Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 247

RESPONSE to Motion re 237 MOTION to Compel DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S RESPONSE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DKT 237 filed by Lee Enterprises Incorporated. (Smith, Jeffrey)

Anita Harper Poe
Jeffrey B. Smith
GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP
350 Ryman Street. P. O. Box 7909
Missoula, MT 59807 -7909
Telephone (a06) 523-2500
Telefax [phone]
[e-mail]
j bsmith@garlington. com
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

IN TFIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY.

Cause No.

CV-l I-064-M-DWM

Plaintiff.
V.

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON, LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., and BOONE
KARLBERG P.C..

DEFENDANT LEE ENTE,RPRISES.
INC.'S RESPONSE BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTTON TO COMPEL (Dkt. 237)

Defendants.

Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc. ("Lee"), through its counsel, Garlington,

Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, respectfully submits this response Brief in Opposition to

Plaintiff s Motion for Order to Compel Lee Discovery FRCP 37(a) (Dkt. 237),
filed on February 24,2012.
Although Spreadbury's Motion to Compel includes wide ranging complaints

n34268

and objections, upon careful reading, the relief requested is to compel responses to

Plaintiff s Request for Production No. 3 and Requests for Admission Nos. I and 4.
(SeeDkt.237 ar4.)
Spreadbury acknowledges that Lee responded, but is dissatisfied with the

responses. However, Spreadbury provided no clarification, additional information,
or other bases on which to compel different answers.
Request for Production No. 3 asks for a document that does not exist.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 requires production of existing documents in
the party's possession. Request for Admission No.

I

is not sufficiently clear to

understand or admit, in particular, due to the lack of a verb. In response to Request

for Admission No. 4, Lee admitted it is the owner of the Ravalli Republic,the
Missoulian, andthe Billings Gazette, and that it publishes newspapers. (See Dkt.

238-1.) Lee specifically denied liability for comments made on its websites,
pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (See Dkt. 238-1.)

There is no basis to compel different responses.
To the extent Spreadbury seeks to void Lee's responses at the same time he
seeks to compel them, his arguments have no

merit.

Spreadbury admits the

responses were received the first day after the bankruptcy stay was

lifted. Lee was

precluded from responding to the discovery requests until the automatic stay was

lifted. In re Schwartz, 954 F .2d

n34268

569, 57 | (gth

Cir. I 992), superseded by statute on

another point, Lewis v. Daybreak Group, Inc., 2008 WL 4801647 (Cal. App.
4 Dist. Nov. 5, 2008) (unpublished). Lee's responses were timely.

Spreadbury's protest of attorney Poe's signature on Lee's discovery
responses is supported by no authority. The law

firm of Garlington, Lohn &

Robinson, PLLP, is and has been counsel of record and Ms. Poe's signature on the
responses does not make them

"void"

as

Mr. Spreadbury contends.

CONCLUSION
Spreadbury's Motion to Compel should be denied.

DATED this 5th dav of March. 2012.

lsl

Jeffrev B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(dX2)(E), I certiS' that this Defendant Lee Enterprises,

Inc.'s Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 237) is
printed with proportionately spaced Times New Roman text typeface of 14 points;
is double-spaced; and the word count, calculated by Microsoft Office Word 2007,

is 379 words long, excluding Caption, Certificate of Service and Certificate

of

Compliance.

lsl

Jeffrey B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

n34268

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certiff that on the 5th day of March, 2012, a copy of the foregoing
document was served on the following persons by the following means:

2
I

CM/ECF
Hand Deliverv
Mail
Overnight Delivery Service
Fax

E-Mail

1.

Michael E. Spreadbury
P.O. Box 416
Hamilton, MT 59840
Pro Se Plaintiff

2.

William L. Crowley
Natasha Prinzing Jones
Thomas J. Leonard
bcrowley @boonekarlberg. com
npj ones @boonekarlberg. com
tleonard@boonekarlberg. com
Attorneys for Defendants Bitterroot Public Library, City of Hamilton, and
Boone Karlbere P.C.

lsl

Jeffrev B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

n34268