Documentation to "My Case"

-

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