`
`"ml
`
`1-...
`
`_
`
`-_
`
`M
`
`3)
`
`En Hwa‘w
`
`y
`
`E fimflfi MAM I 0mm b&wflfis To
`(\‘Q‘ W4 Vflefi Rd’hwvfi
`EEfi’Ok/ILQQ, Hsm W’H/v A (LMM
`ERG? Elem M2 (M The DWAS 63d) 13w 990mg
`IS» TWA ”Eat flmfih‘fig Cam («Ade
`”Elms
`Kai”:-
`(3% Thé Emcemge,
`52$§an¢$5
`HFQMPAnfleVde
`?fdduflq A ?(AMP (365 cflw fledged M Cm)
`’Y‘mfl’
`“WMMM;81_lcknlm g NA) GA
`E‘EBA NA’V
`QLJJJH V aims L&Sq
`'wjlkiamlmflhsgsw.@fl,a%.gwkdmimb_
`Lana (Hag) mug
`RWWG> UAW ?(dm‘kgg Hmkmn b&m {’P<W13<‘£u{(j
`EemmA“ fins 6mm? “macaw”
`«21$ (‘emschsX
`h 31¢ m1 ('1 Wm mama!» 4a Tmmuse
`
`”1g:
`
`Uys
`
`+5.2;
`
`Q&mw—z
`
`mgmlzxf SQR
`
`V‘Edueé’k’fg
`h‘?
`
`Vgg-EA ?Ad’k‘ah‘ae
`
`3g
`
`HtckmeLd’me/k
`
`i E
`
`Ebb
`
`:Cm “THE
`SMLle/AM Q‘ IBQLLLLCM R T
`Mm 'lqflm" 1364’ ( T“ maMM
`mlkfluébe‘ D ”.chfi;nofibcmj\7$gflm >
`pcminlrzfafl V
`>
`’ V3”
`>
`5 ”Ufifiggmfla Kfikoefl'
`flunkLegs ”Dawn; e ‘%' 3K
`began QqnjfiS
`"éwgafiz.
`
`a
`
`I
`
`quggm [RT
`'2 76m
`ugw
`jg. Efilwq
`m
`
`
`
`o? emckjfijmwfififl. _-%.a_&m€¢;c2__i_bm;flzs> (3.4) 52%
`(“e Vfl‘eu/ ”QMM) 0mg
`62MMahxhgnflmrkzfik£-»_MCKQ.LQULQem/.<e_w_
`mw kg Wwa ithQKLMchLJaAA/Adiacfl 7- em ry D 05%
`«ml "Howe gggqréfudmfi- $44. QAdfia‘b .m.
`W, «Liking
`WM WM?»
`ThinEfigflgfii--_J33§;Qg_«z_§:¥_s__V_u_/9LLflaw“A_m‘
`T'Wd flank
`?_MJM{21-9%,ég‘ewfizflifilfl"CL a4: +??_o__;g>_rmw._
`
`jML/I <99
`
`Ge
`
`/
`
`‘T‘m‘x ($5
`
`<1;
`
`_
`
`fl.
`
`I
`
`gié
`
`,
`
`‘*
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`l
`
`(1% a-
`
`.
`
`«£9 “UNA 4rd
`X/qfl‘é
`A’rlrdmeg‘__:9qxgfl§egen$anlm
`IANe913250.fiwéafimms‘ggiithfihéw.<9_&.¢L’QB5*_JEM/m‘_fivm;
`Wmfilrifi d? ’9wmflawfiuvgmwfi4m WJARQis’firggfih.Rcowflgkw
`V&Mfl'fifijyfléfiag EXHIKLT A aJr 4:935 .9; h JLQ
`éi- W____
`3(szqu «A&ASLKAJANNZMC
`{m 14.9..“3.3.,“zgmqfigz.>w+b_¢._$¢y_¢m_zmdgWA;L;944.423:th59..
`-
`{?.CQLMWMWM.;.fiw’»;%éwé$a&e..fizflw{€&dLfia},kq¢4.4___.(’§gzgegifi_flWWW».
`La..V7,613.Lu.‘5_._¢.<amkeja,émas,>2 w; 99mg
`é (/4 «96m a
`??mgmibjnobwqmmuflamab&wgaaamuyulfimflé a «L
`Ma'irfi/LEAI :flflLRH M \{anhmgnjh A gmflj
`V40§w§§én
`aMAu V’s when: ()3 edi «Qéhga_l§_'§gy1&£¢££z_fim.fifa€_am5£5fl__
`Evolsta pr §S&ESML{£®,@IWFG.C...‘3mfi.g_angjnél__@)~_§dj&5mm WW
`mwméwgyimngvmwkJfi_wfi~68ic_<fimul. e: w UM m w}
`4L,
`inGggx/Eflf‘qmfij; (mg C?) {Vflflutgfimfl ?msufig.
`v_gamuggfihxhaaLuQifiEED‘ chmél v.
`:5 a
`1’3 'imggmfishk
`eds‘gqngv,
`Y‘agéfléLKAHE
`mioabils’lfljbgk <0§sqms¢9<D M9 *Hn‘zflev} 96M? wawO iqm/Q/
`
`WEE ELM f
`mflgfim‘ékfimma afi 3mg ?rmsimblv; 4Mg%jgl..fil‘iw
`
`i’?
`
`(\Ihmava
`
`5
`
`n
`
`a
`P<-
`
`‘
`
`(W‘
`
`lw
`
`
`
`Ilkfiffifiwfiwt;
`
`21in3nawn"awmwa
`
`'é’m's‘fi?
`
`H
`
`g
`
`wmfiwjgwwfimvcWPVMDR69:90‘+9a9PO693+3"]:
`
`“5““?
`
`L????fi’wa‘)
`
`’IQJ13AIAOR.
`
`afiwmvsvw/V5362fa;
`'5);Ego)arcfin
`mt,1&3)7)fihsq,“{W217—WWWigmum
`wSawmfivm—me—m‘m—v——
`WWWyxfiWWWWKWmmL,W».ar__._
`UPfi-g“WW9”?!FMQ73'V’25JXW5
`L1»m26'nVIJ—‘ngip‘fl—WwfiVWLTWVEJQ:
`gbwafimIr
`wyawmfilm.@363waXWWKE23%“BWWM
`$1)uwwmg}:
`3&6,‘woy+M©Wé~bfiumuam)T&w,41r5‘
`fiQj’pqurvw6mg2&3?)
`0oz)
`méppTS’r?
`Irv?uvcl/gzojbnpw
`5:1M)TrMfflm"
`WW)“SW'6”
`Vdo‘fi9%3.?MWV
`nma-ua3Q3)!»
`(fjhvm
`gimp“aowaawnafiucxnwwfl
`rmgfmwgfi/wam’Owner)
`9133)?)qu
`’SVI;OHV‘LfiW
`swamp“
`fUaWQbQ’T-T
`h/fpwvufg’
`wJWF”KTW‘”6“”WNW?6m
`0fwagMIWOufi—gum?!)SW13,
`?Ydhwvi
`WWPPVWHWfUa-wa-(novhrwnwrwzng‘Pjgg,\Mlwpffiufijm?
`(rimVWHJDMHmpS05asn%W7abmwifi—Q‘a’Oi’A
`wfi,opmfid
`giny
`9.8!)23m)?v/LK
`deigupflgJ
`*3»th
`6,?flLI/D
`’W?[Qsdf
`Ja?Jx/‘Wd
`
`'11
`
`l
`
`IE
`
`74913,)?90'3v
`
`$761“:sz
`
`0+
`
`,5
`
`IE
`
`‘
`
`c
`
`.
`
`3‘.st
`
`
`
`w?"
`
`7‘
`
`V.
`
`#607st Y‘QQWMH4A
`(covfl'wégmmmm*&w<Dq~emPr}f
`3065
`Wfl/vwk’ deH? érwlxm
`(‘rvdnsWP/[Qe/cmy arcmi’lm
`m)?
`«k mfilm eawm¢o%m~|ggath_d§; sin mui fmmk
`Mnn/YV’SGL DMJMH’YM‘ 6mg ENC 64(10
`mafigmfl MM$6; 3&9 umasbflszszhs '3 :th bx 7s Cmsfl
`CL/Lnnnnfikdm
`{‘AMC/gMm bid
`Ws‘k’imbfihw Wswdrgafli yeqaeié‘
`I ”Thrmgsv’gflmfl ainJmW
`444d? W13 ,MQW? ”Haw. am &_~m<qfifi§§~?m5vlwgwa‘
`”’er Tins
`_.:§r)<9,”T{. K .36; 252V C1229 gimflflfllflmwwflmmbi 3'73
`J
`ukéifiazfigflimezb.
`
`_
`
`.
`
`.
`
`m.
`
`AM H /é/ 20
`a 66w
`?(??Mg
`
`fasédME
`
`_
`
`,
`
`§?AA/ILAQA
`fldfinmgzl quéxivflnnh (Jew (Stn/eE
`
`[/49 M médu/E mAIAALmfifiurs‘umanggfié;qm;
`emmwm aggmlrkfl M
`um r
`F
`KI] ££ng
`wmyfighjfi 5mm
`
`_
`
`@ffllg
`
`mam} é. Hawk
`d"? $757 Pyengmfl
`:r .(M. c3. 5m fl
`Inflimupasgs, m mm:
`wlmssfififiw (33$
`
`.
`
`
`
`7
`
`\m/
`
`g
`
`’
`
`.1
`
`.L
`
`02666 0’9
`
`>
`
`'
`
`rw—m
`
`WV Rjrm
`:1 retgldmv Wduw Qem‘w‘ <3? mul Y‘eytLu‘ES’k
`:Lm ,Y‘fiquz‘fi‘}? %E Eddy]
`9M1 §€¥Hlmi¢n¥
`$61.4sz {)fifiey‘fil,
`Mal gab c9611 R&hkksk/E
`lWW“ W5)“ Efim meu me Faxm
`
`"Z—geo
`
`JUL," q)"‘lq:
`
`§Q’FA‘Q’P‘L‘5’K r2724“,
`$434M
`EMA: flak ?nY-KD
`Vidgw §§de og'
`em
`Z
`"Wig JADM figmwcfl
`I‘Eeavh CDWR+
`I6? RWs'mJ FMMA.
`w‘w‘fi W6
`@n ’fiI-Mk 905L135 rfiqefi.
`”Hard‘
`"Pviwii
`iLJm
`____A _Y‘$U_|3W5¢_ ___
`
`i
`
`'
`
`.
`
`_
`
`£3 I’M 86 m1 'Jgirfi fir SanQ infiewgqhhw
`:nflw Emapwazq.
`
`‘
`
`50.9—
`
`f(gfixl-I‘Da, qu ‘
`amia-
`wifix
`“L Aka 3w ~a~r4§ Ar,
`Lfikvfiv ?flswggls
`A819 ch'gm QIAM ’
`VE/i-¥§~a~
`rm ”Ha.
`”Hm Lew QHQ CM" C&Vufluinxé
`thwczk i
`“Pnb‘i 4° LN?" M&—
`.ZQA-uak" fiaafiin 4H3 wd‘H’W)
`WUWUS. fimfi W‘swwi)
`ErtcggV‘ED Sufi
`wifii'va Ck) SW5
`mJJmOaux?
`:64“ fink 26/1463}.
`"ng-«JY Vida.
`dé '
`
`_,
`
`’%(> '
`
`..
`
`EXHIBIT”
`
`7
`
`Sq
`
`
`
`STATE OF INDIANA
`COUNTY 0F SULLIVAN
`
`SULLIVAN COUNTY CIRCUITCOURTI
`CAUSE N0. 77001-1904-CT—000204
`
`)
`) ss:
`)
`
`MICHAEL 1). HICKINGBOTTOM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ROBERT E. CARTER, ct aL,
`Defendants.
`
`V
`
`DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
`FOR PRODUCTION OF-DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
`Defendants: Robefi E. Carter,_ Richard Brown, Charles Dugan', Randall Purcell, and Jerry
`
`Snyder (collectively, “-Defendants'”), by- c0u1‘1’sel, pursuant to Rul'es-Zé and 34 0f the-Indiana
`
`Rules of Trial. Procedure; responds to Plaintiff‘s Request for Production, received on July 12,
`
`2019, as follows:
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT
`By responding to the Plaintiff‘s Requast for Production, the Defendants do not waive their
`
`right to object to the use’ of the following responses at anytime, and 'on any groUnd in 'this or'in
`
`any other proceeding. Defendants have not completed preparation for trial. Thus the Defendants’
`responses are limited to documents known t0 Defendants at this time and do not constitute a waiver
`
`of their right t0 introduce additional documents at trial.
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`The following genera]. obj actions apply to each individual Request, and shall have the
`
`samec'ffect as if set fully in response t0 each Request.
`
`
`
`'1.
`
`Defendants obj ect to each Request to the extent that such Request seeks to impose
`
`any greater obligation than otherwise provided under .the-rules of discovery-‘se’t forth in the Federal
`
`Rulgsgajf Civ'il-VvProc'ed-ua‘e 0r any ch'gr applicable law.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants object to each. Request 'to the extent that’such Request calls for the
`
`tidentifiCatiOH or disclosure of any information that is protected by the deliberative process
`
`privilege, the attorneywlient privilege: the work product doctrinq or any Other applicable
`
`privilege.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants object ‘to each Request 'to the extent, that such Request seeks the
`
`productiqn of documents 'and/or materialsnot within their possession, custody or control.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants Object t0 each ‘Requ‘ea t0 the extent .that such Request seeks the
`
`production o'f documents-and/for materials that arenof relevant or t0 the extant'that th'e Reques'tiis
`
`overbrpad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and/or not reasonably calculated f0 lead to the
`
`discovaly of adiniésibl'e evidence.
`
`‘5.
`
`Dafendants expressly resewe thezrightl'o object to the admission into“ evidence of
`any and all information and, documents that maybe made ava’ilable-Ain responsc t0 any Request on
`
`any ground, .inchiding without limitation, the ground that'informétiorl and document's responsive
`
`t_o the Request are irrslevant and'immaterial to thexi'ssues in this litigation.
`
`6-.
`
`To the extent that; Defendants produce documents in response to any Request to
`
`which it has obj ceted, suchproduCtiqn i's without waiv‘er'of any su'c'h obj ection.
`
`.7;
`
`Inadvgrtentdisclosure: if- any', ofdorcum‘ents or'informafion subjectto anyvpl‘ilvilegg
`
`.or protection? in'cIuding- wi'thOut' limitation; the-deliber'ative process privilege, the attorneykclient
`
`privilege 0r wjork product doctrine, 'sha'llgnout constitute waiver of any such:priv.ilege.
`
`"
`K g
`31m? -
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Defendants. object to each Request t0 the extent that it seeks, documents and/or
`
`materials that are publicly available, already in thepossession of Plaintiff, or equally accessible to
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant.
`
`9.
`
`Neither an indicaii'on'that documents will be produced nor an obj action to a Request
`
`indicates that Defendants possessesthe documents and/or materials I‘ésponsive-to such Request.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant specifically assumes no obligation to amend or supplement its responses?
`
`beyond that set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Indiana Trial Rules. These
`responses and any subsequent responses are madé solely for the pumose of this action. No
`representations of .1televa110y or materiality are‘ made with respect t0 any response herein. A11
`
`appropriate objections to the use of'this information at any hearing or trial 0r for any other purpose
`
`are, reserved and maybe interposed a't the time of any hearing or trial or any other time.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`review forms frOm SeptembEr :12, 2Q 18 — July 9:2019.
`
`Copies of any 30 day» restrictive housing
`
`RESPONSE: See attached document's, bates' stamped DEFSOOOOOI — DEFSOOOOZ9.
`
`“X
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 2: Video footage 0f each date signed on each
`(DWRH) Review Fonn.
`RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff’s Request is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome.
`
`The request fails t0 be sufficiently specific to identify which video. footage, {fit even exists,.that
`
`the Plaintiff is seeking; The request also is not sufficiently narrow to permit the Defendants to
`
`engage ‘in meaningful review to identify the time frames within which to search for responsive
`Video. As is visible inthie documents provided» to Plaintiff in response t'o Request f0r Production
`
`6U
`
`
`
`No. 1, the 30-day restrictive housing review forms do not indicate a time at which the reviews
`
`wefe completed.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`CURTIS T. HILL, Jr.
`Attorney General 0f Indiana
`Atty. No. 13999—20
`
`By:
`
`Ilene M. Smitfi
`Deputy Attorney General
`Atty. No. 2281 8-02
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE
`I certify that on August 9, 2-0192 the foregoing document was sewed upon the following
`person(s) 'via IEFS, if RegisteredUsers, 0r by depositing the foregoing deeumem in the U.S. Mail;
`
`first class, postage prepaid, if exempt 0r non-registered user.
`
`Michael D. Hickingboflom
`DOC # 147099
`Wabash. Valley Correctional Facility
`P.O. Box 1111
`Carlisle, IN 47838
`
`OFFICE 0F THE INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
`302, West Washington Street
`Indianapolis: Indiana 46204-2770
`Telephone: (317) 2333-1033
`Facsimile: (317) 232—7979
`E—mail: IIene.Smith@atE.in.gov
`Kathleen.Schaffer'FcDatgingg
`
`Hem; M. Smith
`Deputy Attorney General
`
`LG.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SULLIVAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 1
`STATE OF INDIANA
`SS: CAUSE NO. 77C01-1904—CT-000204
`COUNTY OF SULLIVAN
`MICHAEL D. HICIGNGBOTTOM,
`
`)
`
`g
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`ROBERT E. CARTER, et aL,
`Defendants.
`
`vvvvvvvvv
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
`Defendants, by counsel, respectfully submit this Repiy in Support 0f the Motion to Strike
`Plaintiff s improper second attempt at summary judgment. In support, Defendants provide the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff provides no arguments, and therefore concedes, that his second summary
`
`judgment motion is filed in violation of Ind. R. Trial P. 56 Which contemplates the
`
`filing of a single summary judgment motion. Mr. Hickingbottom made his at
`
`summary judgment oh August 30, 2019. This summary judgment was briefed and
`denied. Mr. Hickingbottom cannot now seek another bite at the apple. As such, his
`
`subsequent summary judgment motion should be summarily denied.
`
`2. Mr. Hickingbottom aéserts that discovery closed over a year ago. This too is
`incorrect. No case management plan was put in place in this litigation Which set a
`close for discovery. Mr. Hickingbottom is not tasked with determining when
`
`‘
`
`defendants have completed discovery in this case. His overreaching attempt to d0 so
`
`should not be well—taken by this Court.
`
`
`
`3. Defendants therefore renew their request for a case management plan for res\olution of
`
`this pending action. Defendants suggest the close of discovery as December 28, 2020
`
`With dispositive motions being due February 21, 2020. This time would allow the
`
`parties to conduct written discovery, depositions and gather affidavits in support of
`
`their respective positions.
`
`OFFICE 0F ATTORNEY GENERAL
`Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
`302 West Washington Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
`Telephone: (3 1 7) 232-6287
`Facsimile: (3 17) 232-7979
`E-mail: Marley.Hancock@atg.in.gov
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`CURTIS T. HILL, Jr.
`Indiana Attorney General
`Atty. N0. 13999-20
`
`/s/Marle}g G. Hancock
`Marley G. Hancock
`Deputy Attorney General
`Attorney No. 34617—32
`
`Y2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 28, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing With the
`Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Further, I certify that a copy of the foregoing has
`been duly served upon the party of record listed below by United States mail, first—class postage
`
`r
`
`prepaid, on September 28, 2020:
`
`Michael Hickingbottom
`DOC # 147099
`Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
`‘ 6908- S.‘ Old US Highway 41
`Carlisle, IN 47838
`
`OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
`Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
`302 West Washington Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204—2770
`Telephone: (3 17) 232—6287
`Facsimile: (317) 232-7979
`E—mail: MarlevHancocMflgingg
`
`/S/Marley G. Hancock
`Marley G. Hancock
`Deputy Attorney General
`
`l3
`
`