UPDATE; Saint Paul Racketeering Lawsuits Motion To Compel
Please click onto the comments for the post.
posted by Bob at Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Custom Search
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Spring Lake Park Police GOOFED UP.
- Saint Paul Racketeering Lawsuit Deposition of Code...
- Police Seek Clues In Triple Homicide
- Mayor Coleman and the City of Saint Paul
- No Arrest, No Suspects, Burgess Homicides.
- St. Anthony / Neighbors Want Renters Banned.
- Home Invasion, 3 Murdered..
- Bizarre
- Cops Father Died Waiting For Help
- Inver Grove Heights Couple Must Pay For Dump
7 Comments:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. MOTION TO
City of St. Paul, et al., COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs in the above-referenced cases (except Plaintiffs Bee and Lamena Vue in the Harrilal, et al. case) respectfully move the Court for an order compelling Defendants to produce documents and
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 39 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
2
answer interrogatories, and requiring Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees. Counsel for the parties have met and conferred in good faith in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute, but it appears that the assistance of the Court is required to compel Defendants to comply with the Rules by providing answers and responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. This motion is based on the arguments of counsel, their memorandum of law, and upon all the files, records and proceedings herein.
THE ENGEL FIRM, PLLC
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /s/ Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorney for Plaintiffs Gallagher, et. al.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /s/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South, Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harrilal, et. al.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 39 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. NOTICE OF MOTION
City of St. Paul, et al., TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on Friday, the 27th day of April, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, in courtroom 8E, United States Courthouse, 300 South 4th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55104, a motion to compel discovery will be made on
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 40 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
2
behalf of the Plaintiffs before Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, Magistrate Judge of Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota.
THE ENGEL FIRM, PLLC
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /s/ Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel (Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorney for Plaintiffs Gallagher, et. al.
SHOEMAKER & SHOEMAKER, P.L.L.C.
Dated: March 15, 2007 By: /s/ John R. Shoemaker
John R. Shoemaker (Attorney Lic. #161561)
Centennial Lakes Office Park
7701 France Avenue South, Suite 200
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(952) 841-6375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Steinhauser, et. al. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Harrilal, et. al.
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 40 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. AFFIDAVIT OF
MATTHEW A. ENGEL
City of St. Paul, et al., IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Matthew A. Engel, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
1
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 42 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 4
1.
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota and admitted to practice in District Court. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in Thomas J. Gallagher, et. al., v. Magner, et. al. This affidavit is submitted on behalf of all of the Plaintiffs in the above captioned matters in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery.
2.
Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Gallagher, et. al., v. Magner, et. al, case served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents via personal service, hand delivery, to Ms. Seeba at her offices on January 30, 2007. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendants and Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents.
3.
Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b).
4.
On March 12, 2007, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(2)(A), attorney John R. Shoemaker, counsel for the Steinhauser, et al. and Harrilal, et al. Plaintiffs, and I met and conferred in good faith with Louise Toscano Seeba, attorney for Defendants in the above entitled matters, in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute regarding Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents and interrogatories within the time permitted by the Rules.
2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 42 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 4
5.
During our meeting on March 12, 2007, Ms. Seeba made clear that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and answers to interrogatories would not be served on Plaintiffs before the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007.
6.
Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Ms. Seeba that due to the deadline of March 15, 2007, for filing and serving motions to compel discovery, Plaintiffs found it necessary to prepare a motion to compel for filing by the deadline.
7.
Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to allow Defendants’ counsel to serve answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents by March 30, 2007, with Plaintiffs seeking to obtain a hearing date on the motion to compel for a date after the middle of April, 2007. Ms. Seeba indicated that certain documentation subject to the Plaintiffs’ requests for documents would be available for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel starting March 17, 2007, and additional documentation would be made available for review on a continuing basis over the remainder of March 2007 and into early April 2007. Plaintiffs agreed to perform interim document review sessions as Defendants’ counsel obtained documents from the various departments within the City of St. Paul.
8.
Thereafter, I submitted a letter to Defendants’ counsel confirming the agreements of counsel for the continued discovery efforts. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of the March 13, 2007, correspondence I sent to Ms. Seeba.
3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 42 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 4
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 3/15/07 s/ Matthew A. Engel__
Matthew A. Engel
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 15th day of March, 2007.
s/ Erik L. Vakula
Notary Public
Under Seal
4
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 42 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Frank J. Steinhauser, III, et al., Civil No. 04-2632
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v. AFFIDAVIT OF
JOHN R. SHOEMAKER
City of St. Paul, et al., IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Sandra Harrilal, et al., Civil No. 05-461
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Gallagher, et al., Civil No. 05-1348
JNE/SRN
Plaintiffs,
v.
Steve Magner, et al.,
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
John R. Shoemaker, being duly sworn upon oath, states and deposes as follows:
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 5
1.
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota since 1984 and admitted to practice in this Court. I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in Frank J. Steinhauser, et al., v. Magner, et al. and for Plaintiffs Sandra Harrilal and Steven R. Johnson in Sandra Harrilal, et al. v. Magner, et al. I am submitting this affidavit in support of Plaintiffs’ joint Motion to Compel Discovery in all three of the consolidated-for-discovery cases herein.
2.
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents in Steinhauser, et. al., and Harrilal, et al., cases were served by hand delivery on Defendants’ attorney, Louise Seeba, at her offices on January 31, 2007. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the Certificate of Service (See Paragraph No. 10 below for a description of the specific discovery requests that were served by Plaintiffs on Defendants).
3.
Defendants failed to serve Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests within the 30 day period allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) and 34(b). Defendants’ Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Answers to Interrogatories were due for service on Plaintiffs on March 2, 2007, but Defendants failed to timely respond. Defendants’ counsel did not seek an extension of time to respond and did not in any other way contact me concerning the discovery responses that were due from Defendants by March 2, 2007.
4.
On March 9, 2007, I forward a letter to Ms. Seeba regarding Defendants’ failure to serve discovery responses and I scheduled a “meet and confer” for
2
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 5
March 12, 2007. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of my March 9, 2007, letter.
5.
On March 12, 2007, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(2)(A), and Local Rule 37.1, attorney Matthew Engel, counsel for the Gallagher, et al. Plaintiffs, and I met and conferred in good faith with Ms. Seeba in the above entitled matters, in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute regarding Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents and interrogatories within the time permitted by the Rules.
6.
During our meeting on March 12, 2007, Ms. Seeba made clear that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and answers to interrogatories would not be served on Plaintiffs before the non-dispositive motion deadline of March 15, 2007.
7.
Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Ms. Seeba that due to the deadline of March 15, 2007, for filing and serving motions to compel discovery, Plaintiffs found it necessary to prepare a motion to compel for filing by the deadline.
8.
Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to allow Defendants’ counsel to serve answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents by March 30, 2007, with Plaintiffs seeking to obtain a hearing date on the motion to compel for a date after the middle of April, 2007. Ms. Seeba indicated that certain documentation subject to the Plaintiffs’ requests for documents would be available for review by Plaintiffs’ counsel starting March 17, 2007, and additional documentation would be made available for review on a continuing
3
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 5
basis over the remainder of March 2007 and into early April 2007. Plaintiffs agreed to perform interim document review sessions as Defendants’ counsel obtained documents from the various departments within the City of St. Paul.
9.
On March 14, 2007, I forwarded a letter to Defendants’ counsel via facsimile transmission confirming the agreements of counsel reached during the March 12, 2007 meeting. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of the March 14, 2007, correspondence from John R. Shoemaker, Esq. to Louise Toscano Seeba, Esq.
10.
Each of the following discovery requests was served by Plaintiffs on Ms. Seeba and Defendants via hand delivery through Metro Legal Services on January 31, 2007:
a.
Attached as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Harrilal and Johnson’s Interrogatories to Defendants;
b.
Attached as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Harrilal and Johnson’s Request for Production of Documents;
c.
Attached as Exhibit “F” is a true and correct copy of the Steinhauser Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to Defendants (Set II).
d.
Attached as Exhibit “G” is a true and correct copy of the Steinhauser Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents to Defendants (Set II).
4
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 5
FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYTH NOT.
Dated: 3/15/07 s/ John R. Shoemaker__
John R. Shoemaker
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 15th day of March, 2007.
s/ Paul F. Shoemaker
Notary Public
Under Seal
5
Case 0:05-cv-01348-JNE-SRN Document 43 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 5
Looks like the city of St Paul doesn't want to follow the rules, but I'll bet they expect everyone to follow those rules. What hypocrites!
Looks like the city is trying to hide soemthing to me. Why would they do that?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Thomas J. Gallagher; Joseph J. Collins, Sr.; Dadder’s
Properties, LLC; Dadder’s Estates, LLC; Dadder’s
Enterprises, LLC; Dadder’s Holdings, LLC, Troy Allison,
and Jeff Kubitschek and Sara Kubitschek;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor of City of
St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement; Mike Cassidy, individually and as a
code enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Joel Essling,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the City
of St. Paul; Steve Schiller, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Joe Yannarelly,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the City
of St. Paul; Dennis Senty, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Rich
Singerhouse, individually and as a code enforcement officer
of City of St. Paul; Kelly Booker, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Michael Urmann,
individually and as a fire inspector of the City of St. Paul;
Andy Dawkins, individually and as Director of City of St.
Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement; Randy Kelly individually and as Mayor of
City of St. Paul; John Doe and Jane Doe, individually and
in their official capacities as code enforcement officers of
City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement, law enforcement officers or other
officials or employees of the City of St. Paul; individually,
jointly and severally; and City of St. Paul, a municipal
corporation,
Defendants,
Court File No.:05-1348
JNE/SRN
PLAINTIFFS’
INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANTS
TO: Defendants above named and their attorneys John Choi, Saint Paul City Attorney, Louise
Toscano Seeba, Assistant Saint Paul City Attorney, 750 City Hall and Courthouse, 15 West
Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102:
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 29
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Plaintiffs hereby demand answers to the within
Interrogatories, under oath and within the time allowed, pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
PLEASE NOTE that these Interrogatories are deemed to be continuing, and should you,
your attorneys or agents obtain any other information which would add or change the answers
supplied by you, you are directed, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to give timely
notice of such additional information and to supplement your answers without delay.
INTERROGATORIES
1. List the name, address, telephone number, occupation, and place of employment of all
individuals, including those individuals listed in Defendants’ Initial Disclosures, Defendants’
Supplemental Disclosures, and all supplements to same, who have any information concerning the
allegations in either the Corrected First Amended Complaint or your Answer, or any other pleading.
2. List the name, address, telephone number, occupation, and place of employment of all
tenants listed in the NHPI files of plaintiffs in the Steinhauser, et al., Harrilal, et al. and Gallagher, et
al. cases, that Defendants or their representatives have contacted since May 2004.
3. Provide a detailed description of the substance of the knowledge held by each individual
listed in Defendants’ Initial Disclosures, Defendants’ Supplemental Disclosures and all
supplements to same, that Defendants have claimed “may have discoverable information regarding
the City’s code enforcement actions and tenant remedy actions and other issues including, but not
limited to, legislative hearings, specific property conditions, and contact with Plaintiffs,” including
but not limited to Marcia Moermond and Maureen Dolan.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 29
3
4. State the substance of all conversations, statements or written communications of any kind
which you claim in any way constitutes an admission of Plaintiffs, identifying the form of each
admission, the date each admission was made, and the parties to each communication.
5. Identify all documents by Bates Nos. that relate in any way to each admission you claim
Plaintiffs have made as set out in Interrogatory No. 5 above.
6. Identify all video tapes, things, photographs (by Bates Nos.), and all documents (by Bates
Nos.) which relate to the allegations in the pleadings in this matter, the defenses you have or are
intending to raise, or which may be relevant to any of the issues in this lawsuit.
7. Identify the Bates Nos. of all photographs of Plaintiffs’ properties which Defendants have in
their possession or under their control.
8. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that relate in any way to Defendants’ claims that the rental properties of the
Plaintiffs in Steinhauser, et al., Harrilal, et al. and Gallagher, et al., were not selectively targeted (as
claimed by Plaintiffs) for code enforcement during the period of January 20002 through December
2005.
9. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that relate in any way to any claim by Defendants’ that the City applied similar code
enforcement operations to St. Paul Public Housing Agency’s (“PHA”) single family and duplex
rental properties as the City applied to the rental properties owned by the Plaintiffs in Steinhauser, et
al., Harrilal, et al. and Gallagher, et al., during the period of 1999 through present.
10. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that relate in any way to any claim by Defendants’ that the City applied similar code
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 29
4
enforcement operations to PHA’s rental properties covered by the “certificate of occupancy”
program as the City applied to the rental properties owned by the Plaintiffs in Steinhauser, et al.,
Harrilal, et al. and Gallagher, et al. during the period of 1999 through present.
11. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show in any way that PHA’s single family and duplex rental properties were
subject to any orders for “condemnation” of any type during the period of 1990 through present.
12. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show in any way that PHA’s rental properties covered by the “certificate of
occupancy” program were subject to any orders for “condemnation” of any kind during the period of
1990 through present.
13. For the period of 1999 to present, identify all PHA owned rental properties that were subject
to “orders to vacate” from the City where PHA tenants were required to vacate occupancy of the
rental property.
14. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show in any way that during the period of 1980 through present PHA’s single
family and duplex rental properties were subject to any requests, demands or orders for “certificates
of code compliance” administered by the City’s LIEP department.
15. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show in any way during the period of 1980 through present that at the time PHA
owned any single family and duplex rental property within the City, the City had made a request,
demand or order to PHA that any of those rental properties must go through a “code compliance
inspection” before occupancy of a PHA rental unit would be allowed.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 29
5
16. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show in any way during the period of 1999 through present that at the time PHA
owned any single family and duplex rental property within the City that the City designated any such
property as a “vacant building” under the City code(s).
17. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show in any way during the period of 1999 through present that at the time PHA
owned any single family and duplex rental property that the City conducted an interior inspection
of any PHA owned single family and duplex rental property.
18. If the City did in fact conduct any interior inspection as set forth in the previous
interrogatory, provide the address of said property, the date of the inspection, the inspector and
agency conducting the inspection, the results of said inspection, and the nature of all orders issued
by the City as a result of those inspections.
19. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show in any way during the period of 1999 through present that at the time PHA
owned any single family and duplex rental property that the City issued any orders related to the
exterior condition of the structure of any PHA owned single family and duplex rental property.
20. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show in any way during the period of 1999 through present that at the time PHA
owned any single family and duplex rental property that the City issued any citations related to any
PHA owned single family and duplex rental property.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 29
6
21. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show during the period of 1999 through present all police service calls to PHA
owned single family and duplex rental properties.
22. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents of any kind, including computer data base
documentation, that show during the period of 1999 through present all police service calls to PHA’s
rental properties covered by the “certificate of occupancy” program.
23. Identify all PHA representatives, and City officials and employees that were in attendance at
all meetings between Andy Dawkins and PHA representatives, including where other City code
officials and/or inspectors were present. Identify the dates of all such meetings. Describe with
specificity and not in general fashion the subject of the meetings, a summary of subjects discussed at
each meeting, and the agreements reached as a result of each meeting.
24. Identify all PHA representatives, and City officials and employees that were in attendance at
all meetings between Andy Dawkins and PHA representatives, including where other City code
officials and/or inspectors were present, concerning how City inspectors should deal with code
deficiencies observed on PHA single family and/or duplex rental units; identify the dates of all such
meetings. Describe with specificity and not in general fashion the subject of the meetings, a
summary of subjects discussed at each meeting, and the agreements reached as a result of each
meeting.
25. Identify each document of any kind that any Defendant or counsel for same is withholding
from production to Plaintiffs for inspection on the basis of either attorney-client or work product
privileges, or any other claim of privilege, stating as to each such document the author, addressee,
date and a brief summary of the document’s general subject matter.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 6 of 29
7
26. Describe in detail all photographs, video tapes, things and all documents of any kind you
intend to introduce as exhibits at trial in this matter.
27. List the names, addresses and occupations of all witnesses you intend to call at the time of
trial, providing a summary of each of their expected testimony.
28. As to each individual defendant, if you have ever been a party to a lawsuit, then as to each
lawsuit describe the nature of the lawsuit and identify the names of the parties and attorneys
involved and identify the court, county and state where each lawsuit took place.
29. As to each individual defendant, identify each occasion that you were arrested, indicted or
convicted of a crime, including, but not limited to, crimes punishable by death or imprisonment in
excess of one year or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, regardless of said punishment,
and for each crime, identify the crime, the date, the law enforcement agency involved, the title of the
court and state where the crime took place, the plea entered if any, and any conviction that resulted
including the date of the conviction.
30. Identify the name, job title and specific department of the City, of all officials, inspectors,
other employees and members employed by each of the following entities (and their predecessors)
since 1990, describing whether any of these individuals were employed or are employed in an
officer, managerial or supervisory capacity, and indicating their current status with each such entity,
including whether they have retired or otherwise left employment: (1) Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement (NHPI); (2) Department of Fire and Safety Services - Fire Prevention
Division (Fire Prevention); (3) Office of Licensing, Inspection and Environment Protection (LIEP);
(4) Citizen’s Service Office; (5) St. Paul’s Department of Planning and Economic Development
(PED); (6) Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA); and (7) FORCE unit.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 7 of 29
8
31. State the name, residence address and telephone number of all persons who have been
interviewed by you or your representatives concerning the facts subject to this lawsuit and state with
respect to each such person how the interview took place, who participated or was present during
same, whether the interview was recorded and, if so, whether in longhand, shorthand, or by
mechanical or electronic transcription device. Describe the subject matter of the knowledge held by
each such witness in keeping with Defendants’ Initial Disclosures and all supplements to same.
32. Identify all business interests in St. Paul held during the past ten (10) years by each of the
individual Defendants or their relatives, and by each official, inspector, other employee or member
(including their relatives) of the City Council, NHPI, Department of Fire and Safety Services
including Fire Prevention division, LIEP, PED, HRA, and FORCE. “All business interests”
includes, but is not limited to, all residential rental and commercial rental properties, vacant
properties, undeveloped or vacant lots, commercial businesses of whatever nature, and all other real
estate property or business holdings, providing for each such interest the complete street address and
identification of all persons or entities with an ownership interest in same.
33. Identify all audio tapes, and transcripts of same, and all other documents of any kind
including all notes, that relate in any way to the Answer to the First Amended Complaint.
34. Describe in detail and with specificity all factual evidence which forms the basis for your
claimed defenses stated in your Answer to the First Amended Complaint.
35. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents that list the address of any “problem properties,”
chronic problem properties,” lists created by any City official, City employee or any member of any
district council in the City..
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 8 of 29
9
36. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents related in any way to written complaints made to the
City by citizens of the City concerning employees and/or officials related to code enforcement
matters. Identify by Bates Nos. all documents related in any way to investigations conducted by the
City related to these complaints.
THE ENGEL FIRM, P.L.L.C.
Dated: January 29, 2007 By: s/Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel(Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 9 of 29
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Thomas J. Gallagher; Joseph J. Collins, Sr.; Dadder’s
Properties, LLC; Dadder’s Estates, LLC; Dadder’s
Enterprises, LLC; Dadder’s Holdings, LLC, Troy Allison,
and Jeff Kubitschek and Sara Kubitschek;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor of City of
St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement; Mike Cassidy, individually and as a
code enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Joel Essling,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the City
of St. Paul; Steve Schiller, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Joe Yannarelly,
individually and as a code enforcement officer of the City
of St. Paul; Dennis Senty, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of the City of St. Paul; Rich
Singerhouse, individually and as a code enforcement officer
of City of St. Paul; Kelly Booker, individually and as a code
enforcement officer of City of St. Paul; Michael Urmann,
individually and as a fire inspector of the City of St. Paul;
Andy Dawkins, individually and as Director of City of St.
Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement; Randy Kelly individually and as Mayor of
City of St. Paul; John Doe and Jane Doe, individually and
in their official capacities as code enforcement officers of
City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement, law enforcement officers or other
officials or employees of the City of St. Paul; individually,
jointly and severally; and City of St. Paul, a municipal
corporation,
Defendants,
Court File No.:05-1348
JNE/SRN
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
TO: Defendants above named and their attorneys John Choi, Saint Paul City Attorney, Louise
Toscano Seeba, Assistant Saint Paul City Attorney, 750 City Hall and Courthouse, 15 West
Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102:
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 10 of 29
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Plaintiffs hereby request, pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Defendants above named, and each of them, produce and
permit the undersigned to inspect and copy all of the documents described and requested herein
within thirty (30) days following service herein.
The term “documents” as used in this Request means, without limitation, every writing or
record of every type and description that is or has been in your possession, control or custody, or of
which you have knowledge, including without limitation, correspondence, calendars, emails, notes,
memoranda, writings, records, reports, studies, books, papers, statistical compilations, bills,
invoices, receipts, ledgers, journals, charts, drawings, photographs, slides, films, moving pictures of
any type, videotapes, digital film or any other photographic representation, tapes, voice recordings,
statements, stenographic documents, minutes, notices, inventories, certificates, agreements, and
other type of documents or form of data compilation, including electronically stored information of
any kind, and drafts of all of the foregoing described documents, originals of same, and every copy
of every such document or record where such copy is not an identical copy of an original or where
such copy contains any commentary or notation whatsoever that does not appear on the original, and
any other tangible things within the scope of discovery as defined in Rule 34.
As to any document or thing that cannot be photographed, you may identify the location and
custodian of such document or thing and the times and conditions upon which it will be made
available for inspection.
PLEASE NOTE that this Request is deemed to be continuing, and should you, your attorneys
or agents obtain any other documents which would add or change the documents supplied by you,
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 11 of 29
3
you are directed, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to give timely notice of such
additional documents and to furnish such additional documents without delay.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
1. All documents which verify, support or relate to the allegations contained in or referred to in
your Answer to the First Amended Complaint herein, which relate in any way to the issues raised by
the First Amended Complaint in this matter, or upon which you rely or which you claim are in any
way relevant to any of the allegations in said Complaint or Answer to same, including all documents
maintained by each defendant in their personal possession whether maintained at their place of
employment, home or other place of storage.
2. All documents that you intend to use in your motion for summary judgment in this matter.
3. All documents that you intend to introduce at trial in this matter.
4. All written or recorded statements or affidavits received by you from any witness, party
or other person or entity relating to the facts and issues involved in this litigation.
5. All documents which relate in any way to conversations which took place between each
of the Plaintiffs and any Defendant.
6. All photographs, slides, films, moving pictures, videotapes, or any other photographic
representation, and all drawings, graphs, charts, maps or other similar types of illustrative or
demonstrative documents or things in your possession or under your control related in any way
to the subject of this litigation including related to Plaintiffs properties.
7. All documents referred to in the Interrogatories served upon you herein by Plaintiffs.
8. All documents referred to by you in your Answers to Interrogatories served upon you herein
by Plaintiffs.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 12 of 29
4
9. All documents identified in Defendants’ Initial Disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and all
amendments or supplements of same.
10. All documents which you have provided to, or will provide to, experts you have disclosed
herein.
11. All experts’ reports, notes, test reports, photos, diagrams, records, documents and
correspondence provided to any experts you expect to call at the trial of this matter, and a resume or
curriculum vitae for each expert; all experts’ reports, notes, test reports, photos, diagrams, records,
documents and correspondence provided by any experts you expect to call at the trial of this matter,
and a resume or curriculum vitae for each expert; all experts’ reports, notes, test reports, photos,
diagrams, records, documents and correspondence relied upon by any experts you expect to call at
the trial of this matter, and a resume or curriculum vitae for each expert; and all studies, articles,
and/or learned treatises provided to the experts you expect to call at trial of this matter and/or to
which the expert will refer and/or upon which the expert relies in forming the opinions.
12. All documents related in any way to each of the rental properties owned by Plaintiffs or those
identified in the First Amended Complaint. This Request includes complete files and all related
materials maintained by any office or department of Defendant City, including, but not limited to, all
files personally maintained by Defendants, or any other City official, employee, agent or
representative. This Request also includes without limitation all documents related to any civil or
criminal complaints of any nature, including human rights complaints, regarding any of these rental
properties as well as all law enforcement documents of every kind related in any way to the
properties referred to in this Request, including, but not limited to, police service calls documents,
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 13 of 29
5
records, reports, investigative documentation, memorandums, notes, charts and computer generated
documents.
13. All documents related in any way to the Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement (“NHPI”) and its predecessor department(s) since 1994, including but not limited to,
policies, rules and procedures (including all documents related to the establishment of the Rules and
Procedures for the NHPI and Problem Property Unit during 2002 and 2003), handbooks, pamphlets,
flyers, actions, meetings, minutes, notes, memos, charts, maps, flow charts, records, reports, lists,
files, assessments, productivity charts and documentation, comparison statistical documentation,
computer maintained information, cell phone records, email communications, intra-office
communication documentation, budgets, expenditures, funding, audits, reviews, personnel files,
complaints by employees, complaints by others, sweeps, abatements, orders, correction notices,
other notices, nuisances, condemnations, legislative appeals, decisions, enforcement actions of any
type, whether civil or criminal in nature.
14. All documents related to the “Kitchen Cabinet” that Defendant Dawkins has referred to on
page 13 of the NHPI Housing and Property Improvement 2003 Year-End Assessment, as being
involved in preparing the strategic plan for NHPI and PPU during 2002-2003.
15. All employee manuals referred to on page 13 of the NHPI Housing and Property
Improvement 2003 Year-End Assessment, and other employee manuals for code inspectors in
existence during the past ten (10) years.
16. All documents or form of data compilation, including printed and electronically stored
information of any kind, related to the City inspector’s use of “mobile units” referred to on page 13
of the NHPI Housing and Property Improvement 2003 Year-End Assessment.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 14 of 29
6
17. All CSO documents related to the rental properties owned by Plaintiffs during the period of
1999 through present.
18. All NHPI (and its predecessors) documents related to the rental properties owned by
Plaintiffs during the period of 1999 through present.
19. All documents related to sweeps conducted by NHPI and its predecessor department(s) for
the past ten (10) years, including, but not limited to, all notices, pamphlets, flyers, orders, citations,
summary abatements, and civil and criminal court file documentation and all documentation related
to the system and basis for targeting selected neighborhoods in the City
20. All documents related in any way to all communications within the past ten (10) years
between the following City entities, other entities and/or individuals related in any way to rental and
non-rental housing, low income housing, housing, building, fire, health, life and/or safety code
matters, code enforcement operations, illegal searches and seizures, FORCE unit activities,
inspectors working with the FORCE unit, police activity related to any of the foregoing, St. Paul
Public Housing Agency (PHA) properties, or to state or federally prohibited discrimination by
officials, employees, or agents or representatives of Defendant City: NHPI (and its predecessor
department) including its members; City Council including its members and staff; legislative hearing
officer; Office of Mayor including its members; Police Department including its members;
Department of Fire Prevention including its members; Licensing, Inspection and Environment
Protection office (LIEP) including its members; Citizen Service Office including its members;
Human Rights Department including its members; Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
including its members; St. Paul’s Department of Planning and Economic Development; St. Paul
Public Housing Agency including its members; Ramsey County Health Department including its
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 15 of 29
7
members; Neighborhood District Councils in the City, and all other neighborhood groups; and the
individual Defendants herein.
21. All documents in the possession, custody or control of Defendant City or any of its
departments or offices, officials, employees, agents or representatives, related in any way to St. Paul
Public Housing Agency (PHA) properties, including rental properties and any other real estate
owned by same, for the past ten (10) years. This Request includes, but is not limited to, all
documents related to any complaints concerning said rental properties, related in any way to
housing, building, fire, health, life and/or safety code matters, all work orders, maintenance, deferred
maintenance, repairs, repair budgets, modernization and other improvements, condemnations,
electrical or other utility service disconnections, police service calls, and purchase or sale, or other
acquisition and disposition of said properties.
22. All documents in the possession, custody or control of Defendant City or any of its officials,
employees, agents or representatives, related in any way to housing, building, fire, health, life and/or
safety code inspections of PHA properties during the past ten (10) years where inspections were
conducted by PHA, its agents, representatives or contractors.
23. All documents in the possession, custody or control of Defendant City or any of its officials,
employees, agents or representatives, related in any way to housing, building, fire, health, life and/or
safety code inspections of properties owned by third parties receiving Section 8 rent subsidies during
the past ten (10) years where inspections were conducted by PHA, its agents, representatives or
contractors.
24. All documents in the possession, custody or control of Defendant City or any of its officials,
employees, agents or representatives, related in any way to housing, building, fire, health, life and/or
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 16 of 29
8
safety code inspections of properties owned by PHA within the past ten (10) years where inspections
were conducted by Defendant City, individual Defendants or any other inspection employees or
officials of Defendant City.
25. All documents in the possession, custody or control of Defendant City or any of its officials,
employees, agents or representatives, related in any way to housing, building, fire, health, life and/or
safety code inspections of properties owned by third parties receiving Section 8 rent subsidies during
the past ten (10) years where inspections were conducted by Defendant City, individual Defendants
or any other inspection employees or officials of Defendant City.
26. All documents related in any way to all HUD funding within the City of St. Paul during the
past ten (10) years, including, but not limited to, all correspondence, all application documentation,
documentation related to acquiring and maintaining said funding, all regulations, all procedures, all
reports, all audits, all complaints related in any way to HUD regulations, including all complaints
regarding affordable housing or conditions of any housing stock, and all other documentation related
to HUD funding within the City.
27. All documents related in any way to all Tenant Remedy Actions (TRA) (including, but not
limited to, cases where Defendant City was a party) during the past ten (10) years and including all
currently filed TRA matters, and other TRA matters filed during the pendency of this case.
28. All reports, studies, communications, or other documentation provided to the City Council
and/or the Office of Mayor related in any way to TRA matters during the past ten (10) years.
29. All documents related to the City’s “revolving fund” that the City claims is available to pay
for an administrator of properties subject to TRAs.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 17 of 29
9
30. All documentation related to all appointments of an administrator by the Ramsey County
District Court in all tenant remedies action civil matters during the past ten (10) years.
31. All documents concerning payments made, or to be made, to the City, to Ramsey County or
to any court, by any third party related in any way to City initiated TRA civil matters, including
quota payments, grants, or any other payments, and court fines, costs, disbursements and fees, and
all documents related to payments made by any third party to any one else.
32. All documents related to any criminal actions taken by Defendants against any property
owner for claimed violation of any housing, building, fire, health, life and/or safety codes within the
past ten (10) years, including citations or complaints, Probable Cause Sheet and Investigative Notes
for Prosecution of Citations or like documentation, and disposition of charge documentation,
33. All documents related in any way to inspections of properties in the City where any member
of the City Attorney’s office participated on site during a housing, building, fire, health, life and/or
safety code inspection during the past ten (10) years. This Request includes all documents generated
or maintained by Assistant City Attorneys Maureen Dolan and Dan Lee related to all code
enforcement inspections they have participated in as members of the Problem Property Unit (PPU).
34. All documents related in any way to the PPU of NHPI and all documents related to the
Problem Properties Task Force. This Request includes all documents related to “Problem
Properties” or “Chronic Problem Properties” as defined by NHPI or its predecessor located in the
City, including all chronic problem properties or problem properties files of NHPI and its
predecessor since 1992, all file documentation related in any way to preparation of the 1995 and
2002 Reports generated by the City Council including by the City Council Research Center, and all
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 18 of 29
10
other reports on chronic problem properties and problem properties provided to the City Council
since 1992.
35. All documents related in any way to the legislative hearings and city council hearings of all
appeals of housing, building, fire, health, life and/or safety code enforcement actions of any type for
the past ten (10) years, including all agendas, minutes, audio and video tapes, correspondence,
appeal and attachment forms and all other documents.
36. All correspondence between property owners and the legislative hearing officer, including
correspondence requesting extensions to comply with code matters, during the past ten (10) years.
37. All documents, including, but not limited to, correspondence, memos, notes, reports, emails,
meeting minutes, related in any way to communications, complaints, meetings, reports, code
deficiency notices, condemnations or any other contact of any nature of Defendants, NHPI or its
predecessor(s), Fire Prevention, or the Police Department with Community Stabilization Project
(hereinafter, “CSP”), or any of CSP’s employees, agents or representatives, including all documents
related to code enforcement inspections and tenant’s remedies action matters that CSP personnel
participated in during the past ten (10) years.
38. All documents related to education, training, licenses and certifications of inspectors
employed by NHPI (or its predecessor(s)), LIEP, and the Fire Prevention Department and Police
Department officers assigned for code enforcement activities, including all documents related to
“higher inspection standards institutionalized” as referred to on page 13 of the NHPI Housing and
Property Improvement 2003 Year-End Assessment.
39. All documents related in any way to all “distressed properties” within the City, as maintained
by any department or office of the City during the past ten (10) years.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 19 of 29
11
40. All documentation related to demolition of, or attempted demolition of, residential buildings
located in St. Paul within the past ten (10) years, including registered vacant building lists, lists of
buildings subject to demolition on a monthly basis, all documents related to public hearings before
the City Council or legislative hearing officer related thereto, including minutes of said hearings, all
documents related to court actions related thereto, and all documents related to sale or purchase of
said properties.
41. All Notice of Claims (however described) and communications related thereto and made in
response thereto, that were delivered to Defendant City during the past ten (10) years to present
related in any way to rental and non-rental housing, low income housing, commercial properties,
code enforcement operations, illegal searches and seizures, FORCE unit activities, police activity
related to any of the foregoing, state or federally prohibited discrimination, or retaliation by officials,
employees, or agents or representatives of Defendant City.
42. All Summons and Complaints, other claim forms, petitions, answers, pleadings, discovery
documentation, motions, orders, judgments, settlement documentation, and all other claim and
litigation documentation of any kind, related to all claims made against Defendants or against any
other employees or officials of Defendant City since 1990 related in any way to rental and non-rental
housing, low income housing, commercial properties, code enforcement operations, illegal searches
and seizures, FORCE unit activities, police activity related to any of the foregoing, or to state or
federally prohibited discrimination by officials, employees, or agents or representatives of Defendant
City.
43. All documents related to the Citizen’s Service Office’s initiative called “Problem Properties
2000" and all document related to audits of said office during the past ten (10) years.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 20 of 29
12
44. All documents related to all complaints made by anyone to the City, its departments,
officials, employees, agents or representatives related in any way to housing issues.
45. All documents related to all complaints made during the past ten (10) years by anyone to the
City, its departments, officials, employees, agents or representatives related in any way to claims of
retaliation or other criminal wrongdoing by City officials, employees, agents or representatives.
46. For all City officials and employees that had any involvement with properties of Plaintiffs
during the past ten (10) years, provide all documents related to those officials or employees’
individual performance on the job while a City employee or official, including all documents related
to position requirements, training requirements, quotas, production, performance reviews, and
complaints filed against same or by same, including all union grievance documentation.
47. All documentation related in any way to the revenues received by Defendant City during the
past ten (10) years from building permits, bond forfeitures, code enforcement fees, including
excessive consumption fees for code inspections and police services, abatements, rental registration
fees, code compliance fees, vacant building registration, criminal housing citations, fines, and any
other fee generated from property owners related to housing, building, fire, health, life and/or safety
code matters.
48. All documents related to all meetings and communications between Defendant Dawkins and
Defendant Kelly related to housing, building, fire, health, life and/or safety code matters including,
but not limited to, enforcement of same. This Request includes documents related to all tours or
inspections conducted within the City of St. Paul.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 21 of 29
13
49. All documents related to the decision to transfer or assign personnel from the City’s Police
Department to NHPI and its predecessor, including Defendant Koehnen and all other Problem
Property Unit police officer members, and any other law enforcement officers.
50. All documents related in any way to the St. Paul Tenants Union’s threatened action, and all
actions taken by same, against Defendant City.
51. All documents related to Project Hope, Community Stabilization, Dorothy Day Center,
Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, Wilder Research Center, all housing advocacy entities of any kind,
or entities that have any involvement in low income housing and homeless related issues in the City
of St. Paul during the past ten (10) years.
52. All Housing Plans ( for example, the “Housing Action Plan 2001") for the past ten (10) years
presented to, and/or adopted by, the City Council, and all reports to the City Council related to said
plans, including year end reports.
53. All documents related to affordable housing in the City, including all documents related to
any reports, complaints, or other communication made to Defendant City, including to the City
Council, NHPI, and all other departments, officials, employees, agents or representatives of the City,
related in any way to the issue of lack of affordable housing in the City and all studies and reports
related to affordable housing within the City.
54. All documents related to the Housing 5000 Advisory Task Force, including, but not limited
to, agendas, meetings, minutes, reports and studies and all documents related to the City’s Housing
5000 Production Plan to maintain the City’s commitment for residential rehabilitation and
maintenance of the City’s aging housing stock and to revitalize the City’s housing stock in
residential neighborhoods.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 22 of 29
14
55. All documents related to the City’s rental registration program including all communications
with property owners concerning same and complaints made by property owners or others to
Defendants or other City officials or employees during 2003 to present.
56. All documents related to preparation and passage of the City’s “Excessive Consumption”
ordinance and related to the City’s billing for such fees during 2003 to present, including all
communications with property owners regarding the assessment of any such fee during same period
and all complaints to Defendants or other City officials or employees during said period regarding
such assessments by the City, including, but not limited to, all complaints made by anyone regarding
lack of notice from the City.
57. All maps in existence during the past ten (10) years of all areas within the City of St. Paul
regarding data on units as referred to on page 14 of NHPI Housing and Property Improvement 2003
Year-End Assessment, and all maps during the same period of the City showing locations of all
publicly assisted low income housing including PHA and privately owned properties.
58. All documents related to FORCE unit “knock and talks,” raids, searches, search warrants,
arrests, prosecutions and convictions within the City, and all documents related to any complaints
against the FORCE unit or its members arising from FORCE activities during the past ten (10) years.
59. All documents related to City initiated evictions during the past ten (10) years.
60. All calendars of the individual Defendants, including but not limited to, all computer
generated or maintained calendars, for the past five (5) years.
61. All cell phone records for each individual Defendant for the past five (5) years.
62. All documents related to any real estate interests owned or maintained by the individual
Defendants, inspectors, officials or employees of NHPI, LIEP and Fire Prevention Department, by
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 23 of 29
15
members of PED and HRA, by officials in the Office of Mayor, or City Council members, located
within the City of St. Paul during the past ten (10) years, including, but not limited to, all documents
related to purchase and/or sale, sweeps, abatements, orders, correction notices, other notices,
nuisances, condemnations, legislative appeals, decisions, enforcement actions of any type, whether
civil or criminal in nature.
63. All documents related in any way to communications from the individual Defendants, any
other inspector, employee or official of NHPI, Fire Prevention or LIEP that were made during the
past ten (10) years to any third party regarding purchase and/or sale of real estate in the City,
including, but not limited to, realtors, brokers, real estate investors, sellers or purchasers of real
estate, and including but not limited to communications to third parties concerning the code
compliance status, code deficiency status, condemnation status, or vacant building status, of
buildings located within the City and all documents identifying such realtors, brokers, real estate
investors, sellers or purchasers of real estate.
64. All documents related to the change from a complaint-based system to a pro-active system.
65. All documents related to “Extended Economic Life New Housing Production,” “Extended
Affordability Life” and “Preservation” projects referred to in the City’s Housing Action Plan 2003 -
Draft 12/27/02, and all additional drafts and final plans of same for the years 1995 through present.
66. All documents related to the Mayor’s Advisory Committee for People with Disabilities.
67. All documents related to the Fair Housing Council.
68. All documents related to the Family Housing Fund of Minneapolis/St. Paul.
69. All documents related to the Ramsey County/City of St. Paul Homeless Advisory Board.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 24 of 29
16
70. All documents related to the St. Paul/Ramsey County Low Income Housing and Homeless
Services Funders Council.
71. All documents related to the Homeless Plan (referred to in the 2003 Housing Action Plan).
72. All documents related to the $200,000 Housing Improvement Revolving Grant referred to on
page 13 of the NHPI Housing and Property Improvement 2003 Year-End Assessment.
73. All documents related in any way to the communication between Defendant Dawkins and
Chief Judge Mott and all other documentation referencing communications between City officials
and employees and any member of the Ramsey County District Court.
74. All documents that relate in any way to how Defendants, NHPI, LIEP, the City’s Office
of Mayor, the City Council, the Department of Fire Prevention, the legislative hearing officer,
Office of Citizen’s Services and the City Police Department, create, use, delete, and archive
computer information, including all emails, data compilations, computerized data, and other
recorded information, and all such documents of any kind.
75. All L.I.E.P. documents related to the rental properties owned by Plaintiffs during the period
of 1999 through present.
76. All Fire Prevention office documents related to the rental properties owned by Plaintiffs
during the period of 1999 through present.
77. All AMANDA documents for the rental properties owned by Plaintiffs.
78. All STAMP documents for the rental properties owned by Plaintiffs.
79. All Police Reports of any kind, including SITS police call summaries and actual reports, for
Plaintiffs’ rental properties.
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 25 of 29
17
80. All lists of properties with ownership information, related to properties subject to
condemnation at any time since January 1, 1999, to present, including “condemnation lists” similar
to Bates No. STP 0321 produced in the Steinhauser, et al. vs. Kelly, et al. consolidated case in this
Court.
81. All lists similar to the document identified as Bates No. 0590-0609 produced by Defendant
City of St. Paul in the Steinhauser, et al. vs. Kelly, et al. consolidated case in this Court, for the
period of January 1, 1999 through present.
82. All vacant building lists for the period of January 1, 1999 through present.
83. Rental Registration lists - showing addresses and owners of rental properties in the City for
the period of January 1, 2002 to present.
84. All Cooperative Agreements between PHA and City, including payment in lieu of taxes.
85. All documents related to the City’s provision of police services to PHA owned rental
properties during the period of January 1, 1999 to present, including but not limited to ACOP,
Officer in Residence program, and all other policing services for PHA rental properties.
86. All documents related to racial discrimination claims made against the City of St. Paul, its
officials and employees including all documents related in any way to those claims that are in the
possession of the City’s Human Rights Commission.
87. All documents related to Human Rights Commission input on housing issues including
Commission’s work on addressing fair housing issues for City’s Housing Action Plan 2001.
88. All documents related to vacant lots in City for the period of 1999 to present.
89. Property Enforcement Task Force - all meeting notes, minutes and other documents,
including property address lists, problem property lists, including for the first and second half of
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 26 of 29
18
monthly meetings. See STP 6481-6586 for first half of monthly meeting open to public members.
This request includes all documents of any kind related to the second half of these meetings,
including enforcement related matters.
90. Emails and Interdepartmental correspondence, memos, documents related to code
enforcement:
Between CSO and NHPI;
Between CSO and PHA;
Between CSO and Fire Prevention;
Between CSO and Mayor’s office;
Between NHPI and Mayor’s office;
Between Fire Prevention and the Mayor’s office;
Between City Council and any of the following: CSO, NHPI, Fire and Mayor’s office.
91. TISH files for all single family and duplexes structures including TISH reports for the period
of 2002 and present.
92. All Problem Property lists or similar documents created during the period of January 1, 1995
through present by any department of the City or any third party.
93. City Code Enforcement printouts for “All Activity Within 3 Blocks of” the Plaintiffs’
addresses.
94. Police Department reports showing all activity within 3 blocks of the Plaintiffs’ addresses on.
95. AMANDA documents for Plaintiffs and other landlords, and for PHA and Federally
Subsidized rental properties
EXHIBIT A
Case 0:04-cv-02632-JNE-SRN Document 83-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 27 of 29
19
THE ENGEL FIRM, P.L.L.C
Dated: January 29, 2007 By: s/Matthew A. Engel
Matthew A. Engel(Attorney Lic. #315400)
11282 86th Avenue North
Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
T: (763) 416-9088
F: (763) 416-9089
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
EXHIBIT
Post a Comment
<< Home