Johnson v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control et al

Brief / Memorandum in Support re MOTION to Compel .

W.D. Va.February 14, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division MARTESE JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-00055-GEC ) JARED MILLER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants Thomas Custer (“Custer”) and Jared Miller (“Miller”) (collectively “Defendants”), by counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 37, assert the following in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“Motion to Compel”): I. Facts and Procedure The Plaintiff filed this action against the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”), former-ABC Director of Enforcement Shawn Walker (“Walker”) 1 , and three ABC law enforcement agents (the “Agents”) claiming injuries sustained from an alleged encounter with and arrest by the Agents outside Trinity Irish Pub (“Trinity”) in Charlottesville, Virginia on morning of March 18, 2015. The Court dismissed ABC and one of the Agents from this action as well as multiple counts from the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff now seeks to pursue the following claims of constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law: 1 Walker retired from government service in January 2017. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 12 Pageid#: 1353 2 Count II: § 1983 Excessive Force against Miller and Custer; Count III: § 1983 Supervisory Liability against Walker; Count IV: Gross Negligence against Miller and Custer; Count VI: Assault against Miller and Custer; and Count VII: Battery against Miller and Custer The Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants have served discovery requests. On December 1, 2016, Defendants each propounded First Sets of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”) and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) to the Plaintiff (collectively “discovery requests”). On January 20, 2017, Defendants responded to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests, each producing over 2,100 pages of paper documents and multiple flash-drives and discs containing voluminous records from subpoenas, as well as collectively over 80 pages of written objections and responses. By contrast, on January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff provided “responses” to only a limited number of Defendants’ discovery requests, objecting to all Interrogatories and RFPs, producing zero (0) documents, and furnishing inadequate answers to what limited Interrogatories for which a written response was offered. Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s Responses to Miller Discovery; Exhibit B, Plaintiff’s Responses to Custer Discovery. Accordingly, by letter dated February 3, 2017, Defendants requested full and complete responses to their discovery requests in an attempt to resolve the deficiencies and vast omissions without this Court’s involvement. See Exhibit C. On February 7, 2017, the Plaintiff produced 112 pages of documents, but failed to describe any of the materials or reference a single document in response to the Interrogatories or RFPs. Indeed the Plaintiff’s “initial production” - containing copies of multiple photographs and speaking engagement contracts - omits critical materials requested by Defendants which fall squarely within the purview of Rule 26 and to which Defendants are entitled in this case. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 12 Pageid#: 1354 3 On February 8, 2017, counsel for Defendants requested a telephone conference call with the Plaintiff’s counsel as a last attempt to confer on the outstanding deficiencies and omissions in the Plaintiff’s responses and “initial production.” On February 10, 2017, the parties conducted a lengthy conference call in an attempt to resolve the dispute and defense counsel demanded full and complete responses to the discovery requests - without objections - by close of business February 13, 2017. See Exhibit D, Defense counsel Letter confirming call. However, no supplemental responses or documents whatsoever were provided by the Plaintiff by close of business February 13, 2017 and none have been received to date. Rather, on Monday, February 13, 2017, counsel for the Plaintiff e-mailed a letter to counsel for Defendants stating that they plan to supplement certain responses to Defendants’ discovery requests but without providing those supplements or a date on which they plan to provide them. See Exhibit E, Plaintiff counsel Letter concerning discovery responses. Pursuant to this Court’s Revised Scheduling Order (ECF No. 75), discovery in this matter closes on June 9, 2017 and dispositive motions must be filed by June 15, 2017. Trial is set for July 25-28, 2017. In order to maintain this schedule, counsel for Defendants plan to begin depositions shortly, but they cannot conduct thorough depositions without the documents and interrogatory responses they have requested from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this Court order Plaintiff to immediately provide Defendants with full and complete - without objections - answers and responses to the Defendants’ discovery requests and to cure the deficiencies discussed herein. II. Legal Standard Rule 26(b)(1) provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 12 Pageid#: 1355 4 considering the importance of the issues at stake, amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to the information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Rule 26(b)(1). Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in order to be discoverable. Id. An interrogatory may relate to any matter that falls within the scope of discovery provided under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). The Court may compel discovery responses when a party fails to answer an interrogatory or fails to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Rule 37(a)(4). In the Fourth Circuit, “the party or person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (collecting Fourth Circuit cases). Indeed the burden of convincing the district court falls on the party objecting to discovery, who must show that the discovery should not be allowed. Castle v. Jallah, 142 F.R.D. 618 (E.D.Va. 1992). “[T]he promise to continue to search for records and supplement its responses in the future, is a completely inadequate response to a long standing discovery request.” Aerodyne Sys. Eng’g, Ltd. v. Heritage Int’l Bank, 115 F.R.D. 281, 284-85 (D. Md. 1987). III. Argument The Plaintiff’s answers to Interrogatories are either not provided at all, or are deficient. The Plaintiff has failed to produce responsive documents to numerous Requests for Production and many of the documents Plaintiff did produce are non-responsive, evasive, or incomplete. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 12 Pageid#: 1356 5 Accordingly this Court should compel the Plaintiff to correct the deficiencies discussed herein and provide - without objections - full and complete answers to Interrogatories and responses to Requests for Production. A. Miller Interrogatories What follows is a recap of the Interrogatories, a summary of the Plaintiff’s objections, and the grounds for compelling the discovery sought.  Interrogatory No. 2 asks for the Plaintiff’s addresses for the past seven (7) years, but the Plaintiff only provided his addresses from January 1, 2015 to present. Defendants offered in good faith to reduce the request to five (5) years preceding the alleged incident on March 18, 2015. Defendants are entitled to this address information for several reasons, including the fact that the Plaintiff has placed his prior zip code at issue in the case by his allegations regarding the subject incident at issue in the case.  Interrogatory No. 4 asks the Plaintiff to identify the nature of any expense or pecuniary loss claimed in this case, the amount of the expense or loss, the methods used to calculate the expense or loss, and how the Plaintiff contends such expense or loss was caused by the events and incidents alleged in the Complaint. The Plaintiff presented several inapplicable objections and in his response, failed to identify the nature and amount of any expense or pecuniary loss, the methods used to calculate and any causal connection such expenses or costs may have to the underlying alleged events and incidents at issue in this case. 2  Interrogatory No. 10 states: “What specifically do you contend that Agent Miller was required to do that he did not do prior to and during your arrest? In your answer, identify which rule, law, regulation, policy or procedure, or standard of care required Agent Miller to take each specific action you contend he was required to take.” The Plaintiff failed to answer this Interrogatory and instead stood on the objections that (1) the information is protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, (2) it is a contention interrogatory and premature, and (3) and the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Interrogatory is an appropriate opinion or contention interrogatory, which are routinely used and appropriate under Rule 33(a)(2) as amended. The information sought is not premature because Agent Miller’s alleged conduct at issue in this case should be known to the Plaintiff by now, and the request for the Plaintiff’s contention about factual information regarding Agent Miller’s conduct and an application of the law to such facts is appropriate, squarely within the scope of Rule 26 discovery, and necessary for the defense to obtain in written discovery. 3 2 Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that the Plaintiff will supplement his response to this Interrogatory, but he has not provided that supplement or indicated when he plans to do so. 3 Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that the Plaintiff will supplement his response to this Interrogatory based on a narrowed reading of the request. Defendants object to the contention that they agreed to narrow the Interrogatory and request this Court compel the Plaintiff to provide a full and complete responses - without objections. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 5 of 12 Pageid#: 1357 6  Interrogatory Nos. 11 - 14 ask for “all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Miller [used excessive force (11), was grossly negligent (12), assaulted you (13), and committed a battery against you (14)], as set forth in [respective counts] of the Complaint.” The Plaintiff stood on numerous inapplicable objections. These interrogatories are proper, clear, and seek information that is relevant, non-privileged, and proportional to the needs of the case. 4  Interrogatory No. 16 states: “Describe in detail your consumption of any alcoholic beverage, sedative, tranquilizer, or other drug, medicine, or pill, whether such substance was legal or illegal or prescription or over-the-counter, during the 24 hours immediately preceding your arrest as alleged in the Complaint, including identification of the beverage, drug, medicine, or pill and stating the amount of each consumed, the periods of time when each amount was consumed, and identification of where you consumed each, and any and all persons who may have been present or have any knowledge as to your consumption of such substance.” The Plaintiff failed to answer this Interrogatory, and instead stands on the objections that “it seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, is not proportional to the needs of the case, and seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and possibly the doctor-patient privilege.” These objections are inapplicable. There is no privilege, the Amended Complaint places the Plaintiff’s physical and mental condition at issue in the case, the Plaintiff acknowledges in this lawsuit that he was charged with public intoxication, and both his physical and mental state at the time of the alleged events and incidents are critical to the issues in this case.  Interrogatory No. 17 states: “Describe every crime, including but not limited to crimes involving moral turpitude, and traffic offense of which you have been charged or convicted, stating with respect to each crime or offense whether it was an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, whether you pled guilty, no contest or were convicted at trial, the tribunal where such offense(s) were adjudicated, and the fine or sentence you received, if any.” The Plaintiff failed to answer the Interrogatory and instead stands on the objections that “it is overbroad, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and is not proportional to the needs of the case.” The Plaintiff should be compelled to answer this Interrogatory without objections because the information sought regarding his offense/criminal history is relevant and proportional to the needs of the Defendants’ case.  Interrogatory Nos. 18 and 19 seek information regarding any statements made by the Plaintiff “about the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint…” and is thus relevant and properly tailored to seek important information about the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged events and incidents at issue. Moreover, Interrogatory No. 18 seeks information about the Plaintiff’s statements to “any third party” and No. 19 seeks information about such statements made to “an audience of any size, live or otherwise…” so there is no applicable attorney-client privilege and/or work product 4 See n.3, supra. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 6 of 12 Pageid#: 1358 7 protection available as the Plaintiff contends in his objections. The Plaintiff should be compelled to answer these Interrogatories without objections.  Interrogatory No. 21 states: “Do you have knowledge of any claims, complaints, or episodes prior to March 17, 2015 against or implicating Agent Miller in his capacity as a law enforcement agent for the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control? If so, please state the date, time, location, nature, and substance of the claim, complaint, or episode, including whether and in what manner, such claim, complaint, or episode implicates Agent Miller’s training as a law enforcement agent, and identify all witnesses to the events or incidents leading to the claim, complaint, or episode.” The Plaintiff failed to answer this Interrogatory, instead standing on objections of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, “contention interrogatory and premature” and that the phrase “implicating Agent Miller in his capacity as a law enforcement agent” is vague. In good faith, Defendants agreed to remove the phrase “or implicating” from the Interrogatory, so it is no longer vague and there is no applicable privilege or protection that shields the requested information from discovery. Furthermore, this is not a contention interrogatory because it asks for the Plaintiff’s knowledge and description of factual information about the matters set forth in the First Amended Complaint. See also November 23, 2016 Order (ECF No. 69) lifting stay of discovery in part. 5 B. Custer Interrogatories Many of Custer’s Interrogatories are similar in subject matter to those of Miller and the Plaintiff should be compelled to provide full and complete responses - without objections - to the same for the reasons set forth above. In addition, Custer’s Interrogatory No. 18 asked the Plaintiff to provide information about his health care providers in the years before the alleged incident. The Plaintiff claims that this interrogatory is not relevant, despite having claimed physical injuries in this case. 6 It is important for Defendants to be able to determine whether the Plaintiff had any preexisting injuries as he is claiming damages in the form of both “physical injuries and severe mental anguish” in the First Amended Complaint and seeks “[m]edical expenses for injuries sustained on March 18, 2015” in the Plaintiff’s Amended Initial Disclosures. 5 Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that the Plaintiff will supplement his response to this Interrogatory based on his understanding of the Request, but he has not provided that supplement or indicated when he plans to do so. 6 Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that the Plaintiff will provide the requested information, but he has not provided it or indicated when he plans to do so. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 7 of 12 Pageid#: 1359 8 In addition, the Plaintiff failed to provide any answer whatsoever to numerous Interrogatories, stating without sufficient grounds or prior notice to the defense: “Mr. Johnson stands on his objections.” See e.g. Custer Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11-13, 16, 18, and 20. 7 Again, the discovery sought is proper and the objections are either inapplicable or insufficient to insulate the Plaintiff from the required disclosure of essential information to which Defendants are entitled. The burden of convincing this Court falls on the party objecting to discovery, who must show that the discovery should not be allowed. Castle, 142 F.R.D. 618. As such, this Court should compel full and complete responses to the Defendants’ discovery requests. C. Defendants’ RFPs The Plaintiff should be compelled to provide responses - without objections - to Miller’s RFP Nos. 1 - 6, 8, 9, 11 - 15, 17, 19 - 22, 24 - 38 and Custer’s RFPs containing similar subject matters, identifying and producing the materials requested therein. 8 1. The Plaintiff has not produced any documents in response to some of Defendants’ Requests for Production. The Plaintiff has indicated that he intends to stand on his objections and not produce documents responsive to multiple requests for production. For instance, Plaintiff has refused to provide emails and text messages to or from himself concerning the incidents described in the Complaint. See Miller RFP 21-22, Custer RFP 18-19. More specifically, Plaintiff also objected to provided text messages and emails from the dates directly surrounding the date of the alleged incident. Miller RFP 29-31; Custer RFP 26-28. Moreover, Plaintiff refused to produce 7 Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that the Plaintiff will supplement his responses to Custer’s Interrogatories that are similar or the same as the Miller Interrogatories that he will supplement, but he has not provided these supplements or indicated when he plans to do so. 8 Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that the Plaintiff will provide the requested documents in response to Miller RFPs 4 and 11, but he has not provided the documents or indicated when he plans to do so. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 8 of 12 Pageid#: 1360 9 communications between himself and any person he identified in the Amended Complaint or in his Amended Initial Disclosures and he refused to produce communications between himself and individuals associated with Trinity Pub. Miller RFP 13, 35; Custer RFP 11, 32. The Plaintiff objects to these requests for production, in part, because they seek documents relating to Plaintiff’s allegations “whether or not such allegations are disputed.” However, the Plaintiff’s objection is not the standard under which documents should be produced. Rather, the requested communications are relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because they directly relate to Plaintiff’s allegations and because Defendants do not otherwise have access to them. Further, among other purposes, their production will help Defendants identify witnesses, investigate the Plaintiff’s claims, and may be used for impeachment purposes. Likewise, Defendants seek the Plaintiff’s credit card statements and receipts from a three day period before the alleged incident. Miller RFP 33; Custer RFP 29. The Plaintiff objects, claiming that this request is “not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses.” But on the contrary, Defendants contend that the Plaintiff had been consuming a significant amount of alcohol and was drunk at the time of the incident. Plaintiff’s credit card statements and receipts from the requested time period are relevant and will demonstrate whether the Plaintiff purchased alcohol in the time period before the alleged incident, which directly informs Defendants’ defense. Other requests to which the Plaintiff has refused to produce documents include information from his academic file at UVA and his criminal records. Miller RFP 17, 38; Custer RFP 35. As in his other objections, the Plaintiff claims that these documents are not relevant. However, Defendants are entitled to obtain documents that they may use to impeach the Plaintiff Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 9 of 12 Pageid#: 1361 10 or that would otherwise inform them of the Plaintiff’s previous encounters with law enforcement, to the extent that they exist. 2. The Plaintiff’s production in response to some of Defendants’ other Requests for Production is deficient. On February 7, 2017, the Plaintiff produced a number of documents, but his production is deficient as many of the documents are either non-responsive or irrelevant. In addition, the Plaintiff’s document production fails to provide any references to the specific discovery requests to which they are purportedly responsive, leaving Defendants to mere conjecture. Defendants are entitled to this information and responsive material under the Rules of discovery and the Plaintiff should be compelled to provide the same. IV. Certificate of Conference In accordance with Rule 37(a), Defendants certify that they attempted to resolve these discovery disputes with Plaintiff by letter dated February 3, 2017 and by phone on February 10, 2017, but the parties were not able to reach an agreement. V. Conclusion The Fourth Circuit has recognized that “fairness in the disposition of civil litigation is achieved when the parties to the litigation have knowledge of the relevant facts, and therefore the discovery rules are given ‘a broad and liberal treatment.’” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co., 967 F.2d 980, 983 (4th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In this case, Defendants are in a fundamentally unfair position, having provided substantial responses to interrogatories and thousands of documents to the Plaintiffs but having received very few documents and only limited responses to interrogatories from the Plaintiff. Defendants must be permitted to defend themselves against the Plaintiff’s allegations, and they cannot adequately do so without the discovery responses required by law and the Federal Rules. As a result, Defendants request that Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 10 of 12 Pageid#: 1362 11 this Court order the Plaintiff to immediately supplement his discovery responses to fully respond to each of Defendants’ requests and to provide such other relief, including costs and expenses under Rule 37(a)(5), as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, JARED MILLER and THOMAS CUSTER By: /s/ Alexander K. Page Nicholas F. Simopoulos (VSB No. 68664) Sr. Assistant Attorney General and Unit Manager Alexander K. Page (VSB No. 78894) Assistant Attorney General Edwin L. Kincer, Jr. (VSB No. 24148) Assistant Attorney General Nancy Hull Davidson (VSB No. 85536) Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 202 North 9th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-8198 Telephone (804) 371-2087 Facsimile nsimopoulos@oag.state.va.us apage@oag.state.va.us ekincerjr@oag.state.va.us ndavidson@oag.state.va.us Counsel for the Defendants Mark R. Herring Attorney General of Virginia Samuel T. Towell Deputy Attorney General Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 11 of 12 Pageid#: 1363 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of February, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Requests for Production of Documents with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to counsel of record for the Plaintiff. By: /s/ Alexander K. Page Alexander K. Page (VSB No. 78894) Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 202 North 9th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Telephone: (804) 786-8198 Facsimile: (804) 371-2087 Email: nsimopoulos@oag.state.va.us Counsel for the Defendants Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82 Filed 02/14/17 Page 12 of 12 Pageid#: 1364 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 38 Pageid#: 1365 - 2 - 203902472.1 Objections to Instructions and Definitions 1. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 2 as overbroad because it seeks to define the term “document” beyond how that term is defined under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 3 as overbroad because it encompasses within the definition of Mr. Johnson persons and entities that are unrelated to this case, over which Mr. Johnson has no control, and without information relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Mr. Johnson will provide information in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and (2). 3. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 5 as overbroad and as seeking information that is neither relevant to any party’s claims or defenses nor proportional to the needs of this case. To the extent Mr. Johnson identifies a document as responsive to a particular request, he will provide a copy of such document. If additional information about a particular document is necessary, then Mr. Johnson, through counsel, will make a good faith attempt to resolve any issues that might arise concerning such additional information. 4. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 6 as overbroad and as seeking information that is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. 5. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 7 as overbroad because it seeks information and documents that are unrelated to this case and not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. 6. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 8 as overbroad because it seeks to impose obligations beyond what is required under Rules 26, 33, and 34. 7. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 9 as overbroad because it seeks to impose obligations beyond what is required under Rules 26, 33, and 34. 8. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 12 as overbroad because it seeks to impose obligations beyond what is required under Rule 26. Mr. Johnson will provide a privilege log for all responsive information that is withheld on the basis of a privilege or work-product protection in accordance with Rule 26. Mr. Johnson will not provide a log of responsive yet privileged communications created after March 19, 2015, which is the date Mr. Johnson retained counsel, Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 38 Pageid#: 1366 - 3 - 203902472.1 as logging such information would be unduly burdensome given the claims and defenses at issue in this case. 9. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 16 as overbroad and seeking information that might be protected by privilege or under the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this definition seeks to impose on Mr. Johnson an obligation to provide information that is beyond the scope of discoverable information under Rule 26. In providing responses to Requests, Mr. Johnson will follow his obligations to do so as described in the Rules. Because these objections to Definitions and Instructions would apply to each Request below, each of the foregoing responses incorporates Mr. Johnson’s objections to the extent an objectionable instruction or definition is implicated in the specific Request. Further, the information provided in these responses is to be kept confidential under the parties’ proposed protective order. Objections and Responses to Specific Discovery Requests INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify any person who has supplied any of the information, responses, or documents you provide or produce in response to these First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, including identifying for which Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents the person supplied the information, responses, or documents. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Mr. Johnson objects that this Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, nor proportional to the needs of this case. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory seeks information that has already been disclosed in his initial disclosures and is thus duplicative and cumulative. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory seeks to impose a separate Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 38 Pageid#: 1367 - 4 - 203902472.1 and discrete subpart on each of the interrogatories contained herein, and seeks to add an interrogatory to each of the document requests contained herein. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson supplied the information, responses, and documents used to respond to these requests. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State your full name, all names by which you have ever been known, date of birth, social security number, home addresses for the past seven (7) years, and telephone numbers, including the applicable telephone service providers or carriers (e.g., Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, or T- Mobile), for the past seven (7) years. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory as overbroad because the time frame stated (seven years) includes information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, nor proportional to the needs of this case. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the Complaint occurred in March 2015. Mr. Johnson will provide responsive information from January 1, 2015 to the present. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson responds as follows: Name - Martese Ra’Shaad Johnson; date of birth - ; SSN - ; Addresses since January 1, 2015 - (1) (current), (2) (from July 2015 to July 2016 (3) (through July 2015); telephone number(s) since January 1, 2015 - (T-Mobile from November 2016 to present; Verizon prior to November 2016). INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify all of your employment, including self-employment, from 2010 to present, and for each state the following: (a) period and place of employment; (b) name of supervisor(s); (c) salaries, wages, or other earnings; Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 38 Pageid#: 1368 - 5 - 203902472.1 (d) hours worked per week and weeks per year; (e) physical activities and duties involved; and (f) job classification, title, and reason for leaving. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory as overbroad because it seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims of defenses, not proportional to the needs of this case, and encompasses personal and confidential information. Mr. Johnson’s employment information for the five-year period preceding the acts that gave rise to the Complaint has no bearing on any matter involved in this case, and is of no importance in resolving the issues raised in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson responds as follows: from approximately May to August 2014, I worked at the UVA Office of New Student Programming as an Orientation Leader; from the Fall of 2014 to the Fall of 2015, I worked as a Facility Attendant at the Aquatic & Fitness Center in Charlottesville; from June 2015 to August 2015, I worked as an intern for the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC; and from July 2016 to the present I have worked as a strategist for Sylvain labs in New York, NY. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If you claim any expense or pecuniary loss (including any claim for attorneys’ fees as a result of the litigation related to the Complaint and the claim(s) against Agent Miller), identify the nature of the expense or loss, the amount of the expense or loss, the methods used by you to calculate the expense or loss, and how you contend such expense or loss was caused by the events and incidents alleged in your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Mr. Johnson objects to producing information about his attorneys’ fees as protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that any request for non-privileged information about his attorneys’ fees is premature at this time and thus irrelevant because until he prevails on the merits against one or more of the Defendants, Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 5 of 38 Pageid#: 1369 - 6 - 203902472.1 he has no claim for attorneys’ fees; such a claim is properly addressed through post-trial motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory seeks information that will be subject to expert discovery, and Mr. Johnson will provide appropriate information in accordance with the rules governing expert discovery and the Scheduling Order entered in this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson responds as follows: My encounter with ABC agents on the night of March 18, 2015 resulted in various forms of sustained injury that still have an impact on me today. These forms of injury include physical, emotional and social hardship. Physical: I sustained three lacerations to my forehead, scalp - one of which required immediate doctor’s attention, anesthetics, and ten stitches to heal. My visit to the and the was followed by several visits to the for potential wound infections, discharging, and stitch removals. Since my head wounds fully healed, I have maintained visible scarring on my forehead and scalp, mild skin discoloring, and am experiencing lack of hair growth in the affected areas. Outside of my head wounds and scarring, I sustained profuse swelling, bruising, scratches, and other wounds on my mouth, shoulders, arms, wrists, and torso as a result of my encounter with ABC officers on March 18th. Emotional: I experienced intense trauma upon becoming the subject of excessive force by ABC Agents on March 18, 2015. Being physically abused and humiliated by officers in front of peers and community members has stuck with me ever since, and forced a sense of helplessness upon me. Since my encounter with ABC Agents, I have feared being in close proximity of law enforcement officers of all kind, which has impeded my ability to navigate society as a consciously happy and safe citizen. Beyond sustained trauma, this experience Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 6 of 38 Pageid#: 1370 - 7 - 203902472.1 negatively affected my academic experience at the University of Virginia, causing heightened stress and academic hardship, and ultimately leading to my late withdrawal from a course that was essential to my timely graduation. This withdrawal led to future academic stress, requiring me to take an overstuffed course load the following semester to remain on track to graduate on time. My overall grades for the following semesters also suffered, affecting my cumulative GPA. As a result of stress, anxiety, and inability to manage trauma, I admitted myself into the in the Spring of 2015. I scheduled and attended three different therapy sessions at but decided that it was not helping me to overcome my emotional struggles, and stopped attending as the 2015 Spring Semester came to an end. Since then, I have sought emotional support from friends and family members. While this process has helped, I still struggle with trauma from the event and perpetual fear of law enforcement. Social: Since the events of March 18, 2015, I have experienced social duress that has negatively affected my professional, academic and interpersonal lives. In the Winter of my third year of college, I had begun interview processes with various business firms. By March, I had solidified an offer from one sales firm and was being considered for a second offer from a prestigious banking firm. The morning after my abuse by ABC Agents, video footage and personal information about me had gone viral throughout a myriad of media sources. In response to this national headline news story, the latter firm called me the afternoon of that very same day and declined to offer me a job position. The former firm also called and threatened to potentially rescind my offer, but the discrepancy was resolved after a few conversations. In my classes, I had become a publicly known figure, which led to constantly being singled out by professors. This was often intended to be done in a supportive way, but instead ostracized me Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 7 of 38 Pageid#: 1371 - 8 - 203902472.1 from peers and classmates, and placed heightened pressure on me in the classroom. I was no longer a normal student like the rest of my peers - something that I did not ask for and was not comfortable with. In the summer after my third year, I was notified that a media critic and Charlottesville resident had reported me for three Honor offenses for review by the University of Virginia’s Honor Committee (a committee I served on as a representative and executive board member). As one of the organization’s biggest leaders at the time, I was forced to undergo a lengthy Honor investigation process in which peers that I led were tasked with investigating my rightful standing at UVA. While the case was dropped in an early stage of the investigation, it still created added tension in my working and casual relationships. It often became a distraction from my studies. My interpersonal relations became more tense as a result of my encounter with ABC Agents. I was forced to constantly relive the events of March 18, 2015, as I experienced harassment from peers and strangers alike. This harassment included cruel, racist comments and gestures in various public places (D.C. Metro, University campus, etc.). My social media accounts have also become the subject of racially driven insults and slurs, made by a wide range of people. When anyone googles my name, the first thing they will see is my face bloodied and a story about my arrest at the University of Virginia. When people meet me for the first time, they already have set assumptions about me. I have come to the understanding that this event will live with me for the rest of my life, and will sometimes be the deterring factor in potential professional and social opportunities for me. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify by name, position, employment, address, and telephone number all witnesses with knowledge of the facts or circumstances alleged by you in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Miller, all persons who have made statements, written or oral, concerning the allegations, facts, events, and incidents alleged in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Miller, and the dates and nature of such statements, and all other persons, having personal knowledge of facts and circumstances material to allegations in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 8 of 38 Pageid#: 1372 - 9 - 203902472.1 Agent Miller. For each witness above, state your understanding of what knowledge the witness has relating to the events, facts, and circumstances alleged in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory as seeking duplicative information that was already provided in his initial disclosures. He further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad in that it seeks information that is neither relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, nor proportional to the needs of this case. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson responds as follows: Vendarryl Jenkins, a current student at Columbia Law School, approached the Trinity Irish Pub with me; Alston Cobb, currently a commercial real estate analyst at Wells Fargo in New York, was one of my peers at the time of the incident; Osman Nur, currently an M&A analyst at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York, was one of my roommates; Michael Brunson, one of my friends and a bouncer; Bryan Beaubrun, recorded part of the video of the incident and is currently a student researcher at the NYU Langone Medical Center in Westbury, NY; Aryn Frazier, currently an intern at One Commonwealth PAC and has been a Black Student Alliance representative at UVA; Chukwudumebi (Joy) Omenyi, currently an IT Analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, and was the Black Student Alliance President at UVA at the time of the incident; Kevin Badke, owner of the Trinity Irish Pub and who has made statements to the press about the specific incident; Dr. Maurice Apprey, a professor of psychiatric medicine and the Dean of the UVA Office of African-American Affairs; Kimberly Basset, currently the Associate Dean of the UVA Office of African-American Affairs; Dr. Marcus Martin, UVA’s Vice President and Chief Officer for Diversity and Equity; Dychea Johnson, my mother; Joshua Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 9 of 38 Pageid#: 1373 - 10 - 203902472.1 Kinlaw, currently the CEO at LawFirm Productions, and was one of my roommates; Robert Moore, one of my mentors, a fraternity brother, and assisted me in obtaining counsel; Alec Frydman, currently a student at UVA and a member of UVA’s Honor Committee, and was the UVA Honor investigator who investigated the Honor allegations against me and who eventually dropped the investigation. The following are links to various statements of which Mr. Johnson is aware that some individuals have made concerning the incident described in the complaint. By identifying these statements, Mr. Johnson is not indicating that he intends to call any of these individuals as witnesses in this case, nor has formed a belief as to the truth of those statements, nor is he indicating a necessary reliance on these statements: Marcus Martin, http://wtvr.com/2015/03/20/u-va-vice-president-martese-johnson-was-apparently-not- intoxicated/ - March 20, 2015; Abraham Axler, UVA Student Council President http://www.nbc29.com/story/28617520/uva-student-council-passesresolution-to-address-abc- law-enforcement?clienttype=mobile - April 8, 2015; http://wtvr.com/2015/05/04/panel- considers-whether-abc-should-have-the-power-to-arrest-underage-students/ - May 4, 2015; Joy Omenyi, Aryn Frazier, Vendarryl Jenkins, Black Dot http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/03/black-dot-what-marteses-arrest-means-for-us - March 20, 2015; Kevin Badke, http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Bar-Owner- Describes-Moments-Before-Martese-Johnson-Arrest-297154041.html - March 21, 2015. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all persons whom you intend to call as witnesses at trial and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving your claim(s) against Agent Miller, and for each such witness, state the substance of his or her testimony. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 10 of 38 Pageid#: 1374 - 11 - 203902472.1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Mr. Johnson objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is premature; Mr. Johnson will provide the information required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and in accordance with the Scheduling Order issued in this case. Mr. Jonson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all persons whom you intend to call as expert witnesses at trial and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving your claim(s) against Agent Miller, and state for each such witness the subject matter, facts, or opinions as to which you expect him or her to testify, the facts or data considered in forming any and all opinions, and a summary of the grounds for each such opinion. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Mr. Johnson objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is premature; Mr. Johnson will provide the information required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and in accordance with the Scheduling Order issued in this case. Mr. Jonson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: List all reports, photographs, videotapes or moving pictures, diagrams, documentation, or physical evidence of any description in the possession of you, your attorney(s), or your agents relating to the circumstances, events, facts, and incidents alleged in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Without waiving the foregoing objections, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, Mr. Johnson will produce a copy of the non-privileged materials responsive to this interrogatory. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 11 of 38 Pageid#: 1375 - 12 - 203902472.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, supporting your false arrest claim in the Complaint against Agent Miller, identifying all witnesses with knowledge of such facts. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: What specifically do you contend that Agent Miller was required to do that he did not do prior to and during your arrest? In your answer, identify which rule, law, regulation, policy or procedure, or standard of care required Agent Miller to take each specific action you contend he was required to take. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 12 of 38 Pageid#: 1376 - 13 - 203902472.1 Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome because it requires him to provide a complete narrative explaining all of his legal theories and providing all of his evidence he intends to present when the case is heard. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Miller used excessive force against you, as set forth in Count II of your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 13 of 38 Pageid#: 1377 - 14 - 203902472.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Miller was grossly negligent, as set forth in Count IV of your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Miller assaulted you, as set forth in Count VI of your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 14 of 38 Pageid#: 1378 - 15 - 203902472.1 to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Miller committed a battery against you, as set forth in Count VII of your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 15 of 38 Pageid#: 1379 - 16 - 203902472.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State in detail the nature of the mental and physical injury or injuries you claim as a result of the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint and the extent and nature of any disability claimed. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: See Response to Interrogatory No. 4. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Describe in detail your consumption of any alcoholic beverage, sedative, tranquilizer, or other drug, medicine, or pill, whether such substance was legal or illegal or prescription or over- the-counter, during the 24 hours immediately preceding your arrest as alleged in the Complaint, including identification of the beverage, drug, medicine, or pill and stating the amount of each consumed, the periods of time when each amount was consumed, and identification of where you consumed each, and any and all persons who may have been present or have any knowledge as to your consumption of such substance. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, is not proportional to the needs of the case, and seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and possibly the doctor-patient privilege. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Describe every crime, including but not limited to crimes involving moral turpitude, and traffic offense of which you have been charged or convicted, stating with respect to each crime or offense whether it was an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony, whether you pled guilty, no contest or were convicted at trial, the tribunal where such offense(s) were adjudicated, and the fine or sentence you received, if any. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it is overbroad, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and is not proportional to the needs of the case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 16 of 38 Pageid#: 1380 - 17 - 203902472.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Describe in detail any statement(s), written and oral, that you have made to any third party about the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint, including but not limited to any person employed, associated, or affiliated with any media, news, or entertainment source, including but not limited to any journal, magazine, newsletter, newspaper, pamphlet, periodical, publication, social media or other online entity, radio or television station, or radio or television show. In describing the statement(s) above, please state the date, time, location, audience to or recipient of said statement(s), and any compensation you received related to said statement(s). RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks to discover all statements whether written or oral made to any third party at any time regarding any fact alleged in the complaint, regardless of the significance, content, or context of that statement. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson responds as follows: I have had various conversations with the individuals identified in response to Interrogatory No. 5 above, although I cannot recall the specific dates or the specific content of those conversations. I have also had numerous brief, non-substantive conversations with individuals who have offered me their support after the incident, but I do not recall names, dates, and specifics of those conversations. I have given various statements to the press about the incident described in the Complaint, which can be found through the following links: http://www.nbc29.com/story/29306663/one-on-one-with-martese-johnson; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDxbQx6797s; http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/charges- dropped-uva-student-martese-johnson-arrest-sparked-31732853; http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/uva-student-leader-speaks-out-about-his-arrest/; Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 17 of 38 Pageid#: 1381 - 18 - 203902472.1 http://www.aol.co.uk/video/mtv,-sam-whiteout-&-martese-johnson-on-allyship-519002564/. I have attended various speaking engagements, some of which included a discussion of the details of the case although I do not recall all of the specifics that I would have discussed, at the following: National Urban League Conference, which I believe was on July 31, 2015; Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Conference which I believe was on September 18, 2015; Kappa Alpha Psi National Conclave, which I believe was on August 13, 2015; Mamie Till Mobley Memorial Foundation, which I believe was on August 29, 2015; TEDxCharlottesville, which I believe was on November 13, 2015, 2015; Duke University, which I believe was on November 11, 2015 (I received approximately $1,000 for this engagement); Boston University, which I believe was on February 18, 2016 (I received approximately $1,500 for this engagement); Syracuse University, which I believe was on November 15, 2015; Morehouse College, which I believe was on February 16, 2016; George Washington University, which I believe was on February 15, 2016; College of William and Mary, which I believe was on march 29, 2016 (I received approximately $1,000 for this engagement); and Benedict College, which I believe was on February 26, 2016. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Describe in detail any statement(s) you have made concerning or relating to the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint and made specifically to an audience of any size, live or otherwise, including but not limited to any conference, gathering, lecture, meeting, presentation, seminar, speech, talk, TEDx event, Twitter feed, YouTube video, or other publicly-attended event. In describing the statement(s), please state the date, time, location, audience to or recipient of your statement, and compensation you received relating thereto. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Mr. Johnson incorporates his objections and responses to Interrogatory No. 18. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State the name and address of each company, organization, or person, other than your attorney, that conducted any investigation of the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 18 of 38 Pageid#: 1382 - 19 - 203902472.1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Mr. Johnson objects that this interrogatory seeks to require Mr. Johnson to conduct research for defendant and seeks information that is better sought from third parties as Mr. Johnson has no control over any third parties who may have conducted any investigation regarding the incidents described in the Complaint. Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, as far as Mr. Johnson currently knows, the Virginia State Police conducted an investigation into the incidents described in the complaint, a redacted copy of the report is available at http://www.richmond.com/pdf_3026e7d0-6176-11e5-8a46-176e8a5d7baf.html. Mr. Johnson also believes that an ABC Enforcement Expert Review Panel also conducted an investigation and delivered a report to Gov. McAuliff, https://www.abc.virginia.gov/about/expert-review-panel-materials. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Do you have knowledge of any claims, complaints, or episodes prior to March 17, 2015 against or implicating Agent Miller in his capacity as a law enforcement agent for the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control? If so, please state the date, time, location, nature, and substance of the claim, complaint, or episode, including whether and in what manner, such claim, complaint, or episode implicates Agent Miller’s training as a law enforcement agent, and identify all witnesses to the events or incidents leading to the claim, complaint, or episode. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this appears to be a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that the phrase “implicating Agent Miller in his capacity as a law enforcement agent” is vague. Mr. Johnson further objects Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 19 of 38 Pageid#: 1383 - 20 - 203902472.1 that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 20 of 38 Pageid#: 1384 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 21 of 38 Pageid#: 1385 - 21 - 203902472.1 DOCUMENT REQUESTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All documents which you assert support your claim(s) against Agent Miller and/or were used or referenced in preparation of your answers and responses to the Interrogatories propounded herein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Mr. Johnson objects to this Request because it seeks documents subject to the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents used or referenced in preparing his answers to interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All documents referenced, identified, and/or otherwise mentioned in the Complaint and specifically with respect to, concerning, relating to, or involving Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks documents that are as equally or more easily available to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All documents describing, reflecting, or relating to Agent Miller’s acts or omissions alleged in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks documents that are as equally or more easily available to Defendant. Subject to and Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 22 of 38 Pageid#: 1386 - 22 - 203902472.1 without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents which in any way support your claim(s) against Agent Miller for every damage, expense, or pecuniary and financial loss you are asserting in the Complaint and in connection with this litigation and prosecution of claims in the Complaint, including but not limited to, documents regarding loss of wages, loss of income/profits, loss of earning capacity, loss of benefits, health care expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks documents that are not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all documents” that “in any way” support Mr. Johnson’s damages claim, regardless of the importance of such documents to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce documents supporting his claim for damages to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. Mr. Johnson will withhold documents regarding attorneys’ fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents which evidence any compensation, payment, or remuneration to you from any person, including but not limited to any association, company, corporation, group, individual, institution, organization, news source, or radio or television station or show, which you received with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving any statement you identified in response to Interrogatory numbers 18 and 19, supra. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 23 of 38 Pageid#: 1387 - 23 - 203902472.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Mr. Johnson objects to this Request because it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All statements, admissions, documents, or other communications or correspondence made by or between you, or anyone on your behalf, and any current or former agent, employee, or representative (undersigned counsel excluded) of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Mr. Johnson objects to this Request because it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections. Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents which the plaintiff may offer into evidence at trial or which will be used for demonstrative purposes at the trial of this matter. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce and identify documents to be used at trial in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and the Scheduling Order entered in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All documents constituting affidavits, declarations, written statements (whether sworn or not), or any other recitations by any person or individual, referring or relating to, or reflecting Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 24 of 38 Pageid#: 1388 - 24 - 203902472.1 any of the allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all responsive documents regardless of their importance to the issues in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non- privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All documents that evidence, constitute, refer, concern, or relate to any claimed oral or written admission of fact relating to any allegation in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all responsive documents regardless of their importance to the issues in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non- privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All documents received by you or your attorney(s) pursuant to any subpoena request in the course of this litigation. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 25 of 38 Pageid#: 1389 - 25 - 203902472.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Mr. Johnson will produce documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All documents sent and received by you or your attorney(s) pursuant to any Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request issued in connection with this litigation or the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Mr. Johnson will produce documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents exist and production is permitted by law. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All documents relating to any civil action or lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or administrative proceeding in which you have been a party. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks information that is irrelevant to any party’s claims or defenses and not proportional to the needs of this case. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad as it is not tailored to any specific issue and is unlimited in time. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All communications and correspondence - in any form - between you and any person identified in the Complaint or listed in your Amended Initial Disclosures. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 26 of 38 Pageid#: 1390 - 26 - 203902472.1 request seeks information that is irrelevant to any party’s claims or defenses and not proportional to the needs of this case. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad as it is not tailored to any specific issue and is unlimited in time. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All documents or records of any statements given by any and all of the defendants named in the caption of the Complaint, including Agent Miller, and/or agents of said defendant(s) or purporting to make any statements or state any words given by any defendant or on behalf of a defendant relating to the events, facts, circumstances, or incidents described in your Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all responsive documents regardless of their importance to the issues in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non- privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All documents, records, or recordings of any statements given by any witness or individual relating to the events, facts, circumstances, or incidents alleged in your Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 27 of 38 Pageid#: 1391 - 27 - 203902472.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: A copy of your federal and state income tax returns, including schedules and W-2 forms, from 2010 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is subject to a qualified privilege, not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See e.g., Terwilliger v. York Int’l Corp., 176 F.R.D. 214 (W.D. Va. 1997). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Your complete academic file, including but not limited to your official transcripts, from the University of Virginia. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All resumes or curriculum vitaes for each expert witness retained by the plaintiff who is expected to testify at the trial of this matter. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is premature; Mr. Johnson will provide the information required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) in accordance with the Scheduling Order issued in this case. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All reports, photographs, videotapes or moving pictures, diagrams, documentation or other physical evidence of any description in the possession of you, your attorney(s) or your agents having anything to do with the facts, events, circumstances, or incidents alleged in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Miller. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 28 of 38 Pageid#: 1392 - 28 - 203902472.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks documents that are as equally or more easily available to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All documents, including e-mails, you have either sent to or received from any agent, employee, or member of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (with undersigned counsel excluded) relating to the issues, events, circumstances, incidents, or facts alleged in the Complaint, or otherwise relating to you. E-mails should be produced electronically in their original form. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that the phrase “or otherwise related to you” seeks information that is overbroad, not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and not proportional to the needs of this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents concern the issues, events, circumstances, incidents, or facts alleged in the Complaint. Mr. Johnson will produce emails in an electronic and searchable format that will allow for bates-numbering and confidential designations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All documents, including e-mails and text messages, from you to any person concerning or relating to the allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint. All e-mails should be produced electronically in their original form. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 29 of 38 Pageid#: 1393 - 29 - 203902472.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all documents sent to any person related to all allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint, whether or not such allegations are disputed or material to the issues in this case. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All documents, including e-mails and text messages, to you from any person concerning or relating to the allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint. All e-mails should be produced electronically in their original form. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all documents sent to any person related to all allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint, whether or not such allegations are disputed. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All documents that support your false arrest claim in the Complaint as against Agent Miller. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 30 of 38 Pageid#: 1394 - 30 - 203902472.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will also be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents that support your excessive force claim in the Complaint as against Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will also be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: All documents that support your gross negligence claim in the Complaint as against Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will also be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: All documents that support your assault claim in the Complaint as against Agent Miller. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 31 of 38 Pageid#: 1395 - 31 - 203902472.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will also be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All documents that support your battery claim in the Complaint as against Agent Miller. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All documents setting forth any rule, law, regulation, policy or procedure, or standard of care identified by you in your answer to Interrogatory number 10, supra. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Mr. Johnson incorporates his objections made to Interrogatory No. 10, and stands on those objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: All text messages you sent from and received on your personal cellular telephone between March 16, 2015 and March 23, 2015. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 32 of 38 Pageid#: 1396 - 32 - 203902472.1 request is overbroad, lacks specificity, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all text messages sent to any person regardless of the subject matter. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: All text messages you sent and received on your personal cellular telephone from March 23, 2015 to the present date with respect to, concerning, relating to, or involving the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all text messages to or from anyone related to any allegation, event, fact, circumstance, or incident set forth in the Complaint, whether or not such allegations are disputed or material to the issues in this case. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: All emails you sent and received by means of any e-mail account(s) from March 18, 2015 to the present date with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 33 of 38 Pageid#: 1397 - 33 - 203902472.1 seeks all emails to or from anyone related to any allegation, event, fact, circumstance, or incident set forth in the Complaint, whether or not such allegations are disputed or material to the issues in this case. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: A copy of all statements or postings you have made or placed on Facebook, Twitter, or other social media website from March 18, 2015 to the present date with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Mr. Johnson objects that this Requests seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: All documents, including but not limited to credit card statements and receipts, showing all of your purchase activity from March 16, 2015 to March 19, 2015. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: A copy of every identification card, driver’s license, or learners permit you have held in any and all States. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad because it is unlimited in time, and not proportional to the needs of Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 34 of 38 Pageid#: 1398 - 34 - 203902472.1 this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce a copy of the identification card(s) he held at the time of the incident described in the Complaint provided such card(s) are in his possession, custody, and control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Any document demonstrating, evidencing, or showing any communication or correspondence between you and any person employed by or affiliated or associated with Trinity, which is the venue you allege in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Mr. Johnson objects that that this Request seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad because it is unlimited in time, lacks specificity as to subject matter or context, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012); Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: With respect to the statement(s) you identified in Interrogatory numbers 18 and 19, supra, all documents with respect to, concerning, relating to, or involving said statement(s). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Mr. Johnson objects that that this Request seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad, lacks specificity as to subject matter or context, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012); Dauska v. Green Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 35 of 38 Pageid#: 1399 - 35 - 203902472.1 Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson further objects that the non-privileged statements identified in response to Interrogatories 18 and 19 are publicly available (and links to such statements have been provided in the interrogatory responses) and are thus as equally accessible to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce any non-privileged statements referenced in his responses to Interrogatories 18 and 19 to the extent that such statements are not publicly available and are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: A copy of all of the documents referenced in your Amended Initial Disclosures. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Mr. Johnson will produce documents responsive to this Request to the extent they have not already been produced or otherwise made available to the Defendant and are in Mr. Johnson’s possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: A copy of your criminal record from any and all States in which you have resided, including but not limited to Illinois and Virginia. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad because it is unlimited in time, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. Dated: January 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joshua N. Drian Benjamin G. Chew (VSB #29113) Joshua N. Drian (VSB #82061) Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 36 of 38 Pageid#: 1400 - 36 - 203902472.1 Diana L. Eisner (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 585-6500 Fax: (202) 585-6600 Email: BChew@manatt.com Email: JDrian@manatt.com Email: DEisner@manatt.com Counsel for Plaintiff Martese Johnson Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 37 of 38 Pageid#: 1401 - 37 - 203902472.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joshua N. Drian, hereby certify that, on the 20th day of January 2017, I served a copy of the foregoing via email, by agreement of the parties, on the following: Nicholas F. Simopoulos, Esq. General Civil and Trial Unit Manager Assistant Attorney General Office of the Virginia Attorney General 202 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 nsimopoulos@oag.state.va.us /s/ Joshua N. Drian Joshua N. Drian (VSB #82061) Attorneys for Plaintiff MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 585-6500 Fax: (202) 585-6600 Email: JDrian@manatt.com Counsel for Plaintiff Martese Johnson Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-1 Filed 02/14/17 Page 38 of 38 Pageid#: 1402 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 35 Pageid#: 1403 - 2 - 203896583.1 OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 1. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 2 as overbroad because it seeks to define the term “document” beyond how that term is defined under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 3 as overbroad because it encompasses within the definition of Mr. Johnson persons and entities that are unrelated to this case, over which Mr. Johnson has no control, and without information relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Mr. Johnson will provide information in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and (2). 3. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 5 as overbroad and as seeking information that is neither relevant to any party’s claims or defenses nor proportional to the needs of this case. To the extent Mr. Johnson identifies a document as responsive to a particular request, he will provide a copy of such document. If additional information about a particular document is necessary, then Mr. Johnson, through counsel, will make a good faith attempt to resolve any issues that might arise concerning such additional information. 4. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 6 as overbroad and as seeking information that is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. 5. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 7 as overbroad because it seeks information and documents that are unrelated to this case and not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. 6. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 8 as overbroad because it seeks to impose obligations beyond what is required under Rules 26, 33, and 34. 7. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 9 as overbroad because it seeks to impose obligations beyond what is required under Rules 26, 33, and 34. 8. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 12 as overbroad because it seeks to impose obligations beyond what is required under Rule 26. Mr. Johnson will provide a privilege log for all responsive information that is withheld on the basis of a privilege or work-product protection in accordance with Rule 26. Mr. Johnson will not provide a log of responsive yet privileged communications created after March 19, 2015, which is the date Mr. Johnson retained counsel, Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 35 Pageid#: 1404 - 3 - 203896583.1 as logging such information would be unduly burdensome given the claims and defenses at issue in this case. 9. Mr. Johnson objects to No. 16 as overbroad and seeking information that might be protected by privilege or under the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this definition seeks to impose on Mr. Johnson an obligation to provide information that is beyond the scope of discoverable information under Rule 26. In providing responses to Requests, Mr. Johnson will follow his obligations to do so as described in the Rules. Because these objections to Definitions and Instructions would apply to each Request below, each of the foregoing responses incorporates Mr. Johnson’s objections to the extent an objectionable instruction or definition is implicated in the specific Request. Further, the information provided in these responses is to be kept confidential under the parties’ proposed protective order. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC DISCOVERY REQUESTS INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify any person who has supplied any of the information, responses, or documents you provide or produce in response to these First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, including identifying for which Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents the person supplied the information, responses, or documents. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Mr. Johnson objects that this Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, nor proportional to the needs of this case. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 35 Pageid#: 1405 - 4 - 203896583.1 seeks information that has already been disclosed in his initial disclosures and is thus duplicative and cumulative. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory seeks to impose a separate and discrete subpart on each of the interrogatories contained herein, and seeks to add an interrogatory to each of the document requests contained herein. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson supplied the information, responses, and documents used to respond to these requests. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State your full name, all names by which you have ever been known, date of birth, social security number, home addresses for the past seven (7) years, and telephone numbers, including the applicable telephone service providers or carriers (e.g., Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, or T- Mobile), for the past seven (7) years. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Mr. Johnson incorporates his objections and responses to Defendant Jared Miller’s Interrogatory No. 2. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If you claim any expense or pecuniary loss (including a claim for attorneys’ fees as a result of the litigation related to the Complaint and the claim(s) against Agent Custer), identify the nature of the expense or loss, the amount of the expense or loss, the methods used by you to calculate the expense or loss, and how you contend such expense or loss was caused by the incident alleged in your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Mr. Johnson incorporates his objections and responses to Defendant Jared Miller’s Interrogatory No. 4. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 35 Pageid#: 1406 - 5 - 203896583.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify by name, position, employment, address, and telephone number all witnesses with knowledge of the facts or circumstances alleged by you in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer, all persons who have made statements, written or oral, concerning the allegations, facts, events, and incidents alleged in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer, and the dates and nature of such statements, and all other persons, having personal knowledge of facts and circumstances material to allegations in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer. For each witness, state your understanding of what knowledge the witness has relating to the events, facts, and circumstances alleged in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Mr. Johnson incorporates his objections and responses to Defendant Jared Miller’s Interrogatory No. 5. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify all persons whom you intend to call as witnesses at trial and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving your claim(s) against Agent Custer, and for each such witness, state the substance of his or her testimony. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Mr. Johnson objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is premature; Mr. Johnson will provide the information required under Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 5 of 35 Pageid#: 1407 - 6 - 203896583.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and in accordance with the Scheduling Order issued in this case. Mr. Jonson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all persons whom you intend to call as expert witnesses at trial and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving your claim(s) against Agent Custer, and state for each such witness the subject matter, facts, or opinions as to which you expect him or her to testify, the facts or data considered in forming any and all opinions, and a summary of the grounds for each such opinion. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Mr. Johnson objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is premature; Mr. Johnson will provide the information required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and in accordance with the Scheduling Order issued in this case. Mr. Jonson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all reports, photographs, videotapes or moving pictures, diagrams, documentation, or physical evidence of any description in the possession of you, your attorney(s), or your agents relating to the circumstances, events, facts, and incidents alleged in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Without waiving the Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 6 of 35 Pageid#: 1408 - 7 - 203896583.1 foregoing objections, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, Mr. Johnson will produce a copy of the non-privileged materials responsive to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, supporting your false arrest claim in Count I of the Complaint against Agent Custer, identifying all witnesses with knowledge of such facts. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: What specifically do you contend that Agent Custer was required to do that he did not do prior to and during your arrest? In your answer, identify which rule, law, regulation, policy or Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 7 of 35 Pageid#: 1409 - 8 - 203896583.1 procedure, or standard of care required Agent Custer to take each specific action you contend he was required to take. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome because it requires him to provide a complete narrative explaining all of his legal theories and providing all of his evidence he intends to present when the case is heard. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Custer used excessive force against you, as set forth in Count II of your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 8 of 35 Pageid#: 1410 - 9 - 203896583.1 to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Custer was grossly negligent, as set forth in Count IV of your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 9 of 35 Pageid#: 1411 - 10 - 203896583.1 separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Custer assaulted you, as set forth in Count VI of your Complaint. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State all facts, not legal conclusions or facts couched as legal conclusions, and identify all witnesses with knowledge of such facts, supporting your claim that Agent Custer committed a battery against you, as set forth in Count VII of your Complaint. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 10 of 35 Pageid#: 1412 - 11 - 203896583.1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this is a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all facts” in support of a specific claim, regardless of the importance of such facts to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Describe any statements or other information you made or placed on any social media or network website including but not limited to “Facebook,” “Twitter,” “Instagram,” “MySpace,” or “Vine” from March 17, 2015 to the present concerning the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint. If you produce any such statement, you may simply refer to that production. If any statement is not produced, describe the contents of each statement to the best of your recollection, the date the statement was made, and the list of individuals who had access to view such statement. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 11 of 35 Pageid#: 1413 - 12 - 203896583.1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks all statements or information regarding any fact alleged in the complaint, regardless of the significance, content, or context of that statement. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson states as follows: My general understanding of the content surrounding any social media posts (instagram, twitter, Facebook, etc.) that I may have made regarding the incident all focus primarily on my thankfulness in my peers and associates being supportive of me. Beyond that topic, I believe any post related to the case will concern me speaking of resilience and fighting for a safer, less oppressed Black community in America (standing together, looking out for one another, fighting anti-black violence, and achieving despite the challenges ahead). To the extent I can obtain and produce any non-privileged documents that would be responsive to this interrogatory, I will. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all interviews and/or statements you have given to any media or news source concerning the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint, identifying date, location, media or news source, content of the interview and/or statement, and audience or recipient of said interview(s) or statement(s). RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Mr. Johnson incorporates his objections and responses to Defendant Jared Miller’s Interrogatory No. 18. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 12 of 35 Pageid#: 1414 - 13 - 203896583.1 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Do you have knowledge of any claims, complaints, or episodes prior to March 17, 2015 against or implicating Agent Custer in his capacity as a law enforcement agent for the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control? If so, please state the date, time, location, nature, and substance of the claim, complaint, or episode, including whether and in what manner, such claim, complaint, or episode implicates Agent Custer’s training as a law enforcement agent, and identify all witnesses to the events or incidents leading to the claim, complaint, or episode. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this appears to be a contention interrogatory and premature because discovery is just beginning. See, e.g., Univ. of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Elec. Co., 2015 WL 4878880 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2015). Mr. Johnson further objects that the phrase “implicating Agent Custer in his capacity as a law enforcement agent” is vague. Mr. Johnson further objects that seeking the identity of each witness with knowledge of a particular fact amounts to a separate and discrete subpart and should be considered an additional interrogatory. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: State the name and address of each health care provider, physician, and hospital from whom you have sought or received treatment for the injuries you claim resulted from the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint, the dates on which such treatment was sought or rendered, the treatment or procedure administered by each, the results Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 13 of 35 Pageid#: 1415 - 14 - 203896583.1 thereof as you understand them to be, and identify those health care providers, physicians, and hospitals from whom you continue to receive treatment. For the purposes of this Interrogatory, “health care provider” includes not only health care providers providing care as to your physical health but also mental health care providers, including but not limited to counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please see Mr. Johnson’s response to Defendant Jared Miller’s Interrogatory No. 4. Mr. Johnson is still in the process of trying to track down specific names of those health care providers from whom he sought treatment as a result of the incidents identified in the Complaint, and will provide that information as soon as he obtains it. Mr. Johnson believes he met with at the at the in the Spring of 2015. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State the name and address of each health care provider, physician, and hospital from whom you received treatment within five (5) years prior to the events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint, the dates on which such treatment was rendered, the diagnosis and prognoses rendered, the treatment or procedure administered by each, the results thereof as you understand them to be, and identify those health care providers, physicians, and hospitals from whom you continue to receive treatment. For the purposes of this Interrogatory, “health care provider” includes not only health care providers providing care as to your physical health but also mental health care providers, including but not limited to counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 14 of 35 Pageid#: 1416 - 15 - 203896583.1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, is not proportional to the needs of the case, and seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the doctor-patient privilege. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all cellular telephones you possessed from February 1, 2015 to the present, stating the telephone number, service provider (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon), account holder, and current custodian and location for each cellular telephone listed. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it is overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson responds as follows: my telephone number since February 1, 2015 has been . The phone I had at the time of the incident was lost in March 2016 during a trip to Mexico. That phone was on the Verizon network. My replacement phone, also on the Verizon network, broke in November 2016. I then switched in November 2016 to the T-Mobile network with my current phone. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify all encounters or communications you have had with any person employed with a law enforcement agency or department between 2010 and the present date, and in so doing, state the date, time, location, nature, and substance of each encounter or communication, and whether the encounter or communication arose from a claim or complaint made against you to said law enforcement agency or department. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 15 of 35 Pageid#: 1417 - 16 - 203896583.1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Mr. Johnson objects to this interrogatory because it is overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 16 of 35 Pageid#: 1418 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 17 of 35 Pageid#: 1419 - 17 - 203896583.1 DOCUMENT REQUESTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All documents which you assert support your claim(s) against Agent Custer and/or were used or referenced in preparation of your answers and responses to the Interrogatories propounded herein. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Mr. Johnson objects to this Request because it seeks documents subject to the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents used or referenced in preparing his answers to interrogatories. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All documents referenced, identified, and/or otherwise mentioned in the Complaint and specifically with respect to, concerning, relating to, or involving Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks documents that are as equally or more easily available to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All documents describing, reflecting, or relating to Agent Custer’s acts or omissions alleged in the Complaint. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 18 of 35 Pageid#: 1420 - 18 - 203896583.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks documents that are as equally or more easily available to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents which in any way support your claim(s) against Agent Custer for every damage, expense, or pecuniary and financial loss you are asserting in the Complaint and in connection with this litigation and prosecution of the Complaint, including but not limited to, documents regarding loss of wages, loss of income/profits, loss of earning capacity, loss of benefits, health care expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks documents that are not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and creates an undue burden because it seeks “all documents” that “in any way” support Mr. Johnson’s damages claim, regardless of the importance of such documents to the issues in this case. See, e.g. Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. V. Coventry First LLC, 273 F.R.D. 367, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 19 of 35 Pageid#: 1421 - 19 - 203896583.1 objections, Mr. Johnson will produce documents supporting his claim for damages to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. Mr. Johnson will withhold documents regarding attorneys’ fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents which the plaintiff may offer into evidence at trial or which will be used for demonstrative purposes at the trial of this matter. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce and identify documents to be used at trial in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) and the Scheduling Order entered in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All documents constituting affidavits, declarations, written statements (whether sworn or not), or any other recitations by any person or individual, referring or relating to, or reflecting any of the allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all responsive documents regardless of their importance to the issues in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non- Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 20 of 35 Pageid#: 1422 - 20 - 203896583.1 privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents that evidence, constitute, refer, concern, or relate to any claimed oral or written admission of fact relating to any allegation in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all responsive documents regardless of their importance to the issues in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non- privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All documents received by you or your attorney(s) pursuant to any subpoena request in the course of this litigation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Mr. Johnson will produce documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents exist. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All documents sent and received by you or your attorney(s) pursuant to any Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request issued in connection with this litigation or the circumstances, Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 21 of 35 Pageid#: 1423 - 21 - 203896583.1 events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Mr. Johnson will produce documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents exist and production is permitted by law. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All documents relating to any civil action or lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or administrative proceeding in which the plaintiff was a party. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks information that is irrelevant to any party’s claims or defenses and not proportional to the needs of this case. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad as it is not tailored to any specific issue and is unlimited in time. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All communications and correspondence - in any form - between you and any person identified in the Complaint or listed in your Amended Initial Disclosures. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request seeks information that is irrelevant to any party’s claims or defenses and not proportional Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 22 of 35 Pageid#: 1424 - 22 - 203896583.1 to the needs of this case. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad as it is not tailored to any specific issue and is unlimited in time. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All documents or records of any statements given by any and all of the defendants named in the caption of the Complaint, including Agent Custer, and/or agents of said defendant(s) or purporting to make any statements or state any words given by any defendant or on behalf of a defendant relating to the events, facts, circumstances, or incidents described in your Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all responsive documents regardless of their importance to the issues in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non- privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All documents, records, or recordings of any statements given by any witness or individual relating to the events, facts, circumstances, or incidents alleged in your Complaint and with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 23 of 35 Pageid#: 1425 - 23 - 203896583.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Copies of your federal and state income tax returns, including schedules and W-2 forms, from 2010 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is subject to a qualified privilege, not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See e.g., Terwilliger v. York Int’l Corp., 176 F.R.D. 214 (W.D. Va. 1997). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All resumes or curriculum vitaes for each expert witness retained by the plaintiff who is expected to testify at the trial of this matter. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request is premature; Mr. Johnson will provide the information required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) in accordance with the Scheduling Order issued in this case. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All reports, photographs, videotapes or moving pictures, diagrams, documentation or other physical evidence of any description in the possession of you, your attorney(s) or your Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 24 of 35 Pageid#: 1426 - 24 - 203896583.1 agents having anything to do with the facts of this case or the facts, events, circumstances, or incidents alleged in the Complaint and specifically with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks documents that are as equally or more easily available to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All documents, including e-mails, to or from any agent, employee, or member of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control relating to the issues, events, circumstances, incidents, or facts alleged in the Complaint, or relating to you. E-mails should be produced electronically in their original form. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that the phrase “or otherwise related to you” seeks information that is overbroad, not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and not proportional to the needs of this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents concern the issues, events, circumstances, incidents, or facts alleged in the Complaint. Mr. Johnson will produce emails in Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 25 of 35 Pageid#: 1427 - 25 - 203896583.1 an electronic and searchable format that will allow for bates-numbering and confidential designations. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All documents, including e-mails and text messages, from you to any person or entity relating to the allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint. All e-mails should be produced electronically in their original form. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all documents sent to any person related to all allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint, whether or not such allegations are disputed or material to the issues in this case. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: All documents, including e-mails and text messages, to you from any person or entity relating to the allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint. All e-mails should be produced electronically in their original form. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 26 of 35 Pageid#: 1428 - 26 - 203896583.1 seeks all documents sent to any person related to all allegations, events, facts, circumstances, or incidents set forth in the Complaint, whether or not such allegations are disputed. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All documents that support your false arrest claim in the Complaint as against Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will also be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All documents that support your excessive force claim in the Complaint as against Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will also be responsive to this Request. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 27 of 35 Pageid#: 1429 - 27 - 203896583.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All documents that support your gross negligence claim in the Complaint as against Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will also be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All documents that support your assault claim in the Complaint as against Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will also be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All documents that support your battery claim in the Complaint as against Agent Custer. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 608 (4th Cir. 1997). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 28 of 35 Pageid#: 1430 - 28 - 203896583.1 non-privileged documents in response to other Requests and under Rule 26 that will be responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: All documents setting forth any rule, law, regulation, policy or procedure, or standard of care identified by you in your answer to Interrogatory number 9, supra. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Mr. Johnson incorporates his objections made to Interrogatory No. 9, and stands on those objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: All text messages you have sent from and received on your personal cellular telephone between March 16,2015 and March 23, 2015. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all text messages sent to any person regardless of the subject matter. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All text messages you have sent from and received on your personal cellular telephone from March 23, 2015 to the present date with respect to, concerning, or involving the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 29 of 35 Pageid#: 1431 - 29 - 203896583.1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all text messages to or from anyone related to any allegation, event, fact, circumstance, or incident set forth in the Complaint, whether or not such allegations are disputed or material to the issues in this case. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: All emails you have sent from and received on any of your academic and personal e-mail accounts from March 18, 2015 to the present date with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Mr. Johnson objects that this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this request is overbroad, lacks specificity, and is not proportional to the needs of this case because it seeks all emails to or from anyone related to any allegation, event, fact, circumstance, or incident set forth in the Complaint, whether or not such allegations are disputed or material to the issues in this case. Responding to this Request as written would be unduly burdensome. See, e.g., Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 30 of 35 Pageid#: 1432 - 30 - 203896583.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: A copy of all statements or posting you have made on Facebook, Twitter, or other social media or news source websites from March 18, 2015 to the present date with respect to, concerning, related to, or involving the circumstances, events, facts, or incidents alleged in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Mr. Johnson objects that this Requests seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request to the extent such documents are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: All documents, including but not limited to credit card statements and receipts, showing all of your purchase activity from March 16,2015 to March 19,2015. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: A copy of every identification card, driver’s license, or learners permit you have held in any and all States. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad because it is unlimited in time, and not proportional to the needs of Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 31 of 35 Pageid#: 1433 - 31 - 203896583.1 this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce a copy of the identification card(s) he held at the time of the incident described in the Complaint provided such card(s) are in his possession, custody, and control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Any document demonstrating, evidencing, or showing any communication or correspondence between you and any person employed by or affiliated or associated with Trinity, which is the establishment you have alleged in the Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Mr. Johnson objects that that this Request seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad because it is unlimited in time, lacks specificity as to subject matter or context, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012); Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: With respect to the interview(s) and statement(s) you identified in Interrogatory 15, supra, all documents with respect to, concerning, relating to, or involving said interview(s) and statements). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Mr. Johnson objects that that this Request seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. Mr. Johnson further objects Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 32 of 35 Pageid#: 1434 - 32 - 203896583.1 that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad, lacks specificity as to subject matter or context, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012); Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 262 (E.D. Wis. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Mr. Johnson further objects that the non-privileged statements identified in response to Interrogatories 18 and 19 are publicly available (and links to such statements have been provided in the interrogatory responses) and are thus as equally accessible to Defendant. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce any non-privileged statements or interviews referenced in his response to Interrogatory 15 to the extent that such statements are not publicly available and are within his possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: A copy of all of the documents referenced in your Amended Initial Disclosures. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Mr. Johnson will produce documents responsive to this Request to the extent they have not already been produced or otherwise made available to the Defendant and are in Mr. Johnson’s possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Your complete academic file, including but not limited to your official transcripts, from the University of Virginia. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Mr. Johnson objects that this Request seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, overbroad, and not proportional to the needs of this case. See, e.g., Cook v. Howard, 484 Fed.Appx. 805, 813 (4th Cir. 2012). Mr. Johnson stands on his objections. Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 33 of 35 Pageid#: 1435 - 33 - 203896583.1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: All counseling, health care, and medical records of any health care provider, physician, or hospital who or which has treated you and whom or which you have identified in your answer to Interrogatory numbers 17 and 18, supra. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Mr. Johnson objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine or any other applicable privilege. Mr. Johnson objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses, rendering it overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Mr. Johnson will produce documents responsive to this Request dated on or after March 17, 2015 that relate to the injuries or treatment identified in response to Defendant Miller’s Interrogatory 4. Dated: January 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joshua N. Drian Benjamin G. Chew (VSB #29113) Joshua N. Drian (VSB #82061) Diana L. Eisner (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 585-6500 Fax: (202) 585-6600 Email: BChew@manatt.com Email: JDrian@manatt.com Email: DEisner@manatt.com Counsel for Plaintiff Martese Johnson Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 34 of 35 Pageid#: 1436 - 34 - 203896583.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joshua N. Drian, hereby certify that, on the 20th day of January 2017, I served a copy of the foregoing via email, by agreement of the parties, on the following: Nicholas F. Simopoulos, Esq. General Civil and Trial Unit Manager Assistant Attorney General Office of the Virginia Attorney General 202 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 nsimopoulos@oag.state.va.us /s/ Joshua N. Drian Joshua N. Drian (VSB #82061) Attorneys for Plaintiff MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 585-6500 Fax: (202) 585-6600 Email: JDrian@manatt.com Counsel for Plaintiff Martese Johnson Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-2 Filed 02/14/17 Page 35 of 35 Pageid#: 1437 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-3 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 1438 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-3 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 1439 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-4 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 1 Pageid#: 1440 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-5 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 1441 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-5 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 1442 Case 3:15-cv-00055-GEC Document 82-5 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 1443