UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jack Vaughan

v. Civil No. 05-cv-223-JD

Bernice A. Roy Elementary School, et al.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to compel further answers to interrogatories

and production of documents. Defendants object. 

Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging as his primary claims

defamation and gender discrimination arising out of termination

of employment. He is proceeding pro se. 

Discussion

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) permits discovery of unprivileged

matters relevant to claims and defenses. The party seeking

discovery has the burden of showing not only the relevance of the

matter but also that the answers are incomplete, evasive or

inadequate. Due to the number of similarly numbered

interrogatories to different parties, this order will address the

disputes by following the paragraph numbers of the motion -

beginning with paragraph 12. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 11
2

12. Denied. Relevance is not shown. 

13.-16. Denied. Dr. Greenbaugh answered with respect

to himself. As the questions relate to information received

about teacher complaints to the principals they are

duplicative of questions directed to those principals - the

ones with direct knowledge of the complaints. 

17. Denied. The information plaintiff says is missing

is contained in answers to interrogatories 10-20. 

18. Denied. Dr. Greenbaugh provided a full answer

from his recollection and is not required to do an

investigation interviewing other employees and reviewing

their records. 

19. Denied. The answer is sufficient. If plaintiff

believes there are documents which would refresh his

recollection showing them to him at a deposition is the

appropriate discovery tool. 

20. Denied. The answer is sufficient for reasons

previously noted. 

21. Denied. 

22. Denied. The answer is fully responsive. 

23. Denied. His recollection is what it is and is

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 11
3

responsive. 

24. Denied. 

25. Denied. The answer is responsive as to his

involvement. 

26. Denied. If the answer is false impeach him with

it at trial. 

27. Denied. 

28. Moot in part, denied in part. 

29. Denied. He has provided his recollection. 

30. Moot. The list was provided. 

31. Denied. Since he is retired he has no custody or

control over the district’s documents. 

32. Denied. 

33. Denied as irrelevant. 

34. Denied. 

35. Denied. 

36. Moot in part, denied in part. 

37. Denied. 

38. Not applicable. 

39. Denied. Irrelevant. 

40. Denied. Irrelevant. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 11
4

41. Denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). 

42. Denied. The answer is responsive. 

43. Denied. The answer is responsive. 

44. Denied. The questions as posed were answered. 

45. Denied. 

46. Denied. 

47.-48. Moot.

49. Denied. Documents used were attached. 

50. Denied. Irrelevant. 

51. Denied. Irrelevant. 

52. Moot. 

53. Denied. 

54. Not applicable. 

55. Denied. Irrelevant. 

56. Denied. Irrelevant. 

57. Denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). 

58. Denied. If plaintiff believes the answer is not

correct he may seek to impeach at trial. 

59. Denied. 

60. Denied. The question and answer do not appear to

have been filed with the court. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 4 of 11
5

61. Denied. The answer is adequate. 

62. Denied. Irrelevant. 

63.-64. Denied. Irrelevant. 

65. Denied. 

66. Denied. The answer is responsive. 

67. Denied. The answer is adequate. 

68. Moot. Answer was provided more fully in April 5th

correspondence. 

69. Denied. 

70.-71. Moot. 

72. Denied. 

73. Denied. Irrelevant. 

74. Denied. Irrelevant. 

75. Denied. Previously supplied. 

76. Granted. The question refers to provisions which

were relied upon. That does not call for provision of legal

research. 

77. Granted. Provide a faculty list as of March 2004. 

78. Moot. 

79. Denied. 

80. Moot. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 5 of 11
6

81. Not applicable. 

82. Denied. It is public information available to

plaintiff. 

83. Denied. 

84. Denied. 

85. Denied. Plaintiff can follow up. 

86. Denied. Impeachment is plaintiff’s recourse. 

87. Granted as to 6-a as follows: plaintiff may view

them at counsel’s office and they are to be preserved for

trial if deemed admissible. 6-b is denied. 

88. Moot. 

89. Denied. 

90. Denied. 

91. Denied.

92. Granted as to 12b. and 12d. Relevant as to

damages. 

93. Denied. 

94. Denied. 

95. Moot - see letter of April 20th. 

96. Moot - see letter of April 20th. 

97. Denied. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 6 of 11
7

98. Denied. Subpoena the police. 

99.-100. Denied. 

101. Denied. Privileged and work product protected. 

102.-103. Moot. 

104.-105. Denied. 

106. Denied. 

107. Denied. 

108.-109. Denied. 

110. Denied. 

111.-112. See previous video ruling. 

113. Moot. 

114. Moot. 

115.-116. See previous ruling re damages. 

117. Denied. 

118. Denied. 

119. Denied as there are none. 

120. Denied - answer is adequate as the request was

phrased. 

121.-122. Denied - unduly burdensome. 

123. Denied/Moot. 

124. Moot/Denied. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 7 of 11
8

125. Denied. 

126. Granted as to D.30a. and c. Denied as to D.30b. 

127. Granted as to HUM 208.01(b)(2) and (5). Otherwise

denied. 

128. Granted as to citation to provision quoted. 

129. Denied. 

130. Denied. 

131. Denied. 

132. Denied - unavailable. 

133. Denied - unavailable. 

134. Denied - unavailable. 

135. Denied - unavailable. 

136. Denied - unavailable. 

137. Denied - unavailable. 

138.-139. Denied - unavailable. 

140. Denied. No relevance shown. 

141. Denied. Irrelevant and confidential. 

142. Denied. 

143.-144. Not applicable. 

145. Denied. Impeach if untrue. 

146. Denied. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 8 of 11
9

147. Denied. 

148. Denied - plaintiff has what defendants have and

if copies aren’t sufficiently legible call counsel and ask

for them. 

149. Denied. 

150. Denied. 

151. N.A.

152.-153. Denied. 

154. Denied. 

155. Denied.

156. See previous rulings. 

157. Denied. 

158. N.A.

159. Denied. 

160. Moot.

161. Denied. 

162. Denied. 

163. N.A.

164. Denied. 

165.-166. Denied. 

167. Denied. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 9 of 11
10

168. Denied. 

169. Denied. 

170. N.A.

171. See prior rulings. 

172. Denied. 

173. Denied. 

174. Denied. 

175. Denied. 

176. Denied. 

177. See prior rulings. 

178. See prior rulings. 

179. Denied. 

180. Denied. 

181. See prior rulings. 

182.-186. See prior rulings. 

187. N.A.

188. Plaintiff’s view of the answers and of the value

of interrogatories, as opposed to follow-up depositions, is

simply wrong. 

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 10 of 11
11

The motion (document no. 34) is granted in part, moot in

part and denied in part. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 19, 2007

cc: Jack Vaughan, pro se

 Debra Weiss Ford, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00223-JD Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 11 of 11