Discovery requests called ‘attempt to harass’

An attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the CAPC and Eureka Springs sent specific discovery requests just to CAPC commissioner Carol Wright seeking a complete employment history. Wright refused to comply, and the plaintiffs’ attorney has now filed a Motion to Compel, to which the CAPC/City has responded. The two sides are now awaiting a ruling and/or hearing setting from Judge Scott Jackson.

Regarding the Motion to Compel regarding Wright, the plaintiffs’ attorney Tim Parker, argues that she made “malicious attacks” on Greg Moon, Rick Bright, Gina Rambo and Tracy Johnson. The 31-page motion said, “plaintiff’s council has learned that Carol Wright is an instigator of trouble.”

“Accordingly, Plaintiffs wish to review her past history of employment and services on these boards, offices and organizations listed on her CV or resume to ascertain if she has caused similar problems while employed or serving at those position,” the motion states. “This should also lead to the names and addresses of those who may have previously incurred the wrath of Carol Wright to such a degree that written records concerning the problems were generated. This information would also have a bearing on the issue of her honesty in her depositions or alternately with her ability to accurately recall facts!”

The city’s response to the Motion to Compel states Wright was asked at the deposition if she had ever been told she was “hard to get along with,” to which she responded, “Not that I recall.” The motion states that the plaintiffs are seeking access to Wright’s entire employment history throughout her life, her date of birth, and the last four numbers of her Social Security number.

“While Plaintiffs’ claim that these requests are common and not at all unusual in depositions, that may be Plaintiffs’ counsel’s common practice, but it is not at all common for a defendant in a case to be asked for this sort of carte blanche access to her employment history,” the response to the motion states. “Ms. Wright’s employment history has no bearing on the claims made against her as an unpaid volunteer appointment to the City’s Advertising and Promotion Commission or the defenses asserted by her and is well beyond the scope of discovery. Simply because Ms. Wright is a defendant in a lawsuit does not permit Plaintiffs carte blanche access to every aspect of her life, and they have in no way chinned the bar for seeking such.”

The motion response said that even if the plaintiffs are correct that Wright is an “instigator of trouble,” that is not unlawful and has no bearing on the causes of action. The response also states that employment records are by their very nature private.

The response also states, “what has been abundantly clear throughout the course of litigation is that any information that is identified or produced during litigation somehow magically finds its way into the public domain, including but not limited to the front page of a local paper.”

Information obtained by the Lovely County Citizen from Freedom of Information Requests to the city was turned over to Parker for use in the lawsuit against the city.

The City/CAPC response to the Motion to Compel states: “No part of Ms. Wright’s voluntary service on the CAPC or the Plaintiffs’ decisions to name her as a defendant requires her to open up her entire life for all and sundry. Plaintiffs’ request is clearly just an attempt to harass Wright and firmly outside the scope of discovery.”