Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 185

RESPONSE to Motion re 173 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (APP, )

RECEIVED

Michael E. Spreadbury

DEC 0 :. 2011

700 S. 4th Street

ClERI( Us

DISTRicT ~TRICT cOURT

Hamilton, MT 59840

MISSO~IWA

Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

Pro Se Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

) Cause No: 9:11cv-11-64-DWM-JCL
)

Plaintiff

v.

) PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

) TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CITY OF HAMILTON,

) IN RE: INTERROGATORIES

LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

)

BOONE KARLBERG, PC,

)

------------------------)

Comes now Spreadbury with motion, supporting brief to move court to deny

protective order to Boone Karlberg PC for discovery interrogatories.

Motion:
Plaintiff moves court deny protective order requested by Boone for cause,
controlling authority.
1

Plaintiff Opposition to Protective Order Cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-DWM-JCL

December 1, 2011

Brief in Support:
Defendant Boone not in compliance with FRCP 26( c) to negotiate discovery with
opposing party. Sending email message is insufficient in attempt to discuss
Discovery interest of aforementioned. Proper criteria of protective order is self
incrimination Amendment 5 US Constitution, deprivation of right, US Supreme
Court cites the danger oflimiting expression citing Amendment 1 US Constitution
as interrogatories precluded Seattle Times v. Rhinehart 467 US at 29 (1984).
Boone failed to disclose name address telephone of all witnesses likely to testify;
due within 30 days of service per FRCP 26(a)(1 XA). For a protective order, a
party must show attempt to work with a party as electronic message fails this
standard in FRCP 26(c)( 1).
Boone is not in danger of Plaintiff invading privacy, or retaliation for confidential
infonnation, disclose confidential infonnation. A protective order for
interrogatories are granted for the " ...prevention of abuse, oppression, or injury."

Seattle Times at 35. Boone cites harassment for answering 14 discovery questions
as a party to the aforementioned. Boone details no significant injury, abuse from
Plaintiff interrogatories to grant a protective order.
This court is made notice of Plaintiff affidavit October 6, 2011 (Affidavit of

Michael E. Spreadbury In re: Discovery Article, Defense Pleadings ~21)

2

Plaintiff OPPOsition to Protective Order Cause 9:2011-CV-1l-64-DWM-JCl

December 1, 2011

establishes actual malice of Defendant Boone Karlberg in publishing pleadings
before Montana courts. The court is reminded of 42 USC§ 1983 as Plaintiff pled
in TR# 10 (2nd Amended Complaint) conspiracy to deprive established rights. It
was premature for court to dismiss claims against Boone as interrogatories
establish facts material to the aforementioned.
FRCP 33(b)(l) indicate that an interrogatory must be answered. Boone not in
danger of self incrimination in answering 14 discovery questions USv. Kordel397
US 1(1970). Interrogatory questions from Plaintiff need only have probable value

to deny a protective order Hill v. Rolleri 65 F. 2d at 891((jh Cir., 1980}.
Evidence errors of the District Court overturned as established right deprived,
prejudice of court evident Coursen v. AH Robins Co. Inc. 764 F. 2d at 1333 (gJh
Cir., 1985 citing Haddardv. Lockeed CA corp 720 F.2d at 1459 ((jh Gir., 1983).

As court violates right of Plaintiff to discovery it sets up abuse of discretion upon
appeal USv. Uarte 175 F. 2d 110 ((jh Cir., 1949).
Defendant Boone named as Defendant in conspiracy to deprive rights 42 USC§
1983, pled Joint Function Test with Defendant City in aforementioned Johnson v.
Knowles 113 F. 3d at 1118-1120 ((jh Cir., 1997). It is premature ofthis court to

exclude Boone from discovery in relation to other defendants. Boone fails in
pleading before court as to need for protective order, and should be denied by way

:I

Plaintiff Opposition to Protective Order Cause 9:2011-CV-1l-64-DWM-JCL

December 1, 2011

of controlling authority, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cause before this
Honorable Court.
Certificate of Compliance
From LR 7(d)(2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certify that this brief
conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typefuce, is double spaced,
contains 490 words excluding title page, this compliance.

51"

Respectfully submitted this

I

day of December, 2011

BY;____~~~~~--~~--__----____­

Michael E. Spreadbury, SelfRepresented Plaintiff

4

Certificate of Service
Cause No.9: 11-cv-11-0064-DWM-JCL
I certifY as Plaintiff in this action, a copy of the below named pleading was served
upon the US District Court Missoula Division and all opposing counsel for parties
in this above named cause of action by first class mail. The following addresses
were used for service:
Plaintiff Opposition to Protective Order in re:lnterrogatories

Clerk ofCourt-US District Court for Montana
201 E. Broadway
Missoula, MT 59803

Defendant Counsel:

Plaintiff Counsel:

William L. Crowley

Michael E. Spreadbury

Boone Karlberg PC

PO Box 416

PO Box 9199

Hamilton, MT 59840

Missoula MT 59807

(self-represented)

Jeffrey B Smith
Garlington, Lohn, & Robbinson PLLP
POBox 7909
Missoula MT 59807

Dated _ _ _ 12111I 1_ _ __

Michael . Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff