Ashford v. Douglas Cnty.

Full title: TIMOTHY L. ASHFORD, PC LLO TIMOTHY L. ASHFORD, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS…

Court: United States District Court, District of Nebraska

Date published: Aug 16, 2021

8:20-CV-36 (D. Neb. Aug. 16, 2021)

Opinion

8:20-CV-36

08-16-2021

TIMOTHY L. ASHFORD, PC LLO TIMOTHY L. ASHFORD, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, et al, Defendants.

TO: Plaintiffs Timothy L. Ashford, PC LLO, and Timothy L. Ashford. DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA, Defendant. DONALD W. KLEINE, Douglas County Attorney, Joshua R. Woolf, #25665 Timothy K. Dolan, #20978 Deputy County Attorneys.

TO: Plaintiffs Timothy L. Ashford, PC LLO, and Timothy L. Ashford.

DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA, Defendant.

DONALD W. KLEINE, Douglas County Attorney, Joshua R. Woolf, #25665 Timothy K. Dolan, #20978 Deputy County Attorneys.

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORIES

On behalf of Defendant County of Douglas ("Douglas County"), the undersigned counsel objects to Plaintiffs' "INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS" section in its entirety. NECivR 33.1 (b) (captioned "Separate Definitions Prohibited") plainly states: "A party may not separately define words used in an interrogatory without the court's leave." As a primary basis for objecting, the Court has not granted any party leave to define words used in interrogatories. Moreover, certain definitions - specifically the various, context-specific definitions of "Identify" - serve as an impermissible method for multiplying the number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County. NECivR 33.1 (c) (captioned "Number of Interrogatories") plainly states "For example, the following question is counted as three interrogatories: 'Please state the name, address, and telephone number of any witness to the accident set forth in the complaint."' Applying this example to Plaintiffs' definition of "Identify" for a person shows that the definition would constitute three (3) interrogatories each time it is used. It constitutes at least four (4) (more likely six (6)) interrogatories each time it is used in relation to a document. It constitutes at least four (4) interrogatories each time it is used in relation to a record. Finally, the additional terms Plaintiffs defined in their interrogatories are not technical in nature or overly complex, so the undersigned counsel for Douglas County does not believe that a separate definition section is necessary.

Interrogatory No. 1: Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer and state your understanding of their knowledge.

ANSWER:

Hon. Judge Marcena Hendrix ("Judge Hendrix")

Douglas County Court

1819 Farnam Street, Second Floor

Omaha, Nebraska 68183

(402) 444-5433

Judge Hendrix is believed to have knowledge of:

• Her decision-making process in the proceedings docketed in the records of the County Court of Douglas County as In the Matter of the Guardianship/ Conservatorship of Johnny R. Brown, Case No. PR 14-1483 (hereinafter "Case No. PR 14-1483"). The facts Judge Hendrix possesses in this regard are expected to include that she did not consult any Douglas County official in relation to her decisions, and that Douglas County had no input or influence over her decision-making process.

• The facts concerning her submission of a complaint about Plaintiff Timothy L. Ashford ("Mr. Ashford") to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (assuming Judge Hendrix is the person who submitted such complaint). The facts Judge Hendrix possesses in this regard are expected to include that she did not consult any Douglas County official in relation to her decision, and that Douglas County had no input or influence over her decision-making process.

• Facts and various authorities showing she is an official of the judicial branch of the State of Nebraska, and not a Douglas County official.

Ron Murtaugh

Clerk of the County Court of Douglas County

Hall of Justice or Douglas County Civic Center

1701 Farnam Street 1819 Farnam Street

Omaha, NE 68183 Omaha, NE 68183

(402) 444-5387

Mr. Murtaugh is believed to have knowledge of:

• Facts and various authorities showing he is an official of the State of Nebraska, and not Douglas County.

• Facts showing that the documents Plaintiffs attached to their Complaint as Exhibit 9 (CM/ECF 1, p. 47), Exhibit 10 (Id. at p. 48), Exhibit 11 (Id. at pp. 49-50), Exhibit 12 (Id. at pp. 51-52), Exhibit 13 (Id. at pp. 53-54), Exhibit 14 (Id. at p. 55), Exhibit 15 (Id. at pp. 56-58), Exhibit 20 (Id. at pp. 77-79), Exhibit 21 (Id. at pp. 80-83) are signed by personnel from the office of the Clerk of the Court of Douglas County and were mailed from that office and not the Douglas County Clerk's office.

• That the office of the Clerk of the Court of Douglas County is not the same office as the Douglas County Clerk's office.

• Facts and various authorities showing that employees of the office of the Clerk of the Court of Douglas County are state employees and not Douglas County employees; that the Clerk of the Court of Douglas County - not the Douglas County Clerk's office - is responsible for mailing documents from the County Court of Douglas County to parties to actions pending in that court; and that when such employees mail notices, Orders, or other documents relating to court proceedings, they are doing so on behalf of the state's judicial branch and not on behalf of Douglas County.

• Facts showing Douglas County's financial contribution toward the operation of the County Court of Douglas County, the basis for such financial contribution, and that such contribution does not grant Douglas

County authority over or input into any judge's decision-making process in matters

Daniel Esch

Douglas County Clerk

1819 Farnam Street, Room H08

Omaha, NE 68183

(402) 444-6767

Mr. Esch is believed to have knowledge of:

• Facts showing that the documents Plaintiffs attached to their Complaint as Exhibit 9 (CM/ECF 1, p. 47), Exhibit 10 (Id. at p. 48), Exhibit 11 (Id. at pp. 49-50), Exhibit 12 (Id. at pp. 51-52), Exhibit 13 (Id. at pp. 53-54), Exhibit 14 (Id. at p. 55), Exhibit 15 (Id. at pp. 56-58), Exhibit 20 (Id. at pp.

77-79), Exhibit 21 (Id. at pp. 80-83) were not signed by personnel from the Douglas County Clerk's office; and that the Douglas County Clerk's office is not responsible for mailing documents from the County Court of Douglas County to parties to actions pending in that court.

• That the Douglas County Clerk's office is not the same as the office of the Clerk of the Court of Douglas County.

• Facts and various authorities showing that employees of the Douglas County Clerk's office are Douglas County employees.

Douglas County Administrator Patrick Bloomingdale

Chief Deputy Administrator Diane Carlson

Safety and Claims Coordinator Darrel Neely.

Omaha-Douglas Civic Center

1819 Farnam Street, Suite LC2

Omaha, NE 68183 (402) 444-7025

These individuals know that:

• Douglas County is a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska.

• Douglas County acts through authorized policymakers such as the Douglas County Board of Commissioners ("the Board"), elected officials, or heads of departments. The authority for the latter two categories to make policy for Douglas County is limited insofar as they cannot make policies or foster informal customs that contradict or are inconsistent with Douglas County's official policies.

• Douglas County's official policy is one of nondiscrimination, whether in the employment context, contracting, or any other form of governmental

operations. Douglas County does not foster or permit informal customs or practices at odds with this official policy.

• Douglas County also has policy of non-retaliation, and it does not foster or permit informal customs or practices at odds with this official policy. Douglas County does not retaliate against persons who complain of alleged racism.

• Douglas County did not discriminate or retaliate against Plaintiffs in any manner. It had no involvement in the matters generally described in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

• Judge Hendrix is a State official who, as a member of the State's judiciary, is subject to the supervision of the Nebraska Supreme Court. The office of the Clerk of the County Court of Douglas County is a State office and its employees are State employees. Douglas County had no involvement in or control over the events described in Plaintiffs' Complaint. It does not have oversight or control over State officials and employees like Judge Hendrix and employees of the office of the Clerk of the County Court of Douglas County.

• The Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline is a State office operating under the supervision of the Nebraska Supreme Court. Douglas County has no control over the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline.

• Mr. Bloomingdale's and Ms. Carlson's daily tasks require familiarity with Douglas County's official policies along with the actions and directives of

the Board, and neither have seen or learned of any member of the Board or other representative of Douglas County exerting influence or attempting to exert influence over Judge Hendrix's decision-making in matters submitted for her judicial review, including the specific acts and omissions described in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

• Specifically, no member of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners attempted to influence Judge Hendrix to reduce the fee Mr. Ashford had charged in the guardianship proceedings described in Plaintiffs' Complaint and docketed as Case No, PR 14-1483, or to file a complaint about Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline.

• Douglas County - whether acting through the Board or any of its offices or departments - does not have authority to control any Judge's decisionmaking in matters submitted for judicial action aside from appearing (through counsel) in various court proceedings and arguing Douglas County's position in the same manner as other litigants.

Karen Buche

Director of Douglas County Human Resources

1819 Farnam Street, Suite 505

Omaha, NE 68183

(402) 444-6188

Ms. Buche knows that Douglas County does not train or discipline Judge

Hendrix or personnel from the office of the Clerk of the Douglas County Court.

Mr. Ashford

Mr. Ashford is expected to possess facts regarding the identities and titles (or positions) or each person he interacted with throughout the course of proceedings in Case No. PR 14-1483 and in relation to the complaint to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (as described in Plaintiffs' Complaint). He is expected to know the factual basis for claiming that Douglas County should be held liable for the decisions Judge Hendrix made during the course of and in relation to Case No. PR 14-1483 and for her (or someone else's) submission of a complaint about Plaintiff to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline.

Current and former members of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners know that the Board did not have any involvement in any of the events upon which Plaintiffs' lawsuit is based.

Interrogatory No. 2: Identify all persons with whom Defendants and officers of Defendant, the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee panel members have communicated (exclusive of counsel in the instant action) concerning the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer and describe those communications

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 2 because it is vague insofar as Douglas County is unable to tell whether this Interrogatory is directed to it or to the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee, an entity not party to this lawsuit and, as a creation of the judiciary, an entity over which Douglas County exercises no oversight or control that would permit its acts or omissions to be imputed to Douglas County. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 2 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. Interrogatory No. 2 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. See, e.g. CM/ECF 68, pp. 4-6, and CM/ECF 76, and 105.

Aside from communications with counsel in the instant action, Douglas County officials and employees have not communicated with anyone concerning the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint or Douglas County's Answer.

Interrogatory No. 3; Identify all persons whom Defendant intends to call as witnesses at trial and give a summary of their anticipated testimony. This is a continuing request and Defendant's answer must be updated as discovery progresses.

ANSWER: Douglas County intends to call:

a. Judge Hendrix. Douglas County anticipates that her testimony will address the lack of involvement or input any Douglas County employee or official had into events alleged in Complaint. Douglas County further anticipates that her testimony will show that none of her acts or omissions (as described in Plaintiffs' Complaint) were a product of Douglas County's policies or customs, and that she is not subject to the oversight, supervision, or control of Douglas County or any of its officials, particularly with respect to the reduction of Mr. Ashford's fee in the guardianship proceedings described in Plaintiffs' Complaint and with respect to her submission of a complaint to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline.

b. Douglas County Court Administrator Ron Murtaugh. Douglas County anticipates that his testimony will illustrate that the Clerk of the Douglas County Court is not the same thing as Douglas County, the political subdivision. Douglas County further anticipates that his testimony will show that the Douglas County Court and the office of the Clerk of the Douglas County Court are State of Nebraska - not Douglas County - entities not subject to Douglas County's oversight, supervision, or control. Douglas County further anticipates that his testimony will show that personnel from the Douglas County Court (including the Clerk of the Court's office) are not subject to Douglas County's oversight or control. His testimony will also illustrate that the actions of the court clerk's office that are specified in Plaintiffs' Complaint and attributed to Douglas County (actions such as mailing of notices) are the actions of the office of the Clerk of the Douglas County Court, and not of Douglas County, the political subdivision. His testimony will also detail that Douglas County is obligated under Nebraska law to make certain financial contributions to the Douglas County Court.

c. The individuals identified in Douglas County's Answer to Interrogatory No. 1, above - including Mr. Ashford - will address the lack of involvement or input any Douglas County employee or official had into the events alleged in Complaint, along with the fact that Douglas County does not exercise oversight or control over Douglas County Court judges (including Judge Hendrix) or personnel from the Douglas County Court and the office of the Clerk of the Douglas County Court.

Interrogatory No. 4: For the past six years, identify all persons who have made complaints of employment discrimination, a hostile work environment, or retaliation from the Defendants and identify any lawsuits filed.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory as being disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in Plaintiffs' Complaint because (1) the discriminatory and retaliatory acts described in Plaintiffs' Complaint are attributed to State - not Douglas County - official (or officials), and no State officials were acting pursuant to a Douglas County directive (such as a policy or even an informal custom) since - as noted in its answer to Interrogatory No. 1, above, Douglas County lacks oversight and control in relation to State officials and employees like Judge Hendrix and employees of the office of the Clerk of the Douglas County Court; and (2) neither Plaintiff is an employee of Douglas County, so neither Plaintiff is situated similarly to employees who have made allegations of employment discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation.

Interrogatory No. 5: Set forth in detail which allegations in the Complaint Defendant was aware of prior to the service of the Complaint in this lawsuit and state the employee or employees who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such employee was aware, and Defendants response to such facts, if any.

ANSWER: Mr. Neely and counsel for Douglas County were aware of the facts set forth in Plaintiffs' October 2, 2019 written notice of tort claim in which Plaintiffs described being required to post a duplicate supersedeas bond and the submission of a complaint about Mr. Ashford to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. The written notice of tort claim dated October 2, 2019 was the source of information. Douglas County objects to the portion of this Interrogatory No. 5 asking about Defendant's response to facts its employee or employees were aware of because this calls for information protected from disclosure under the Attorney/Client privilege and the related attorney work product doctrine insofar the October 2, 2019 written notice of tort claim placed Douglas County on notice of a potential lawsuit, and Mr. Neely worked directly with lawyers representing Douglas County to investigate the claim and to prepare for litigation by determining whether any Douglas County official, representative, or employee was involved in the events generally described in Plaintiffs' tort claim letter dated October 2, 2019.

Interrogatory No. 6: Describe all communications of which Defendants are aware concerning the allegations in the Complaint and the Answer.

ANSWER: Aside from privileged communications between Mr. Neely, Mr. Bloomingdale, Ms. Carlson, and Counsel relating to the investigation of Plaintiffs' October 2, 2019 tort claim and organization of its defense to the instant lawsuit, along with persons counsel interviewed about this lawsuit, Douglas County is unaware of communications concerning the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

Interrogatory No. 7: Identify any and all individuals who participated in any investigation initiated by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs' complaints in the Complaint and describe the actions of such individuals in detail.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because Douglas

County's investigation in response to Plaintiffs' complaints (specifically the October 2, 2019 written notice of tort claim) is protected from disclosure under the Attorney/Client privilege and the related attorney work product doctrine insofar as Mr. Neely - who conducted the investigation - worked directly with lawyers representing Douglas County to discover and marshal facts intended to assist in Douglas County's defense against Plaintiffs' claims.

Interrogatory No. 8: Identify each individual who made any type of similar complaint (written, verbal, formal, informal), or who expressed any concern regarding the allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint.

ANSWER: Douglas County is not aware of any individual other than Mr. Ashford making any type of complaint similar to the allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint or expressing any concern regarding the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint to Douglas County.

Interrogatory No. 9: In the Answer, Defendant asserts an affirmative defense based on the maintenance of a policy to allow the Plaintiff to be placed on the list for court appointment to the murder panel and the Plaintiffs' alleged failure to utilize such policy, please state all times, dates, the dates of all communications and any other communication in which Defendants received in which the Plaintiff utilized the policy to allow the Plaintiff to be placed on the murder panel.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to the form of Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 9 to the extent is misstates the document - and, therefore, the context - in which Douglas County raised whether Plaintiffs exhausted Rule 4-17's remedies. Douglas County's answer does not contain the affirmative defense described in this Interrogatory. Plaintiffs' operative Complaint asserts claims stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee Mr. Ashford had charged, and her submission of a complaint to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. There are no claims or defenses concerning Mr. Ashford's appointment to represent indigent persons charged with murder, so Douglas County had no reason to address whether or not Mr. Ashford exhausted Rule 4-17 remedies in its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and it did not do so. Douglas County included reference to the dispute-resolution procedure in Rule 4-17 in its Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint (CM/ECF 58) in the portion of its brief challenging the sufficiency of the factual content of proposed amendment in relation to establishing the injury in fact that is essential to having standing to sue. Id. at pp. 8 - 10. Douglas County included the argument relating to the dispute-resolution procedure in Rule 4-17 based exclusively upon the content of Plaintiffs' proposed First Amended Complaint (CM/ECF 50-1) since challenge pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) succeeds or fails based upon the allegations in the complaint. McAuley v. Federal Ins. Co., 500 F.3d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 2007). Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 9 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 9 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 10: Describe all communications, qualifications which were considered, the deliberations, the manner and the methods the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee utilized in the decision to exclude Plaintiff from the murder panel.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 10 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 10 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 11: Describe in detail all training provided to Defendant's employees and the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee regarding the prevention of discrimination and/or harassment, and/or retaliation, and/or complaint procedures, including the date and place of each such session. Identify each person who conducted each training session, and the persons who attended, and state whether attendance was mandatory.

ANSWER; Douglas County objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 11 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 11 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 11 for seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit as the training Douglas County provides to its employees has no bearing upon the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint because any discriminatory or retaliatory acts or omissions described therein were not undertaken by a Douglas County employee, official, or representative, or by any person acting (or refraining from acting) pursuant to a Douglas County policy or custom, or under the control of Douglas County. To this end, Douglas County objects to the relevance and undue burden associated with producing information relating to training of all officials and employees whose functions are not implicated by any of the allegations or even legal conclusions in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 5 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 29.

Interrogatory No. 12: Describe fully and in detail (including the names and positions of the individuals involved, and the relevant dates) what steps, if any, Defendant took to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff after he complained about the discrimination.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 32.

To the extent an answer to Interrogatory No. 12 is required, at no point since Plaintiffs filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (Case No. 8:15 -CV-00008) did Douglas County conclude that Plaintiffs were at risk of retaliation at the hands of any Douglas County official, representative, or employee, so Douglas County did not take any steps to prevent its officials, representatives, or employees from retaliating against Plaintiffs. Douglas County did not take action in relation to judges (or members of the Panel Selection Committee) because they act on behalf of the Douglas County Court and District Court, entities over which Douglas County has no authority or right of control.

Interrogatory No. 13: Please provide a list of the names, positions and the dates of their appointment of all the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee members since the formation of the panel and the names of the individuals who appointed the panel and the dates they appointed the panel members.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 (and maybe as many as 5) questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 35.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' first Interrogatory No. 13 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' first Interrogatory No. 13 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 13: Please describe the qualifications the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee members used to appoint attorneys to the murder panel.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub- questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory raises the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 36.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' second Interrogatory No. 13 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' second Interrogatory No. 13 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3) (which states, "Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath"), Douglas County states that, although it did not craft the rule and had no authority for approving it (the Nebraska Supreme Court did), Rule 4-17, sub-sections (F)(2), (G), and (H) generally describe the qualifications the Panel Selection Committee uses to make recommendations about lawyers for appointment to the DC Panel, including the Murder panel.

Interrogatory No. 14: Please state the name and bar number of all the attorneys the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selected to the murder panel in Douglas County since the panel was created. ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 38.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 14 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 14 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 15: Please state the name and bar number of all African Americans/black attorneys and the dates they were selected/admitted to the panel in Douglas County to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases since the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule panel was created.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 41.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 15 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2.

Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 14 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 16: Please describe the reasons Rule 4-17. Appointment of Conflict Counsel in Criminal Cases rule 4-17 was approved January 22, 2015, effective April 1, 2015.

ANSWER; Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory raises the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 42.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 16 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 14 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 17: Please state the name, the telephone number and the address of the insurance company, the policy amounts, the policy number, the claim number which may or may not cover all or part of the allegations in the complaint.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 6 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 48.

To the extent an answer to this Interrogatory is required, Plaintiffs' Complaint does not allege acts or omissions of any employee, representative, or official of Douglas County, or of acts legally attributable to Douglas County. Douglas County does not maintain a policy of insurance covering officials acting on behalf of the State of Nebraska or on behalf of one of its branches (such as the judiciary).

VERIFICATION

Safety and Claims Coordinator Darrel Neely, duly sworn, states that he has read the above Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and that the answers thereto are true as he verily believes.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 18: Please explain the official policy of Douglas County, the Douglas County custom (also referred to as "practice"), the protocol and/or the reason the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee panel members and all Defendants excluded blacks from the panel to represent indigent defendants in murder cases in Douglas County Nebraska and if blacks were not excluded on the panel at the time the panel was initially formed or at any time after the panel was formed please state the attorney names, bar numbers and dates black attorneys were added to the murder panel as follows:

a. The name, the bar number, the race and the date the black attorneys were added to the murder panel and the total number of black attorneys currently on the murder panel.

b. The name, attorney bar number, the date added and the number of white attorneys on the murder panel list.

c. The qualifications for appointment to the murder panel and the reason blacks did not meet the qualifications.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 9 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 57.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 18 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Interrogatory No. 18 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 19: Please explain the official policy of Douglas County, the Douglas County custom (also referred to as "practice"), the protocol and/or the reason blacks were excluded from court appointments of indigent criminal defendants on March 7, 2014 and if they were not excluded from court appointments, please state after Plaintiff wrote the Omaha Star Article dated March 7, 2014 "Is the Douglas County Court Racist?" Omaha Star March 7, 2014 (Exhibit 1) the number of black attorneys added to the panel, their bar number and the date they were added and the reason, if the defendant knows, the court sent the correspondence to the Plaintiff which follows:

a. Letter from the Nebraska Supreme Court dated March 12, 2014 from Chief Justice Michael Heavican in response to the Omaha Star Article dated March 7, 2014 and explain the contents of that letter. (Exhibit 2)

b. Letter from the Douglas County Court Presiding Judge Craig McDermott dated March 11, 2014 in response to the Omaha Star Article dated March 7, 2014 and explain the contents of that letter. (Exhibit 3)

c. The reason Rule 4-17 was implemented by the Nebraska Supreme Court as it applies to the Defendants. (Exhibit 4)

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 6 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 63.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 19 because Fed. R. Civ. P, 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Interrogatory No. 19 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 19: Please explain the official policy of Douglas County, the Douglas County custom (also referred to as "practice"), the protocol and/or the reason the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 and all Defendants:

a. The reason Defendants excluded blacks from the panel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.

b. The number of black attorneys and the bar number of the black attorneys who were on the panel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases at the time the panel was created.

c. After Plaintiff wrote the Omaha Star Article dated March 7, 2014 "Is the Douglas County Court Racist?" please state the number of black attorneys which were added to the panel, their names, their bar numbers and the dates they were added to represent indigent criminal defendants (Exhibit 1).

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 6 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 69.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 19 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1 - 2. Interrogatory No. 19 (Second) seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 20: Please provide a list of all attorneys and their bar numbers who were appointed to the panel to represent indigent defendants in all criminal cases and murder cases.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 71.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 20 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Interrogatory No. 19 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 21: Please state the number of the requests the Plaintiff made to the Defendants to be included on the murder panel, the date of the requests to be included on the murder panel, the form of the requests (written, verbal, etc.) and the response to the request by the Defendants.

ANSWER: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 4 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 75.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 21 because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim, or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Interrogatory No. 19 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

VERIFICATION

Safety and Claims Coordinator Darrel Neely, duly sworn, states that he has read the above Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and that the answers thereto are true as he verily believes.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 1 (Second): Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 1., and Douglas County already answered that interrogatory in full. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 77. Interrogatory No. 2 (Second): Identify all persons with whom Defendants and officers of Defendant, the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee panel members have communicated (exclusive of counsel in the instant action) concerning the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer and describe those communications.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 2. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 2 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein, supplementing its objection to include the Court's most recent order denying leave to amend. See CM/ECF 118 . Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 79.

Interrogatory No. 3 (Second): Identify all persons whom Defendant intends to call as witnesses at trial and give a summary of their anticipated testimony. This is a continuing request and Defendant's answer must be updated as discovery progresses.

Response; Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 3, and Douglas County already answered that interrogatory in full. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 81. Interrogatory No. 4 (Second); For the past six years since January 1, 2014, identify all persons who have made complaints of employment discrimination, a hostile work environment, or retaliation from the Defendants and identify any lawsuits filed. Response; Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 4. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 4 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 4 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 85.

Interrogatory No. 5 (Second): Set forth in detail which allegations in the Complaint Defendant was aware of prior to the service of the Complaint in this lawsuit and state the employee or employees who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such employee was aware, and Defendants response to such facts, if any.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 5. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 5 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 5 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 90.

Interrogatory No. 6 (Second); Describe all communications of which Defendants are aware concerning the allegations in the Complaint and the Answer. Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 6. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 6 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 5 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 95.

Interrogatory No. 7 (Second): Identify any and all individuals who participated in any investigation initiated by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs complaints in the Complaint and describe the actions of such individuals in detail.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 7. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 7 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 97.

Interrogatory No. 8 (Second): Identify each individual who made any type of similar complaint (written, verbal, formal, informal), or who expressed any concern regarding the allegations in the Plaintiffs complaint.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 8, which Douglas County already answered. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 99.

Interrogatory No. 9 (Secondk Defendant asserts an affirmative defense based on the maintenance of a policy to allow the Plaintiff to be placed on the list for court appointment to the murder panel and the Plaintiffs alleged failure to utilize such policy, please state all times, dates, the dates of all communications and any other communication in which Defendants received in which the Plaintiff utilized the policy to allow or the Plaintiff requested to be placed on the murder panel. Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 9. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 9 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 102.

Interrogatory No. 10 (Second): Describe all communications, qualifications which were considered, the deliberations, the manner and the methods the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee utilized in the decision to exclude Plaintiff from the murder panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 10. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 10 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 104.

Interrogatory No. 11 (Second); Describe in detail all training provided to Defendant's employees and the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee regarding the prevention of discrimination and/or harassment, and/or retaliation, and/or complaint procedures, including the date and place of each such session. Identify each person who conducted each training session, and the persons who attended, and state whether attendance was mandatory. Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 11. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 11 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 6 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 110.

Interrogatory No. 12 (Second); Describe fully and in detail (including the names and positions of the individuals involved, and the relevant dates) what steps, if any, Defendant took to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff after he complained about the discrimination which includes but is not limited to the exclusion from the Murder Panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 12. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 12 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 4 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 114.

Interrogatory No. 13 (ThircH: Please provide a list of the names, positions and the dates of their appointment of all the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee members since the formation of the panel and the dates the members were appointed to the panel as members.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 13. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 13 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 117.

Interrogatory No. 13 (Fourth): Please describe the qualifications the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee members used to appoint attorneys to the murder panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' second Interrogatory No. 13. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' second Interrogatory No. 13 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 120.

Interrogatory No. 14 (Second): Please state the name and bar number of all the attorneys the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selected to the murder panel in Douglas County since the panel was created. Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 14. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 14 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 123.

Interrogatory No. 15 (Second): Please state the name and bar number of all African Americans/black attorneys and the dates they were appointed to the panel in Douglas County to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases since the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule panel was created.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 14. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 15 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 126.

Interrogatory No. 16 (Second): Please state the name and bar number of all African Americans/black attorneys and the dates they were appointed to the MURDER panel in Douglas County to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases since the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule panel was created. Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. Interrogatory No. 2 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. See, e.g. CM/ECF 68, pp. 4 -6, and CM/ECF 76, 105 and 118. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 129.

Interrogatory No. 17 (Second): Please describe the reasons Rule 4-17. Appointment of Conflict Counsel in Criminal Cases rule 4-17 was approved January 22, 2015, effective April 1, 2015.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 16. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 16 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 132.

Interrogatory No. 18 (Second): Please state the name, the telephone number and the address of the insurance company, the policy amounts, the policy number, the claim number which may or may not cover all or part of the allegations in the complaint.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory because, on its face, it imposes an undue burden since it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 17. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the same bases it objected to Plaintiffs' original Interrogatory No. 17 and incorporates those objections as if set forth herein. Douglas County further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains at least 3 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 135.

Interrogatory No. 19 (Third): Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the allegations in the Ashford v. Douglas County 16-3366 and 8:15 CV 8 and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 137. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 19 (Third), in part, because there is no state- or federal court record of Ashford v. Douglas County 16-3366. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 19 (Third)

because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory seeks information relevant to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Plaintiff Timothy L. Ashford ("Mr. Ashford") to represent indigent persons charged with murder. As such, it is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1 - 2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 19 (Third) seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. See, e.g. CM/ECF 68, 76, 105 and 118.

Interrogatory No. 20 (Second): Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the pay of Plaintiff from Douglas County and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 139. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 20 (Second) because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but there is no claim (or defense to such claim) alleging that Douglas County was responsible for paying Mr. Ashford in the matter pending before Judge Hendrix. This Interrogatory seeks information relevant to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. As such, it is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 20 (Second) seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 20 (Third); Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the reputation of Plaintiff from Douglas County based upon the fact Plaintiff has not been appointed to the Murder Panel and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 141. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 20 (Third) because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory seeks information relevant to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. As such, it is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1 - 2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 20 (Third) seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 20 (Fourth); Please state whether all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the allegations in the Ashford v. Douglas County 16-3366/8:15 CV 8 were placed on notice that blacks were not appointed to the Douglas County Murder Panel and state your understanding of their knowledge. Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is vague, and Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 143. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 20 (Fourth) because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory seeks information relevant to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. As such, it is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 20 (Fourth) seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 21 (Second): Please state whether Douglas County changed their court appointment procedures for attorneys based upon the allegations in the Ashford v. Douglas County 16-3366 and 8:15 CV 8 which appointed black attorneys to the court appointment list and Rule 4-17 and state their understanding of their knowledge.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is vague and Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory contains 2 questions, raising the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 145. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 21 (Second) because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory seeks information relevant to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. As such, it is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1 - 2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 21 (Second) seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM7ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Finally, Douglas County objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 21 (Second) because it incorrectly assumes that Douglas County, the political subdivision party to this action, actually has a court appointment procedure for attorneys when Nebraska law and Court Rules reserve this task to the State's judiciary.

Interrogatory No. 21 (Third): Please state whether individuals or corporations can evaluate and hire an attorney for a murder case.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory raises the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 146. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 21 (Third) because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory seeks information relevant to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. As such, it is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1 - 2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 21 (Third) seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

Interrogatory No. 22: Please state whether the selection of an attorney for a murder case is only a judicial function which must be done by a judge. Response: Douglas County objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1. The Court did not enter an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts), and the instant Interrogatory raises the total number of interrogatories Plaintiffs have served upon Douglas County to 147. Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 21 (Third) because Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case; but this Interrogatory seeks information relevant to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. As such, it is disproportionate, overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face for seeking information irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 22 seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) than Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

VERIFICATION

Safety and Claims Coordinator Matt Mundt, duly sworn, states that he has read the above Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and that the answers thereto are true as he verily believes.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS:

1. Please admit or deny the statement which follows. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow:

The Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee is made up of (four) judges, (two) private attorneys with criminal defense experience, and the Douglas County Public Defender Tom Riley and they appoint attorneys to the Murder Panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of two facts relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Plaintiff Timothy L. Ashford ("Mr. Ashford") to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

2. Please admit or deny the statement which follows. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow:

The African American Plaintiff has applied to be placed on the Douglas County Murder Panel and has been denied placement on the Douglas County Murder Panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of two facts (panel application and denial) relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

3. Please admit or deny the statement which follows. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow:

The African American Plaintiff is qualified to be placed on the Douglas County Murder Panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1 - 2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

4. Please admit or deny the statement which follows. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow:

The Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee has never appointed an African American Attorney to represent indigent defendants on the Murder Panel as their unofficial custom and practice.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of two facts (not appointing an African American attorney and that this is an unofficial custom and practice) relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint [See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

5. (Preface to Request for Admissions: The black prosecutor Jerry Blackwell in the George Floyd was appointed by the Minnesota in his first ever criminal trial! Attorney Blackwell revealed that the Chauvin trial was his first experience in criminal law, as his work usually revolves around trying cases involving Fortune 500 companies. "Most people wouldn't realize that this was my first foray into criminal law and the first criminal case I'd ever been involved in," Blackwell, the founder and chairman of the firm Blackwell Burke P.A., told O'Donnell.)

If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

The Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee did not appoint Plaintiff because he is an African American Attorney.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline [See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

6. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Plaintiff was appointed by a Douglas County District Court Judge as assistant special prosecutor in the grand jury investigation of the George Bibins death by Omaha Police Officer Jerad Kruse in 2000 CR 00 21400.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1 - 2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

7. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Please admit or deny attorneys appointed by the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee earn more money for appointment to felony cases as opposed to misdemeanor cases.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

8. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Attorneys appointed by the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee on the Murder Panel earn more money by receiving felony appointments as opposed to misdemeanor appointments.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds die scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit. 9. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Plaintiff received less money because of refusal of the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee to appoint Plaintiff to the Murder Panel where Plaintiff would have earned more money by receiving felony appointments as opposed to misdemeanor and felony appointments.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

10. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

The Defendant has outstanding unpaid invoice in CR 21 2174 and possibly other invoices which will be uncovered in a discovery audit.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts). Douglas County further objects to that portion of this Request for Admission seeking it to admit or to deny there may be "possibly other invoices which will be uncovered in a discovery audit" because this calls for speculation. Without waiving these objections, Douglas County denies this statement.

11. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Plaintiff would have earned more money if Plaintiff was appointed to the Murder Panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1 - 2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

12. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Individuals, corporations or entities who are not judges can evaluate and/or hire attorneys for murder cases.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline (See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

13. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

The Defendant did not respond to any of the Plaintiffs letters or correspondence requesting that Plaintiff is appointed to the murder panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Request for Admission purportedly requiring it to state the reasons for a denial because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 by essentially functioning as an interrogatory. Douglas County further objects because Plaintiffs have exceeded the maximum number of interrogatories (including sub-questions or subparts) permitted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and NECivR 33.1 and the Court has not entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to exceed 25 interrogatories (including sub-questions and subparts).

Douglas County further objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. This Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact relevant only to claims involving State court judges' alleged refusal to appoint Mr. Ashford to represent indigent persons charged with murder. The Court has already concluded that such claims appear to be "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (See CM/ECF 1), and has denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action. Given that the claims and defenses in the current action stem from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline [See, e.g., CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2), Douglas County objects to the current Request for Admission as exceeding the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and seeking information not relevant to this lawsuit.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Document Request No. 1 (Second): Identify and produce all documents concerning such persons' knowledge of facts relevant to the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer. Identify the author of each such document and state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive.

Response: Defendant County of Douglas County, Nebraska ("Douglas County") objects to this request as unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' first Document Request No. 1. Douglas County further objects to those portions of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents, to identify the author of a document, and to state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive because these requirements exceed the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request because it is vague insofar as Douglas County has no reference or adequate guidance for determining who Plaintiffs refer to when stating "such person's knowledge".

Document Request No. 2 (Second): Identify and produce any documents in response to the Plaintiffs Interrogatories.

Response: Douglas County objects to this request as unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' first Document Request No. 2. Douglas County further objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request because it is vague in its wording, preventing Douglas County from determining what category of documents Plaintiffs are seeking.

Document Request No. (Second) 3: Identify and produce any documents concerning the witnesses identified by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories.

Response: Douglas County objects to this request as unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' first Document Request No. 3. Douglas County objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request for being vague and overbroad insofar as the omnibus phrase "any documents concerning the witnesses" is not defined and not reasonably particular enough to provide notice as to what documents Plaintiffs are requesting. As such, this Document Request requires Douglas County to speculate as to the categories of documents Plaintiffs are requesting concerning the witnesses it identified in response to Plaintiffs' interrogatories.

Document Request No. 4 (Second): Identify and produce all documents concerning such complaints identified in response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories:

Response: Douglas County objects to this request as unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' first Document Request No. 4. Douglas County objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request for being overly broad on its face and seeking production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit. As noted in Douglas County's objection to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 4, the discriminatory and retaliatory acts described in Plaintiffs' Complaint were not undertaken by an employee or representative of Douglas County. Further, neither Plaintiff is an employee of Douglas County, so neither Plaintiff is situated similarly to employees who have made allegations of employment discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation; so production of any such documents exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 as they are not relevant to this action.

Document Request No. 5 (Secondi: Identify and produce all documents in Defendant's possession concerning the allegations in Complaint or the Answer or the Plaintiffs Interrogatories. Identify the author of each such document and state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive.

Response: Douglas County objects to this request as unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' first Document Request No. 5. Douglas County objects to those portions of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents, to identify the authors(s) of documents, and to state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive because these requirements exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to production of documents relating to those of Plaintiffs' interrogatories seeking information beyond the scope of the current action (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Specifically, Douglas County objects to production of any documents relating to Plaintiffs' numerous interrogatories inquiring into information relating to unpled claims about not being appointed to represent indigent persons charged with murder. Without waiving these objections, Douglas County incorporates its response to Plaintiffs' original Document Request No. 5.

Document Request No. 6 (Second): Produce all documents concerning any investigation made by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs complaints of discrimination. Identify the author of each such document.

Response: Douglas County objects to this request as unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' first Document Request No. 7. Douglas County further objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify the author of each document because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County incorporates its response to Plaintiffs' original Document Request No. 7 as if set forth fully herein.

Document Request No. 7 (Second): Produce all documents concerning the policy of Douglas County to appoint attorneys to court appointments.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline).

Document Request No. 8 (Second); Produce all documents which contain the names of the list of the attorneys appointed to court cases for Douglas County.

Response: Douglas County obj ects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline).

Document Request No. 9 (Second): Produce all documents concerning Defendant's policy to appoint attorneys to misdemeanor, felony and/or murder cases. Identify the author of each such document.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Douglas County further objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify the author of each document because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34.

Document Request No. 10 (Second); Produce all documents regarding Plaintiffs personnel file and/or disciplinary file with the court, or related to Plaintiff, such as payroll records for Plaintiffs court appointments or any file.

Response: Douglas County objects to this request as unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of Plaintiffs' first Document Request No. 13. Douglas County also objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients - not a court appointment - in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline).

Document Request No. 11 (Second): Produce all documents concerning Plaintiffs pay for court appointments and payroll documents of money paid to the Plaintiff by Douglas County. Identify the author of each such document.

Response; Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients - not a court appointment -in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Douglas County further objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify the author of each document because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34.

Document Request No. 12 (Second): Produce all documents in your possession that Plaintiff submitted regarding Plaintiffs request to be placed on the Murder Panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients - not a court appointment -in a guardianship case and riling a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline).

Document Request No. 13 (Second): Produce all documents, which excludes documents sent to directly to the attorney for the litigation, in your possession which was received from Plaintiff from the time period of January 1, 2015 until the present.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients - not a court appointment -in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Douglas County further objects to this request for seeking documents irrelevant to the current lawsuit.

Document Request No. 14 (Second): Produce any communications, including emails and other electronically stored information, from or to Plaintiff.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request as imposing an undue burden when Plaintiffs' access to responsive documents is equal to that of Douglas County. Douglas County further objects to this request for seeking documents irrelevant to the current lawsuit.

Document Request No. 15 (Second): Produce any communications from Plaintiff, including emails, letters and other electronically stored information in the possession of Defendant.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request as imposing an undue burden when Plaintiffs' access to responsive documents is equal to that of Douglas County. Douglas County further objects to this request for seeking documents irrelevant to the current lawsuit.

Document Request No. 16 (Second): Identify and produce all documents concerning Plaintiffs Interrogatories and/or Complaint.

Response: Douglas County objects to this request as unduly burdensome because it is essentially duplicative of Plaintiffs' first and second Document Request No. 5. Douglas County also objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify each document because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to production of documents relating to those of Plaintiffs' interrogatories seeking information beyond the scope of the current action (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Specifically, Douglas County objects to production of any documents relating to Plaintiffs' numerous interrogatories inquiring into information relating to unpled claims about not being appointed to represent indigent persons charged with murder.

Document Request No. 17 (Second): Produce all documents relating to the answer of Douglas County to Plaintiffs request to be placed on the murder panel, including notes, memoranda, formal complaints, e-mails, audio or visual recordings.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients - not a court appointment -in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Douglas County further objects to this request for seeking documents irrelevant to the current lawsuit.

Document Request No. 18 (Second): Produce all documents relating to the answer of Douglas County to Plaintiffs discovery.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request because it is vague insofar as Douglas County has no reference or adequate guidance for determining what Plaintiffs intend when stating "relating to the answer of Douglas County to Plaintiff's discovery".

Document Request No. 19 (Second); Produce each and every document which is the list of the attorneys appointed to the panel.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients - not a court appointment -in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Douglas County further objects to this request for seeking documents irrelevant to the current lawsuit.

Document Request No. 19 (Third): Produce each and every document which is the list of the attorneys appointed to the Murder Panel.

Response: See Douglas County's response to the immediately preceding Document Request.

Document Request No. 20 (Second): Produce all payroll documents of the Defendant.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents relating to dl employees of Douglas County as opposed to just those Douglas County employees purportedly involved in the claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients -not a court appointment - in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Douglas County further objects to this request for seeking documents irrelevant to the current lawsuit for the same reason. Without waiving these objections, Douglas County states that it does not possess payroll information for the State employees whose actions are described in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

Document Request No. 21 (Second): Produce copies of all documents demonstrating that there exists a payment dispute between Plaintiffs and Douglas County. Production should include copies of any invoices and correspondence submitted to Douglas County along with any correspondence received by Douglas County.

Response: Douglas County is not in possession of any documents responsive to this Document Request.

Document Request No. 22; Please produce any and all Douglas County written policies or customs.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it is not limited to policies or customs having some purported bearing upon the claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients -not a court appointment - in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Douglas County further objects to this request for seeking documents irrelevant to the current lawsuit.

Document Request No. 23: Please Produce all Douglas County policies or customs, written or not written, regarding the appointment of attorneys in Douglas County.

Response: Douglas County objects to this Document Request for being overly broad and unduly burdensome on its face because it seeks production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit (which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee charged to private Clients - not a court appointment -in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Douglas County further objects to this request for seeking documents irrelevant to the current lawsuit. Without waiving these objections, Douglas County states that it is not in possession of any documents responsive to this Document Request.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS:

1. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

The Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee is made up of (four) judges, (two) private attorneys with criminal defense experience, and the Douglas County Public Defender.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to this Request for Admission because it exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which allows discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense arid proportional to the needs of the case; but this Request for Admission seeks Douglas County's admission or denial of a fact that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in the current action stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. CM/ECF 68, pp. 1-2. This Request for Admission seeks information relating to unpled and "entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action" (CM/ECF 68, p. 6) from those in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint (CM/ECF 1), and at this time the Court has denied Plaintiffs leave to add these entirely new factual allegations and completely different causes of action.

2. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

In the Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex., 565 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009) and the Mitchell v. Fishbein, 377 F.3d 157 (2004) both panels deciding the placement of attorneys to represent criminal defendants in those two cases were comprised of judges.

RESPONSE: Douglas County incorporates as if set forth fully herein its objection to Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 1, above.

3. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

In the Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex., 565 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009) the Davis case, in part, states: the Plaintiff did not allege the Plaintiff was refused court appointments because of the Plaintiffs race but the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff (Davis) did not have good personal relationship with the judges, he was not part of the judges' "good of boys" network, and the judges were trying to exclude qualified attorneys.

RESPONSE: Douglas County incorporates as if set forth fully herein its objection to Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 1, above.

4. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

In the Mitchell v. Fishbein, 377 F.3d 157 (2004), the Mitchell case, in part, states: the attorney brought the action under § 1981 and §1983 alleging that state court screening committee's decision to remove him from the panel of attorneys certified to serve as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases was discriminatory and retaliatory and the Members of the state court screening committee were not entitled to quasi-judicial absolute immunity on attorney's action under § 1981 and §1983 seeking damages arising from committee's decision to remove attorney from panel of attorneys certified to serve as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases; attorney had no right to formal hearing, attorney had no right to be apprised of details of accusation against him or of identity of his accuser, there was no separation of committee's investigative and decision making functions, committee's decision was not subject to judicial review, and committee's functions were not integrally related to any specific judicial proceeding.

RESPONSE: Douglas County incorporates as if set forth fully herein its objection to Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 1, above. In addition, Douglas County objects to Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 4 because it seeks an admission as to a matter of pure law (the holding of a court opinion).

5. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

In the Schottel v. Young, 687 F.3d 370 (2012) the Schottel case, in part, states: James Schottel, Jr., brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a state court judge, Judge Patrick Young, violated his constitutional rights by conditioning the grant of his motion to withdraw as counsel on the repayment of a $1, 600 retainer to the clients and this case was not based upon an allegation of racial discrimination in the selection process of the attorneys to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.

RESPONSE: Douglas County incorporates as if set forth fully herein its objection to Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 1, above.

6. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

Individuals, corporations or entities who are not judges can evaluate and/or hire attorneys, private attorneys are not judges and the Douglas County Public Defender is not a judge.

RESPONSE: Douglas County incorporates as if set forth fully herein its objection to Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 1, above.

Without waiving its objection, Douglas County admits that (a) Individuals, corporations or entities who are not judges can evaluate and/or hire attorneys; (b) private attorneys are not judges; and (c) the Douglas County Public Defender is not a judge.

7. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

Plaintiff was appointed by a Douglas County District Court Judge to prosecute a murder case as assistant special prosecutor in the grand jury investigation of the George Bibins death by Omaha Police Officer Jerad Kruse in 2000.

RESPONSE: Douglas County admits this statement.

8. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

Did any of the parties in this case 8:20 CV 36, which includes any and all defendants who have been dismissed including any judge, violate any federal and/or state laws, statutes, treaties, rules or regulations, oaths as an attorney and/or oaths as a judge, which includes but is not limited to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-513. Theft by extortion, (c)... impair his credit or business repute; 18 U.S. Code § 876. Mailing threatening communications 18 U.S.C. § 1341 or 18 U.S.C. § 1346 or any ethical rules or any judicial rules AND ENGAGE IN THE a. use of either mail or wire communications in the foreseeable furtherance of a scheme

(See Paragraph 32 of the complaint. The Office for Counsel for Discipline only sent the 9/29/16 order to Plaintiff on October 4, 2016. (Ex. 9-14) (Ex. 15) (Ex. 17) See Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. The Office for Counsel for Discipline was deceived because on October 3, 2016 the Office for Counsel for Discipline did not receive the six orders signed 12/16/14; 1/2/15; 1/23/15, ; 4/17/16; 8/31/15; and 10/19/15 between the time period of December, 2014 through October, 2015 in the amount of the $8, 641.57. (Ex. 9-14) (Ex. 15) (Ex. 17) See Paragraph 34 of the complaint. Defendant Marcena Hendrix as the complainant has a duty to provide honest services and send a complete honest file to investigators. (Ex. 17) See Paragraph 35 of the complaint. Anyone who does not send a complete file to start an investigation is in violation of the mail fraud statute which prohibits the use of the mails to execute "any scheme or artifice to defraud..." U.S. v. David Kofoed 2009 WL 2601235). See Paragraph 45 of the complaint. Defendant Judge Marcena Hendrix anonymously mailed the order dated 9/29/16 order as a bar complaint against the Plaintiff by mailing a 9/29/16 order in PR 14 1483 without a letter of grievance to the Office for Counsel for Discipline. (Ex. 15) (Ex. 17) See Doc # 23 in 8:20 CV 36 which states, "Here, the allegations of fact upon which Ashford's claims rest consist of Hendrix signing orders reducing his attorney's fees and submitting a bar complaint against him. Filing 1 at 9-10, 21. Signing and issuing orders addressing attorney's fees in pending case is unquestionably part of Hendrix's judicial duties. Further, the Neb. Rev. Code of Judicial Conduct notes that "[t]aking action to address known misconduct is a judge's obligation." § 5-302.15, cmt 1. Submitting a bar complaint is an "action to address known misconduct" and such activity is therefore within the scope of Hendrix's employment as a judicial officer. Thus, Hendrix's alleged actions fall within the scope of her employment, and the STCA applies." 8:20-cv-00036-BCB-MDN Doc # 23 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 11 of 14 - Page ID # 333 See Doc. #36 in 8:20 CV 36 which states, "The state did not address the fact that the white judge defendant filed the alleged bar complaint anonymously without a detailed letter of grievance on official court letterhead stationery by mailing only one of seven orders anonymously stating Plaintiff must reimburse $8, 265 while not sending the six other orders the defendant signed awarding legal fees of $8, 641.57 in PR 14 1483." 8:20-cv-00036-BCB-MDN Doc # 36 Filed: 08/23/20 Page 3 of 23 - Page ID # 395

b. intend to defraud another (which may or may not include the Office for Counsel for Discipline a non-party in this case) of either property or honest services

(Please advise your superiors of these request for admissions. See the Nebraska Revised Code of Conduct § 5-301.2. Promoting confidence in the judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, * integrity, * and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety* and the appearance of impropriety. See the Nebraska ethical rules § 3-508.3. Reporting professional misconduct, (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.)

c. involving a material deception.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 8 because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome insofar as it asks Douglas County to admit or deny whether any party to this case violated "any federal and/or state laws, statutes, treaties, rules or regulations, oaths as an attorney and/or oaths as a judge, ..." This overbroad language would require Douglas County to first discover what every other party did and then weight those actions against any number of unspecified laws, rules, or regulations, or oaths. As such, Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 8 imposes a burden beyond the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 36.

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 8 because it contains compound statements throughout and fails to separately set forth each matter as to which an admission is sought as required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(2), thereby confusing which statements Douglas County is being asked to admit or to deny.

Subject to and without waiving this objection, Douglas County states that, based upon information currently available to it, it is unable to admit or to deny whether the two Defendants previously dismissed:

o (a) engaged in use of either mail or wire communications in the foreseeable furtherance of a scheme. The information currently available to it does not indicate whether any of the dismissed Defendants formed the specific intent required to have that Defendant's actions deemed a "scheme" for purposes of wire fraud or other wrongful acts. The dismissed Defendants were represented by counsel other than the undersigned, and at least one post-dismissal filing (CM/ECF 102) indicates that the representation is ongoing, implicating Neb. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct § 3-504.2 ("Communication with person represented by counsel"). Based upon this rule, Douglas County has not communicated with any dismissed Defendant or with any representative or constituent of a dismissed entity Defendant such as the State of Nebraska. To date, no third-party discovery has been directed to any

dismissed Defendant. As a result, Douglas County is unaware of the full scope of any dismissed Defendant's actions or of the reasons for those actions;

o (b) intended to defraud another (which may or may not include the Office for Counsel for Discipline a nonparty in this case) of either property or honest services. The statements within Plaintiffs' Request for Admission Number 8 are allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint (some restated in Court orders) and arguments in briefings. The information currently available to Douglas County is insufficient to enable it to admit or to deny descriptions of any dismissed Defendant's state of mind in relation to any of the challenged acts. Further, the dismissed Defendants were represented by counsel other than the undersigned, and at least one post-dismissal filing (CM/ECF 102) indicates that the representation is ongoing for purposes of Neb. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct § 3-504.2, so Douglas County has not communicated with any dismissed Defendant and remains unaware of the full scope of any dismissed Defendant's actions or the reasons for those actions. In addition, no remaining party has engaged in third-party discovery in relation to any of the dismissed Defendants, so the information that would demonstrate a particular state of mind has not been disclosed (at least, not to Douglas County), and Douglas County does not possess information on its own that would enable it to admit or deny the state of mind described in this subpart of this Request.

o (c) involving a material deception. Douglas County does not possess information that any dismissed Defendant made a deceptive communication and it does not possess information demonstrating whether any such communication was material. The dismissed Defendants were represented by counsel other than the undersigned, and at least one post-dismissal filing (CM/ECF 102) indicates that the representation is ongoing for purposes of Neb. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct § 3-504.2, so Douglas County has not communicated with any dismissed Defendant or any representative or constituent of a dismissed entity

Defendant such as the State of Nebraska and has not learned of the full scope of any dismissed Defendant's actions or the reasons for those actions. Without this information, Douglas County cannot state whether or not any dismissed Defendant made a deceptive communication in the first place, or whether any such communication was material (since determining materiality would require information from the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline, and Douglas County has no information from that office and is unlikely to be able to obtain information directly since § 3-318 of the Neb. Ct. R. Disc. P. for Lawyers provides for the confidentiality of that office's records).

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS:

Document Request No. 1; Identify and produce all documents concerning such persons' knowledge of facts relevant to the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer. Identify the author of each such document and state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive.

RESPONSE: Defendant County of Douglas County, Nebraska ("Douglas County") objects to those portions of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents, to identify the author of a document, and to state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive because these requirements exceed the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request because it is vague insofar as Douglas County has no reference or adequate guidance for determining who Plaintiffs refer to when stating "such person's knowledge".

Document Request No. 2: Identify and produce any documents in response to the Plaintiffs Interrogatories.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request because it is vague in its wording, preventing Douglas County from determining what category of documents Plaintiffs are seeking.

Document Request No. 3: Identify and produce any documents concerning the witnesses identified by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request for being vague and overbroad insofar as the omnibus phrase "any documents concerning the witnesses" is not defined and not reasonably particular enough to provide notice as to what documents Plaintiffs are requesting. As such, this Document Request requires Douglas County to speculate as to the categories of documents Plaintiffs are requesting concerning the witnesses it identified in response to Plaintiffs' interrogatories.

Document Request No. 4: Identify and produce all documents concerning such complaints identified in response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17 and Defendant's response (if any).

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents because this requirement exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Requests for being overly broad on its face and seeking production of documents not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit. As noted in Douglas County's objection to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 4, the discriminatory and retaliatory acts described in Plaintiffs' Complaint were not undertaken by an employee or representative of Douglas County. Further, neither Plaintiff is an employee of Douglas County, so neither Plaintiff is situated similarly to employees who have made allegations of employment discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation; so production of any such documents exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 as they are not relevant to this action.

Document Request No. 5: Identify and produce all documents in Defendant's possession concerning the allegations in Complaint or the Answer or the Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17. Identify the author of each such document and state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to those portions of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents, to identify the authors(s) of documents, and to state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive because these requirements exceeds the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to production of documents relating to those of Plaintiffs' interrogatories seeking information beyond the scope of the current action which stems from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. Specifically, Douglas County objects to production of any documents relating to Plaintiffs' numerous interrogatories inquiring into information relating to unpled claims about not being appointed to represent indigent persons charged with murder. Without waiving these objections, Douglas County is in possession of documents Plaintiffs' attached to their Complaint along with written notices of tort claims Plaintiffs have submitted, but Plaintiffs are already in possession of such documents. Douglas County is not in possession of documents Judge Hendrix or other State officials may possess and which relate to Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline.

Document Request No. 6: Identify and produce all documents concerning the communications identified in response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17. Identify the author of each such document.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to those portions of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify documents and to identify the authors of each document because these requirements exceed the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to producing responsive documents as the only communications it has identified are subject to the Attorney/Client and Work Product privileges, which shield from disclosure the limited email correspondence between Mr. Neely and the undersigned counsel, and limited email correspondence between the undersigned counsel and Mr. Bloomingdale, Ms. Carlson, and Ms. Buche. Per the parties' Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) Report submitted on or about September 14, 2020, the foregoing email correspondence is presumptively privileged and need not be listed on a privilege log.

Document Request No. 7: Produce all documents concerning any investigation made by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs complaints of discrimination. Identify the author of each such document.

RESPONSE: Douglas County is in possession of emails between Mr. Neely and counsel, along with emails between the undersigned counsel and Mr. Bloomingdale, Ms. Carlson, and Ms. Buche. The emails were generated in response to Plaintiffs' tort claims and the current lawsuit. Douglas County asserts the Attorney/Client and Work Product privilege as a basis for objecting to producing emails responsive to this Document Request, and also objects to producing responsive emails per the parties' Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) Report submitted on or about September 14, 2020, which treats the email correspondence as presumptively privileged and need not be listed on a privilege log.

Document Request No. 8: Produce all documents relating to the answer to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17, including notes, memoranda, formal complaints, e-mails, audio or visual recordings.

RESPONSE: Douglas County incorporates its objections to Document Requests 4 and 7, above, as if set forth fully herein.

Document Request No. 9: Produce all documents that reflect, refer or relate to any investigation resulting from the complaints or concerns identified in response to Plaintiffs Complaint and/or Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17.

RESPONSE: Douglas County incorporates its objections to Document Requests 4 and 7, above, as if set forth fully herein.

Document Request No. 10: Produce all documents that reflect, refer or relate to any discipline imposed as a result of the complaints or concerns identified in response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17.

RESPONSE: Douglas County incorporates its objections to Document Requests 4 and 7, above, as if set forth fully herein. Without waving this objection, Douglas County states that it is not in possession of any documents responsive to this Document Request in relation to Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee in a guardianship case and filing a complaint against Mr. Ashford with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline.

Document Request No. 11: Produce all documents concerning Defendant's policy to prevent discrimination and/ or retaliation and/or Plaintiffs utilization of such policy, including without limitation any documents concerning Plaintiffs awareness of the policy and any documents concerning any training provided by Defendants. Identify the author of each such document.

RESPONSE: For a statement of Douglas County's policy of nondiscrimination and non-retaliation, see: https: / / hr.douglascounty-ne.gov/employment For additional policies ensuring equal treatment of Douglas County employees, see: https: / /hr.douglascountv-ne.gov/images/4-22-2021 Indexed.pdf at Articles 1, 27, 28, and 30.

Aside from written notices of tort claims Plaintiffs submitted (and have copies of already), Douglas County is not in possession of documents concerning Plaintiffs' utilization of any Douglas County policies. Further, Douglas County is not in possession of any documents showing training provided to Judge Hendrix or other State employees because it does not provide any such training since Judge Hendrix and State employees are not subject to Douglas County's training and supervision. Finally, Douglas County objects to that portion of this Document Request purporting to require production of "any documents concerning any training provided by Defendants" because the phrase is overly broad and would require production of virtually every type of training provided to all County employees, irrespective of involvement in any of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' current suit.

Document Request No. 12: Produce all documents that support, reflect, refer to any of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, including but not limited to Plaintiffs alleged failure to follow protocol for the panel to appoint Plaintiff.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to the form of Plaintiffs' Document Request No. 12 to the extent is misstates the context in which Douglas County raised whether Plaintiffs exhausted Rule 4-17's remedies. Douglas County's answer does not contain anything about Plaintiffs' alleged failure to follow protocol for the panel to appoint Plaintiff because Plaintiffs' operative Complaint asserts claims stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee Mr. Ashford had charged, and her submission of a complaint to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. There are no pled claims or defenses concerning Mr. Ashford's appointment to represent indigent persons charged with murder, so Douglas County had no reason to address whether or not Mr. Ashford exhausted Rule 4-17 remedies in its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and it did not do so. Reference to the dispute-resolution procedure in Rule 4-17 is in Douglas County's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint (CM/ECF 58) in the portion of the brief challenging the sufficiency of the factual content of the then-proposed amendment. Douglas County asserted that the factual content of the proposed amendment failed to establish the injury in fact that is essential to having standing to sue. Id. at pp. 8 - 10. Douglas County included the argument relating to the dispute-resolution procedure in Rule 4-17 based exclusively upon the content of Plaintiffs' proposed First Amended Complaint (CM/ECF 50-1).

Douglas County further objects to Plaintiffs' Document Request No. 12 to the extent it would require Douglas County's production of documents Plaintiffs already have (See, e.q, Douglas County's affirmative defense alleging that Plaintiffs' current suit is a mirror image lawsuit to Case No. CI. 19-9165) or documents that are as accessible to Plaintiffs as they would be to Douglas County (for example, documents in Judge Hendrix's possession which show her actions or mental impressions when reducing Plaintiffs' fee and filing a complaint with the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline). Plaintiffs also have equal access to the statutes and court rules Douglas County has identified as showing the difference between it and a State agency such as the Clerk of the Douglas County Court.

Document Request No. 13: Produce all documents contained in Plaintiffs personnel file and/or disciplinary file with the court, or related to Plaintiff, such as payroll records for Plaintiffs court appointments or any file.

RESPONSE: Douglas County does not have a personnel file or disciplinary file for either Plaintiff as neither are employees of Douglas County. Similarly, neither Plaintiff is on Douglas County's payroll. Payments issued to Plaintiffs as a result of Mr. Ashford's work as a Court-appointed lawyer are made under statutory mandate (See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3905). Douglas County objects to production of documents showing its issuance of Court-ordered payments to Plaintiffs for Court-appointed work because such documents are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Plaintiffs' operative Complaint asserts claims stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee Mr. Ashford had charged, and her submission of a complaint to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline.

Document Request No. 14: Produce all documents concerning investigations conducted by individuals identified in Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17. Identify the author of each such document.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to the portion of this Document Request purporting to require it to identify the authors of documents because these requirements exceed the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request because it is not temporally limited and is not confined to investigations into any particular instances.

Document Request No. 15: Produce all documents that refer, relate to or reflect Defendant's efforts to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff.

RESPONSE: Douglas County is not in possession of any documents responsive to this Document Request.

Document Request No. 16: Produce all documents that relate to or concern Defendant's decision to place Plaintiff on the panel at Plaintiffs current level.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to this Document Request because the responsive documents are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Plaintiffs' operative Complaint asserts claims stemming from Judge Hendrix's reduction of a fee Mr. Ashford had charged, and her submission of a complaint to the Nebraska Supreme Court's Office of the Counsel for Discipline. The requested documents relate to unpled causes of action, thereby falling outside the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

Document Request No. 17: Produce any communications, including emails and other electronically stored information, from or to Plaintiff in Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to this Document Request as imposing an undue burden when Plaintiffs' access to responsive documents is equal to that of Douglas County. Douglas County further objects to this Document Request as vague because the phrase "in Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17" is confusing.

Document Request No. 21: Produce any communications, including emails, letters and other electronically stored information in this case in Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17.

RESPONSE: Douglas County objects to this Document Request as vague because the phrase "in this case in Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 1-17" is confusing.

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

COMES NOW Plaintiff and, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 6-333 of the Nebraska Discovery Rules, propounds the following First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants and requests that the same be answered separately and in writing, under oath, within thirty (30) days of the date of service is made upon Defendant or Defendant's attorneys. These interrogatories are to be deemed continuing and if the Defendants or Defendant's attorneys should discover additional information as to the matters inquired of in these interrogatories between the time the answers are made and the date of trial, supplemental answers should be made, informing the Plaintiff and its attorneys of the newly discovered information.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS Pursuant to Rules Governing Civil Procedure, the Defendant shall respond to the following discovery requests within the timeframe prescribed by law. Defendant's responses to each interrogatory shall be made under oath and in writing as mandated by Rule 6-333:

The term “communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). (b) Document: The term “document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Rule 6-333, except that document shall include electronically stored information, any form of audio or video recordings or information generated by a computer or stored on a disk, in a computer memory or otherwise electronically stored. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. (c) Identify (with respect to persons): When referring to a person, “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known business address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person need be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. (d) Identify (with respect to documents): “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of the document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) (e) Identify means, with respect to records, state the name and title of the person(s) who had responsibility for creating and/or maintaining the record, and explain how such records are stored, in what format, and where. If any such records have been destroyed or lost, explain the circumstances in detail. (f) Person: The term “person” is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association. (g) Concerning: The term “concerning” means “relating to, ” “referring to, ” “describing, ” “evidencing” or “constituting.” These terms are used interchangeably herein. (h) And/Or; The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. (i) Number: The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa. (j) Definitions set forth in the Complaint and the Answer, if any, are incorporated. (k) “Produce” means produce in the document's native format, e.g., payroll records maintained in Microsoft Excel files should be produced in Excel files, not paper printouts. (1) Electronically Stored Information (ESI) must be produced in its native format. That means that a document which was originally created as a Microsoft Word file or an Excel spreadsheet must be produced as a word file (or successor), without redaction of metadata. (m) Emails must be produced in a compatible file format. Emails shall be produced so that the full header is accessible and readable. (n) Native paper documents will be produced as word files. (o) Files may be produced via email to tash178346@aol.com, or by delivering a disk to the undersigned address. (p) Unless otherwise indicated all requests pertain to the period from 2015 until the present. Whether or not specifically requested herein, when producing documents, Defendant is required by Rule 6-333 to identify to which discovery request each document responds.

INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS Interrogatory No. 1: Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Interrogatory No. 2: Identify all persons with whom Defendants and officers of Defendant, the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee panel members have communicated (exclusive of counsel in the instant action) concerning the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer and describe those communications.

Interrogatory No. 3: Identify all persons whom Defendant intends to call as witnesses at trial and give a summary of their anticipated testimony. This is a continuing request and Defendant's answer must be updated as discovery progresses.

Interrogatory No. 4: For the past six years, identify all persons who have made complaints of employment discrimination, a hostile work environment, or retaliation from the Defendants and identify any lawsuits filed.

Interrogatory No. 5: Set forth in detail which allegations in the Complaint

Defendant was aware of prior to the service of the Complaint in this lawsuit and state the employee or employees who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such employee was aware, and Defendants response to such facts, if any.

Interrogatory No. 6: Describe all communications of which Defendants are aware concerning the allegations in the Complaint and the Answer.

Interrogatory No. 7: Identify any and all individuals who participated in any investigation initiated by Defendant in response to Plaintiff's complaints in the

Complaint and describe the actions of such individuals in detail.

Interrogatory No. 8: Identify each individual who made any type of similar complaint (written, verbal, formal, informal), or who expressed any concern regarding the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint.

Interrogatory No. 9: In the Answer, Defendant asserts an affirmative defense based on the maintenance of a policy to allow the Plaintiff to be placed on the list for court appointment to the murder panel and the Plaintiff's alleged failure to utilize such policy, please state all times, dates, the dates of all communications and any other communication in which Defendants received in which the Plaintiff utilized the policy to allow the Plaintiff to be placed on the murder panel.

Interrogatory No. 10: Describe all communications, qualifications which were considered, the deliberations, the manner and the methods the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee utilized in the decision to exclude Plaintiff from the murder panel.

Interrogatory No. 11: Describe in detail all training provided to Defendant's employees and the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee regarding the prevention of discrimination and/or harassment, and/or retaliation, and/or complaint procedures, including the date and place of each such session. Identify each person who conducted each training session, and the persons who attended, and state whether attendance was mandatory.

Interrogatory No. 12: Describe fully and in detail (including the names and positions of the individuals involved, and the relevant dates) what steps, if any, Defendant took to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff after he complained about the discrimination.

Interrogatory No. 13: Please provide a list of the names, positions and the dates of their appointment of all the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee members since the formation of the panel and the names of the individuals who appointed the panel and the dates they appointed the panel members.

Interrogatory No. 13: Please describe the qualifications the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee members used to appoint attorneys to the murder panel.

Interrogatory No. 14: Please state the name and bar number of all the attorneys the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selected to the murder panel in Douglas County since the panel was created.

Interrogatory No. 15: Please state the name and bar number of all African Americans/black attorneys and the dates they were selected/admitted to the panel in Douglas County to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases since the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule panel was created.

Interrogatory No. 16: Please describe the reasons Rule 4-17. Appointment of Conflict Counsel in Criminal Cases rule 4-17 was approved January 22, 2015, effective April 1, 2015.

Interrogatory No. 17: Please state the name, the telephone number and the address of the insurance company, the policy amounts, the policy number, the claim number which may or may not cover all or part of the allegations in the complaint.

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COMES NOW Plaintiff and, pursuant to the provisions of the Nebraska Discovery Rules, propounds the following First Set of Production of Documents to Defendants and requests that the same be answered separately and in writing, under oath, within thirty (30) days of the date of service is made upon Defendant or Defendant's attorneys. These interrogatories are to be deemed continuing and if the Defendants or Defendant's attorneys should discover additional information as to the matters inquired of in these interrogatories between the time the answers are made and the date of trial, supplemental answers should be made, informing the Plaintiff and its attorneys of the newly discovered information.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS Pursuant to Rules Governing Civil Procedure, the Defendant shall respond to the following discovery requests within the timeframe prescribed by law. Defendant's responses to each interrogatory shall be made under oath and in writing as mandated by Rule 6-333:

The term “communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). (b) Document: The term “document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Rule 6-333, except that document shall include electronically stored information, any form of audio or video recordings or information generated by a computer or stored on a disk, in a computer memory or otherwise electronically stored. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. (c) Identify (with respect to persons): When referring to a person, “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known business address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person need be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. (d) Identify (with respect to documents): “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of the document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) (e) Identify means, with respect to records, state the name and title of the person(s) who had responsibility for creating and/or maintaining the record, and explain how such records are stored, in what format, and where. If any such records have been destroyed or lost, explain the circumstances in detail. (f) Person: The term “person” is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association. (g) Concerning: The term “concerning” means “relating to, ” “referring to, ” “describing, ” “evidencing” or “constituting.” These terms are used interchangeably herein. (h) And/Or; The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. (i) Number: The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa. (j) Definitions set forth in the Complaint and the Answer, if any, are incorporated. (k) “Produce” means produce in the document's native format, e.g., payroll records maintained in Microsoft Excel files should be produced in Excel files, not paper printouts. (1) Electronically Stored Information (ESI) must be produced in its native format. That means that a document which was originally created as a Microsoft Word file or an Excel spreadsheet must be produced as a word file (or successor), without redaction of metadata. (m) Emails must be produced in a compatible file format. Emails shall be produced so that the full header is accessible and readable. (n) Native paper documents will be produced as word files. (o) Files may be produced via email to tash178346@aol.com, or by delivering a disk to the undersigned address. (p) Unless otherwise indicated all requests pertain to the period from 2015 until the present. Whether or not specifically requested herein, when producing documents, Defendant is required by Rule 6-333 to identify to which discovery request each document responds.

DOCUMENT REQUESTS Document Request No. 1: Identify and produce all documents concerning such persons' knowledge of facts relevant to the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer. Identify the author of each such document and state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive.

Document Request No. 2: Identify and produce any documents in response to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories.

Document Request No. 3: Identify and produce any documents concerning the witnesses identified by Defendant in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories.

Document Request No. 4: Identify and produce all documents concerning such complaints identified in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1-17 and Defendant's response (if any).

Document Request No. 5: Identify and produce all documents in Defendant's possession concerning the allegations in Complaint or the Answer or the Plaintiff's

Interrogatory No. 1-17. Identify the author of each such document and state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive.

Document Request No. 6: Identify and produce all documents concerning the communications identified in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1-17.

Identify the author of each such document.

Document Request No. 7: Produce all documents concerning any investigation made by Defendant in response to Plaintiff's complaints of discrimination. Identify the author of each such document.

Document Request No. 8: Produce all documents relating to the answer to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1-17, including notes, memoranda, formal complaints, e-mails, audio or visual recordings.

Document Request No. 9: Produce all documents that reflect, refer or relate to any investigation resulting from the complaints or concerns identified in response to

Plaintiff's Complaint and/or Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1-17.

Document Request No. 10: Produce all documents that reflect, refer or relate to any discipline imposed as a result of the complaints or concerns identified in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1-17.

Document Request No. 11: Produce all documents concerning Defendant's policy to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation and/or Plaintiff's utilization of such policy, including without limitation any documents concerning Plaintiff's awareness of the policy and any documents concerning any training provided by

Defendants. Identify the author of each such document.

Document Request No. 12: Produce all documents that support, reflect, refer to any of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, including but not limited to Plaintiff's alleged failure to follow protocol for the panel to appoint Plaintiff.

Document Request No. 13: Produce all documents contained in Plaintiff's personnel file and/or disciplinary file with the court, or related to Plaintiff, such as payroll records for Plaintiff's court appointments or any file.

Document Request No. 14: Produce all documents concerning investigations conducted by individuals identified in Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1-17. Identify the author of each such document.

Document Request No. 15: Produce all documents that refer, relate to or reflect Defendant's efforts to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff.

Document Request No. 16: Produce all documents that relate to or concern Defendant's decision to place Plaintiff on the panel at Plaintiff's current level.

Document Request No. 17: Produce any communications, including emails and other electronically stored information, from or to Plaintiff in Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1-17.

Document Request No. 21: Produce any communications, including emails, letters and other electronically stored information in this case in Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1-17.

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

TO: Defendants and their attorneys Joshua R. Woolf (NE Bar 25665) Timothy K. Dolan (NE Bar #20978) Deputy County Attorneys, 1819 Farnam Street, 909 Civic Center Omaha, NE 68183.

COMES NOW Plaintiff and, pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 36, propounds the following First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendants and requests that the same be answered separately and in writing, under oath, within thirty (30) days of the date of service is made upon Defendant or Defendant's attorneys. These First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendants are to be deemed continuing and if the Defendants or Defendant's attorneys should discover additional information as to the matters inquired of in the request for admissions between the time the answers are made and the date of trial, supplemental answers should be made, informing the Plaintiff and his attorneys of the newly discovered information.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS:

1. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

The Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee is made up of (four) judges, (two) private attorneys with criminal defense experience, and the Douglas County Public Defender.

2. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

In the Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex., 565 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009) and the Mitchell v. Fishbein, 377 F.3d 157 (2004) both panels deciding the placement of attorneys to represent criminal defendants in those two cases were comprised of judges.

3. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

In the Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex., 565 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2009) the Davis case, in part, states: the Plaintiff did not allege the Plaintiff was refused court appointments because of the Plaintiff's race but the Plaintiff

alleged that the Plaintiff (Davis) did not have good personal relationship with the judges, he was not part of the judges' "good ol' boys" network, and the judges were trying to exclude qualified attorneys. 4. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

In the Mitchell v. Fishbein, 377 F.3d 157 (2004), the Mitchell case, in part, states: the attorney brought the action under § 1981 and §1983 alleging that state court screening committee's decision to remove him from the panel of attorneys certified to serve as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases was discriminatory and retaliatory and the Members of the state court screening committee were not entitled to quasi-judicial absolute immunity on attorney's action under § 1981 and §1983 seeking damages arising from committee's decision to remove attorney from panel of attorneys certified to serve as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases; attorney had no right to formal hearing, attorney had no right to be apprised of details of accusation against him or of identity of his accuser, there was no separation of committee's investigative and decision making functions, committee's decision was not subject to judicial review, and committee's functions were not integrally related to any specific judicial proceeding .

5. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

In the Schottel v. Young, 687 F.3d 370 (2012) the Schottel case, in part, states: James Schottel, Jr., brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a state court judge, Judge Patrick Young, violated his constitutional rights by conditioning the grant of his motion to withdraw as counsel on the repayment of a $1, 600 retainer to the clients and this case was not based upon an allegation of racial discrimination in the selection process of the attorneys to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.

6. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

Individuals, corporations or entities who are not judges can evaluate and/or hire attorneys, private attorneys are not judges and the Douglas County Public Defender is not a judge.

7. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

Plaintiff was appointed by a Douglas County District Court Judge to prosecute a murder case as assistant special prosecutor in the grand jury investigation of the George Bibins death by Omaha Police Officer Jerad Kruse in 2000.

8. Please admit or deny the statement which follows:

Did any of the parties in this case 8:20 CV 36, which includes any and all defendants who have been dismissed including any judge, violate any federal and/or state laws, statutes, treaties, rules or regulations, oaths as an attorney and/or oaths as a judge, which includes but is not limited to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-513. Theft by extortion. (c)… impair his credit or business repute; 18 U.S. Code § 876. Mailing threatening communications 18 U.S.C. § 1341 or 18 U.S.C. § 1346 or any ethical rules or any judicial rules AND ENGAGE IN THE a. use of either mail or wire communications in the foreseeable furtherance of a scheme (See Paragraph 32 of the complaint. The Office for Counsel for Discipline only sent the 9/29/16 order to Plaintiff on October 4, 2016. (Ex. 9-14) (Ex. 15) (Ex. 17) See Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. The Office for Counsel for Discipline was deceived because on October 3, 2016 the Office for Counsel for Discipline did not receive the six orders signed 12/16/14; 1/2/15; 1/23/15, ; 4/17/16; 8/31/15; and 10/19/15 between the time period

of December, 2014 through October, 2015 in the amount of the $8, 641.57. (Ex. 9-14) (Ex. 15) (Ex. 17) See Paragraph 34 of the complaint. Defendant Marcena Hendrix as the complainant has a duty to provide honest services and send a complete honest file to investigators. (Ex. 17) See Paragraph 35 of the complaint. Anyone who does not send a complete file to start an investigation is in violation of the mail fraud statute which prohibits the use of the mails to execute “any scheme or artifice to defraud…” U.S. v. David Kofoed 2009 WL 2601235). See Paragraph 45 of the complaint. Defendant Judge Marcena Hendrix anonymously mailed the order dated 9/29/16 order as a bar complaint against the Plaintiff by mailing a 9/29/16 order in PR 14 1483 without a letter of grievance to the Office for Counsel for Discipline. (Ex. 15) (Ex.

17)

See Doc # 23 in 8:20 CV 36 which states, “Here, the allegations of fact upon which Ashford's claims rest consist of Hendrix signing orders reducing his attorney's fees and submitting a bar complaint against him.

Filing 1 at 9-10, 21. Signing and issuing orders addressing attorney's fees in pending case is unquestionably part of Hendrix's judicial duties.

Further, the Neb. Rev. Code of Judicial Conduct notes that “[t]aking

action to address known misconduct is a judge's obligation.” § 5-302.15, cmt 1. Submitting a bar complaint is an “action to address known misconduct” and such activity is therefore within the scope of Hendrix's employment as a judicial officer. Thus, Hendrix's alleged actions fall within the scope of her employment, and the STCA applies.” 8:20-cv-00036-BCB-MDN Doc # 23 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 11 of 14 - Page ID # 333

See Doc. #36 in 8:20 CV 36 which states, “The state did not address the fact that the white judge defendant filed the alleged bar complaint anonymously without a detailed letter of grievance on official court letterhead stationery by mailing only one of seven orders anonymously stating Plaintiff must reimburse $8, 265 while not sending the six other orders the defendant signed awarding legal fees of $8, 641.57 in PR 14 1483.” 8:20-cv-00036-BCB-MDN Doc # 36 Filed: 08/23/20 Page 3 of 23 - Page ID # 395

b. intend to defraud another (which may or may not include the Office for Counsel for Discipline a non-party in this case) of either property or honest services

(Please advise your superiors of these request for admissions. See the Nebraska Revised Code of Conduct § 5-301.2. Promoting confidence in the judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, * integrity, *

and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety* and the appearance of impropriety.

See the Nebraska ethical rules § 3-508.3. Reporting professional misconduct.(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.)

c. involving a material deception.

PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

COMES NOW Plaintiff and, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 6-333 of the Nebraska Discovery Rules, propounds the following Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendants and requests that the same be answered separately and in writing, under oath, within thirty (30) days of the date of service is made upon Defendant or Defendant's attorneys. These interrogatories are to be deemed continuing and if the Defendants or Defendant's attorneys should discover additional information as to the matters inquired of in these interrogatories between the time the answers are made and the date of trial, supplemental answers should be made, informing the Plaintiff and its attorneys of the newly discovered information.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

Pursuant to Rules Governing Civil Procedure, the Defendant shall respond to the following discovery requests within the timeframe prescribed by law. Defendant's responses to each interrogatory shall be made under oath and in writing as mandated by Rule 6-333:

The term “communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). (b) Document: The term “document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Rule 6-333, except that document shall include electronically stored information, any form of audio or video recordings or information generated by a computer or stored on a disk, in a computer memory or otherwise electronically stored. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. (c) Identify (with respect to persons): When referring to a person, “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known business address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person need be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. (d) Identify (with respect to documents): “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of the document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) (e) Identify means, with respect to records, state the name and title of the person(s) who had responsibility for creating and/or maintaining the record, and explain how such records are stored, in what format, and where. If any such records have been destroyed or lost, explain the circumstances in detail. (f) Person: The term “person” is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association. (g) Concerning: The term “concerning” means “relating to, ” “referring to, ” “describing, ” “evidencing” or “constituting.” These terms are used interchangeably herein. (h) And/Or; The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. (i) Number: The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa. (j) Definitions set forth in the Complaint and the Answer, if any, are incorporated. (k) “Produce” means produce in the document's native format, e.g., payroll records maintained in Microsoft Excel files should be produced in Excel files, not paper printouts. (1) Electronically Stored Information (ESI) must be produced in its native format. That means that a document which was originally created as a Microsoft Word file or an Excel spreadsheet must be produced as a word file (or successor), without redaction of metadata. (m) Emails must be produced in a compatible file format. Emails shall be produced so that the full header is accessible and readable. (n) Native paper documents will be produced as word files. (o) Files may be produced via email to tash178346@aol.com, or by delivering a disk to the undersigned address. (p) Unless otherwise indicated all requests pertain to the period from 2014 until the present. Whether or not specifically requested herein, when producing documents, Defendant is required by Rule 6-333 to identify to which discovery request each document responds. Plaintiff previously sent 17 interrogatories to Defendant.

INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS Interrogatory No. 18: Please explain the official policy of Douglas County, the Douglas County custom (also referred to as “practice”), the protocol and/or the reason the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee panel members and all Defendants excluded blacks from the panel to represent indigent defendants in murder cases in Douglas County Nebraska and if blacks were not excluded on the panel at the time the panel was initially formed or at any time after the panel was formed please state the attorney names, bar numbers and dates black attorneys were added to the murder panel as follows:

a. The name, the bar number, the race and the date the black attorneys were added to the murder panel and the total number of black attorneys currently on the murder panel.

b. The name, attorney bar number, the date added and the number of white attorneys on the murder panel list.

c. The qualifications for appointment to the murder panel and the reason blacks did not meet the qualifications.

Interrogatory No. 19: Please explain the official policy of Douglas County, the Douglas County custom (also referred to as “practice”), the protocol and/or the reason blacks were excluded from court appointments of indigent criminal defendants on March 7, 2014 and if they were not excluded from court appointments, please state after Plaintiff wrote the Omaha Star Article dated March 7, 2014 “Is the Douglas County Court Racist?” Omaha Star March 7, 2014 (Exhibit 1) the number of black attorneys added to the panel, their bar number and the date they were added and the reason, if the defendant knows, the court sent the correspondence to the Plaintiff which follows:

a. Letter from the Nebraska Supreme Court dated March 12, 2014 from Chief Justice Michael Heavican in response to the Omaha Star Article dated March 7, 2014 and explain the contents of that letter. (Exhibit 2)

b. Letter from the Douglas County Court Presiding Judge Craig McDermott dated March 11, 2014 in response to the Omaha Star Article dated March 7, 2014 and explain the contents of that letter. (Exhibit 3)

c. The reason Rule 4-17 was implemented by the Nebraska Supreme Court as it applies to the Defendants. (Exhibit 4)

Interrogatory No. 19: Please explain the official policy of Douglas County, the Douglas County custom (also referred to as “practice”), the protocol and/or the reason the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 and all Defendants:

a. The reason Defendants excluded blacks from the panel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases.

b. The number of black attorneys and the bar number of the black attorneys who were on the panel to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases at the time the panel was created.

c. After Plaintiff wrote the Omaha Star Article dated March 7, 2014 “Is the Douglas County Court Racist?” please state the number of black attorneys which were added to the panel, their names, their bar numbers and the dates they were added to represent indigent criminal defendants (Exhibit 1).

Interrogatory No. 20: Please provide a list of all attorneys and their bar numbers who were appointed to the panel to represent indigent defendants in all criminal cases and murder cases.

Interrogatory No. 21: Please state the number of the requests the Plaintiff made to the Defendants to be included on the murder panel, the date of the requests to be included on the murder panel, the form of the requests (written, verbal, etc.) and the response to the request by the Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS

COMES NOW Plaintiff and, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 33 of the Discovery Rules, propounds the following First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants and requests that the same be answered separately and in writing, under oath, within thirty (30) days of the date of service is made upon Defendant or Defendant's attorneys. These interrogatories are to be deemed continuing and if the Defendants or Defendant's attorneys should discover additional information as to the matters inquired of in these interrogatories between the time the answers are made and the date of trial, supplemental answers should be made, informing the Plaintiff and its attorneys of the newly discovered information.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS Pursuant to Rules Governing Civil Procedure, the Defendant shall respond to the following discovery requests within the timeframe prescribed by law. Defendant's responses to each interrogatory shall be made under oath and in writing as mandated by Rule 33:

The term “communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). (b) Document: The term “document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Rule 33, except that document shall include electronically stored information, any form of audio or video recordings or information generated by a computer or stored on a disk, in a computer memory or otherwise electronically stored. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. (c) Identify (with respect to persons): When referring to a person, “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known business address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person need be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. (d) Identify (with respect to documents): “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of the document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) (e) Identify means, with respect to records, state the name and title of the person(s) who had responsibility for creating and/or maintaining the record, and explain how such records are stored, in what format, and where. If any such records have been destroyed or lost, explain the circumstances in detail. (f) Person: The term “person” is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association. (g) Concerning: The term “concerning” means “relating to, ” “referring to, ” “describing, ” “evidencing” or “constituting.” These terms are used interchangeably herein. (h) And/Or; The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. (i) Number: The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa. (j) Definitions set forth in the Complaint and the Answer, if any, are incorporated. (k) “Produce” means produce in the document's native format, e.g., payroll records maintained in Microsoft Excel files should be produced in Excel files, not paper printouts. (1) Electronically Stored Information (ESI) must be produced in its native format. That means that a document which was originally created as a Microsoft Word file or an Excel spreadsheet must be produced as a word file (or successor), without redaction of metadata. (m) Emails must be produced in a compatible file format. Emails shall be produced so that the full header is accessible and readable. (n) Native paper documents will be produced as word files. (o) Files may be produced via email to tash178346@aol.com, or by delivering a disk to the undersigned address. (p) Unless otherwise indicated all requests pertain to the period from January1, 2014 until the present. Whether or not specifically requested herein, when producing documents, Defendant is required by Rule 6-333 to identify to which discovery request each document responds.

INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Interrogatory No. 1: Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer and state your understanding of their knowledge. Response:

Interrogatory No. 2: Identify all persons with whom Defendants and officers of Defendant, the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee panel members have communicated (exclusive of counsel in the instant action) concerning the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer and describe those communications.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 3: Identify all persons whom Defendant intends to call as witnesses at trial and give a summary of their anticipated testimony. This is a continuing request and Defendant's answer must be updated as discovery progresses.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 4: For the past six years since January 1, 2014, identify all persons who have made complaints of employment discrimination, a hostile work environment, or retaliation from the Defendants and identify any lawsuits filed.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 5: Set forth in detail which allegations in the Complaint

Defendant was aware of prior to the service of the Complaint in this lawsuit and state the employee or employees who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such employee was aware, and Defendants response to such facts, if any.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 6: Describe all communications of which Defendants are aware concerning the allegations in the Complaint and the Answer.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 7: Identify any and all individuals who participated in any investigation initiated by Defendant in response to Plaintiff's complaints in the

Complaint and describe the actions of such individuals in detail.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 8: Identify each individual who made any type of similar complaint (written, verbal, formal, informal), or who expressed any concern regarding the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 9: Defendant asserts an affirmative defense based on the maintenance of a policy to allow the Plaintiff to be placed on the list for court appointment to the murder panel and the Plaintiff's alleged failure to utilize such policy, please state all times, dates, the dates of all communications and any other communication in which Defendants received in which the Plaintiff utilized the policy to allow or the Plaintiff requested to be placed on the murder panel.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 10: Describe all communications, qualifications which were considered, the deliberations, the manner and the methods the Nebraska Fourth

Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee utilized in the decision to exclude Plaintiff from the murder panel.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 11: Describe in detail all training provided to Defendant's employees and the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee regarding the prevention of discrimination and/or harassment, and/or retaliation, and/or complaint procedures, including the date and place of each such session. Identify each person who conducted each training session, and the persons who attended, and state whether attendance was mandatory.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 12: Describe fully and in detail (including the names and positions of the individuals involved, and the relevant dates) what steps, if any, Defendant took to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff after he complained about the discrimination which includes but is not limited to the exclusion from the Murder Panel.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 13: Please provide a list of the names, positions and the dates of their appointment of all the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee members since the formation of the panel and the dates the members were appointed to the panel as members.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 13: Please describe the qualifications the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee members used to appoint attorneys to the murder panel.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 14: Please state the name and bar number of all the attorneys the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selected to the murder panel in Douglas County since the panel was created.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 15: Please state the name and bar number of all African Americans/black attorneys and the dates they were appointed to the panel in Douglas County to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases since the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule panel was created.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 16: Please state the name and bar number of all African Americans/black attorneys and the dates they were appointed to the MURDER panel in Douglas County to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases since the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule panel was created.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 17: Please describe the reasons Rule 4-17. Appointment of Conflict Counsel in Criminal Cases rule 4-17 was approved January 22, 2015, effective April 1, 2015.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 18: Please state the name, the telephone number and the address of the insurance company, the policy amounts, the policy number, the claim number which may or may not cover all or part of the allegations in the complaint.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 19: Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the allegations in the Ashford v. Douglas County 16-3366 and 8:15 CV 8 and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 20: Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the pay of Plaintiff from Douglas County and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 20: Identify all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the reputation of Plaintiff from Douglas County based upon the fact Plaintiff has not been appointed to the Murder Panel and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 20: Please state whether all persons who may have knowledge of facts concerning the allegations in the Ashford v. Douglas County 16-3366/8:15 CV 8 were placed on notice that blacks were not appointed to the Douglas County Murder Panel and state your understanding of their knowledge.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 21: Please state whether Douglas County changed their court appointment procedures for attorneys based upon the allegations in the Ashford v. Douglas County 16-3366 and 8:15 CV 8 which appointed black attorneys to the court appointment list and Rule 4-17 and state their understanding of their knowledge.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 21: Please state whether individuals or corporations can evaluate and hire an attorney for a murder case.

Response:

Interrogatory No. 22: Please state whether the selection of an attorney for a murder case is only a judicial function which must be done by a judge.

Response:

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS

TO: Defendant and their attorneys Joshua R. Woolf (NE Bar 25665) Timothy K. Dolan (NE Bar #20978) Deputy County Attorneys, 1819 Farnam Street, 909 Civic Center Omaha, NE 68183. COMES NOW Plaintiff and, pursuant to the provisions of the Discovery Rules, propounds the following First Set of Production of Documents to Defendants and requests that the same be answered separately and in writing, under oath, within thirty (30) days of the date of service is made upon Defendant or Defendant's attorneys. These Request for Production of Documents are to be deemed continuing and if the Defendants or Defendant's attorneys should discover additional information as to the matters inquired of in these Request for Production of Documents between the time the answers are made and the date of trial, supplemental answers should be made, informing the Plaintiff and its attorneys of the newly discovered information.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

Pursuant to Rules Governing Civil Procedure, the Defendant shall respond to the following discovery requests within the timeframe prescribed by law. Defendant's responses to each Request for Production of Documents shall be made under oath and in writing as mandated by Rule 34:

The term “communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise). (b) Document: The term “document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in Rule 34, except that document shall include electronically stored information, any form of audio or video recordings or information generated by a computer or stored on a disk, in a computer memory or otherwise electronically stored. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. (c) Identify (with respect to persons): When referring to a person, “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known business address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person need be listed in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person. (d) Identify (with respect to documents): “to identify” means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii) date of the document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) (e) Identify means, with respect to records, state the name and title of the person(s) who had responsibility for creating and/or maintaining the record, and explain how such records are stored, in what format, and where. If any such records have been destroyed or lost, explain the circumstances in detail. (f) Person: The term “person” is defined as any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association. (g) Concerning: The term “concerning” means “relating to, ” “referring to, ” “describing, ” “evidencing” or “constituting.” These terms are used interchangeably herein. (h) And/Or; The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. (i) Number: The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa. (j) Definitions set forth in the Complaint and the Answer, if any, are incorporated. (k) “Produce” means produce in the document's native format, e.g., payroll records maintained in Microsoft Excel files should be produced in Excel files, not paper printouts. (1) Electronically Stored Information (ESI) must be produced in its native format. That means that a document which was originally created as a Microsoft Word file or an Excel spreadsheet must be produced as a word file (or successor), without redaction of metadata. (m) Emails must be produced in a compatible file format. Emails shall be produced so that the full header is accessible and readable. (n) Native paper documents will be produced as word files. (o) Files may be produced via email to tash178346@aol.com, or by delivering a disk to the undersigned address. (p) Unless otherwise indicated all requests pertain to the period from 2015 until the present. Whether or not specifically requested herein, when producing documents, Defendant is required by Rule 34 to identify to which discovery request each document responds.

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Document Request No. 1: Identify and produce all documents concerning such persons' knowledge of facts relevant to the allegations in the Complaint or the Answer. Identify the author of each such document and state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive.

Response:

Document Request No. 2: Identify and produce any documents in response to the Plaintiff's

Interrogatories.

Response

Document Request No. 3: Identify and produce any documents concerning the witnesses identified by Defendant in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories.

Response:

Document Request No. 4: Identify and produce all documents concerning such complaints identified in response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories:

Response:

Document Request No. 5: Identify and produce all documents in Defendant's possession concerning the allegations in Complaint or the Answer or the Plaintiff's Interrogatories. Identify the author of each such document and state the demand or demands to which such documents are responsive.

Response:

Document Request No. 6: Produce all documents concerning any investigation made by

Defendant in response to Plaintiff's complaints of discrimination. Identify the author of each such document.

Response:

Document Request No. 7: Produce all documents concerning the policy of Douglas County to appoint attorneys to court appointments.

Response:

Document Request No. 8: Produce all documents which contain the names of the list of the attorneys appointed to court cases for Douglas County.

Response:

Document Request No. 9: Produce all documents concerning Defendant's policy to appoint attorneys to misdemeanor, felony and/or murder cases. Identify the author of each such document.

Response:

Document Request No. 10: Produce all documents regarding Plaintiff's personnel file and/or disciplinary file with the court, or related to Plaintiff, such as payroll records for Plaintiff's court appointments or any file.

Response:

Document Request No. 11: Produce all documents concerning Plaintiff's pay for court appointments and payroll documents of money paid to the Plaintiff by Douglas County. Identify the author of each such document.

Response:

Document Request No. 12: Produce all documents in your possession that Plaintiff submitted regarding Plaintiff's request to be placed on the Murder Panel.

Response:

Document Request No. 13: Produce all documents, which excludes documents sent to directly to the attorney for the litigation, in your possession which was received from Plaintiff from the time period of January 1, 2015 until the present

Response Document Request No. 14: Produce any communications, including emails and other electronically stored information, from or to Plaintiff.

Response:

Document Request No. 15: Produce any communications from Plaintiff, including emails, letters and other electronically stored information in the possession of Defendant.

Response:

Document Request No. 16: Identify and produce all documents concerning Plaintiff's Interrogatories and/or Complaint.

Response:

Document Request No. 17: Produce all documents relating to the answer of Douglas County to Plaintiff's request to be placed on the murder panel, including notes, memoranda, formal complaints, e-mails, audio or visual recordings.

Response:

Document Request No. 18: Produce all documents relating to the answer of Douglas County to Plaintiff's discovery.

Response:

Document Request No. 19: Produce each and every document which is the list of the attorneys appointed to the panel.

Response:

Document Request No. 19: Produce each and every document which is the list of the attorneys appointed to the Murder Panel.

Response:

Document Request No. 20: Produce all payroll documents of the Defendant.

Response:

Document Request No. 21: Produce copies of all documents demonstrating that there exists a payment dispute between Plaintiffs and Douglas County. Production should include copies of any invoices and correspondence submitted to Douglas County along with any correspondence received by Douglas County.

Response:

Document Request No. 22: Please produce any and all Douglas County written policies or customs.

Response:

Document Request No. 23: Please Produce all Douglas County policies or customs, written or not written, regarding the appointment of attorneys in Douglas County.

RESPONSE:

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT

TO: Defendants and their attorneys Joshua R. Woolf (NE Bar 25665) Timothy K. Dolan (NE Bar #20978) Deputy County Attorneys, 1819 Farnam Street, 909 Civic Center Omaha, NE 68183. COMES NOW Plaintiff and, pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 36, propounds the following First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendants and requests that the same be answered separately and in writing, under oath, within thirty (30) days of the date of service is made upon Defendant or Defendant's attorneys. These First Set of Request for Admissions to Defendants are to be deemed continuing and if the Defendants or Defendant's attorneys should discover additional information as to the matters inquired of in the request for admissions between the time the answers are made and the date of trial, supplemental answers should be made, informing the Plaintiff and his attorneys of the newly discovered information.

You and each of you are hereby requested, pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 36, to answer the following Request for Admissions, separately and fully in writing under oath, within thirty (30) days after the date of service hereof. You and each of you are further notified that you are under a duty to supplement the responses to these Request for Admissions to the extent provided in Rule 36, and with respect to all other matters inquired into herein unless written disagreement is received by the attorney for the undersigned within ten (10) days of the date of service hereof.

In preparing your Answers to these Request for Admissions you are required to furnish all information available to you or available by reasonable inquiry including information in the possession of your attorneys, investigators, agents, representatives or any other person acting in your behalf.

If you cannot answer any of the following Request for Admissions in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information to do so, so state and answer to the extent possible specifying your inability to answer the remainder and providing whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered portion.

Each Request for Admissions which is divided into subparts is to be answered separately as to each subpart, rather than in a single statement or paragraph which is intended to encompass the response to all subparts contained in the Request for Admissions.

You are notified that these Request for Admissions are deemed continuing and should you or your attorneys discover additional information as to the matters inquired of herein between the date answers are made and the date of trial, supplemental or amended answers containing all such information shall be made.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DEFINITIONS

Notwithstanding the specific definitions below, each word, term or phrase used in these Request for Admissions should be given their most expansive and inclusive meaning. As used in these Request for Admissions, the following terms are to be interpreted in accordance with these definitions:

1. “All” includes “each and every.”

2. “And” and “Or” are to be construed both conjunctively and disjunctively, as necessary to give each request its broadest possible meaning.

3. “Anyone acting on your behalf” means all persons including your agents, employees, insurance companies, attorneys, investigators, or consultants.

4. “Consumer” means an actual or perspective purchaser or recipient of consumer services. The term consumers includes, but is not limited to, the Plaintiffs.

5. “Complaint” refers to each and every complaint, case, suit, or investigation whether or not it was formal, informal, civil, criminal, filed in accordance of law, settled, or dismissed.

6. “Defendant, ” “you, ” or “your” refers to Defendants. The term also includes any of Defendant's agents or representatives, or anyone else acting, or who has acted, on either of their behalf.

7. “Document” or “documents” includes any writing or other medium, including, but not limited to, electronic, magnetic, or optical media, by which information is transmitted or recorded. The terms also include all drafts, amendments, modifications, changes or side correspondence, notes, or non-identical copies such as those that include marginalia or other printed, stamped or handwritten revisions or notations.

8. “Person” means any natural or artificial person, including business entities and other legal entities.

9. “Plaintiffs” means Timothy L. Ashford PC LLO and Timothy L. Ashford.

10. “Relating to, ” “relate to, ” “related to, ” and “relates to” means in any way concerning, containing, describing, constituting, referring to, evidencing, mentioning, reflecting, identifying, refuting, contradicting, supporting, connected with or in any way pertaining to the subjection, in whole or in part.

11. “Request for Admissions” refers to this document, and each and every Request for Admissions contained within this document.

12. “Identify” means, in the case of an act, transaction, relationship, thing or occurrence:

a. Giving a detailed description, including complete references to: date, place, person involved, and means employed;

b. Identifying your source of information concerning such act, transaction, thing or occurrence, including the date you received such information; and c. Identifying each person having knowledge of such act, transaction, thing or occurrence.

13. “Identify” means, when used in conjunction with the term “person, ” or “identity” to state the persons:

a. Full legal name;

b. Relationship to Plaintiffs or Defendants, e.g. friend, relative, employee;

c. Present or last known business address and telephone number (business and residential);

d. Name of employer, occupation, job title, business affiliation and/or nature of business.

14. “Identify” means, when used in conjunction with an entity, organization, or anything other than a natural person, to state as much of the following information as is available to Defendant:

a. The name under which it customarily does business;

b. The address of its principal place of business; and c. The identity of the person in such organization who is believed to have the most extensive knowledge of the matters in question.

15. “Identify” means, when used in conjunction with communications, to provide as much of the following information as is available to Defendant:

a. The manner or type of the communication;

b. The date of and parties to the communication;

c. Where the communication took place;

d. The substance of the communication; and e. Identify all documents describing or memorializing the communication.

16. “Identify” means, when used with respect to a meeting, to provide as much of the following information as is available to Plaintiff:

a. The date or dates of the meeting;

b. The place of the meeting;

c. The persons attending the meeting;

d. The person who called the meeting;

e. What was said and by whom at the meeting;

f. What decisions were reached at the meeting; and g. Whether any notes, minutes, or other memoranda were made to record the proceedings of such meeting, and, if so, the precise location of the document(s) and the identity of the custodian.

17. “Identify' means, when used in conjunction with the term “document, ” to provide as much of the following information as is available to Defendants:

a. Its author(s), sender(s), addressee(s), recipient(s);

b. Its date;

c. Type of document (e.g. letter, memorandum, report);

d. Its subject matter;

e. The number of pages;

f. Any attachments of appendices;

g. And the person(s) who is its custodian.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Each Request for Admissions is to be answered separately, in writing, and as fully as possible. State the name of the person answering that Request for Admissions, whether information furnished is within the personal knowledge of that person and, if not, the name of the person assisting in the preparation of, or furnishing of, information used in the answers to that Request for Admissions, and the name of the person to whom such information is a matter of personal knowledge.

2. The omission of any name, fact, or other item of information from the answers shall be deemed a representation that such name, fact or item is not known to you or your counsel at the time of the service of your answer to Request for Admissions

3. If any Request for Admissions herein cannot be answered in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information to do so, it shall be answered to the extent possible with an explanation as to why a complete answer is not possible.

4. To the extent that you believe that an Request for Admissions is objectionable, answer so much of the Request for Admissions as, in your view, is not objectionable and separately state the portion of each Request for Admissions to which you object and the grounds for your objection.

5. To the extent that you believe that a Request for Admissions calls for information subject to a privilege, answer so much of each Request for Admissions that, in your view, is not privileged and separately set forth in a log:

a. The grounds upon which you believe the document is privileged;

b. Whether the document has been withheld or redacted;

c. The date of the document or communication;

d. The author(s) of the document or the person(s) who participated in the communication;

e. The recipient(s) of the document or the person(s) who received the communication;

f. The title of the document;

g. The type of document (e.g. e-mail, fax, letter, agreement, etc.);

h. The subject of the document or communication, except to the extent that you claim that the subject itself is privileged; i. The number of pages in the document; and j. The specific request, or requests, to which the document is responsive.

6. To the extent that you believe any Request for Admissions is ambiguous, your answer should set forth the matter deemed ambiguous and the construction used in responding.

7. These Request for Admissions are continuing in nature and must be supplemented promptly if the plaintiff obtains additional or different information related to any response at any time before the termination of this action.

8. In lieu of providing a full description of a document in accordance with the above paragraph, you may attach a copy of the document for which a description is requested, and in your answer to the Request for Admissions only provide those items of description requested which do not appear on the face of the document.

9. When interpreting these Request for Admissions words in the singular also include their plural. Words used in the plural also include their singular.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS:

1. Please admit or deny the statement which follows. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow:

The Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee is made up of (four) judges, (two) private attorneys with criminal defense experience, and the Douglas County Public Defender Tom Riley and they appoint attorneys to the Murder Panel. Response:

2. Please admit or deny the statement which follows. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow:

The African American Plaintiff has applied to be placed on the Douglas County Murder Panel and has been denied placement on the Douglas County Murder Panel.

Response:

3. Please admit or deny the statement which follows. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow:

The African American Plaintiff is qualified to be placed on the Douglas County Murder Panel. Response:

4. Please admit or deny the statement which follows. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow:

The Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee has never appointed an African American Attorney to represent indigent defendants on the Murder Panel as their unofficial custom and practice.

Response:

5. ( Preface to Request for Admissions: The black prosecutor Jerry Blackwell in the George Floyd was appointed by the Minnesota in his first ever criminal trial! Attorney Blackwell revealed that the Chauvin trial was his first experience in criminal law, as his work usually revolves around trying cases involving Fortune 500 companies. "Most people wouldn't realize that this was my first foray into criminal law and the first criminal case I'd ever been involved in," Blackwell, the founder and chairman of the firm Blackwell Burke P.A., told O'Donnell. )

If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

The Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee did not appoint Plaintiff because he is an African American Attorney.

Response:

6. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Plaintiff was appointed by a Douglas County District Court Judge as assistant special prosecutor in the grand jury investigation of the George Bibins death by Omaha Police Officer Jerad Kruse in 2000 CR 00 21400. Response:

7. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Please admit or deny attorneys appointed by the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee earn more money for appointment to felony cases as opposed to misdemeanor cases. Response:

8. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Attorneys appointed by the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee on the Murder Panel earn more money by receiving felony appointments as opposed to misdemeanor appointments. Response:

9. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Plaintiff received less money because of refusal of the Nebraska Fourth Judicial District Local Rule 4-17 selection committee to appoint Plaintiff to the Murder Panel where Plaintiff would have earned more money by receiving felony appointments as opposed to misdemeanor and felony appointments. Response:

10. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

The Defendant has outstanding unpaid invoice in CR 21 2174 and possibly other invoices which will be uncovered in a discovery audit.

Response:

11. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Plaintiff would have earned more money if Plaintiff was appointed to the Murder Panel.

Response:

12. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

Individuals, corporations or entities who are not judges can evaluate and/or hire attorneys for murder cases.

Response:

13. If you deny the statement please state the reasons you deny the statement which follow. Please admit or deny the statement which follows.

The Defendant did not respond to any of the Plaintiff's letters or correspondence requesting that

Plaintiff is appointed to the murder panel.

Response: