MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT LIMITED DISCOVERY

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT LIMITED DISCOVERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CASE NO. 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
VS.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR
CHOICE, INC., a Florida
Corporation, EDWARD W.
WINDLE, JR., and PATRICIA
B. WINDLE
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT LIMITED DISCOVERY

Plaintiff Meredith Raney has moved this Honorable Court to allow limited discovery relevant to Plaintiff's punitive damage claim. Plaintiff should be allowed to conduct this discovery for several reasons. A copy of the proposed limited discovery that Plaintiff seeks is attached to this Memorandum for reference.

Plaintiff has the right to this discovery.

Plaintiff has properly asked this Court and the jury to consider awarding punitive damages against these Defendants on the basis of their malicious, wanton, and reckless treatment of Plaintiff and their disregard for his rights. Plaintiff is entitled to conduct this limited discovery in pursuit of his claim for punitive damages.

Specifically, Plaintiff asks for punitive damages in the prayer for relief section of his Complaint. In addition, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit pursuant to 18 USC §248, which provides, inter alia, for the award of punitive damages. Not only has Plaintiff specifically sought punitive damages; Plaintiff has a statutory right to seek punitive damages under federal law.

Defendants did not comply with previous discovery requests.

Plaintiff has previously submitted written discovery to Defendants relevant to Plaintiff's punitive damage claim. Defendants refused to answer that written discovery. Plaintiff's subsequent Motion to Compel and Motion to Reconsider were denied by the Court.

In addition, this issue was addressed by Magistrate Baker during the Pretrial Conference held on February 16, 1999. Magistrate Baker suggested that Plaintiff take steps to pursue discovery relevant to punitive damages. Clearly, there is no other avenue for Plaintiff to obtain the information to which he is entitled than for this Court to grant the attached Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery.

Allowing immediate discovery will minimize hardship on the parties and the Court.

Discovery for this limited purpose can be had now, without interfering with the trial that is scheduled to begin the week of March 1, 1999. Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the Court provide for an expedited response by Defendants.

Because the discovery requests are specific and narrow, compliance by Defendants with an expedited response time will not create any additional hardship on Defendants. Certainly conducting this discovery now is less demanding and works less of a hardship than requiring compliance in the midst of the trial.

No reason exists to delay this limited discovery.

Plaintiff anticipates that Defendants will object to this very limited discovery on three bases: 1) that compliance with the discovery request will work a hardship; 2) that Defendants are concerned that their responses will find their way into the public arena; and, 3) Counsel for Defendants is of the persuasion that Plaintiff's punitive damage claim will not prevail.

First, mere "hardship," without more, can not serve as the basis for denying the right to conduct discovery that is directly relevant to the claims in the Complaint, the issues before the Court, and the statutory right of Plaintiff to pursue punitive damages. Otherwise, no discovery could ever be conducted on issues relevant to punitive damages.

Second, what goes into the public record in this case should enjoy no special status over what goes into the public record in any other case. Moreover, this Court can fashion a protective order that satisfactorily protects any legitimate assertions that Defendants may raise.

Third, learned Defense Counsel's opinion as to the ultimate success of any claim is no basis at all for denying Plaintiff his full day in court. Indeed, this issue is for the trier of fact.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has the right to conduct this limited discovery. Plaintiff asked for punitive damages in his prayer for relief and the statute under which this lawsuit is brought specifically provides for punitive damages.

In addition, allowing this limited discovery to be conducted now will not interfere with the trial calendar. Interrupting the trial, however, will not only interfere with the trial, but will present an unnecessary hardship on all parties and this Court.

Finally the facts of this case support allowing this limited discovery. Denying Plaintiff this right interferes with his right to Due Process and his right to be heard on all the relevant issues in this case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to sign the attached proposed Order and grant Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Limited Discovery.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael R. Hirsh <signed>
Admitted Pro hac Vice
125 TownPark Drive
Suite 300
Kennesaw, GA 30144
770-420-8224
404-713-4400 (facsimile)
and
Christopher F. Sapp
Attorney for Plaintiff
Meredith T. Raney, Jr.
P.O. Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, FL 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar Number 0097823