Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 238

NOTICE of filing Pltf Interrogatories, Discovery by Michael E. Spreadbury (Attachments: # 1 Attachment D) (APP, )

\J?,I
Anita Harper Poe
Jeffrey B. Smith
GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP
350 Ryman Street· P. O. Box 7909
Missoula, MT 59807-7909
Telephone [phone]
Telefax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

/11-­

~
)«

<6(Jf'S~$.

~~

?nor to nqff,e..

ot

4'fCa..ra.V1ce

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONT ANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

Cause No. CV-11-064-M-DWM

Plaintiff,
v.

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON, LEE
ENTERPRlSES, INC., and BOONE

KARLBERG P.C.,

DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRlSES,
INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
INTERROGATORlES, WRITTEN

DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO

DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES

Defendants.
TO; Pro Se Plaintiff, Michael E. Spreadbury, P.O. Box 416, Hamilton, MT
59840
These Responses to Plaintiff First Interrogatories, Written Discovery
Requests to Defendant Lee Enterprises, Inc. ("Lee") are prepared and submitted in
accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, 34, and 36. The preface

1085575

included in the Interrogatories is not within the express or implied provisions of
that Rule, and, as a consequence, has been disregarded in preparing these Answers.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION No. I: Please admit reporter, photographer
sent to cover Plaintiff summons for trespassing at Bitterroot Public Library by
Defendant Perry Backus, former editor Defendant Ravalli Republic Hamilton
Municipal Court September 9,2009.
RESPONSE: Objection Plaintiffs Request for Admission No.1 is
unintelligible and therefore Lee is unable to answer the Request for Admission and
denies the same.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No. I: Please produce all articles written by
Defendant Lee Montana affiliates, all online comments, journalistic notes, research
for articles written on topic of Plaintiff from August 20, 2009 to present.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Production No. I as it is overly
broad and unduly burdensome. Further, Lee objects to Request for Production No.
1 as it seeks information which is not relevant to any party's claim or defense and
thus outside the scope of discovery allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
According to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations regarding Lee's
Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Remaining Counts (Dkt. 181), the
only remaining issues involve the August 9, 20 I 0 article. No issues remain
concerning online comments. Lee Enterprises is not in the possession of any

2
1085575

journalistic notes or research regarding the August 9,2010 article.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.2: Please admit Defendant Lee sent
Defense counsel Jeffrey B. Smith an edited version of an August 9, 2009 article
September 21, 20 II which was not a true and accurate copy due to omitting the
imputation of Disturbing the Peace on Plaintiff within the aforementioned edited
article.
RESPONSE: Lee objects that Request for Admission No.2 is a request for
privileged communications between attorney and client, and therefore need not be
answered.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No.2: Please produce certified letter
refused by Plaintiff, authored by Defendant Missoulian, copied to Ravalli County
Sheriff in re: July 9, 2009 interaction at 232 W Main St. Hamilton, business of
Ravalli Republic used as a pretext for Plaintiff behavior which afforded resignation
of Defendant Stacey Mueller publisher of Lee newspaper Missoulian.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Production No.2 on the grounds it
is unclear, that it is based on false factual premises or assumptions, and that it
seeks information which is not relevant to any party's claim or defense and thus
outside the scope of discovery allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). According to
the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations regarding Lee's Motion for
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Remaining Counts (Dkt. 181), the only

3
1085575

remaining issues involve the August 9, 2010 article, which did not report on
matters addressed in Request for Production No.2.
m

INTERROGATORY No. I: IdentifY reason 3 party comments in re:
Plaintiff were removed from online access to Defendant Lee news publisher if no
liability exists to Defendant Lee per the Communications Decency Act.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as it seeks information
which is not relevant to any party's claim or defense and thus outside the scope of
discovery allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(bXl). According to the Magistrate's
Findings and Recommendations regarding Lee's Motion for Summary Judgment
on Plaintiff's Remaining Counts (Dkt. 181), the only remaining issues involve the
August 9,2010 article, and there are no issues remaining involving online
comments.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No.3: Produce list of any internet service
customers in the State of Montana or elsewhere that gain access and internet
services provided by Defendant Lee in accordance with the Communications
Decency Act.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Production No.3 on the grounds
that it is ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome, and that it seeks
information which is not relevant to any party's claim or defense and, thus, outside
the scope of discovery allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). According to the

4
1085575

Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations regarding Lee's Motion for
Summary Judgment on PlaintiW s Remaining Counts (Dkt. 181), the only
remaining issues involve the August 9, 20 I 0 article, and there are no issues
remaining involving online comments. Without waiving any objections, Lee does
not have such a list in its possession.
INTERROGATORY No.2: Since Plaintiff made no threats July 9, 2009 at
Defendant Lee place of business at 232 W. Main St Hamilton Montana, why did
Defendant Lee Employees call in threats to the Ravalli County dispatch.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Plaintiffs characterization ofthe facts in
Interrogatory No.2. Law enforcement was called to protect Ravalli Republic
employees who felt threatened by Plaintiffs conduct.
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION No.3: Please admit that August 24, 20 10
failed attempt at correction of a Defendant Lee August 9, 20 I 0 article did not
mention or correct the falsely published Disturbing the Peace charge imposed on
Plaintiff in the August 9,2010 Defendant Lee article.
RESPONSE: Deny. Although the August 24, 2010 article did not restate
Spreadbury was charged with Disturbing the Peace it correctly noted, "An article
on the front page of the Aug. 9 edition of the Ravalli Republic incorrectly
identified a charge against Hamilton resident Michael Spreadbury. The article
should have stated that Spreadbury was appealing a conviction of criminal

5
1085575

trespassing..." Dkt. 124-10 at 2. Deny Lee's correction was a "failed attempt".
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN No.4: Please admit Defendant Lee
Enterprises Inc. is a publisher of newspapers, and its propriety websites such as
www.RavaIliRepublic.com, www.Missoulian.com, and www.BilIingsGazette.com
inter alia are owned by Defendant Lee Enterprises.

RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Admission No.4 on the grounds it is
ambiguous and it seeks information which is not relevant to any party's claim or
defense and thus outside the scope of discovery allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(I). According to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations regarding
Lee's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Remaining Counts (Dkt. 181),
the only remaining issues involve the August 9, 2010 article, and issues regarding
on-line comments are not relevant. Without waiver of these objections, Lee admits
it is the owner of the Ravalli Republic, the Missoulian and the Billings Gazette, and
that it publishes newspapers. Lee specifically denies liability for comments made
on its websites, pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No.4: Please produce full criteria,
submission requirements; include Defendant Lee adherence to Associated Press
(AP) standards for Plaintiff headline photograph article September 10, 2009 as
basis for follow-up stories such as Defendant Lee's on or around August 20,2010
[in re: Plaintiff trespass on public property of Bitterroot Public Library] for AP

6
1085575

news stories originating from Defendant Ravalli Republic, and published
nationally, internationally.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Production No.4 as it is ambiguous
and unintelligible, and to the extent it seeks information about matters which are
no longer issues in the case. (Dkt. 181)
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION No.5: Please produce any documentation
that validates Montana Supreme Court upheld unlawful"ban" of Plaintiff at
Defendant Bitterroot Public Library in order denying Plaintiffs "out-of time"
appeal dated August 10,2010 published within Defendant Lee August 24, 2010 as
failed attempt at correction of prior August 9,2010 article about Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Production No.5 on the grounds it
is ambiguous, that it mischaracterizes the facts and is based on incorrect premises,
that Montana Supreme Court decisions, if that is what is sought, are public record
and not in the possession of Lee, and that the Request seeks information which is
not relevant to any party's surviving claim or defense and thus outside the scope of
discovery allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No.6: Please produce documents, maps, or
other documentation that the commons west ofthe Bitterroot Public Library
Structure, site of Plaintiff assembly August 20, 2009 at306 State St. Hamilton
Montana is private property that warranted Defendant Lee coverage of Plaintiff

7
1085575

"trespassing" .
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Production No.6 as it is ambiguous,
mischaracterizes the facts, is based on incorrect premises, arguably seeks
information that is public record, and seeks information which is not relevant to the
claims against this Defendant, and thus outside the scope of discovery allowed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l).
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION No.7: Please produce document, citation,
source or other information other than Lee exhibit court transcript August 6,2009
[oral argument of DV -10-222 Montana 21 sl " District]; Defendant Lee attributed
Plaintiff speech that law student Angela Wetzsteon was supervised in a Ravalli
County Courtroom August 8, 2007: a false attribution to Plaintiff in published
August 9,2010 article by Defendant Ravalli Republic although Wetzsteon was
unsupervised by sworn affidavit of Justice of the Peace Bailey August 17,2007.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Production No.7 as it is ambiguous
and unintelligible, and to the extent it seeks information regarding Lee's reporting
of court proceedings, seeks information outside the scope of discovery allowed by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). According to the Magistrate's Findings and
Recommendation regarding Lee's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's
Remaining Counts (Dkt. 181), the only remaining issues involve the statement that
Spreadbury was convicted of "disturbing the peace" when in fact he had been

8
1085575

convicted of criminal trespass.
INTERROGATORY No. 3: Identify reason Defendant Lee in August 9,
2010 article falsely attributed entry of Defendant Ken Bell into civil courtroom
August 20,2009 in defense of Defendant Librarian Roddy to enjoin Plaintiff in
unlawful order of protection [without finding of fact or conclusion oflaw per
Hamilton Municipal Judge Reardon in order] as lawful although in violation of
duties of Montana City Attorney per Montana Code MCA§ 7-4604 as Official
Misconduct, a misdemeanor crime in Montana.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Interrogatory No.3 on the grounds it is
ambiguous, mischaracterizes the evidence, is based on false premises and seeks
information which is not relevant to any party's claim or defense and thus outside
the scope of discovery allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(I). Lee denies making the
attribution the Interrogatory asks it to justify.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION No.8: Please produce the source and
motive of continued articles (numbering 33) within 36 months involving Plaintiff,
from search of Defendant Lee Enterprises websites: personal vendetta, contract for
defamation, incompetence, andlor lack or journalistic standards.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Production No.8 as it is not a
request for documents or tangible things as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Lee
further objects that it mischaracterizes the facts, and seeks information which is not

9
1085575

relevant to Plaintiff's remaining claims against this Defendant.
INTERROGATORY No.4: Please indicate why fonner Ravalli County
Prosecutor George Com on editorial staff as numerous articles relating to Plaintiff
were published; was conflict of interest with Corn lost on Lee?
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Interrogatory No.4 on the grounds it
is unintelligible, that it misstates the facts and is based on false premises, is
argumentative, and seeks infonnation which is not relevant to any party's claim or
defense and thus outside the scope of discovery allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)( I). Without waiving any objection, George Com was not on the editorial
staff of the Ravalli Republic.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.5: Please admit as newspaper publishers,
Defendant Lee employees should be well aware of first amendment rights ofthe
US Constitution as fundamentally protected due to training in journalism school
prior to working for Lee.
RESPONSE: Lee objects to Request for Admission No.5 on the grounds it is
ambiguous, unintelligible, overbroad, based on the false premise that individual
employees of Lee are newspaper publishers, and seeks infonnation which is not
relevant to any party's claim or defense and thus outside the scope of discovery
allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
REOUEST FOR ADMISSION No.6: Please admit that George Com,

10
1085575

Ravalli County Prosecutor and Lee Editorial Staff instructed Lee to call in false
threats as Plaintiff appeared July 9, 2009 at Defendant Ravalli Republic
Newspaper to conspire to interfere with election, knowingly deprive right to
Plaintiff equal protection, and develop evidence for malicious prosecution of
Plaintiff.
RESPONSE: Deny.
DATED this

#

day of January, 2012.

FOR OBJECTIONS ONLY
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP
350 Ryman Street - P.O. Box 7909
Missoula, MT 59807-7909
Telephone: [phone]

By

Jks.,~Ik~-

11
1085575