IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

WARD DEAN,	)
	)
Plaintiff,	)
	)
v.	)	No.3 :03 cv 00065 (LAC/MCR)
	)
UNITED STATES, et al.,	)
	)
Defendants.	)
	)

MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

PLAINTIFF, Dr. Ward Dean, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 59(e), to reconsider its Order denying plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery.

As grounds for reconsideration plaintiff offers the following points and authorities:

The defendants argued for denial of the motion by citing U.S. v. One 1964 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, which in turn cited as authority Campbell v. Eastland, from which the defendants then cited. Plaintiff requests the Court to note that Campbell is readily distinguishable from the instant case.
The discovery sought in Campbell was:

Campbell at 482 (emphasis added).

In Campbell, the plaintiff sought the reports of the agents and thus the contents of those reports. Here, plaintiff has not sought the reports of the agents and has stated that any content prejudicial to any criminal action defendants think they might file, could be Redacted by the Court.

Since plaintiff has not sought the contents of any documents—merely the fact that required documents actually exist--the cries of prejudice made by the defendants ring hollow. Plaintiff’s discovery requests are reasonable. In point of fact, plaintiff has offered to allow the Court to determine what might constitute an improper revelation. Thus, on closer scrutiny, the defendants’ argument should be seen to be completely off point and erroneous.

Despite repeated requests by plaintiff, defendants have consistently refused to provide any evidence to prove they are acting with proper authority. If the documents sought by plaintiff show a lack of authority, as plaintiff believes they will, it is that lack of authority that will have an impact on the defendant’s investigation, not any revelation of the contents of any documents. That lack of authority is the basis of this case.

If defendants can not be made to prove they are acting with legal authority, one can only conclude the defendants justify their actions on the strength of brute force, as is the practice of totalitarian governments everywhere. That is not the type of government for which the plaintiff risked his life many times during his many years in the military, as a Special Forces officer and as a member of Delta Force, the elite anti-terrorist unit.

If the defendants can not be held accountable for acting without proper authority before an action and they cannot be held accountable for acting without proper authority and procedural correctness in this Court, then when and where, and after how much irreversible damage has been done to plaintiff?

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to vacate its order of 14 October denying plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, and instead, grant plaintiff’s Motion and order the defendants to produce the discovery requested by plaintiff, redacted as this court may deem necessary to protect the details of any criminal investigation.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Ward Dean, M.D., pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 28th day of October, 2003, I have placed a true and exact copy of the foregoing in the U.S. Mail, first class postage, prepaid, addressed to:

Lindsey W. Cooper, Jr.
Civil Tax, Eastern Region
U.S. Department of Justice
P.0. Box 227, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044

______________________
Ward Dean, M.D.

 

 

More Published Works by Ward Dean, MD

Ward Dean, MD
Copyright ©2003 by Ward Dean, MD / Site Design by Ward Dean, MD
Report discrepancies with this site to the Webmaster