ROBERT A. NEINAST
v.BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN LIBRARY, et. al
Case No. 04 CVH 06 6341
Comes the plaintiff Robert A. Neinast, acting pro se, and propounds his first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff asks that the Defendants answer the interrogatories and document requests within twenty-eight (28) days of service, appending the requested documents to those Answers.
The following instructions apply to these interrogatories and request for production of documents:
1. Pursuant to Civil Rule 26(e), these interrogatories are continuing so as to require the filing of subsequential answers promptly in the event that Defendants, by or through any of their agents, counsels or other representatives, learn additional facts relevant to any answers not set forth in their answers to these Interrogatories or discover that any information given in an answer or answers is erroneous.
2. Each interrogatory is to be answered separately and as completely as possible. The fact that investigation is continuing or that discovery is not complete does not excuse failure to answer each interrogatory as fully as possible. The omission of any name, fact, or other item of information from an answer shall be deemed a representation that such name, fact, or other item is not known to Defendant, his agents, counsel, or other representatives at the time the answers to these Interrogatories are served upon Plaintiff.
3. For each and every answer to these Interrogatories:
a. Identify each and every person who participated in supplying information and/or drafting your response or any part thereof;
b. If the answer to any of these Interrogatories was made by referring to or reviewing any documents, identify each and every document referred to or reviewed and the Interrogatory or Interrogatories in connection with which they were used.
4. As used in these Interrogatories the singular shall be deemed to include the plural, the plural to include the singular, and words in the masculine, feminine, or neuter shall include each of the other genders as necessary to make the Interrogatory inclusive rather than exclusive.
5. Where an Interrogatory contains a general question or questions, followed by a specific question or questions, the specific question or questions are to be read and interpreted as requesting additional information, not as limiting the general question or questions.
6. With respect to each Interrogatory, identify each and every document prepared by, or in the possession, custody, or control of you or any of your officers, agents, or employees that relates to or refers to the subject matter of the Interrogatory in question.
7. Whenever information is requested in one of the following Interrogatories or subparts thereof that you previously furnished in answer to another Interrogatory herein, such information need not be restated. It will be sufficient for you to identify the previous answer containing the information requested.
8. Whenever an Interrogatory calls for information that is not available to you in the form requested but which is available in another form or can be obtained at least in part from other data in your possession, so state and either (i) supply the information requested in the form in which it is available or (ii) supply the data from which the information requested can be obtained.
9. If you claim a privilege with respect to information pertaining to any document that you are asked to identify or describe in these Interrogatories, furnish a list signed by counsel giving the following information with respect to each such document:
a. The title of the document;
b. The nature of the document, e.g., interoffice memorandum, correspondence, report, etc.
c. The identity of the sender and the identity of the recipient(s) of the document;
d. A statement of the basis upon which the privilege is claimed and a summary of the subject matter of the document in sufficient detail to permit the Court to rule on the propriety of the claim of privilege; and
e. The paragraph number of the Interrogatory to which the document is responsive or otherwise pertains.
10. Interrogatories calling for numerical or chronological information shall be deemed, to the extent that precise figures or dates are not known, to call for estimates. In each instance that an estimate is given, identify it as such together with the source of information upon which you base the estimate.
11. In answering these Interrogatories every source of information to which you have access should be consulted, regardless of whether the source is within your immediate possession or control. All documents or other information in the possession of experts or consultants should be consulted.
The following definitions apply to these Interrogatories and request for production of documents:
1. "Library" means the Columbus Metropolitan Library.
2. "Public area" means any part of the Library in which library patrons are regularly allowed.
3. "Barefoot policy" means the Patron Regulations, Eviction Procedure, or any other justification by which barefoot patrons are removed from the Library. It includes the possible direct or tacit agreement of the Board of Trustees.
4. "Mr. Neinast's previous lawsuit" means the action originally filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas as No. 01 CV 04-3104, and which was removed to the Federal District Court of Southern Ohio where it was assigned case No. C2-01-442.
5. "Disruptive" means a condition in the Library which, by its nature, disturbed, distracted, or annoyed other Library patrons beyond normal Library conditions.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please identify any persons by name, address, and Library position who answered or assisted in answering these Interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Does the Library have an insurance policy covering the Library against the negligent, wanton, or willful acts of its employees that might result in an injury tort action against the Library? If so, please attach details on the extent of the coverage.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Does the Library have a contract with any cleaning service or other company in which that service agrees to defend, indemnify, or insure against any portion of injury lawsuits filed against the Library? If so, please identify that service and attach relevant portions of that contract.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Please state whether any of the Libraryís insurance policies require, at any time required, or is being (or has been) interpreted to require, that the Library enforce a barefoot policy as part of coverage. If so, please append a copy of the relevant portion of these insurance policies to your Answers.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Please provide details about any lawsuits by patrons against the Library in the past five (5) years. Only include lawsuits in which the patron was injured on Library premises. Please include the court, the case title, the case number, the type of injury, the type of footwear the patron was wearing (if known), and whether the patron recovered or not.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Do you contend that any relevant Health Department requires shoes in public buildings? If so, which Health Department? Please include a copy of any Health Department regulation
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Do you contend that bare feet on a patron are in any way disruptive of the Library environment, or represent a danger to any other patrons?
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Has the library issued instructions to personnel (including guards) on how to deal with barefoot patrons, either verbally or in writing? If verbally, describe those instructions; if in writing, please attach a copy of those instructions. Include the approximate date on which the instructions were issued.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Please attach to your Answers current copies of the Libraryís Patron Regulation, Eviction Procedure, Harassment Policy, and Policy pertaining to the provision of library services to individuals that are not inhabitants of Franklin County. If any of these policies have changed in any material way since January, 2000, please also attach the previous relevant policy.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Does the Library have a rule to prevent children from sitting or crawling on the floor. Please provide a simple yes or no answer.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Were any studies conducted in the course of instituting the barefoot policy? If so, please detail those studies. Append copies of the study or studies to these Answers.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Is it a fact that the shoe rule was instituted at a meeting between retired Executive Director Larry D. Black and Security Manager Forrest Sorensen, and that no recorded minutes of that meeting exist? If the shoe rule was instituted at some other meeting, please describe that meeting, including attendees and their titles. Has the shoe rule ever been formally adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Library? If so, please attach the relevant portions of the minutes of that meeting.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Has the shoe rule been discussed, or any action taken regarding the shoe rule, at any meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Library? If so, please attach the relevant portions of the minutes of those meetings to your Answers.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Is it a fact that, when retired Executive Director Larry D. Black wrote to the Franklin County Prosecutorís office on January 30, 2001, requesting an opinion of the constitutionality of the Libraryís shoe rule, he wrote: "Would you please draft a response for our Board President's signature which includes the legal reasons that CML can give for requiring its customers to dress appropriately for a public place?" Please attach a copy of the letter to your Answers.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Is it a fact that retired Executive Director Larry D. Black stated in his sworn affidavit of August 2, 2001, filed in Plaintiff Neinastís previous lawsuit, that:
"4. In performing this function, pursuant to the description of my position in the Board of Trustee's Library Organization Policy, I approved and promulgated the Library's Eviction Procedure, including a provision requiring patrons to wear shoes. A true and accurate copy of the Eviction Procedure is attached hereto as Exhibit 2."
Please attach a copy of the affidavit to your Answers.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Is it possible that a patron, in reaching up for a book on a higher shelf, could have a book drop down upon their head? If so, is it your contention that proper operation and management of the Library would include making a rule that all patrons wear hard hats?
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Is it possible for a patron wearing high-heeled shoes to catch one of the heels in the carpeting, to twist their ankle due to the height of the heel and some minor defect in the floor of the Library, or to otherwise injure themselves while in the Library? If so, is it your contention that proper operation and management of the Library would include making a rule that banned high heels?
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
In the January, 2004 issue of Columbus Monthly, Executive Director Patrick Losinksi was quoted as saying, in response to reports of blood, feces, vomit, semen, and broken glass in the Library, "You can imagine with that many people some abnormal things do happen. I donít characterize us as unique. An airport facility, museum or courthouse would probably experience the same thing." Is that an accurate quote? If not, please supply an accurate quote.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Is it your contention that the conditions in the Library regarding barefoot use are different than the conditions in any of the following public or governmental buildings: grocery stores, hardware stores, home improvement stores, general merchandise stores, office supply stores, bookstores, sporting goods stores, movie theaters, post offices, courthouses, museums, airports, restaurants, health department buildings, and the Ohio Statehouse? If so, please detail the differences that justify a shoe rule as part of the proper operation and management of the Library.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Please supply an address at which retired Executive Director Larry D. Black may be subpoenaed.
Robert A. Neinast
Plaintiff, PRO SE
8617 Ashford Lane
Pickerington, OH 43147
Phone: (614) 759-1601
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served, by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, upon Philomena M. Dane and Johnathan E. Sullivan, Attorneys for Defendants, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., 1300 Huntington Center, 41 South High Street, Columbus, OH, 43215, this 26th day of July, 2004.