Documentation to "My Case"

 

 

 

-

UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
TIBOR GASPARIK, …………………………………….................…….....……CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,
………………………………………………………......................….....…………..DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
-against-………………………………………………........................……………TO SECOND DEMAND FOR
……………………………………………………………...........................………..DOCUMENTS
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Defendant STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY, (“Stony Brook”) by its attorney, ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby respond to the Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents as follows:

The responses set forth herein are made without waiving the following:
a) The right to object on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality, or any other proper ground, to the use of any material produced herein, in whole or in part, for any purpose, in any subsequent proceeding in this action or in any other action;
b) The right to object on any or all grounds, at any time, to other requests or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the requests responded to herein;
c) The right at any time to revise, correct, modify, supplement or clarify any of the responses provided herein; and
d) Any defenses to be asserted by defendant Stony Brook in any Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under FRCP 12 or in any Verified Answer.
All of defendant’s responses are made subject to the foregoing objections, comments and qualifications.

Response to Demand 1
Defendant objects to this document demand as irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome, and the probative value of any of the information which may be provided by the Defendant in response to these interrogatories would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, would constitute undue delay, waste of time, present a needless presentation of cumulative evidence, would constitute inadmissible hearsay, and would constitute an impermissible invasion of privacy.

Response to Demand 2
Documents relating to the investigation carried out by Lynn Johnson in response to the Plaintiff’s letter to the President of Stony Brook University dated September 22, 2003 have already been produced.

Response to Demand 3
Defendant objects to this document demand as irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome, and the probative value of any of the information which may be provided by the Defendant in response to these interrogatories would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, would constitute undue delay, waste of time, present a needless presentation of cumulative evidence, would constitute inadmissible hearsay, and would constitute an impermissible invasion of privacy.

Response to Demand 4
A copy of the entire file for Plaintiff maintained by the Office of Human Resources has already been produced.

Response to Demand 5
Defendant is not required to provide information as to any expert witness the Plaintiff intends to call at trial.

Dated: Hauppauge, New York
March 9, 2006

Yours, etc.
ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorney for Defendant SUNY Stony Brook

by: __________________________
Lori L. Pack (8303)
Assistant Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway, Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788

To: Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd.
Holtsville, N.Y. 11742

-

UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
TIBOR GASPARIK,……………………………...............................……………CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,
…………………………………………....................................…………………….DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
- against-
………………………………………………....................................……………….TO DEMAND FOR DOCUMENTS
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Defendant STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY, (“Stony Brook”) by its attorney, ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby respond to the Request for Production of Documents posed by plaintiff as follows:

The responses set forth herein are made without waiving the following:
a) The right to object on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality, or any other proper ground, to the use of any material produced herein, in whole or in part, for any purpose, in any subsequent proceeding in this action or in any other action;
b) The right to object on any or all grounds, at any time, to other requests or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the requests responded to herein;
c) The right at any time to revise, correct, modify, supplement or clarify any of the responses provided herein; and
d) Any defenses to be asserted by defendant Stony Brook in any Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under FRCP 12 or in any Verified Answer.
All of defendant’s responses are made subject to the foregoing objections, comments and qualifications.

Response to Demand 1
See response to Plaintiff’s Demand for Interrogatories dated February 6, 2006.

Response to Demand 2
See response to Plaintiff’s Demand for Interrogatories dated February 6, 2006.

Response to Demand 3
Defendant objects to this document demand as irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome, and the probative value of any of the information which may be provided by the Defendant in response to these interrogatories would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, would constitute undue delay, waste of time, present a needless presentation of cumulative evidence, would constitute inadmissible hearsay, and would constitute an impermissible invasion of privacy.

Response to Demand 4
Annexed hereto as Exhibit “A” are documents relating to the investigation carried out by Lynn Johnson in response to the Plaintiff’s letter to the President of Stony Brook University dated September 22, 2003.

Response to Demand 5
There exist no documents which would be responsive to this demand.

Response to Demand 6
A copy of the entire file for Plaintiff maintained by the Office of Human Resources is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.

Response to Demand 7
Defendant will not provide authorizations for the Plaintiff to obtain access to any personnel files of any employee of the Defendant other than the Plaintiff’s own files, as such would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, would constitute undue delay, waste of time, present a needless presentation of cumulative evidence, would constitute inadmissible hearsay, and would constitute an impermissible invasion of privacy.

Response to Demand 8
Defendant is not required to provide expert witness reports on person(s) which the Plaintiff designates as calling as Plaintiff’s own expert witness.

Dated: Hauppauge, New York
February 6, 2006

Yours, etc.
ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorney for Defendant SUNY Stony Brook

by: __________________________
Lori L. Pack (8303)
Assistant Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway, Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788

To: Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd.
Holtsville, N.Y. 11742

-

UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
TIBOR GASPARIK,...........................................................................CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,
………………………………………………………….................................………..DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
-against-
…………………………………………………………................................………...TO INTERROGATORIES
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Defendant STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY, (“Stony Brook”) by its attorney, ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby respond to the Interrogatories posed by plaintiff as follows:

The responses set forth herein are made without waiving the following:
a) The right to object on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality, or any other proper ground, to the use of any material produced herein, in whole or in part, for any purpose, in any subsequent proceeding in this action or in any other action;
b) The right to object on any or all grounds, at any time, to other requests or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the requests responded to herein;
c) The right at any time to revise, correct, modify, supplement or clarify any of the responses provided herein; and
d) Any defenses to be asserted by defendant Stony Brook in any Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under FRCP 12 or in any Verified Answer.
All of defendant’s responses are made subject to the foregoing objections, comments and qualifications.

General Response

With respect to the request of the Plaintiff that the interrogatories by served upon the fourteen faculty members listed in the demand, the Defendant states the following:
Said interrogatories will not be served upon any employee of the Defendant as such “service” is not required of the Defendant under any applicable statute, case law or the F.R.C.P.

Response to Interrogatories 2 through 25

Defendant objects to each and every one of these interrogatories as irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome, and the probative value of any of the information which may be provided by the Defendant in response to these interrogatories would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, would constitute undue delay, waste of time, present a needless presentation of cumulative evidence, would constitute inadmissible hearsay, and would constitute an impermissible invasion of privacy.

Dated: Hauppauge, New York
February 6, 2006

Yours, etc.
ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New York
Attorney for Defendant SUNY Stony Brook

by: __________________________
Lori L. Pack (8303)
Assistant Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway, Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788

To: Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd.
Holtsville, N.Y. 11742

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
...............................................................................CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,

-against-
............................................................................PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- X

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26.3 of the Civil Rules for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, demands that defendant produces the requested documents within thirty days after service of this document request.


Instructions for Responses

Defendant is to produce the documents requested, or a true, complete and legible copy thereof, at the address of the undersigned, if the documents are in the possession, custody or control of defendant or defendant’s attorneys. Defendant is to provide the undersigned with an appropriate release if the documents requested are not in such possession, custody or control.

In addition to the definitions set forth in Rule 26.3 of the Civil Rules of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the following definitions shall apply:

The term “document” is used in its customarily broad sense and includes all written, typed, printed, recorded statements, photographs, communications or other matter, however produced or reproduced.


SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. Since the defendant admitted in the response to the first plaintiff’s demand for documents that there are documents in existence that resulted directly or indirectly from the “probe users’ meeting” called by professor Donald H. Lindsley on October 19, 1999, but objected producing the said documents, the plaintiff demands again that the defendant produces any and all such documents.

2. Produce any and all documents resulting from the investigation carried out by the Director of Human Resources, Lynn M. Johnson, in response to plaintiff’s letter to the President of the Stony Brook University, Dr. Shirley Strum Kenny, from September 22, 2003. In the response to the first plaintiff’s demand for documents, the defendant produced only the documents relating to the said investigation.

3. In the response to the first plaintiff’s demand for documents, the defendant refused to provide written authorization, which would permit the plaintiff to gain access for perusal and copying to the employee files of all persons on the research staffs of CHiPR or MPI at present or in the past. This request was made to document the defendant’s premeditated hostile acts carried out in the years 1988-1992 and intended to formally destroy plaintiff’s claim to seniority, thus making possible his dismissal in the gross violation of his true seniority status. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the defendant produces any and all documents showing the transfer of all persons employed by the defendant on the research staff of CHiPR or MPI from the research lines to state lines in the said time period, including: Michael T. Vaughan, Kurt Leinenweber, Yanbin Wang, and Jianzhong Zhang.

4. Complete and provide written authorization, which would permit plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, to receive copies of all records from his file in the Office of the University Counsel at the Stony Brook University, or to gain access to these records for perusal and copying.

5. Because plaintiff intends to call as an expert witness at trial professor Donald H. Lindsley, provide for this expert witness, in addition to the answers to interrogatories and requested other documents, a written report prepared and signed by the witness, which contains the following information pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(a) A complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefore;
(b) The data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions;
(c) Any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions;
(d) The qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years;
(e) The compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; and
(f) A listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding seven (7) years.

In the plaintiff’s direct request for the same, professor Lindsley responded that, on the advice of the University counsel, such requests “should come through the Office of the Attorney General.”


Dated: Holtsville, New York
March 7, 2006

_____________________________
Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff pro se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168


TO: Lori L. Pack
Office of the Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway
Suite 205
Hauppauge, NY 11788

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
..............................................................................CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,
.............................................................................PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
-against-
.............................................................................AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- X

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26.3 of the Civil Rules for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, demands that defendant, within thirty days after service of these interrogatories and document request, serves upon the undersigned separate and complete answers, sworn to under oath, to each interrogatory set forth, and produce the documents requested.

These interrogatories and request to produce documents shall be deemed to continue beyond the date when defendant serves the responses upon plaintiff. Defendant shall supplement the responses to these interrogatories and requests to produce documents if any further knowledge, information, or documents are acquired by defendant, defendant’s agents, representatives, or attorneys subsequent to the date of the original responses.

Instructions for Responses

The responses to these interrogatories shall set forth each question in full before each answer. Separate answers shall be provided in response to each interrogatory and, when an interrogatory has subdivisions, each subdivision. In accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant’s responses to these interrogatories must be signed by the person(s) making them.

Defendant is to produce the documents requested, or a true, complete and legible copy thereof, at the address of the undersigned, if the documents are in the possession, custody or control of defendant or defendant’s attorneys. Defendant is to provide the undersigned with an appropriate release if the documents requested are not in such possession, custody or control.

In addition to the definitions set forth in Rule 26.3 of the Civil Rules of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the following definitions shall apply:

The term “document” is used in its customarily broad sense and includes all written, typed, printed, recorded statements, photographs, communications or other matter, however produced or reproduced.

The term “incident” is used to refer to all of the facts and circumstances, which form the basis for this action, including all facts, events and occurrences that are alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, and all facts and circumstances related thereof, directly or indirectly.

The term “Department” is used to refer to the Department of Geosciences, or the Department of Earth and Space Sciences before it was renamed, located at the Stony Brook University.

The term “MPI” is used to refer to the Mineral Physics Institute located at the Stony Brook University.

The term “CHiPR” is used to refer to the Center for High Pressure Research, a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center, which was in existence between 1990 and 2002.

The term “EMPG” is used to refer to any Experimental Mineralogy, Petrology and Geochemistry meeting.

The defendant or defendant’s attorneys shall serve the following set of interrogatories on all faculty members at the Department of Geosciences listed below. They should be instructed to provide the answers independently of each other, and not to discuss the interrogatories or answers with any other person(s), or allow access to them. The interrogatories shall be served to the following persons:

Professor Daniel M. Davis
Professor Gilbert N. Hanson
Professor William E. Holt
Professor Robert C. Liebermann
Professor Donald H. Lindsley
Professor Scott M. McLennan
Professor Hanna Nekvasil
Professor John B. Parise
Professor Troy Rasbury
Professor Richard J. Reeder
Professor Martin A. A. Schoonen
Professor Donald J. Weidner
Professor Lianxing Wen
Professor Teng-fong Wong


INTERROGATORIES

1. State your full name and address.

2. When plaintiff was hired in a research position on April 1, 1985, professors Liebermann, Weidner and Prewitt promised him that he would be treated as equal to other faculty members at the Department and that his position could or would become permanent. Plaintiff also believed that this promise represented a firm commitment by the Department, in fact, a verbal contract. As a consequence, the plaintiff did his best in the following 17 years to contribute to the reputation of the Department and to the advancement of science. Do you believe that plaintiff could be justified, in view of his contributions and accomplishments, to expect that the Department would keep this promise? Yes or no. Explain.

3. On his Web site, http://suny-stonybrook.blogspot.com/, plaintiff describes a series of incidents that he alleges amounted to persecution. Do you believe that plaintiff could be justified in viewing these incidents as persecution? Yes or no. Explain.

4. Do you believe that in view of plaintiff’s contributions to the Department and to the advancement of science, in contrast to his current situation, plaintiff could be justified in viewing his treatment by the Department as unfair? Yes or no. Explain.

5. Do you agree that professor Robert C. Liebermann played the key role in the incidents that plaintiff alleges were persecution? Yes or no. Explain.

6. Name all scientists employed by CHiPR or MPI who you believe contributed more to the Department and the advancement of science than plaintiff. Explain.

7. Are you jealous/envious of plaintiff’s accomplishments? Yes or No. Explain.

8. Do you believe the Department alone could have avoided, by making better decisions, the rather unpleasant situation that has resulted in these interrogatories? Yes or no. Explain.

9. Did you make a decision or decisions concerning plaintiff that would be different if you had had access to the information posted on his Web site: http://suny-stonybrook.blogspot.com/? Yes or no. Explain if yes.

10. Do you believe that the plaintiff’s book: “Phase Diagrams for Geoscientists” is a major contribution to the reputation of the Department and to the advancement of science? Yes or no. Explain.

11. In view of plaintiff’s contributions to the Department and the advancement of science, presumed friendly relations, and the still standing commitment by the Department to plaintiff’s permanent employment, the plaintiff believes to be justified in expecting a certain level of good faith efforts from the faculty members. These, however, were conspicuously absent in several cases:

a) In the year 2000, the Department conducted a search to fill a faculty position, which turned out to be, as was presumably evident at that time to all faculty members, the last opportunity for the Department to fulfill its commitment to plaintiff. Yet, as the advertised deadline for submitting applications for the position approached, not a single faculty member made any effort to inquire why plaintiff did not submit an application. This is significant because in the response from September 10, 2001, to plaintiff’s appeal to the Department to fulfill its commitment, the Chair, professor Scott M. McLennan, responded that plaintiff did not apply for this position. This was the first time that plaintiff realized that the Department would not keep its commitment to his permanent employment that, as he firmly believed, was made at the time he was hired on April 1, 1985.

b) Since the time plaintiff was dismissed from his paid position on January 31, 2002, but still remained in his position of Research Associate Professor, desperately trying to generate some income to provide for his family, several employment opportunities arose at the Department that could have helped him in this difficult situation. The plaintiff did not apply because he simply did not know about these opportunities. Despite the fact that plaintiff had a mailbox at the Department and was readily accessible by e-mail, not a single faculty member made any effort to bring to plaintiff’s attention any of these opportunities.

c) In July 2005, plaintiff’s name was removed from the list of faculty members on the departmental Web site in retaliation for posting a blog detailing his alleged persecution. Plaintiff asked the faculty members to rally in his support to denounce this arbitrary and unconstitutional decision or post a supporting comment. Not a single faculty member responded.

The question in this interrogatory is as follows:
Is the behavior by the faculty members described above solely the result of indifference (a), or were the faculty members instructed or ordered not to be helpful or encourage plaintiff in any way to remain at the Department (b)? If (b), name all persons in all examples listed above, but not limited to, who issued these kinds of instructions or orders.

12. In the meeting on July 12, 2005, professor Teng-fong Wong notified plaintiff that the plaintiff’s name was removed from the list of the faculty members on the departmental Web site, because “higher-ups” were unhappy that he posted the blog at http://suny-stonybrook.blogspot.com/. Name the person(s) who ordered this arbitrary removal of plaintiff’s name from the departmental Web site.

13. Are the tenured faculty members at the Department organized in some unofficial society that demands adherence to a code of silence? Yes or no. Explain if yes.

14. At the retirement dinner to professors Robert T. Dodd and William J. Meyers at the restaurant Mirabelle in St. James, all faculty members wore identical pins on their jackets. What is the significance of the pin?

15. During the EMPG meeting in Orleans, France, in April 1998, professor Lindsley, in the presence of professors Liebermann and Weidner, made the following comment to plaintiff: “Certainly, you are not in the loop.” What does it mean to be “in the loop” in this case?

16. What was the true purpose of the “probe users’ meeting” called by professor Lindsley on October 19, 1999?

17. Would you suspect that an applicant for a faculty position, who is known to be a refugee from communism, is probably a conservative? Yes or no. Explain.

18. Has the Department ever invited to interview a candidate for a faculty position that was known to be a conservative? Yes or no. If yes, name all such candidates.

19. Do you believe that known or suspected conservative applicants for faculty positions at your Department are less likely to be invited for an interview or hired than liberal candidates, regardless of their qualifications? Yes or no. Explain.

20. Have you ever participated in a hiring process when the most qualified candidate was not selected because the candidate was known or suspected of being conservative or not as liberal as the candidate that was ultimately selected? Yes or no. If yes, provide all details, including the name of all such candidates and dates.

21. Name each and every present or past faculty member at the Department that you know is or was a conservative.

22. It has become evident in the last four years that liberal professors vastly outnumber conservative professors at the universities and colleges in the United States. If you agree that this is the case, what do you believe is the most likely explanation?

23. Do you know or believe that plaintiff was blacklisted? Yes or no. Explain.

24. Are you a registered Democrat?

25. Are you or have you ever been a member of a communist party?


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. Produce any and all documents identified in response to the interrogatories above, or used in responding to such interrogatories.

2. Produce all federal, state and city tax returns filed in the preceding seven (7) years from all persons required to respond to the interrogatories above.

3. Produce, in response to interrogatory 16, any and all documents resulting directly or indirectly from the “probe users’ meeting” called by professor Donald H. Lindsley, which took place on October 19, 1999.

4. Produce any and all documents resulting from the investigation carried out by the Director of Human Resources, Lynn M. Johnson, in response to plaintiff’s letter to the President of the Stony Brook University, Dr. Shirley Strum Kenny, from September 22, 2003.

5. In response to interrogatory 23, produce a copy of the campus blacklist.

6. Complete and provide written authorization, which would permit plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, to receive copies of all records relating to his employment from the Office of Human Resources at the Stony Brook University, or to gain access to these records for perusal and copying.

7. Complete and provide written authorization, which would permit plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, to gain access for perusal and copying to the employee files of all persons on the research staffs of CHiPR or MPI at present or in the past.

8. Because plaintiff intends to call as an expert witness at trial professor Donald H. Lindsley, provide for this expert witness, in addition to the answers to interrogatories and requested other documents, a written report prepared and signed by the witness, which contains the following information pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(a) A complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefore;
(b) The data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions;
(c) Any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions;
(d) The qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years;
(e) The compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; and
(f) A listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding seven (7) years.


Dated: Holtsville, New York
January 30, 2006


_____________________________
Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff pro se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168


TO: Lori L. Pack
Office of the Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway
Suite 205
Hauppauge, NY 11788

-

April 19, 2006

Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
Long Island Federal Courthouse
100 Federal Plaza Room
814 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722-4438

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV 05-3817 (SJF/ARL)


Your Honor, Magistrate Judge Lindsay:

I am the Plaintiff pro se in the above captioned case against the Defendant, Stony Brook University, and this letter is to remind you to issue an order in response to the Plaintiff’s appeal submitted on April 4, 2006 (docketed entry #28). The appeal contains supplementary information to the Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents relating to a “probe users” meeting, submitted to the Court on March 14, 2006 (docketed entry #24), and requested in your order from March 30, 2006 (docketed entry #27). Thus, the appeal was submitted to the Court within the 10-day period required by the law. Since you did not mention this appeal during the telephone conference held on April 18, 2006, it occurred to the Plaintiff that you might have overlooked it. Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully asks that you consider the supplementary information in the said appeal, reconsider the tentative denial of the original request, and issue an order compelling the Defendant to produce the requested documents.

Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Respectfully yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Plaintiff pro se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168


cc.: Lori L. Pack

-

April 11, 2006

Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Long Island Federal Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza Room
814 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722-4438

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV 05-3817 (SJF/ARL)

Your Honor, Magistrate Judge Lindsay:

I am the Plaintiff pro se in the above captioned case against the Defendant, Stony Brook University, and this letter is in response to the objection to your order from March 30, 2006, served on April 10, 2006, by Lori L. Pack, attorney for the Defendant (docketed entry 29). In this objection the Defendant claims not being able to produce requested documents because “the policy of the Defendant is to destroy these type of records (if they existed) after ten years.” However, the said policy (if authentic) would only apply to the documents of two out of the listed four research personnel, Kurt Leinenweber and Yanbin Wang, who were terminated more than 10 years ago, while from the other two, Michael T. Vaughan is still employed by the Defendant, and Jianzhong Zhang was terminated in 2003. The Plaintiff fully expects from the Defendant to produce the requested documents for Michael T. Vaughan and Jianzhong Zhang in compliance with the said order.

It is evident that the Defendant’s attorney provided again a misleading objection to avoid producing any relevant documents in the sustained effort to frustrate Plaintiff’s discovery and delay speedy resolution of the case. This act of deception alone should justify the imposition of the long-overdue mandatory sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is also evident and already amply documented that the Defendant is determined not to cooperate in the discovery, and would only respond to a credible threat of sanctions.

Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.


Respectfully yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Plaintiff pro se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168


cc.: Lori L. Pack

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
Plaintiff,
…………………………………………………………………CV-05-3817 (SJF)(ARL)
-against-
………………………………………………..…………...…AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- X

LORI L. PACK, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, and specifically the United Sates District Court of the Eastern District of New York, declares the following under penalty of perjury:

1. I am an Assistant Attorney General with the office of Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney General, and I represent the defendant STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY in this matter.

2. This affidavit is submitted on behalf of Defendant in opposition to the instant application by the Plaintiff for an order compelling the production of certain discovery from the Defendant. Simply stated, the information Plaintiff is seeking is completely irrelevant to any legal claim which the Plaintiff may have.

3. The allegations in this case relate not to political discrimination, but to discrimination based upon the Plaintiff's approach toward scientific research. In the deposition of Plaintiff taken on February 2 and February 28, 2006, the following testimony codifies the basis for Plaintiffs claim: [Copies of the relevant pages of the deposition transcripts are annexed hereto as Exhibit "A"].

Page 109
A. In the case of Professor Lieberman, he is somebody who's a dedicated liberal. He is committed to the cause.
Q. What cause? What cause?
A. He is a committed liberal.
Q. What does that mean?
A. That is the highest thing to have. He wanted to create a department that would have people, like-minded people around, and I wasn't like-minded.
Q. What is like-minded?
A. People who think the way that he does.
Q. How does he think?
A. Well, it's the whole way of the approach to life, the philosophy, the way you do research. For example, the way you teach, to promote liberal causes for example. You know, in liberal causes, the concern for environment.
Q. I'm asking you to define what you consider to be their liberal values that you did not conform to?
A. The community has the priority to individual. You are expected to sacrifice for the community. And this is the scientific community.
Q. That is one. What is another one?
A. You always, in this case, produce research that supports the consensus, what the community prefers -- identifies as their priorities, the liberal causes. You are supposed to produce results that will support those causes.
Q. That is two.
A. You have ideology that is more important than science. Once you accept that the political process, the ideology, is more important than the science or research, then research becomes fraud because you are just doing the research that supports what you are expected to support even if you are compromising your integrity in this case.
Q. That is your definition of liberalism?
A. That is the manifestation of liberalism in science right now.

4. Thus, despite what is alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff's claim is not predicated on any First Amendment issue, but rather that the Defendant disagreed with his philosophy toward research. This has never been recognized as a cognizable claim for discrimination.

5. In an effort to prove his claim, Plaintiff is seeking documents and information that are completely irrelevant to any true First Amendment claim and a production of which would violate the privacy of the research faculty at Stony Brook University. Plaintiff believes that there is a conspiracy of "liberal minded" individuals working in educational institutions throughout the country and apparently, the only way he believes he can prove this is by casting a very, very broad net in order to fabricate some type of "evidence" that would support his claim.

Page 122
Q. Is it your testimony that the public school system in Long Island is part of this conspiracy?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your testimony that the National Science Foundation is part of this conspiracy?
A. Absolutely. I don't believe they have a single conservative on their staff. They are all liberals. Not a single one, including the director of the National Science Foundation that was appointed by the President. He did not respond. I send him two letters. He didn't respond.

A. As I said, I'm blacklisted.
Q. By whom?
A. By the university, the department. The whole, you know, the education establishment. I am flagged as a conservative. That is it. There is no way. There is no way I can ever be accepted at any university and in public schools. Maybe in some private school, perhaps, but not in public schools. I don't believe that will happen. It's just not going to happen. You know, they might use me from time to time to teach as a substitute teacher for a while and they will never call me back.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, what was the basis of your claim here? Because after five hours, I still don't quite understand the basis of your claim.
A. Persecution. Violation of my civil rights. Making me work on the conditions of constant mental anguish. The fact that I made tremendous contributions to the department and to the advancement of science and they were just silent. I haven't heard any, any, anything positive. Anything
positive. All these years, no encouragement, nothing. That is my complaint. That my stay at Stony
Brook was a nightmare. That is my complaint. That is a violation of my civil rights. Nobody should be expected to be submitted to this kind of treatment, especially not at a university. My life was nightmare for the last 20 years. That is my complaint. That is not enough?
Q. It's actually not under the law.

6. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a recognized cause of action for discrimination based upon a "liberal" way of performing employment tasks as opposed to a "conservative" way of performing employment tasks. This does not even fall under any First Amendment protection, since a research facility has every right to employ research scientists who will promote the institution's particular research methods and goals. Plaintiff’s employment was terminated solely because the project he had been working on was no longer being funded by federal research grants.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibits "B" and "C" are copies of Plaintiffs discovery demands that he is seeking full compliance with. Attached hereto as Exhibits "D", "E" and "F" are Defendant's responses to these demands. It is clear from these demands that Plaintiff is seeking information that is not discoverable under any applicable statutes or rules.

Page 112
Q. Is that the basis for this lawsuit?
A. The basis for this lawsuit is what I believe is the real cause behind all this incidents, which is that they don't want to hire anybody that is not thinking the way they do, which in this case is conservative scientists.
Q. What is conservative scientists?
A. Let me just say --
Q. I need a definition of conservative scientist?
A. Let me just say that since I have been in research and in this community for an extended period of time, there was an enormous change in the science.
Q. I'm just trying to understand how it is that you feel you are discriminated against because your way of thinking is different from the department's way of thinking. That is why I'm asking you to define what you call conservative and liberal. Because I'm trying to understand why it is that you feel you are discriminated against because your thinking is different from theirs. What do you consider conservative thinking of the department that you do not fit into?
A. My conservative thinking.
Q. Your conservative thinking? I'm sorry.
A. In research, because that is -- it is a manifestation of these differences in philosophy and research, what I value is efficiency, productivity, good use of the finances. In the case of this liberal approach to research, what is valued is the community-based research. Interaction among people.
Q. You do not agree with that philosophy?
A. It is compromising your integrity because you are now forced to do research the way that the scientific community right now prefers to do research.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the motion by Plaintiff be denied in its entirety.

DATED: Hauppauge, New York
March 21, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York

By:
LORI L. PACK (LLP/8303)
Assistant Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway – Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788
(631) 231-2424

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
Plaintiff,
…………………………………………………………………CV-05-3817 (SJF)(ARL)
-against-
………………………………………………..…………...…AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- X

LORI L. PACK, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, and specifically the United Sates District Court of the Eastern District of New York, declares the following under penalty of perjury:

1. I am an Assistant Attorney General with the office of Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney General, and I represent the defendant STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY in this matter.

2. This affidavit is submitted on behalf of Defendant in opposition to the instant application by the Plaintiff for an order compelling the production of certain discovery from the Defendant. Simply stated, the information Plaintiff is seeking is completely irrelevant to any legal claim which the Plaintiff may have.

3. The allegations in this case relate not to political discrimination, but to discrimination based upon the Plaintiff's approach toward scientific research. In the deposition of Plaintiff taken on February 2 and February 28, 2006, the following testimony codifies the basis for Plaintiffs claim: [Copies of the relevant pages of the deposition transcripts are annexed hereto as Exhibit "A"].

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
.....................................................................................................CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,
.....................................................................................................NOTICE OF MOTION
-against-

STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- X

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed motion of Tibor Gasparik, dated March 14, 2006, plaintiff pro se will move this Court before the Honorable Arlene R. Lindsey, United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York 11722-4338, on the 23rd day of March, 2006, for an order pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the defendant to produce answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories and the requested documents.

Dated: Holtsville, New York
March 14, 2006

_____________________________
Tibor Gasparik, plaintiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168

TO: Lori L. Pack
Office of the Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway, Suite 205
Hauppauge, NY 11788
____________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
..............................................................................................CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,
..............................................................................................MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS
-against-.................................................................................TO INTERROGATORIES AND
..............................................................................................PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- X

I, Tibor Gasparik, the plaintiff pro se in the above captioned case, respectfully move this Court to issue an order compelling defendant’s answers to plaintiff’s written interrogatories, the production of documents requested by the plaintiff, and such further relief as may be proper. In support of this motion, plaintiff states as follows:

1. On October 12, 2005, this Court ordered the completion of discovery by April 24, 2006. The defendant, represented by attorney Lori L. Pack, exhibited complete lack of cooperation, and responded for the first time to repeated demands by the plaintiff to initiate discovery on January 19, 2006, and only after an intervention by this Court (docketed entries 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, and Exhibit “A”).

2. In plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents, served on January 30, 2006, plaintiff requested from the defendant’s attorney to distribute the interrogatories to 14 faculty members employed by the defendant. The attorney responded on February 6, 2006, that “Said interrogatories will not be served upon any employee of the defendant as such ‘service’ is not required of the defendant under any applicable statute, case law or the F.R.C.P.” The second request by the plaintiff to the defendant to do the same was ignored (Exhibit “B”). When plaintiff distributed the interrogatories directly to the said faculty members, the response was that the said employees had been advised by the University Counsel that the requests regarding interrogatories should come through the Office of the Attorney General. Requests by both sides for a conference to resolve the impasse were denied (docketed entries 21, 22, 23). If the defendant does not produce answers to the said interrogatories, the plaintiff will be forced to subpoena the 14 faculty members to serve as witnesses at the trial, thus greatly adding to its costs.

3. Since the defendant admitted in the response to the first plaintiff’s demand for documents that there are documents in existence, which resulted directly or indirectly from the “probe users’ meeting” called by professor Donald H. Lindsley on October 19, 1999, but objected producing the said documents, the plaintiff demands again that the defendant produces any and all such documents.

4. In the response to the first plaintiff’s demand for documents, the defendant refused to provide written authorization, which would permit the plaintiff to gain access for perusal and copying to the employee files of all persons on the specified research staff at present or in the past. This request was made to document the defendant’s premeditated hostile acts carried out in the years 1988-1992 and intended to formally destroy plaintiff’s claim to seniority, thus making possible his much later dismissal in the gross violation of his true seniority status. Therefore, the plaintiff requests again that the defendant produces any and all documents showing the transfer of all persons employed by the defendant on the specified research staff from the research lines to state lines in the said time period, including: Michael T. Vaughan, Kurt Leinenweber, Yanbin Wang, and Jianzhong Zhang.

5. Since plaintiff now realizes that the Office of the University Counsel was most likely responsible for the “stonewalling” that he had received from the University administrators and professors in response to his complaints, plaintiff requests again from the defendant to complete and provide written authorization, which would permit the plaintiff to receive copies of all records from his file in the Office of the University Counsel at the Stony Brook University, or to gain access to these records for perusal and copying. This request was made in the plaintiff’s second request for the production of documents from March 7, 2006, and was denied by the defendant on March 9, 2006.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests from this Court to enter an order granting the following relief:

A. Compelling answers to the interrogatories, or an award of fees and costs to be incurred in obtaining the same by requiring the 14 faculty members to appear as witnesses at the trial.
B. Compelling the defendant to produce documents specified in sections 3-5.
C. An award of fees and costs in bringing this matter to the Court’s attention.
D. Any further relief that this Court determines is just and necessary.

Dated: Holtsville, New York
March 14, 2006

_____________________________
Tibor Gasparik, plaintiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168


TO: Lori L. Pack
Office of the Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway, Suite 205
Hauppauge, NY 11788

 

 

 

 

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
.......................................................................................CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,

-against-.........................................................................SUPPLEMENTARY EXPLANATION
.......................................................................................TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL
.......................................................................................PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- X

I, Tibor Gasparik, the plaintiff pro se in the above captioned case, provide the following supplementary explanation to the motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents, submitted on March 14, 2006, to this Court. The need for this supplementary explanation was identified in the Order issued on March 30, 2006, by the United States Magistrate Judge, Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, in response to the plaintiff’s motion, and specific to the relevance of the documents resulting directly or indirectly from the “probe users’ meeting” called by professor Donald H. Lindsley on October 19, 1999 (docketed entry 27). In support of this motion, plaintiff states as follows:

1. On February 10, 1999, professor Liebermann sent to plaintiff a cryptic e-mail asking him to call a meeting of microprobe users that would exclude the microprobe specialist, Dr. Robert P. Rapp. At that time, the plaintiff was temporarily his supervisor, because the previous supervisor, professor Lindsley, was on a sabbatical leave in Brussels. The plaintiff took on this extra duty in the summer of 1998 with the understanding that this was just a formality, with nothing more than signing purchase orders. He believes that the Lieberman’s e-mail was meant to prepare grounds for a similar meeting called by professor Lindsley on October 19, 1999.

2. On August 31, 1999, professor Lindsley, after his return from the sabbatical leave in Belgium, made the first attempt to call a meeting of microprobe users. Plaintiff did not attend the meeting, which apparently took place on September 3, 1999, because he was not comfortable with the stipulation that excluded the microprobe specialist, Dr. Rapp, from the meeting.

3. Plaintiff suspects that his absence at the meeting on September 3, 1999, was the cause that the meeting did not to fulfill its intended purpose, and professor Lindsley called the same meeting again for October 19, 1999. This time, he also sent a separate e-mail invitation to the plaintiff. To assure plaintiff’s participation at the meeting, Liebermann visited the plaintiff in the high-pressure lab and used his utmost charm and power of persuasion to convince him to attend, although the plaintiff hesitated to do so again because of the exclusion of Dr. Rapp. The unusual extraordinary efforts by Liebermann and Lindsley to assure plaintiff’s participation at the said meeting made him suspicious that he was being lured into a trap.

4. At the meeting on October 19, 1999, plaintiff was provoked by Lindsley into an ugly confrontation by being accused of mismanaging the probe. The plaintiff suspects that Dr. Rapp was excluded from the meeting so he would not be able to come to the plaintiff’s defense, and that the true purpose of the meeting was to initiate some kind of a due process against the plaintiff.

5. The admission by the defendant that there are documents in existence resulting directly or indirectly from the said meeting suggests the possibility that these documents contain false accusations or fabricated evidence, and that the faculty members, and potentially other members of the research staff, may have been manipulated, duped or blackmailed by Liebermann and Lindsley to support and sign these documents in order to initiate the suspected due process, which may have eventually resulted in plaintiff’s dismissal, blacklisting and, as is evident now, has destroyed his scientific career.

6. Therefore, the requested documents may represent the key evidence in support of the plaintiff’s allegation of persecution.

7. The plaintiff also believes that a fair trial would not be possible if the evidence potentially present in the requested documents is not considered by the Court.

8. Additional information and documentation in support of this motion are available on the plaintiff’s Web site: http://suny-stonybrook.blogspot.com/, and are posted under Links in the entry “Account of my persecution.”

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests from this Court to enter an order granting the following relief:

A. Compelling the defendant to produce the requested documents.
B. Any further relief that this Court determines is just and necessary.

Dated: Holtsville, New York
April 4, 2006

_____________________________
Tibor Gasparik, plaintiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168


TO: Lori L. Pack
Office of the Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway, Suite 205
Hauppauge, NY 11788

 

 

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X LLP/8303
TIBOR GASPARIK,
Plaintiff,
……………………………………………………….………………CV-05-3817 (SJF)
-against-
……………………………………………………………………... NOTICE OF MOTION
STONYBROOK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed declaration of Lori L. Pack, Assistant
Attorney General, dated September 9, 2005, Defendant State University of Stony Brook shall
move this Court before the Honorable Sandra J. Feuerstein, United States District Court Judge,
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New
York, 11722-4338 on submission, for an order pursuant to Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure setting aside a default judgment entered against the Defendant by the Clerk of
this Court on September 8, 2005 and for such further relief as may be proper.

Dated: Hauppauge, New York
September 9, 2005

ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorney for Defendant

By:______________________________
LORI L. PACK (LLP/8303)
Assistant Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway, Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788
(631) 231-2424

To: Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff Pro Se
352 Plad Blvd.
Holtsville, N.Y. 11742
(631) 447-2168
____________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X LLP/8303
TIBOR GASPARIK,
Plaintiff,
……………………………………………………………….………CV-05-3817 (SJF)
-against-
……………………………………………………………………… DECLARATION
STONYBROOK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X

LORI L. PACK, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State
of New York, and specifically the United Sates District Court of the Eastern District of New
York, declares the following under penalty of perjury:

1. I am an Assistant Attorney General with the office of Eliot Spitzer, New York State
Attorney General, and I represent the defendant STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY in this matter.

2. This declaration is submitted on behalf of Defendant in support of its motion for an order
setting aside the default judgment entered by the Clerk of this Court on September 8, 2005.

3. A copy of the Summons and Complaint in this action is annexed hereto as Exhibit
“A”. A copy of Defendant’s Amended Answer is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”. A copy of the
papers constituting the default judgment are annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”.

4. The “Clerk’s Notation of Default” states that the docket entries of the Court
indicate that “defendant, Stony Brook University, was served with the summons and complaint
on August 12, 2005, personally at: Office of University Counsel, 328 Administration Stony
Brook University, Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794-1212.” [See Exhibit “C”, p .4]. There is no
indication that the office of the Attorney General was ever served, nor does this office have any
record of ever being served.

5. New York State CPLR § 307 provides as follows:

(1) Personal service upon the state shall be made by delivering the
summons to an assistant attorney-general at an office of the attorney general
or to the attorney-general within the state.”

(2) Personal service on a state officer sued solely in an official
capacity or state agency, which shall be required to obtain personal
jurisdiction over such an officer or agency, shall be made by (1)
delivering the summons to such officer or to the chief executive
officer of such agency or to a person designated by such chief
executive officer to receive service, or (2) by mailing the summons
by certified mail, return receipt requested, to such officer or to the
chief executive officer of such agency, and by personal service upon
the state in the manner provided by subdivision one of this section.
(emphasis added)

The commentaries included after this section of the CPLR state that

Subdivision 2 was amended by chapter 420 of the laws of 1993. The
memorandum of the Office of Court Administration states that the
"measure [was] designed to make it clear that in all actions and
proceedings brought against State agencies or State officials in their
representative capacities, personal service must be made by serving
both the agency or official and the Attorney-general." Hitchcock v
State (1993, 3d Dept) 193 App Div 2d 1046, 598 NYS2d 576;
Hanley v New York State Executive Dept., Div. for Youth (1992, 3d
Dept) 182 App Div 2d 317, 589 NYS2d 366).

6. Since the summons and complaint was never served upon the Office of the
Attorney General as required by statute, the default judgment should be vacated.

7. Furthermore, F.R.C.P. 55(c) provides that “[F]or good cause shown, the
court may set aside an entry of default and, if a judgment has been entered, may likewise set it
aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).” Plaintiff is pro-se and did not include a telephone number
on the summons and complaint. There are no records of any courtesy phone calls or
correspondence from the Plaintiff prior to his entering a default judgment on September 8, 2005,
twenty seven days after he allegedly served a copy of the summons and complaint upon the state
agency. I filed an answer the day after I first saw the summons and complaint. I received the
default judgment via an ECF e-mail minutes after I filed the answer on ECF. Clearly, there is
good cause to vacate this default judgment.

8. Finally, the entry of a judgment by the Clerk of the Court is improper in this
matter. A clerk’s entry of a judgment is only for cases in which “the plaintiff’s claim against a
defendant is for a sum certain . . . .” The Plaintiff’s claim is that the Defendant discriminated
against him because he is “too conservative”. A judgment in the amount of $300,000.00 could
hardly be considered a “sum certain” in this case. At the very best, it was misleading for
Plaintiff to represent to the Clerk that he was entitled to this judgment under F.R.C.P. 55(b)(1).

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the default judgment entered by the clerk
in this matter be vacated.

DATED: Hauppauge, New York
September 9, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the
State of New York
Attorney for State Defendants

By: _________________________
LORI L. PACK (LLP/8303)
Assistant Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway-Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788
(631) 231-2424

-

February 14, 2006

Lori L. Pack
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of the
State Of New York
300 Motor Parkway – Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV 05-03817 (SJF/ARL)


Dear Ms. Pack:

Thank you for your early response to my discovery demands. Unfortunately, your responses to the interrogatories and demands for documents are inadequate, unacceptable, and in line with your total lack of cooperation in this case so amply demonstrated before. I hope you will use the remaining time, until the end of this month, to make a significantly more sincere effort to respond to my demands. As the deadline for completing the discovery of April 24, 2006, is rapidly approaching, I do not have enough time left to repeat this request again if you fail to respond. As you well know, the failure to respond could result in mandatory sanctions pursuant Rule 37.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter and I still hope for improved cooperation.


Respectfully yours,


Tibor Gasparik
Plaintiff pro se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168

-

March 6, 2006

Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Long Island Federal Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza Room
814 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722-4438

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV 05-3817 (SJF/ARL)


Your Honor, Magistrate Judge Lindsay:

I am the Plaintiff pro se in the above captioned case against the Defendant, Stony Brook University, and this letter is to bring again to your attention the complete lack of cooperation in this matter by the Defendant’s attorney Lori L. Pack. As amply documented in the docket, it required two months, repeated attempts by Plaintiff, and your intervention, to initiate discovery. As of now, over a month later, while doing his best to satisfy the Defendant’s discovery demands, Plaintiff is still unable to obtain anything of use from the Defendant. For example, when Plaintiff requested from the Defendant’s attorney to distribute Plaintiff’s interrogatories to 14 faculty members employed by the Defendant, she responded that “Said interrogatories will not be served upon any employee of the Defendant as such ‘service’ is not required of the Defendant under any applicable statute, case law or the F.R.C.P.” Hence Plaintiff, who is not a lawyer, had been misled into believing that he was required to distribute the interrogatories directly to the said faculty members, only to find out that the said faculty members “have been advised by the university counsel that the request regarding interrogatories should come through the Office of the Attorney General.” Plaintiff believes that he was intentionally misled by the Defendant’s attorney to frustrate his discovery efforts and thus to delay a speedy resolution of the case. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court for a conference regarding discovery issues, specifically, to identify exactly the Plaintiff’s discovery demands that the Defendant has to satisfy to avoid mandatory sanctions under Rule 37 of the F.R.C.P., and to issue an order to that effect.

Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.


Respectfully yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Plaintiff pro se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168

cc.: Lori L. Pack

-

February 1, 2006

United States District Court
Chambers of the Hon. Sandra Feuerstein
100 Federal Plaza, Room 1014
Central Islip, NY 11722-4438

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV 05-3817 (SJF/ARL)


Your Honor, Judge Feuerstein:

I am plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, in the above captioned case against the defendant, Stony Brook University, and this letter concerns the denial by the defendant, represented by their attorney, ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, and by Lori L. Pack, Assistant Attorney General, to carry out a survey of the political affiliation or orientation of tenured faculty members employed by the Stony Brook University (relevant letters enclosed). Such survey could be carried out at minimal expense in time, effort and cost to the defendant, who routinely carries out surveys (example enclosed).

I am aware now that, as the plaintiff in this case, I do not have the right to demand that the defendant carries out this kind of surveys, yet the requested survey represents a discoverable evidence that is essential to my case, and could not be challenged by the defendant as biased only if it is carried out by the defendant. Apparently, the only way I can obtain this evidence is by a court order. Therefore, I am respectfully asking you to issue such order.

Enclosed is an article by professor Art Eckstein, which, I believe, gives an excellent summary of the issues most relevant to my case, but addresses also specifically the role of surveys in disclosing the alleged institutional discrimination against conservative professors in hiring and promotion at the universities and colleges in the United States. All relevant surveys, so far, have been carried out by conservative groups and could, therefore, be viewed by liberals as biased. My case provides, for the first time, an opportunity to enforce an internal survey that could not be challenged by the liberals as being biased. I hope you and the nation take advantage of this opportunity, and thank you in advance for a favorable ruling in this matter.


Respectfully yours,



Tibor Gasparik, Plantiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd, Holtsville, NY 11742

cc: Lori L. Pack

-

January 30, 2006

United States District Court
Chambers of the Hon. Sandra Feuerstein
100 Federal Plaza, Room 1014
Central Islip, NY 11722-4438

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV 05-3817 (SJF/ARL)

Your Honor, Judge Feuerstein:

I am plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, in the above captioned case against the defendant, Stony Brook University, and this letter is in opposition to the request by the defendant, represented by their attorney, ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York, and by Lori L. Pack, Assistant Attorney General, for an extension time to file a motion to dismiss in the above captioned case.

After repeated requests and prompts to either file the motion to dismiss or initiate discovery, as documented by 4 communications from 11/17/2005, 12/6/2005, 12/14/2005 and 1/7/2006 (all filed in the docket), and not receiving any answers, I was forced to write a letter on 1/19/2006 to the magistrate judge, Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, and ask her for help in this matter (enclosed). The defendant filed a complete package containing the initial disclosures and first set of interrogatories and request for documents the same day. This clearly shows that the package had been prepared well in advance and the defendant waited as long as it was possible to send it, with the intention to delay the action as long as possible. The defendant knows that I had to put my life on hold, have limited resources, and hopes that I will run out of finances and give up if these proceedings are delayed long enough. These delaying tactics follow 4 years of the same kind of efforts by the defendant before I went to court to essentially starve me out of my position of Research Associate Professor by sabotaging my every effort to generate income in this position. The attorney general only continues in this strategy.

If your Honor grants the defendant this request for an extension of time to submit the motion to dismiss, this could cause me and my family serious hardship, since all other parties in this action receive their paychecks and do not suffer financially. Thank you for your kind attention on this matter and for your understanding of my desperate situation.

Respectfully yours,



Tibor Gasparik, Plantiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd, Holtsville, NY 11742

cc: Lori L. Pack

-

January 19, 2006

Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
Long Island Federal Courthouse
814 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722-4451

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV 05-3817 (SJF/ARL)

Your Honor:

I am the Plaintiff and Pro Se in the above captioned case against the Defendant, Stony Brook University, and this letter is to bring to your attention serious delay in the discovery caused by the complete lack of cooperation in this matter by the defense attorney, Lori L. Pack. Enclosed please find 3 communications concerning my repeated attempts to meet with the defense attorney and develop a discovery plan that is necessary, according to Rule 26f, to initiate the discovery. Although, I gave the defense attorney until the end of January to respond, the failure to do so up to this date already clearly demonstrates the lack of good faith, and may require court intervention to enforce.

Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Respectfully yours,


Tibor Gasparik
Pro Se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168

cc.: Lori L. Pack
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of the State Of New York
300 Motor Parkway – Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788

-

January 7, 2006

Lori L. Pack
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of the
State Of New York
300 Motor Parkway – Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)


Dear Ms. Pack:

I am deeply disappointed by your total lack of cooperation in this case. You have missed every deadline: You defaulted on submitting your answer to my complaint by 8 days. You did not serve me with the moving papers to dismiss the case by November 14, 2005, despite indicating your intention to the Magistrate Judge, honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, to do so. And you did not file briefed motion by December 30, 2005, as ruled by the same Magistrate Judge in her order from October 12, 2005. You also did not answer my request from December 6, 2005, to meet and develop a discovery plan, when it had become evident, from the long delay beyond the deadline, that you were no longer interested in the dismissal of the case. And you also ignored the follow-up communication from December 14, 2005. In fact, I do not see any evidence that you have done anything at all since the status conference held on October 12, 2005. I must only assume that you intend to delay the discovery on purpose, so you can ask the court for its extension.

I would like to start the discovery with a survey that I view as essential to this case. Surveys are usually carried out by the Office of the President and requested by the president, Dr. Shirley Strum Kenny. The purpose of this survey will be to determine the political affiliation or orientation of the tenured faculty members at the Stony Brook University to document potential institutional discrimination against conservative professors in hiring, retention and promotion. The survey would include the following:

1. Check only one:
a)  I am a registered member of the Democratic Party;
b)  I am not a registered member of a political party, but I view myself to be liberal, or believe in values and views that are on average more liberal than conservative;
c)  I am not a registered member of a political party, but I view myself to be conservative, or believe in values and views that are on average more conservative than liberal;
d)  I am a registered member of the Republican Party.
2.  Check only if you selected c) or d) but would have selected a) or b) at the time when receiving your tenure.
3.  Check only if you selected c) or d) and are 55 or older.

I expect this survey to be sent by the Office of the President to all departmental chairs, specifying it to be carried out for internal use. The chairs will be responsible for collecting the information from all tenured faculty members at that department and using it to produce summaries. To assure objectivity and cooperation, the specific information would remain available only to the departmental chairs, and the Office of the President will receive only the summaries. I want the copies of all summaries.

In addition, I will also need access to the employee files in the Office of Human Resources, and to all documentation relevant to the investigation carried out by the Director Lynn Johnson in response to my letter from September 22, 2003, to the SUNY president, Dr. Shirley Strum Kenny.

To formally address the last outstanding requirement for initial disclosure, the requested compensation of $ 300,000 is for the 4-year loss in income with fringe benefits.

Considering your previous record of non-cooperation and the fast approaching deadline for the completion of the discovery by April 24, 2006, I must insist that you respond by the end of January at the latest. Failure to do so would force me to file a motion to compel discovery and to ask the court for appropriate sanctions.

Thank you for your kind attention on this matter and wish you again a Happy New Year.

Respectfully yours,


Tibor Gasparik
Pro Se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
.................................................................................CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,
..................................................................................DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO RULE 26
-against-

STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- X

Plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, as and for his initial disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby provides the following:

A. Individuals likely to have discoverable information for use in supporting the action captioned above:

Professor Jay D. Bass, Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 245 Natural History Building, 1301 W. Green St., Urbana, IL 61801; phone: (217) 333-1018

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, Office of the Director, The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm 1205 N, Arlington, VA 22230; phone: (703) 292-8000

Dr. Joseph Bordogna, former Deputy Director, Office of the Deputy Director, The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm 1205 N, Arlington, VA 22230; phone: (703) 292-8001

Professor Daniel M. Davis, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8217

Dr. Sonia Esperanca, Program Director, Petrology and Geochemistry Program, Division of Earth Sciences, The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm. 785 S, Arlington, VA 22230; phone: (703) 292-8554

Professor Gilbert N. Hanson, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8210

Professor Claude T. Herzberg, Department of Geology, Wright Geological Laboratory, Rm. 342, Rutgers University, 610 Taylor Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854; phone: (732) 445-3154

Professor William E. Holt, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8215

Mr. David Horowitz, President, Center for the Study of Popular Culture, 4401 Wilshire Blvd, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90010; phone: (323) 556-2550

Ms. Lynn Johnson, Director, Human Resource Services, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794: phone: (631) 632-6161

Dr. Shirley Strum Kenny, President, The Office of the President, Administration Building, Room 310, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794-0701; phone: (631) 632-6265

Dr. Margaret S. Leinen, Associate Director, Directorate for Geosciences, The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm 705 N, Arlington, VA 22230; phone: (703) 292-8500

Professor Robert C. Liebermann, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-1968

Professor Donald H. Lindsley, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8195

Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 20502; phone: (202) 456-7116

Dr. Robert L. McGrath, Provost & Executive VP for Academic Affairs, Administration Building, Room 407, Stony Brook, NY 11794-1401; phone: (631) 632-7000

Professor Scott M. McLennan, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8194

Professor Alexandra Navrotsky, Department of Chemistry, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616; phone: (530) 752-3292

Professor Hanna Nekvasil, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8201

Professor John B. Parise, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8196

Professor Charles T. Prewitt, Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona, Gould-Simpson Building 530,Tucson, AZ 85721; phone: (520) 621-5660

Professor Troy Rasbury, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-1488

Professor Richard J. Reeder, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8208

Ms. Robin Reichlin, Program Director, Geophysics Program, Division of Earth Sciences, The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm. 785 S, Arlington, VA 22230; phone: (703) 292-8556

Professor Martin A. A. Schoonen, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8007

Dr. Thomas P. Wagner, Program Director, Geology and Geophysics Program, Office of Polar Programs, The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm. 755 S, Arlington, VA 22230; phone: (703) 292-4746

Professor David Walker, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W – P.O. Box 1000, Palisades, NY 10964; phone: (845) 365-8658

Professor Donald J. Weidner, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8211

Professor Lianxing Wen, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-1726

Professor Teng-fong Wong, Chair, Department of Geosciences, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794; phone: (631) 632-8212

Dr. Herman B. Zimmerman, Director, Division of Earth Sciences, The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm. 785 S, Arlington, VA 22230; phone: (703) 292-8550


B. Documents to be used for supporting the action:

1) Posted on the plaintiff’s Web site: http://suny-stonybrook.blogspot.com/.
2) Supplemented by the information on the enclosed CD.


C. Computation of damages:

The plaintiff requests compensation in the amount of US$ 300,000 for the loss in income plus fringe benefits corresponding to four years since his alleged unlawful termination of employment on January 31, 2002.


D. Insurance agreement:

None.


Dated: Holtsville, New York
December 14, 2005

_____________________________
Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff pro se
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168

TO: Lori L. Pack
Office of the Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway
Suite 205
Hauppauge, NY 11788