Response No. 1:
Defendant incorporates by reference her objections to plaintiff's first interrogatories as if those objections were fully set forth herein. Subject to those objections, responsive documents are produced herewith.

Request No. 2:

Please produce all documents relating to any evaluation (formal or informal) of plaintiff.

Response No. 2:
Defendant objects to plaintiff's distinction between "formal" and "informal" evaluations as vague and ambiguous. Subject to this objection, responsive documents are produced herewith.

  Request No. 3:
Please produce plaintiffs personnel file and copies of any documents maintained in any file referencing plaintiff with respect to her health, performance, compensation, or any complaints made by or concerning plaintiff.

Response No. 3:
Plaintiff s official personnel file currently is stored at the Federal Records Center. Defendant has requested that the file be forwarded to her attorneys on an expedited basis. Responsive documents will be forthcoming after those documents are received and reviewed by counsel.

Editor's Notes:  The term "reviewed by counsel," is very interesting.  Does this mean that Caryl Leventhal's personnel file will be censored by the US Attorney?

Request No. 4:
Please produce all documents relating to any written or oral reprimand, warning, or caution, or any compliment, award, or commendation, given to or concerning plaintiff.

Response No. 4:  

Responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.

Request No. 5:
Please produce copies of all communication between plaintiff and defendants, or relating to plaintiff, by or to any employee of defendants, or relating to plaintiff, by or to any employee of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"), New York Office, Section 245 ("245") or otherwise employed by INS, of or relating to plaintiff by or to any outside person.

 Response No. 5:
Defendant objects to this request as unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for the production of private correspondence between and among INS employees that is not in defendant's possession, custody or control and about which defendant is unaware. Defendant further objects to this request because it is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as it is not restricted to correspondence that relates to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Subject to these objections, responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.  Also, using terms like "unduly burdensome" is outrageous.  We are speaking about information relative to one person, not a large staff.  In addition, the US Attorney's logic is flawed, or he simply refuses to accept the purpose of Discovery.  Not wanting to supply information "about which defendant is unaware" is precisely what Discovery is all about.  That's why it is called "Discovery."

Request No. 6:
Please produce copies of all documents prepared by, or at the direction of, any employee of INS relating to plaintiff. 

Response No. 6:
Defendant objects to this request because it is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as it is not restricted to documents that relate to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Subject to this objection, responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.

Request No. 7:
Please produce all documents relating to any contention by INS that plaintiff's performance was unsatisfactory.

Response No. 7:
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Subject to this objection, responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.

 Request No. 8:
Please produce all documents relating to the job descriptions for the position held by plaintiff.

Response No. 8:

Responsive documents are produced herewith.

Response No. 9:
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Subject to this objection, responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.  As an aside, the editor can't help but remember the days of the Watergate investigation, where terms like "attorney-client privilege" were also used by a compromised US Department of Justice determined to "stonewall" [Richard Nixon's words], evidence. 

Request No. 10:
Please produce all documents relating to plaintiff's damages, including any documents supporting any contention that plaintiff is not entitled to all or part of the damages claimed (this request relates specifically to damages, not to the merits of the underlying claims).

Response No. 10:
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Defendant further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous insofar as defendant does not know the amount of damages claimed by plaintiff. Finally, defendant objects to this request as unduly burdensome because plaintiff is the person most knowledgeable about the nature and extent of her alleged damages.

Editor's Notes: The US Attorney might very well be proper for much of what he said.  On the other hand, the section about "attorney-client and/or work-product privileges," is a shameless shield with no basis.

Request No. 11:
Please produce copies of all documents relating to the charges filed by plaintiff to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any other federal administrative agency.

Response No. 11:
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Subject to this objection, responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: The US attorney provided no documents whatever relative to Caryl Leventhal's request that during the Administrative Process, the case be reviewed by a USEEO Administrative Law Judge.  It has nothing to do with "attorney-client and/or work-product privileges."  In point of fact, during the Administrative process every attempt was made by the US Department of Justice to keep this case from this lawful US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission review process.  Caryl Leventhal will reply to the US Attorney's request for documents.  She will reply fully and openly with all documents and no judicial subterfuge.  She will produce certified letters and verified faxes to prove that there was a refusal to allow USEEO to review her case.  Only when she threatened to go public with charges of Obstruction of Justice, did the US Justice Department relent and have her case file sent to the Hon. and very fair, William Michael Macauley, USEEO Administrative Law Judge. 

Request No. 12:
Please produce all documents relating to or referring to plaintiff's inadequate job performance.

Response No. 12:
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Subject to this objection, responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.

Request No. 13:
Please produce all documents relating to or referring to all steps taken to investigate plaintiff's complaints of discrimination. 

Response No. 13:
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Subject to this objection, responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.  The US Attorney omits certified correspondences from Caryl Leventhal's objections to the Administrative process' refusing to accept RACIAL and RELIGIOUS Discrimination as Bases of her complaint.  It took some two years of fighting an obtuse and bigoted system to have the US Department of Justice finally relent.  It also took the efforts of a USEEO Judge to realize what was going on and force the US Department of Justice into complying with the law.

Request No. 14:  

Please produce all documents relating in any manner to plaintiff, without date limitation.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.  Additionally, there are more issues in this suit than "reasons for her termination."  Since September 1996, The US Department of Justice has constantly attempted to turn this complaint into one based solely on Unlawful Termination.  The original Administrative complaint and Federal Suit 99CIV.10405 is based on Discrimination Racial, Religious and Physical.  Even as late as their January 3, 2000 scheduling order, the US Attorney omitted "Racial," from the bases.  They shamelessly attempted to push this document through the courts, hoping that Ms. Leventhal would overlook their text and sign off.  This is their pathology of desperation.  It is a four year attempt at keeping a white person from pointing a finger at bigoted people who are either African-American or affiliated by marriage and children to the African-American community.  

Request No. 15:
Please produce complete copies of all documents signed by plaintiff while employed by INS.

Response No. 15:
Defendant objects to this request as overbroad because it encompasses documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as it is not limited to the subject matter of this lawsuit. In particular, the request is not limited to those documents that relate to plaintiff's job performance, her work environment or the reasons for plaintiff's termination. Subject to those objections, defendant will produce documents signed by plaintiff while employed by the INS that relate to her job performance, work environment and the reasons for her termination.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.

Request No. 16:
Please produce all documents relating to the decision to terminate plaintiff s employment.

Response No. 16:  

Responsive documents are produced herewith.

Editor's Notes: "Responsive documents" were not "produced herewith."  During the prerequisite Administrative Complaint EEO process, Caryl Leventhal was required by law to receive a developing complaint file.  The US Attorney responded to the above request by sending only documents already in the possession of Ms. Leventhal through this process.  Nothing else was forthcoming.  Worthy of note is that Ms. Leventhal remained in the Administrative Process for some three years.  She knew that it would be the only way to secure documents that the US Attorney would normally refuse to supply.  They are far from inclusive. 

Response No. 17:  

Responsive documents will be forthcoming.

Request No. 18:
Please produce all records, logs, tapes, and recordings of all calls to 245 between June 10-June 13, 1996 for the following phone numbers and/or employees: (i) Cathy Pratha (212) 2645611; (ii) Brenda Grant (212) 264-3970; (iii) Agatha Stewart. 

Response No. 18:
Defendant objects to this request as unduly burdensome and because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The requested telephone records are not related to the matters at issue in this case. Finally, this request is overbroad insofar as it seeks all telephone records relating to certain employees without regard to whether those records reflect telephone calls to or from plaintiff, or otherwise relate to the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Editor's Notes: Section 245 is a small work area within the Immigration and Naturalization Service at 26 Federal Plaza.  Additionally, we are speaking about information concerning only three people within this area.  This can hardly be considered "unduly burdensome," but very reminiscent of the "missing tapes" during the Watergate investigation.  

Request No. 19:  

Please produce all documents relating to INS's and/or 245's policy of accommodations  for persons with disabilities, in effect while plaintiff was employed by INS. 

Response No. 19:  

Responsive documents will be forthcoming. 

Editor's Notes: No documents have been forthcoming as yet.

Response No. 20:  

Responsive documents will be forthcoming.

Editor's Notes: No documents have been forthcoming as yet.

Request No. 21:
Please produce all documents relating to INS's and/or 245's policy regarding requests for time or days off for illness in effect while plaintiff was employed by INS.

Response No. 21:  

Responsive documents will be forthcoming.

Editor's Notes: No documents have been forthcoming as yet.

Please produce all documents relating to plaintiff being marked AWOL in 1996.

Responsive documents are produced herewith.

Request No. 23:
All other documents referring or relating to the subject matter of this action which have been furnished to or reviewed by Met's attorneys in connection with their defense of this action, except for documents protected by a recognized privilege of non-production.

 Response No. 23:
Defendant objects to this request because she does not know who "Met's attorneys" are. To the extent that plaintiff seeks the production of all non-privileged documents furnished to or reviewed by defendant's attorney, defendant objects to this request because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence insofar as the request is not limited to those subjects which are at issue in this lawsuit.

Editor's Note:  This is attorney "boilerplate" with a typo.  "Met's attorneys" should have been "US Department of Justice Attorneys."  The US Attorney knows this very well, but lawyers like to play games with each other.  In an untenable position, the US Attorney's office also likes to stall for time, no matter how much public tax funds are wasted in the process.

Request No. 24:
A list of all documents which are being withheld from production by virtue of any privilege of non-production or for any other reason. (This list should identify each document by its name, date, author, and recipient and specify the reason for withholding it from production).

Response No. 24:
To the extent that otherwise responsive documents are withheld on the basis of privilege, a log of such documents will be provided.

Editor's Notes:  Again, the US Department of Justice refuses to accept the concept of Discovery and chooses to hide behind a secrecy and confidentiality that in their growing arrogance, they have assigned to themselves.  No log has ever been provided.

Dated: New York, New York

March 21, 2000