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 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