DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

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

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES BY PATRICIA B. WINDLE, EDWARD W. WINDLE JR AND AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC

Defendants, AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation, EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR. and PATRICIA B. WINDLE, by and through their undersigned attorneys, file this Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories by EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., PATRICIA B. WINDLE and AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., and state as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

On or about October 1, 1997, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court, Middle District, Orlando Division, alleging Defendants violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) on three separate occasions. Plaintiff, in his Complaint, claims to be a reproductive health services provider at Defendant's facility. Plaintiff alleges that on the three specified dates he was performing said reproductive health services within the 36' buffer zone of AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., when he was arrested by the Melbourne Police Department. Plaintiff further alleges that, when arresting Plaintiff, the police were acting as agents for the named Defendants and at their instruction. Plaintiff claims that Defendants' actions violate 18 U.S.C. § 248 (FACE).

Defendants maintain that RANEY is a long-time anti-abortion extremist and demonstrator. He is not a "reproductive health services" provider as defined under FACE, nor was he authorized by Defendants to provide reproductive health services on behalf of Defendants or, for that matter, to even be on the premises. Defendants also maintain that the Melbourne Police Department arrested Plaintiff for violations of the injunction which establishes a 36' buffer zone around the clinic to prevent protestors, such as RANEY, from preventing or inhibiting clinic patients from freely entering or leaving the facility. On the subject dates, the Melbourne police officers acted in their capacity as law enforcement officers, and not at the urging or as agents of Defendants.

On January 13, 1998, Plaintiff propounded Interrogatories upon the three named Defendants, copies of which are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "A." On February 11, 1998, each Defendant served its Answers to Interrogatories on Plaintiff, copies of which are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "B." (AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., PATRICIA B. WINDLE) On that same date, Defendants served its objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, copies of which are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit "C." (AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR. and PATRICIA B. WINDLE)

Prior to Plaintiff filing his Motions to Compel, counsel for Defendants attempted to resolve the issue regarding the disclosure of names, residential addresses and telephone numbers of certain individuals to Plaintiff. In a letter dated February 17, 1998, Defendants' counsel proposed that the parties enter into a Confidentiality Stipulation. A copy of the letter and Confidentiality Stipulation are attached as Exhibit "D." Plaintiff declined to enter into the Stipulated Protective Order. See Plaintiffs' letter dated March 5, 1998, attached as Exhibit "E." Thereafter, Plaintiff ignored Defendants' counsel's request to discuss the discovery matters by telephone. See Defendants' letter dated March 13, 1998, attached as Exhibit "F." Instead of picking up the phone, Plaintiff's counsel attempted to arrange a face-to-face to meeting, which was rejected by Defendants' counsel because Plaintiffs counsel had not first tried to resolve the issue by phone as requested. See Defendants' letter dated March 27, 1998, attached as Exhibit "G." Inexplicably, Plaintiffs counsel carried on with his plans to hold a meeting with full and adequate notice that Defendants' counsel had no intention of attending. See Plaintiffs facsimile dated March 31, 1998, attached as Exhibit "H."

II. DEFENDANT, EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF.

A. FIRST ITEM.

Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 2 requests the names, business address, dates of employment, including self-employment, where Defendant has worked in the past five years. Defendant objects to the information requested in Interrogatory No. 2 inasmuch as this information is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the objection, Defendant responded to the question as it relates to being employed by AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. Plaintiff claims that Defendant should be compelled to answer Interrogatory No. 2 as to other employment as it could reveal information about the issues, it may lead to impeachment testimony, and it would assist in computing punitive damages. Plaintiff also claims that the information is necessary to define Defendant's knowledge and experience.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define discoverable matters as those not privileged which are relevant to the Subject matter involved in the pending action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. To determine whether discovery is relevant the district court should examine the issues raised in the case. Mackey v. IBP, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 186, 193 (D. Kan. 1996). The subject matter of the pending action involve FACE violations at AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. in Melbourne, Florida. The only issues involved in the case are (1) whether Plaintiff is a reproductive health services provider; (2) whether Plaintiff is authorized by Defendants to provide reproductive health services on behalf of the facility; (3) whether Defendants caused Plaintiffs removal and arrest through use of law enforcement as their agents; and (4) whether punitive damages are justified.(Footnote 1) Defendant's employment at the Melbourne facility is the only employment information relevant to the above described issues.

(Footnote 1) A fifth possible issue is what comprises the facility, and whether Plaintiff was inside or outside the facility when allegedly providing the services. Defendants maintain that this fact is not relevant as whether Plaintiff was providing services as a trespasser and injunction violator within the buffer zone or as a trespasser and injunction violator inside the clinic building is of no consequence. Neither would transform Plaintiff into a reproductive health services provider under the statute (FACE).

The possibility that Interrogatory answers "may lead to impeachment testimony" is not a proper basis for discovery, and Defendant cites no authority that stands for this proposition. The extent of Defendant's knowledge and experience derived through other similar employment has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Plaintiff is a reproductive health provider, the authority Plaintiff had to provide services on clinic property, any agency relationship police had with Defendants, or the award of punitive damages. Here Plaintiff seeks discovery well beyond the scope of the issues in the case.

Plaintiff's claim that the information sought may be used to compute punitive damages is a ruse. Plaintiff has not attempted to make any legitimate discovery request which would disclose Defendant's income or financial resources. This Court should not allow Plaintiff to obtain information otherwise lacking in relevance with a claim that it is being sought to assist in computing punitive damages. While knowing Defendant's income from employment for the past five (5) years would assist in such punitive damage computation, knowing the Defendant's employment history will not. Plaintiffs request does not ask for income information, just employment history. Defendants believe Plaintiffs motivation in obtaining this information is to harass any employers of Defendant because he is involved in operating a clinic that performs abortions.

B. SECOND ITEM.

Interrogatory No. 3 requests a list of all occupational licenses held by Defendant in the last five (5) years, along with issuing agency, date of issue, date of expiration, and qualifications required. Defendant objects to answering the Interrogatory because it is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the interrogatory is vague and over broad. Plaintiff claims Defendant should be compelled to answer the Interrogatory because the information is needed to show that "Defendant is not qualified to properly and safely operate a reproductive health services facility, necessitating the counseling and referral services provided by Plaintiff." Plaintiff also claims the answer is needed for impeachment purposes, and to compute punitive damages.

Again, whether or not Plaintiffs anti-abortion counseling is necessary, is not an issue. Either Plaintiff is a provider of "reproductive health services" under the statute or he is not. If Plaintiff is not a reproductive health services provider under the statute, then Defendant's qualifications as a reproductive health services provider will not transform Plaintiff into one. All that is at issue regarding Defendant is whether he participated in prohibited activities under 18 U.S.C. §248(a)(1), allegedly by using the police as his agent to have Plaintiff removed from the 36' buffer zone surrounding the Melbourne clinic.

Plaintiff's claim that the Interrogatory seeks punitive damage information is disingenuous, and for the same reasons stated in Argument II.A, should not be allowed. Further, nothing can be computed from this information. For the same reasons stated above in Argument II.A, impeachment information is not a basis for discovery.

C. THIRD ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4 seeks information regarding Defendant's membership in business related organizations for the past five (5) years, along with mailing address and the qualifications for membership. Defendant objects to answering Interrogatory No. 4 as the information requested is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff asserts the information is necessary to show that the Defendant is "unqualified and unsafe as a facility operator, to show the dimensions of the facilities operated by others in a similar business, and to obtain impeachment and punitive damage information. Again, whether Defendant is qualified to serve as a facility operator is not at issue in this case, and as such, the information sought is not relevant to this proceeding and well beyond the scope of discoverable information. Similarly, the dimensions of other similar facilities is not at issue. The events occurred at one facility only, the AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. in Melbourne, Florida. Additionally, it is hard to comprehend how disclosure of membership in business organizations would reveal dimensions of similar facilities. For the reasons stated previously in II.A, information sought regarding impeachment and punitive damages is not proper.

D. FOURTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 6 requests a description of Defendant's "part in the operation of AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. during the past five (5) years." Defendant objects to answering Interrogatory No. 6 as the information requested is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the Interrogatory is vague, unclear and over broad, making it impossible for Defendant to determine specifically the information requested by Plaintiff. Defendant has already provided answers in other numbered Interrogatories that establish that he has worked for AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE,. INC. for the last five (5) years as co-owner, vice-president, and business manager, up through December 31, 1997. See Answer to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 5. Other than these answers, which have already been provided to Plaintiff. Defendant cannot derive from the Interrogatory what additional information is required. Plaintiff contends that the information is needed to establish the party's relationship with the police, his reason for "harassing Plaintiff", the danger he allegedly poses to customers and his opportunity to witness events. Plaintiff s reasons for needing the information is transparent and. disingenuous. Plaintiff s Interrogatory No. 10 addresses Plaintiff's communications about clinic security with the City of Melbourne, including the Melbourne Police Department. Defendant has fully answered that Interrogatory without objection. Interrogatory No. 13 also inquires who, including, Defendant, witnessed the events described in or alleged by the pleadings. Plaintiff also answered that Interrogatory fully, objecting only to supplying residential address and phone number of the persons identified, in addition to their business address and phone number. As argued earlier, Plaintiffs alleged perception that Defendant poses a danger to customers is not relevant to this lawsuit.

E. FIFTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 7 seeks the physical locations AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. has conducted business for the past five (5) years. Defendant objects to answering Interrogatory No. 7 as the information requested is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the objection, Defendant responded to the Interrogatory as it relates to the office of AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., located at 1564-76 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida. Plaintiff claims that discovery of this information will lead to the witnesses who can define the size of such facility, disclose the danger of AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. operations, provide impeachment testimony and evidence of punitive damages. The alleged violations of FACE, the statute under which Plaintiff is bringing his action, all occurred at one facility, that being the AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE located in Melbourne, Florida. Plaintiffs desire to learn about other facilities and their dimensions, operations, etc., have absolutely no bearing on the issues and therefore are non-discoverable. See Mackey v. IBP, Inc., 167 F.R.D. at 196 (refusing to compel discovery where request sought information that extended to Defendant's corporation's other facilities). Again, the information sought regarding Plaintiff's perceived danger posed by Defendant's operation, impeachment testimony and punitive damages should not be compelled for the reasons stated in Argument II.A.

F. SIXTH ITEM.

Plaintiff s Interrogatory No. 8 requests information regarding all business or occupational schools, courses or classes that Defendant has attended, including the results, date, location, sponsor and purpose for which they were taken during the last five (5) years. Defendant objects to the discovery on relevancy grounds. Plaintiff claims to require such discovery to show that "Defendant is not a competent, qualified, or safe manager of a reproductive health services facility." Again as stated previously in Argument II.A, B. and C., this information is not relevant to the present lawsuit.

G. SEVENTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 9 seeks information regarding other lawsuits or administrative actions wherein Defendant has been a party. Defendant objects to the discovery on relevancy grounds. Plaintiff claims the Defendant should be compelled to reveal such information to help prove that Defendant poses a threat to the lives and health of his customers and the information will reveal witnesses who can testify that the counseling services of Plaintiff are needed. Whether or not the need for Plaintiffs anti-abortion counseling talents actually exist is not an issue in this case, neither is the claim that Defendant runs an unsafe clinic. As such, the information sought is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

H. EIGHTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 12 seeks the names, residence and mailing address and telephone numbers of persons other than Defendant's attorney with whom Defendant has discussed the facts and allegations of the lawsuit. Defendant objects to revealing the residential address and phone number of any individual contained in the answer to preserve the individual's privacy, to prevent possible personal harassment, and to preserve the individual's personal safety. Defendant's answer contains the name of Co-Defendant, PATRICIA BAIRD-WINDLE, whose mailing address and telephone number, and that of her attorney is known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that Defendant should be compelled to provide the residential address and phone number of PATRICIA BAIRD-WINDLE because "there is no confidentiality in these conversations which may contain major admissions against interest useful in proving up issues of this case." Plaintiff has not asked to know the contents of these conversations, therefore, Defendant does not understanding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel for Interrogatory No. 12.

I. NINTH ITEM.

Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 13 seeks the identity of any known witnesses, their residential and mailing addresses and telephone numbers, and summary of what each person witnessed. Defendant responded to the Interrogatory in all regards except for revealing the residential addresses and phone numbers of the persons listed, objecting to same to preserve those persons privacy and to spare them possible personal harassment or harm. Defendant states no basis why this information should be compelled, but merely states that the information is not privileged and should be disclosed. Plaintiff claims that the refusal to reveal potential witnesses' residential addresses and phone numbers is "an obvious scheme to slow or derail discovery." Business addresses and phone numbers have been provided for all persons listed in the answer to Interrogatory No. 13. Plaintiff is not in any way slowed or prevented from continuing discovery regarding those persons by using their business address and phone number rather than their residential address and phone number. It would appear, that Plaintiff has ulterior motives in obtaining this information, rather than seeking to pursue the claims alleged in the Complaint. The Court should not assist Plaintiff in these attempts.

J. TENTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 15 requests the identity of persons who have information regarding Defendant's "income, financial net worth, and other similar accounting or economic information for the past five (5) years," along with the persons residential and mailing address and telephone number. Defendant objects on relevancy and confidentiality grounds. Plaintiff claims that Defendant should be compelled to reveal this information as it goes to proving punitive damages. Defendant agrees to comply with the request to the extent possible without revealing the non-parties' names or the residential address and/or phone number of those listed. The answer to Interrogatory 15 is as follows: Edward W. Baird, Jr., his accountant, and Patricia Baird-Windle. Defendants have tried to resolve some of these discovery issues through the use of a stipulated protective order which Plaintiff has rejected.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., requests that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel be denied, and award Defendant his reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees. Defendant further requests that the Court enter a protective order that would prevent Plaintiff s further attempts to learn the residential address and telephone number of parties or to publish through discovery the names, residential address and telephone number of certain potential witnesses in this case.

III. DEFENDANT, PATRICIA B. WINDLE, SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF.

The Interrogatories propounded on Defendant, PATRICIA B. WINDLE, are an exact replica of those propounded on EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR. Defendant, EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR. and PATRICIA B. WINDLE filed the same objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories. PATRICIA B. WINDLE sets forth the same response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel as provided in Argument II hereinabove.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, PATRICIA B. WINDLE, requests that plaintiffs Motion to compel be denied, and award Defendant her reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees. Defendant further requests that the Court enter a protective order that would prevent plaintiff's further attempts to learn the residential address and telephone number of parties or to publish through discovery the names, residential address and telephone number of certain potential witnesses in this case.

IV. DEFENDANT, AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF.

A. FIRST ITEM.

Plaintiff s Interrogatory No. 2 requests the names, dates of employment, residence address, mailing address and telephone numbers of all employees for the past five (5) years. Defendant objects to the information requested in Interrogatory No. 2 inasmuch as it is over broad and specifically requesting the names of Defendant's employees for the past five (5) years is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, Defendant objects to providing the names, residential addresses and telephone numbers for these employees inasmuch as this information is confidential and if divulged to Plaintiff, could lead to an invasion of privacy and personal harassment or harm. Defendant has already identified all parties that may have witnessed the events on the three specific occasions that are the subject matter of this suit. Defendant fears that Plaintiff s motive in obtaining employee information is to provide confidential information, through a public document, to Plaintiff and others similarly motivated to assist in their campaign of harassment and reign of fear that has plagued Defendants for more than a decade. Accordingly, Defendant requests a protective order to safeguard the identities, residential addresses and phone numbers of these persons. Defendants incorporate the arguments provided previously as it relates to the treatment of patients at the clinic, punitive damages, and impeachment testimony.

B. SECOND ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 3 requests a list of the officers for the corporation for the past five (5) years, including residential address, mailing address and telephone number, together with the specific office held and duration of tenure. Plaintiff has fully answered the question, objecting only to providing the residential addresses and telephone numbers for the reasons previously stated. Plaintiff states in his Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories propounded to AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. that "the answer is good enough, however, the objection is a sham." Because the answer is admittedly sufficient, the Court has no reason to compel a better answer to Interrogatory No. 3.

C. THIRD ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4 requesting a lists of all directors of the corporation for the last five (5), including the resident addresses, mailing addresses and telephone numbers, together with the office held and the duration of such tenure. Defendant has fully answered the questions, objecting only to providing the residential addresses and telephone numbers for the reasons previously stated. Plaintiff states in his Motion to Compel that "the answer is sufficient. The objection, though, is a sham." Because the answer is admittedly sufficient, the Court has no reason to compel a better answer to Interrogatory No. 4.

D. FOURTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 6 requests a description of the formality taken by AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. In the making and execution of its corporate decisions. Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 6 as the question is vague, unclear and over broad, and Defendant is unable to determine exactly what information Plaintiff is requesting. Regardless of what Plaintiff is trying show by compelling Defendant to answer the Interrogatory, Defendant cannot answer for the reasons stated in its objection.

E. FIFTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 7 requests the locations that AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. conducts business, the owner of each location, together with the owner's residential address, mailing address and telephone number. Defendant objects to providing information as to any location other than the location relevant to this lawsuit, namely the AWARE WOMAN facility in Melbourne, Florida. Additionally, Defendant objects to providing the residential address and phone number of the owner of the Melbourne location to preserve the individual's privacy, and to prevent possible personal harassment and harm. Further, the owner of the building located at 1574-76 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida, is a revokable trust, therefore, its address and phone number is not applicable.

F. SIXTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 8 requests a list of all occupational or business licenses and permits of the corporation for the past five (5) years and the qualifications needed to obtain such licenses, together with the name and address of the issuing agency. Defendant objects to providing the information requested in Interrogatory No. 8 as the information requested is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, Defendant objects to the information requested in Interrogatory No. 8 as being vague and over broad. Plaintiff claims the information is needed to "disclose possible illegality and insufficient government oversight, and the lack of qualifications of facility operators. Defendant sets forth the same argument as provided in Argument II.F. regarding Interrogatory No. 8 propounded to EDWARD WINDLE, JR., in opposition to Plaintiff's motion.

G. SEVENTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 9 directed to AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. is substantially the same as Interrogatory No. 9 propounded on the Co-Defendants, seeking information regarding other lawsuits to which it was a party. Defendant objects to the Interrogatory on relevancy grounds. Plaintiff claims to need the information to find witnesses who can testify as to the need for Plaintiff's counseling services. Defendant, AWARE WOMAN, sets forth the same argument provided in argument II.G. in opposition to Plaintiff s motion.

H. EIGHTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 10 directed to AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. is substantially the same as Interrogatory No. 4 propounded on Co-Defendant, seeking information regarding its membership in business organizations. Defendant objects to the interrogatory on relevancy grounds. Plaintiff claims he needs the information to find witnesses to testify to Defendant's compliance with trade standards. Defendant, AWARE WOMAN, sets forth the same argument provided in Argument II.C. in opposition to Plaintiff's motion.

I. NINTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 14 requests information regarding signs posted during the past five (5) years at AWARE WOMAN informing the public as to the nature of goods and services available therein. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatory as it is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff states he requires this information to show the "desperate need for counselors such as Plaintiff." For the same reasons stated hereinabove, whether or not Plaintiff s special counseling is needed is not an issue in this case.

J. TENTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 15 requests the organizations and persons who have provided security for the Melbourne Clinic during the past five (5) years including residential addresses, as well as mailing addresses and telephone numbers, and how they were compensated. Defendant objects to providing the information requested in Interrogatory No. 15 as the request is over broad in that it requests the names of the organizations and persons who have provided security for the business for the past five (5) years and then, for the past five (5) years to state the time when such services were provided. Additionally, Defendant objects to providing the residential address and telephone number as requested in Interrogatory No. 15 due to the privacy concerns stated throughout Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs Interrogatories. Without waiving this objection, Defendant did answer the Interrogatory as to various organizations and the business address and telephone, where known.

K. ELEVENTH ITEM.

Plaintiff s Interrogatory No. 16 seeks the identity of persons who have volunteered their services at the Melbourne clinic during the past five (5) years, and in addition, requests their residential and mailing addresses, together with telephone numbers, and the dates and description of the services volunteered. Defendant objects to providing the residential addresses and telephone numbers as requested in Interrogatory No. 16 for the same privacy reasons previously stated. Defendant also objects to the information requested in Interrogatory No. 16 as being over broad in requesting the names of the persons who have volunteered during the past five (5) years, rather than limiting the request to those present on the dates Plaintiff was arrested. Defendant further objects to providing a description of their services as volunteers, as this information is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant did provide the names and business addresses of the volunteers who provided services at the clinic on the three (3) dates Plaintiff was arrested.

Plaintiff claims he needs to know the services the volunteers provided in order to show the dimensions of the facility included in the area where Plaintiff was arrested and to disclose health risks and dangers present there. Presumably, Plaintiff is trying to show that clinic volunteers working as escorts, did so outside the clinic building. And presumably, Plaintiff believes that this will prove that the services he provided were "reproductive health services" as defined in the statute. The statute defines reproductive health services as those "provided in a clinic, physician's office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counseling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy." 18 U.S.C. § 248(e)(5).

Defendants maintain that the use of the word "in" does not define a geographic location, but rather refers to a provider's employment with, or authorization to provide services for, a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility. Defendants' position is borne out by relevant case law wherein a doctor's escort is included in the definition of "provider" of reproductive health services. See U.S. v. Hill, 893 F. Supp. 1034 (N.D. Fla. 1994); See also U.S. v. Dinwiddie, 76 F. 3d 913 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding maintenance supervisor provided reproductive health services because physician could not do his job without either facility or its workers). The provider's location, or job description, is not the defining factor, but whether that person was assisting the clinic was providing reproductive health services as the clinic's authorized employee, agents, or volunteers. Again, whether Plaintiff was violating the injunction by remaining in the 36' buffer zone to provide his "reproductive health services", or if Plaintiff had managed to enter the clinic building and provide such services therein as a trespasser and injunction violator, is not the issue. This issue is whether Plaintiff was providing the services "in" the facility, i.e. as a legitimate facility worker. Plaintiff attempts to show that he was "in" the geographic facility when he provided the services within the 36' buffer zone is not relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff is a provider of reproductive health services. In his reason to compel, Plaintiff does not indicate why residential addresses and phone numbers would be more useful than business addresses and phone numbers.

L. TWELFTH ITEM.

Defendant should not be compelled to provide a better answer to Interrogatory No. 17 for the reasons set forth in Argument II.J. hereinabove.

M. THIRTEENTH ITEM.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 18 seeks the identify of shareholders of Defendant corporation for the past five (5) years, along with their residential address, mailing address and telephone numbers. Defendant objects to providing the information requested in Interrogatory No. 18 on relevancy grounds. Defendant also objects to providing the residential address and telephone numbers of shareholders to preserve their privacy and to prevent possible personal harassment or harm. Plaintiff claims to need this information to learn the conduct of the business, its ability to provide health services, to learn generally information about the issues of the case,.and evidence for punitive damages.

In Wauchop v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 539, 550-551 (N.D. Ind. 1991), the Court determined that the Defendant should not be compelled to answer interrogatories which sought the identity of any individual or entity owning more than five percent (5%) of the shares of the corporation as such information would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Similarly, in the present case, the disclosure of Defendants' shareholders will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons already stated in Argument II, Defendant should not be compelled to answer the Interrogatory.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., requests that Plaintiff s Motion to Compel be denied, and award Defendant its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees. Defendant further requests that the Court enter a protective order that would prevent Plaintiff s further attempts to learn the residential address and telephone number of parties or to publish through discovery the names, residential address and telephone number of certain potential witnesses in this case.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Christopher F. Sapp, Esq., P.O. Box 1012, Lehigh Acres, FL 33970, this 22^nd day of April, 1998.

FRESE, NASH & TORPY, P.A.
BY: LISA L. HOGREVE <signed>
Florida Bar No. 0104840
930 S. Harbor City Blvd., Suite 505
Melbourne, FL 32901
(407) 984-3300
Attorney for Defendants