ORDER

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
ORDER

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

ORDER

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motions filed herein:

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR. (Doc. No. 23)

FILED: April 13, 1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as set forth herein.

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PATRICIA B. WINDLE (Doc. No. 24)

FILED: April 13, 1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as set forth herein.

MOTION: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC. (Doc. No. 25)

FILED: April 13, 1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as set forth herein.

Plaintiff sues for alleged violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the City of Melbourne police, acting as agents of Defendants, interfered with his right to counsel persons entering and leaving the Aware Woman Center for Choice. Plaintiff has propounded Interrogatories seeking a wide variety of information, including the residence addresses and home telephone numbers of Clinic owners, employees, volunteers, and related business associates. Defendants have provided business addresses and phone numbers, but have objected to providing home addresses or phone number, citing safety and privacy concerns. Defendants seek a protective order preventing Plaintiffs further attempts to discover the residence or phone numbers of employees, volunteers or witnesses and preventing any such public disclosure through discovery.

The Court has reviewed the subject Interrogatories and the answers and objections filed. Generally, the disputed discovery falls into three categories:

1. discovery regarding matters relating "to the health and safety" of clinic patients (such as discovery directed to Defendants' qualifications to operate the clinic, business organizations that Defendants belong to, etc.);

2. discovery relating to residence addresses and phone numbers of clinic employees, volunteers and stockholders; and,

3. financial information which Plaintiff contends is relevant to his claim for punitive damages.

Discovery Related to Clinic Patients

The scope of discovery is broad, but it is not so liberal as to encompass matters which are unrelated to the issues raised in the suit. Here, Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to discovery regarding "the danger to and mistreatment of the customers," the "secrecy of the services provided" by Defendants, and "the desperate need for counselors such as Plaintiff." While the Court does not question Plaintiff's sincerity in holding these beliefs, Plaintiff has not sued Defendants for dangerous mistreatment of customers - Plaintiff has alleged that he was harassed by the police and that the conduct of the police is somehow attributable to these Defendants. Thus, only matters relevant to Plaintiff's conduct, the conduct of the Police (non-parties to this action) and the connection (if any) between these Defendants and the Police are conceivably relevant. The objections on relevancy grounds are SUSTAINED.

Addresses and Phone Numbers

The purpose of requesting addresses and phone numbers of parties or witnesses is to facilitate contact for interviews or service of deposition subpoena or other process. The actual addresses and home phone numbers, while not privileged per se, do not have independent relevance. (Footnote 1) As long as Plaintiff's counsel can contact the witnesses through business numbers or addresses, the Court sees no reason to order production of home addresses, and phone numbers. Defendants objections are SUSTAINED, provided, however that Plaintiff may renew his request for a particular witnesses home address or phone, should his counsel be unable to contact a witness through the alternative information provided.

(Footnote 1 - When venue or jurisdiction are at issue, personal addresses or phone numbers may be relevant. Such is not the case here.)

Financial information

The discovery as to the not worth of the Defendant is premature. Thus, the motion to compel is DENIED as to this information at this stage of the proceedings, without prejudice to renew the request for the information at the appropriate time.

PLEADING: DENIAL AND TRAVERSE OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (Doc. No. 20)

FILED: January 14, 1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the pleading is STRICKEN.

Replies to affirmative defenses are not pleadings authorized to be filed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk is directed to return this document to the sender.

MOTION: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc No. 29)

FILED: May 6, 1998

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

The motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Moreover, no formal motion for protective order has been filed. Defendants' request at the conclusion of their response to Plaintiff's motion to compel is not the form required by the rules to bring a request for relief before the Court.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 13, 1998.

DAVID A. BAKER <signed>
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE