Documentation to "My Case"

-

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