Caryl Leventhal responds fully to US Department of Justice's request for Production of documents 

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: Why will judge Shira Scheindlin keep from the jury and court record, evidence and testimony of the rampant terrorist friendly corruption Caryl Leventhal was attempting to stop (You can find it by going to the Sworn Deposition of Brenda Grant). Why will Eric B. Fisher, Deputy US Attorney place winning a case over information from this whistleblower that could warn the American people of terrorism?  Why will Alan R. Kaufman, Chief of the US Attorney's (Southern District) Criminal Division threaten The Leventhal family with arrest and prosecution if they didn't censor this website to place the US Department of Justice in a better light?  Why are they working to place America at risk?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S

Plaintiff, FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

--------------------------------------------X 99 Civ. 10405 (SAS)

CARYL B. LEVENTHAL,

-against-

HON. JANET RENO, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

---------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff, by her attorney, MICHAEL R. BRESSLER, ESQ., in response to defendants' request for production of documents and pursuant to FRCP 33 and Local Rules 33.3 and 47 of the Southern District of New York, alleges the following:

GENERAL STATEMENT

1. In responding to these requests for production, plaintiff does not waive her right to object to any order related to discovery in this action.

2. Plaintiff continues to search for information responsive to defendants' demands and therefore, reserves the right to supplement her responses to each interrogatory with additional information or documents as such information or documents become available, subject to all applicable objections.

3. By responding to any request, plaintiff does not concede the materiality of the subjects to which it refers. The responses made herein are made expressly subject to, and without waiving or intending to waive, any questions or objects as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, or admissibility as evidence or for any other purpose, of any of the information produced, in any proceeding including trial of this action.

4. Inadvertent production of any information or document which is privileged, or is otherwise immune from discovery, shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to such information or document or the information contained in the document, or plaintiff's right to object to the use of any such information or document during any proceeding in this litigation or otherwise.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Plaintiff objects to each definition and request to the extent that it requires the plaintiff to produce information or documents from persons over whom plaintiff has no control.

2. Plaintiff objects to each definition and request to the extent that it seeks disclosure of privileged communications, attorney's work product, or trial preparation material.

3. Plaintiff objects to each definition and request to the extent that it is vexatious or seeks information irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4. Plaintiff objects to each definition and request to the extent that it seeks information which is unduly burdensome to obtain and the extent that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including the request for the identification of "all" documents or "each" and "every" document when all relevant facts can be obtained from fewer than "all" documents or "each" and "every" document.

5. Plaintiff objects to each definition and request to the extent that it is ambiguous, vague, or otherwise incomprehensible.

6. Plaintiff objects to each definition and request to the extent that it seeks a response which is duplicative of responses to one or more of defendants' other requests.

7. Plaintiff objects to each definition and request to the extent it seeks information beyond the scope of Southern District of New York Local Rule 33.3.

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

1. All reports or other written statements, written by or to the persons identified in response to Interrogatory 4 relating to the matters alleged in the complaint.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, responsive documents are produced herewith. These include: (A) Copy of the website on this case: www.justice-denied.net, (B) Report on the Condition and Treatment of plaintiff, prepared by Dr. --------, dated 2/13/00; (C) MRI Report of plaintiff by Park Slope Diagnostic Image, dated March 20, 1992; (D) Prescription for MRI dated 6/19/96; (E) Managed Health Network statement of plaintiff's treatment by Betsey H. B----------------, Ph.D., dated 8/12/99; (F) Prescription of Martin M. P------ for plaintiff 7/25/96; (G) Press release and related papers about correlation between stress and disease activity in Multiple Sclerosis by David M-----, Ph.D. dated 3/26/98; (H) Plaintiff's AWOL markings signed by Ms. Agatha Stewart; (I) Letter to INS NY District Director Edward J. McElroy, dated August 15, 1996; (J) Newspaper Clip, New York Post, 12/22/95: "4 Charged in INS scam"; (K) Statement of plaintiff's earnings and leave at INS; (L) Newspaper Article, Newsday, Immigration Scam, 3/13/98; (M) Memorandum to Sean D----, re. unscheduled leave 12/28/95; (N) Letter from U.S. Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, dated 6/30/95; (O) Letter from U.S. Office of Personnel Management re. plaintiff's EEO case, dated 10/20/95; (P) Letter appointing plaintiff to position by Mr. Robert G. Brouillet, Supervisory Personnel Management Specialist, dated 9/28/95; (Q) Report of Roentgen Examination of plaintiff by New York Methodist Hospital Dept. of Radiology, Dr. Mukul P. M---------, M.D., dated 7/2/96; (R) Letter to Robert G. Brouillet re. failure to have plaintiff report to work, dated 6/8/95; (S) Letter to First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, dated 6/12/95; (T) Letter to U.S. EEOC, dated 8/16/95; (U) Letter to OPM, dated 10/12/95; (V) Plaintiff's response to Brenda Grant's Review, dated 6/10/96; (W) Letter to Brenda Grant from Michael Leventhal, dated 6/12/96; (X) Letter to Mr. Brouillet, re. mistreatment at Sec. 245, dated 6/13/96; (Y) Letter to Doris Meisner, Commissioner of INS, dated 7/1/96; (Z) Letter to Mr. Brouillet, re. exacerbation of MS of plaintiff, dated 7/20/96; (AA) Letter to Mr. McElroy in response to termination, dated 8/15/96; (BB) Letter to Mr. Eric S. Minkoff, Management Analyst, USDOJ from Michael Leventhal, dated 8/19/96; (CC) Letter to Ms. Elizabeth S. Christie, INS Office, South Burlington, VT re. EEO complaint, dated 9/2/96; (DD) Letter to Ms. Christie from Michael Leventhal, dated 9/15/96; (EE) Letter to Darlene Jedlicki, INS Office Twin Cities, MN, from Michael Leventhal, dated 9/15/96; (FF) Letter to Kimela Smith, EEO Specialist, Washington, DC, dated 12/10/97; (GG) Letter to Joan Taylor, EEO, Washington, DC, dated 12/28/96; (HH) Letter to D. Diane Weaver, EEO, Washington, DC, dated 1/8/98 re. request for hearing before ALJ; (II)Letter to Kimela Smith, EEO Specialist, dated 1/28/98; (JJ) Letter to Ms. Weaver, dated 2/20/98; (KK) Letter to Administrative Judge Michael McCauley, dated 3/22/98; (LL) Letter to Judge McCauley, dated 4/6/98; (MM) Letter to Larry Zieff, Regional Counsel, INS Vermont, dated 4/8/98; (NN) Letter to Mr. Zeff, dated 4/27/98; (OO) Letter to Judge McCauley, re. Issues Added to Complaint, dated 4/14/98; (PP) Letter to Larry Zeff, re. Motion to exclude untimely issues, dated 4/30/98; (QQ) Letter to Judge McCauley, re. Issues to be Added, 5/1/98; (RR) Letter to Mark L. Gross, DOJ Complaint Adjudication Office, dated 6/7/98; (SS) Letter to Mr. Zeff, response to motion to dismiss, dated 5/8/98; (TT) Letter to President Clinton, dated 6/12/98; (UU) Letter to Mark L. Gross, Complaint Adjudication Office, dated 6/17/98; (VV) Letter to Ms. Weaver, re. Notice of Appeal, dated 6/26/98; (WW) Letter to Director of EEOC Federal Operations, dated 6/26/98. See, also, documents submitted by defendant in response to plaintiff's document request.

2. All documents submitted to the INS in connection with the matters alleged in the complaint.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents I, M, R, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA-SS, UU-WW, identified in response to request 1.

3. All documents received from INS in connection with the matters alleged in the complaint.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents O, P, and documents submitted by defendant in response to their request.

4. All documents referred to in the complaint.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, plaintiff states that all documents referred to in the complaint are annexed as exhibits thereto.

5. All documents describing, relating to, or referring to the hiring and employment of plaintiff by the INS, including, but not limited to, qualification, salary, bonuses and all benefits that plaintiff was to receive, did receive, or is to receive by virtue of her employment with the INS.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents K, P, S, T, and U identified in plaintiff's response to request 1.

6. All documents describing, relating to, or referring to plaintiff's work at INS, including, but not limited to, documents evidencing, referring, or relating to plaintiff's qualifications, training, type of work performed, and work performance.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents identified in response to requests 3 and 5.

7. All documents describing, relating, or referring to any promotions, demotions, transfers, or increases or reductions in compensation that plaintiff was to receive, did receive, or is to receive by virtue of her employment at INS.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request at this time.

8. All documents describing, relating, or referring to the INS's employment policies and/or procedures, including, but not limited to, employment or training manuals, memoranda received by plaintiff relating to job responsibilities and/or duties and other material concerning terms and conditions of employment.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request at this time.

9. All documents concerning INS policies, procedures, practices, employees, former employees or activities in plaintiff's control and possession.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, plaintiff has no documents responsive to this request at this time.

10. All documents concerning plaintiff's termination from the INS.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents M, T, V, X, Y, Z, AA-WW.

11. All documents describing, relating or referring to communications or statements made by any INS employee, agent and/or representative that referred or related to plaintiff's race, religion or disability.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents M, T, V, X, Y, Z, AA-WW.

12. All documents describing, relating or referring to the alleged race discrimination described in the complaint.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents M, T, V, X, Y, Z, AA-WW.

13. All documents describing, relating or referring to the alleged religious discrimination described in the complaint.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents M, T, V, X, Y, Z, AA-WW.

14. All documents describing, relating or referring to the alleged disability discrimination described in the complaint.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents M, T, V, X, Y, Z, AA-WW.

15. All documents describing, relating, or referring to the alleged damages caused to plaintiff by the claimed conduct of the INS.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents B-I, K, O-R, T-Z, AA-WW.

16. All documents written or authored by plaintiff or any other person evidencing, referring to or relating to matters alleged in the complaint, including but not limited to, all personal diaries, calendars, notebooks, appointment books, phone messages, memoranda, and weekly or daily planners of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see document A.

17. All documents written by or to any person who has investigated or reported on the matters alleged in the complaint on plaintiff's behalf.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents BB-WW.

18. Each and every federal or state income tax return filed by plaintiff for the years 1995 to present.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, plaintiff is gathering her returns and it shall be provided.

19. All documents supporting or concerning any claim for lost wages, including, but not limited to, employment agreements for 1995 through the present, bank statements from 1997 through the present, tax documents (e.g., W-2 forms, 1099 forms) for 1995 through the present, and any other document reflecting income earned or received by plaintiff for 1995 through the present.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a).

20. All records regarding plaintiff in the possession of any person or organization named in response to Interrogatories 1, 2, and 3, above.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, plaintiff does not know what others have in their possession and cannot respond.

21. Notarized authorizations from plaintiff permitting the documents set forth in Request 20 to be produced to counsel for the defendant.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, plaintiff shall provide the authorizations requested.

22. For each expert named in response to Interrogatory 6 above: (a) A curriculum vitae, including qualifications and a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding 10 years; (b) All documents considered by the expert in connection with his or her services in this matter; (c) All documents supplied to the expert by plaintiff; and (d) Any report and accompanying exhibits produced by the expert in connection with his or her services in this matter.

Plaintiff objects to this request on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad, seeks irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and calls for information beyond the requirements of Local Rule 33.3(a). Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections and without waiving same, see documents B-G, Q, Z. Other documents responsive to this request shall be provided.

Dated: New York, NY

March 23, 2000

Respectfully submitted,

Attorney for Plaintiff

36 West 44^th Street

New York, NY 10036

(212) 921-5941

To: Eric B. Fisher, Esq.

Assistant United States Attorney

100 Church Street, 19^th Floor

New York, NY 10007

VERIFICATION

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: SS.:

CARYL LEVENTHAL, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I am plaintiff in the above matter. I have read and reviewed the foregoing answers to interrogatories. The same is true to my personal knowledge, except as to those matters alleged upon information and belief, and as to them, I believe it to be true.

___________________________

Caryl Leventhal

Sworn to March 23, 2000

_______________________

Notary Public

Commentary and Editor's Notes written and Copyright © by:  LTC Michael G. Leventhal

Copyright 2000  Reproduction with written permission.  Contact: Michael @Justice-Denied.net