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 39 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. NOTICE OF MOTION
City of St. Paul, et al., TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on Friday, the 27th day of April, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, in courtroom 8E, United States Courthouse, 300 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55104, a motion to compel discovery will be made on
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 40 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
2
behalf of the Plaintiffs before Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, Magistrate Judge of Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota.
THE ENGEL FIRM, PLLC
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /s/ Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorney for Plaintiffs Gallagher, et. al.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /s/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South, Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harrilal, et. al.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 40 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. AFFIDAVIT OF
MATTHEW A. ENGEL
City of St. Paul, et al., IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Matthew A. Engel, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
1
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 42 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 4
1.
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota and admitted to practice in District Court. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., v. Magner, et. al. This affidavit is submitted on behalf of all of the Plaintiffs in the above captioned matters in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery.
2.
Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Gallagher, et. al., v. Magner, et. al, case served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents via personal service, hand delivery, to Ms. Seeba at her offices on January 30, 2007. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendants and Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents.
3.
Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b).
4.
On March 12, 2007, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(2)(A), attorney John R. Shoemaker, counsel for the Steinhauser, et al. and Harrilal, et al. Plaintiffs, and I met and conferred in good faith with Louise Toscano Seeba, attorney for Defendants in the above entitled matters, in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute regarding Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents and interrogatories within the time permitted by the Rules.
2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 42 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 4
5.
During our meeting on March 12, 2007, Ms. Seeba made clear that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and answers to interrogatories would not be served on Plaintiffs before the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007.
6.
Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Ms. Seeba that due to the deadline of March 15, 2007, for filing and serving motions to compel discovery, Plaintiffs found it necessary to prepare a motion to compel for filing by the deadline.
7.
Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to allow Defendants’ counsel to serve answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents by March 30, 2007, with Plaintiffs seeking to obtain a hearing date on the motion to compel for a date after the middle of April, 2007. Ms. Seeba indicated that certain documentation subject to the Plaintiffs’ requests for documents would be available for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel starting March 17, 2007, and additional documentation would be made available for review on a continuing basis over the remainder of March 2007 and into early April 2007. Plaintiffs agreed to perform interim document review sessions as Defendants’ counsel obtained documents from the various departments within the City of St. Paul.
8.
Thereafter, I submitted a letter to Defendants’ counsel confirming the agreements of counsel for the continued discovery efforts. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of the March 13, 2007, correspondence I sent to Ms. Seeba.
3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 42 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 4
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 3/15/07 s/ Matthew A. Engel__
Matthew A. Engel
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 15th day of March, 2007.
s/ Erik L. Vakula
Notary Public
Under Seal
4
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 42 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 4
7:24 AM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. AFFIDAVIT OF
JOHN R. SHOEMAKER
City of St. Paul, et al., IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
John R. Shoemaker, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 5
1.
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota since 1984 and admitted to practice in this Court. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in Frank J. Steinhauser, et al., v. Magner, et al. and for Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson in Sandra Harrilal, et al. v. Magner, et al. I am submitting this affidavit in support of Plaintiffs’ joint Motion to Compel Discovery in all three of the consolidated-for-discovery cases herein.
2.
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents in Steinhauser, et. al., and Harrilal, et al., cases were served by hand delivery on Defendants’ attorney, Louise Seeba, at her offices on January 31, 2007. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the Certificate of Service (See Paragraph No. 10 below for a description of the specific discovery requests that were served by Plaintiffs on Defendants).
3.
Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b). Defendants’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories were due for service on Plaintiffs on March 2, 2007, but Defendants failed to timely respond. Defendants’ counsel did not seek an extension of time to respond and did not in any other way contact me concerning the discovery responses that were due from Defendants by March 2, 2007.
4.
On March 9, 2007, I forward a letter to Ms. Seeba regarding Defendants’ failure to serve discovery responses and I scheduled a “meet and confer” for
2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 5
March 12, 2007. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of my March 9, 2007, letter.
5.
On March 12, 2007, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(2)(A), and Local Rule 37.1, attorney Matthew Engel, counsel for the Gallagher, et al. Plaintiffs, and I met and conferred in good faith with Ms. Seeba in the above entitled matters, in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute regarding Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents and interrogatories within the time permitted by the Rules.
6.
During our meeting on March 12, 2007, Ms. Seeba made clear that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and answers to interrogatories would not be served on Plaintiffs before the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007.
7.
Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Ms. Seeba that due to the deadline of March 15, 2007, for filing and serving motions to compel discovery, Plaintiffs found it necessary to prepare a motion to compel for filing by the deadline.
8.
Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to allow Defendants’ counsel to serve answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents by March 30, 2007, with Plaintiffs seeking to obtain a hearing date on the motion to compel for a date after the middle of April, 2007. Ms. Seeba indicated that certain documentation subject to the Plaintiffs’ requests for documents would be available for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel starting March 17, 2007, and additional documentation would be made available for review on a continuing
3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 5
basis over the remainder of March 2007 and into early April 2007. Plaintiffs agreed to perform interim document review sessions as Defendants’ counsel obtained documents from the various departments within the City of St. Paul.
9.
On March 14, 2007, I forwarded a letter to Defendants’ counsel via facsimile transmission confirming the agreements of counsel reached during the March 12, 2007 meeting. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of the March 14, 2007, correspondence from John R. Shoemaker, Esq. to Louise Toscano Seeba, Esq.
10.
Each of the following discovery requests was served by Plaintiffs on Ms. Seeba and Defendants via hand delivery through Metro Legal Services on January 31, 2007:
a.
Attached as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Harrilal and Johnson’s Interrogatories to Defendants;
b.
Attached as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Harrilal and Johnson’s Request for Production of Documents;
c.
Attached as Exhibit “F” is a true and correct copy of the Steinhauser Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendants (Set II).
d.
Attached as Exhibit “G” is a true and correct copy of the Steinhauser Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents to Defendants (Set II).
4
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 5
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 3/15/07 s/ John R. Shoemaker__
John R. Shoemaker
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 15th day of March, 2007.
s/ Paul F. Shoemaker
Notary Public
Under Seal
5
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 5
7:27 AM ntiffs,