Wilson v. The Birmingham Public Library Foundation et al
Filing
28
NOTICE by Birmingham Library Board, City of Birmingham, Alabama, The Objection to Notices of Depositions (Fullerton, Frederic)
FILED
2011 Jun-20 AM 07:21
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BARBARA ANN WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
CV-10-KOB-2386
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO NOTICES OF DEPOSITIONS
The Defendants, the City of Birmingham (“City”), a municipal corporation
under the laws of the State of Alabama, and the Birmingham Library Board (“Board”),
by and through their attorney of record, objects to the Deposition Notices served on
each of the Defendants’ representatives as follows:
The various Notices of Depositions includes the following language:
“6. Any and all information indicating the Plaintiff participated in or
was not offended by sexual conduct or the viewing of sexual materials in
the workplace.
7.
Each step taken and/or act performed in the investigation of any
complaint of sexual harassment received by this Defendant from the
Plaintiff.
8.
Each step taken and/or act performed in the investigation of any
complaint of sexual misconduct by patrons or co-workers received by this
Defendant from any employee of the Birmingham Public Library
1
Downtown Branch from 2006 through the present.
9.
Any and all internal complaints, reports, EEOC Charges or
lawsuits involving allegations of sexual misconduct by patrons or coworkers made by any from any employee of the Birmingham Public
Library Downtown Branch from 2006 through the present.
17. All incident reports and/or special security reports or other security
reports generated in connection with any report of sexual misconduct at
the Birmingham Library Downtown Branch from 2006 through the
present.
25. Any and all complaints by patrons regarding sexual misconduct in
the downtown branch from 2006 to the present.
26. Any and all police reports involving allegations of sexual
misconduct in the downtown branch from 2006 to the present.
27. The identity of any employee who has reported sexual misconduct
in the downtown branch from 2006 to the present.”
The Defendants object to these requests as overboard, vague and not limited in time
and scope. The documents sought is immaterial and irrelevant to the issues raised in
this lawsuit and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The
Defendants asserts that such alleged incidents are time barred. The Defendants asserts
the statute of limitations as to claims arising under 42 U.S.C 2000 which occurred prior
to 180 days prior to filing the her EEOC charge. Further, the Defendants object
because it calls for information protected by the work-product doctrine.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Fredric L. Fullerton, II
Fredric L. Fullerton, II
Assistant City Attorney
City of Birmingham Law Department
600 City Hall
710 North 20th Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
2
(205) 254-2369/(205) 254-2502 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 20, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such
filing to the following:
Adam P. Morel, Esq.
517 Beacon Parkway West
Birmingham, AL. 35209
/s/Fredric L. Fullerton, II
Of Counsel
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?