PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION 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

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL

Meredith T. Raney, Jr., the Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned attorney hereby responds to the Motion To Compel filed by all Defendants saying:
1. Plaintiff submits that the Motion to Compel discloses on its face that the reasons for its use is to express Defendants' unhappiness with the Plaintiff's answers and responses. 'Unhappiness' is not a legal basis for a Motion to Compel.
2. The review of the various items enumerated by the Defendants show that most of their unhappiness relates to what were once called 'wife beating questions' as in "Mr. Raney, do you admit that you have stopped beating your wife?". The problem with such questions is that there is implied wrongdoing which is confirmed by either a denial or affirmation. If one's opponent sink's to the level of such questions, the correct answer is to simply point out that the deponent has never beaten his wife at any time and can neither admit or deny such a question. This Meredith T. Raney, Jr. has tried to do in a reasonable and courteous manner.
3. Meredith T. Raney, Jr. as a provider of reproductive health services at the times and places stated in his Complaint was concerned about the life and health of specific people and was not seeking to demonstrate or protest against any laws nor to hurt anybody. While a great number of protests and demonstrations and prayer vigils concerning abortion have taken place in the vicinity of 1564 Dixie Way, the Plaintiff has clearly shown the attorneys for Defendants in the video tapes of the present incidents that he was not acting as an anti-abortion extremist.
4. One who would bomb and blow up an abortion clinic is clearly ‘anti-abortion'. Plaintiff sees no moral distinction between pro-abortion or anti- abortion activities which involve the killing of innocent people as a means to an end. Plaintiff does not believe that the intentional killing of innocent people is correct whether from an anti-abortion or pro-abortion view point. He views himself as a pro-life Christian and properly takes offense at the attempts of Defendants and their attorneys to inaccurately portray him otherwise. 'Anti- abortion' and 'pro-life' are not synonymous and in some contexts have opposite meanings as in the hypothetical report, 'A large bomb killing several persons was exploded by an anti-abortion extremist.' Pro-life is not a substitute term for 'anti- abortion'.

GOOD FAITH

5. Driving time from Lehigh Acres to Melbourne is approximately three and one-half hours each way. Plaintiff's attorney was pleased to make that drive for the Case Management meeting not only to meet with Defendants attorney at a time and place convenient to him and try to establish some professional rapport, but also wished to demonstrate his willingness to 'go the extra mile' to see that the case was managed as professionally as possible. Plaintiff's attorney has intentionally overlooked some inaccurate statements concerning Local Rule 3.01 (g) compliance for fear of distracting from his client's case. However, it now seems appropriate to point out that for several weeks following their receipt by attorney for the Defendants, there was no dissatisfaction expressed as to the answers and information supplied by Meredith T. Raney, Jr. The conference in Melbourne set for April 1, 1998 was scheduled at a time and place approved by opposing counsel, and was specifically intended to be an opportunity for both sides to resolve any discovery disputes existing at that point. Plaintiff and his attorney showed up. Attorney for Defendants did not.
6. Later in April, upon learning of Defendants intention to file the present Motion To Compel, Plaintiff s attorney wrote opposing counsel and as courteously as he could, advised that this Motion was inappropriate and should not be filed; the term 'sham' was implied in the letter. Plaintiff's attorney assumed that good sense and professionalism had prevented the filing of Defendants Motion To Compel until May 21, 1998 when he received a telephone message stating that the Motion To Compel would be filed. The message came as a surprise, additionally, because attorneys for the Defendants had seriously overstepped the bounds of propriety in other matters and must have realized that filing this Motion would help throw gasoline on that fire.

WHEREFORE, Meredith T. Raney, Jr. requests that the relief sought by
Defendants be denied.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar Number 0097823
Attorney for Meredith T. Raney,. Jr.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S. Mail to Vincent G. Torpy, Jr., 930 Harbor City Blvd., Suite 505, Melbourne, Florida 32901, to Roy Lucas, Esquire, P. 0. Box 1433, Melbourne, Florida 32902-1433 and to Susan A. England, Esquire, 2806 Lakeview Drive, Fern Park, Florida 32730-2007 this 6th day of June, 1998.

Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Attorney