11/1 0/2020 1:16 PM Scanned
`
`fl
`
`q
`
`.r
`
`M
`
`r
`
`r-
`
`W W H r“?
`
`'1“ iiTHE
`A&Auzvm (:1an 0mm
`MAJMLLMLMM
`Mam; a wckvbm, ,,_>___
`
`,
`
`FILED
`IN cmcurr COURT
`Nov 09 2020
`eh“ 3m ‘amufl
`,_
`
`V
`
`7
`
`'
`
`v
`
`7 a
`
`r
`
`—— - Vi V
`, -
`
`._
`
`Wdayn, e? qL? 1w. fiammfle, Why______W
`
`--\/s—
`
`7
`
`flamicflls mam a WISH“; His
`mm ~%amm¥ ,mdiod $32.9 DA CH/q/m 3 0.09
`l/as/szo} ma 15 , $.‘mu
`east
`NA, Bela
`t(‘mkxhfi 94X Cemfln‘eD Wfikuaui
`l on , (mm) $me .9529 mncdwmk _
`8. TH) 044A n-Ex/m/‘mflmxhgegfifiy wfl mm
`M ”Ar
`I f Sum u m dd
`‘H’n‘s (mop? «*ibn, ang
`Pk: 1M
`(Mn ‘QQR
`V‘EMNJFSML 4’9
`hm s9 HM
`<3 m «(Mm '91 ,
`W I
`ALS £41 (mm Ctasm_,
`£4092! ffiazvimffismdfi d? .xt‘iaL
`mm m cmwr.
`'qfle HKE> ’Haa’r W ha 3.9 m} £19. a ,meiiw ,. $2.
`M15146. ($0) $415 VTHmrs, qunA' W\i__~
`_ ‘9' mmdv‘j Ju whwa‘s‘
`mu, Risa)“ (52-1503 m mt
`_
`Scallwg, 34.- gamwm Hm
`. Wenewr fiamhasfi bum o
`
`W ,
`
`_,
`
`A-
`
`;
`
`.
`
`,
`
`,
`
`IV
`
`1
`
`
`
`fl
`
`q
`
`.r
`
`M
`
`r
`
`r-
`
`W W H r“?
`
`'1“ iiTHE
`A&Auzvm (:1an 0mm
`MAJMLLMLMM
`Mam; a wckvbm, ,,_>___
`
`,
`
`FILED
`IN cmcurr COURT
`Nov 09 2020
`eh“ 3m ‘amufl
`,_
`
`V
`
`7
`
`'
`
`v
`
`7 a
`
`r
`
`—— - Vi V
`, -
`
`._
`
`Wdayn, e? qL? 1w. fiammfle, Why______W
`
`--\/s—
`
`7
`
`flamicflls mam a WISH“; His
`mm ~%amm¥ ,mdiod $32.9 DA CH/q/m 3 0.09
`l/as/szo} ma 15 , $.‘mu
`east
`NA, Bela
`t(‘mkxhfi 94X Cemfln‘eD Wfikuaui
`l on , (mm) $me .9529 mncdwmk _
`8. TH) 044A n-Ex/m/‘mflmxhgegfifiy wfl mm
`M ”Ar
`I f Sum u m dd
`‘H’n‘s (mop? «*ibn, ang
`Pk: 1M
`(Mn ‘QQR
`V‘EMNJFSML 4’9
`hm s9 HM
`<3 m «(Mm '91 ,
`W I
`ALS £41 (mm Ctasm_,
`£4092! ffiazvimffismdfi d? .xt‘iaL
`mm m cmwr.
`'qfle HKE> ’Haa’r W ha 3.9 m} £19. a ,meiiw ,. $2.
`M15146. ($0) $415 VTHmrs, qunA' W\i__~
`_ ‘9' mmdv‘j Ju whwa‘s‘
`mu, Risa)“ (52-1503 m mt
`_
`Scallwg, 34.- gamwm Hm
`. Wenewr fiamhasfi bum o
`
`W ,
`
`_,
`
`A-
`
`;
`
`.
`
`,
`
`,
`
`IV
`
`1
`
`
`
`\nlsk
`
`$42.,
`
`:4.
`
`w
`
`A
`
`kli’tk Ware mics aw Wen n4
`qcfifln k4: Axeh
`cull cam QAQ u punk? 09
`hken in
`C403 55%.,
`q
`or do {6‘5 N
`quré- cw MAM at? a
`‘Fne
`for‘rq
`441s,
`“*"fi dismésbjn
`MWAN 3km“ user a 1/280ng 9W (Hut ?qrpdit A9
`éggh 645?. ,
`7 73. Hs’emyhfim ms mk— mwfleb wk}.
`Emij mhwla} 7
`Avimdvl (qwefltb Learnt NHIMW *m
`MM: cbfied‘ab M ‘H‘B Wwezfib v‘uhté ”keyz
`Eda tdb-mp WU! JufydréuD ?Wkfifi‘grpmbs
`,fftSEW‘R» ‘04 W6 Summ Jwizmmi‘ WWHAJ. Bdrm’wn“
`h: 1w Amwmmir exam. 5a 5m» <5;me «5r
`.{w?25ild’9 (Wu mm}.
`iMiokm M?Am (Equz‘fi‘ M +155
`”This MAME! q
`Bmflfl VidQ’iM, ang
`fidlrrhfi
`QAuA‘
`rewné‘l‘nv «52‘s
`éuwvam @mgi
`@139!
`(3 723/53) 8% z
`“n:n‘\’(5¥£i_5ummw J
`A
`Hm 'N jfifi/«J
`#ahg 4"“!sz
`qu 44R
`jiztxwavj, cmfl Qeflfly‘m oJHoLw
`bum {eSASq’\:w c9
`3&5 MAMA}
`aka rchuefiefi In
`31‘V‘tbboré—
`(fifiwfifl‘ 4+ (3‘6 7i)
`Sci»
`A Tm! cw); «m1 Rmmiw 2m Mex 0R M3
`31$ 1m fiv‘len wa'ns LIN REA) M ?an‘,
`
`69 E. 5:2
`WM MM. m, 32: «In . ca AW. 11533
`
`,
`
`(mafipm
`
`Rfiowfion.
`
`
`
`W ,_
`
`_
`
`CONCXWSLQY) _.
`
`.
`
`,,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`,
`
`47 ______, _
`
`,
`
`,
`
`V
`
`_
`
`?M‘d“ finkMLH‘QM ulbww (EHu’S‘QaMW
`'TLna/QQWQ
`Mums“ 4H: Cawsfi' +0 alum
`fine qfi—wt md‘ A-J
`
`$5 Be
`
`‘
`
`m‘wagmyub
`
`1
`
`é
`
`”
`
`,,
`
`1--
`
`.
`
`$912 afldc min“ AUJM
`0M H/‘fl'm
`ar Caeul Arc
`Maw upmn 199m
`591 US W: ..
`«90R Q&mQME Lviw/
`7325+ Cw (/2Vd$ eaye
`
`i M, a. W
`
`(1H7 Amuafi wrmwwww f.
`Mice d$
`£3.05. 5TH
`30a W. Wfiyw 3nd"
`,. .finfiauogdxs, ZEN “152$“
`
`fldtfll
`
`QM, 3a..” fizz.
`
`.
`
`.,
`
`,V-_V
`
`.,.-~_-_, _-
`
`.
`
`7
`
`7
`
`.,
`
`m1
`
`
`
`i
`
`"‘3
`
`STATE OFINDIANA
`TY 0F SULLIVAN
`C0
`
`SULLIVAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 1
`CAUSE N0. 77C01-1904-CT-000204
`
`')
`
`) SS:
`
`')
`
`MICHAEL D. HICKINGBOTTOM,
`Plalntlff,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`)
`)
`
`g
`
`g
`)
`
`) )
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT
`By‘respouding to the Plaintiff” s-Requcst for Production, the Defendants do not waive their
`rigiit to obj ect to the use of the following responses at .‘any time, and on any ground in this or in.
`anal} other proceeding. Defendants have noL-completéd firépirati’on for tria‘erhus the Defendants’
`responses are limited to documents known to Defendants at this time anddo-not consu'tute a waiver
`'of lflieir fight to introduce additional documents at. trial.
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`”The following- general objections apply to each individual Request, and shall have the
`sa - e effect as if set fully'in response to each Request.
`
`l
`
`W
`
`ILED
`IN 01ECUIT COURT
`AUG 23 2019
`
`Clerk. Sunivan Chou]: Court
`
`v.
`RO'BERT E. CARTER, et aL,
`Defendants.
`DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
`FORI’RODU‘CTION 0F DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
`Defendants, Robex‘t B. Carter, Richard Brown, Charles Dugan, Randall Purcell, and Jerry
`Snyder (cdlljeetively, *‘Def'endants’fi, by c'o‘unsel, pursuant to Rules '26 and 34 ofthe Indiana
`Rules of Trial Procedure, responds to Plaidtiff’SRequest for Production, received on July 112.,
`2019, as follbws:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Defendants object ‘to each Request to the extent that such Request seeks to impose
`any greater-obligation than othenivise providedunder 'the rules of discovery set‘forth in the Federal
`Rultfs of Civil Procedure or any other applicable law.
`Defendants Object to pach Requcst to the extent that such Request ca'lls far the
`2.
`i-de'iutifiCation or disclosure of any information that is protected by the deliberative process
`privilege, the attOmEy-client. ptivilege, the work product doctrine, o‘r any other applicable
`
`privilege.
`
`‘3.
`
`Defendants. object to e‘a‘ch Request to the extent that~zsuch Request seeks the
`
`production ofdoquments and/o'r materials not within th'e‘ir possession, custody or. control.
`Defendants object to each Request to. the extent ’that such Request seeks the
`4.
`pro duction ofdocuments and/or materials that arevnot relevant 01' to flie-extent that the Request is
`overbroad,. unduly burdensome, oppressive, and/or. not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`S.
`
`discovery ‘of admissible evidence.
`Defendants expressly reserve the right to object to theadmission into evidence: of
`an) and all information and documents that may be made available in response to any Request on
`any grbund, including without limitation, the'g'round that informati'On and documents responsive
`to the Request are inelcvant and immaterial t9_¥1.1.e issues: in t1_11is litigation.
`To the extent ‘that Defendants produce documents in response to any Request to
`6.
`whfich it'has objected, suphproduction is_ without waiver of any such objection.
`Inadvertent disclosure, i-f any,-of documents or information subject to any privilege
`7.
`or protection, including without limitation, the deliberative process privilege, the attomey-client
`privilege or Work product doctrine, shaliin'ot constitute Waiver of any such privilege.
`
`i
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Defendants obj ect to each Request to the extent that i't seeks documents and/or
`
`materials that are publicly available, already in the possession ofPlaintiff, or equally accessible to
`
`Pl-ainltiff-and Defendant,
`
`I
`
`9.
`
`Neither-an indication that documents w"ill bie produqed nor an obiection to a Request
`
`'10.
`
`indicates that Defendants pos’ses’ses-the documents andfor materials responsive to such Request.
`Defendarit specifically assumes no obligation to amend or'supplement its responses
`beyond that set fonh in the Federal R-ules of Civil Procedure and Indiana Trial Rules; These
`respo‘nses and any subsequent responses are made. solely for the purpose of this action. No
`representations of relevancy or materiality are made- With respect to zany response herein. All
`appropriate objections to the .use of this information at any. hearingor trial or for any other purpose
`
`arereserved and maybe interposed at the time ofany hearing or trial or any other time.
`
`- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. l:
`Cop'ies of any 30 day- restrictive housing
`review forms fiom September 12, 20-18 — July 9, 2019.
`
`RESPONSE: See attached documents; bates stamped DEF'SOOOOO L — DEFSOOOOZQ.
`
`RE” UEST FOR PRODUCTIONNOTZ: Video footage of each date signed_on each
`(DW‘RH‘) Review Form.
`
`M i RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff: Request is vague,~overbroad'and unduly burdensome.
`
`The 1"equest ‘faiI-s to be sufficiently specific to identify which video footage, if it even exists, t'hat
`fl1e.,P1'aintifi‘ is seeking. The .re’quest also is not sufficiently narrow to permit the Defendants ‘to
`engalge in meaningful review to identify the time frames within which to search for responsive
`video. As i‘s visible in the documents provided to Plaintiff in,resp‘onse t'o Request for Production
`
`_.-
`
`..
`
`__
`
`n"...
`
`._.,__
`
`y..-
`
`(a .
`
`
`
`SULLIVAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT l
`CAUSE NO. 77C01-1904-CT-000204
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`STATE OF INDIANA
`COUNTY OF SULLIVAN
`MICHAEL D. HICKINGBOTTOM,
`
`)
`) SS:
`)
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT E. CARTER, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`MOTION T0 STRIKE
`Defendants, by counsel, respectfully submit this Motion to Strike as Plaintiff has filed
`
`multiple motions for summary judgment in violation of the Ind. R. Trial P. 56.
`
`In support,
`
`Defendants provide the following:
`On April 9, 201 9, Plaintiff filed his operative complaint.
`On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which was
`
`2.
`
`l.
`
`subsequently denied following briefing.
`Plaintiff now improperly seeks a second bite at summary judgment.
`
`.
`
`lnd. R. Trial P. 56 contemplates the filing of a single summary judgment motion. For
`
`example, 1nd. R. Trial P. 56(a) states:
`A pany seeking t0 recover upon a claim, counterclaim. or cross-claim or t0 obtain a
`declaratory judgment may, at any time after the expiration 0f twenty [20] days from the
`commencement of the action or after service of a motion for summaryjudgment by the
`adverse pany, move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his
`favor upon all or any pan thereof.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`. Allowing Plaintiff to file separate summary judgment motions for each cause of action
`
`brought in this case is unduly burdensome and contrary to the applicable rules.
`
`
`
`6. As Plaintiff has already unsuccessfully sought summary judgment in this case, Defendants
`
`ask the Court to strike the motion for summaryjudgment filed July l3, 2020.
`
`7. Should the Court consider this summaryjudgment motion, Defendants ask that it be denied
`
`pursuant to Ind. R. Trial P. 56(F) as defendants have not had a sufficient period to conduct
`discovery in this casg' Defendants have not had/gflmwkcflaimjfifl;
`deposition which is necessary to uncover relevant f
`ed to Mr. Hick'
`
`’
`
`allegations.
`
`8.
`
`Alternatively, and in in accordance with Ind. R. Trial P. 56(0, defendants ask this Court to
`deny Plaintiff‘s summary judgment motion with leave to refile and pm in plane a mu-
`mwlflmolufinmoflhismigafion. Defendants suggest the close ofdiscovery
`as December 28, 2020 with dispositive motions being due Fcbmany 21, 202$). This time
`
`would allow the parties to conduct writtendwmsmgafimm
`E
`?_g’
`
`support of their respective positions.
`WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Court strike Plaintiff‘s pending motion
`for summaryjudgment as it was filed in violation of Ind. R. Trial P. 56 or, in the alternative and
`
`in accordance with Ind. R. Trial P. 56(0 deny Plaintiff’s motion for summaryjudgment with leave
`
`to refile pursuant to a Court set scheduling order.
`*
`
`' This litigation was stayed pending resolution ofPlaintift‘s appeal which was filed on Maxch 13. 2020 and not
`resolved until June 29, 2020.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`CURTIS T. HILL, Jr.
`Indiana Attorney General
`Atty. No. 13999-20
`
`/s/Marley G. Hancock
`Marley G. Hancock
`Deputy Attorney General
`Attorney No. 3461 7-32
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`-
`
`OFFICE 0F ATIORNEY'GENERAL
`Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
`302 West Washington Street
`Indiafiapolis, IN 46204-2770
`Telephone: (3 1 7) 232-6287
`Facsimile: (317) 232-7979
`E-mail: Mar]ey.Hancock@atg.in.gov
`
`a
`
`- -
`
`-
`
`‘ - -
`
`_
`
`-. h --_-
`
`-
`
`:‘7’ "“4“ -—"-""‘.-
`
`—,H-w-——*.-:"--
`
`-——~..--: =—. -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
