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