COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OH
ROBERT A. NEINAST
Plaintiff,v.BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY DISTRICT LIBRARY,
Case No. 09 CV 0657
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Comes the plaintiff Robert A. Neinast, acting pro se, and propounds his first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff asks that the Defendants answer the interrogatories and produce the requested documents within twenty-eight (28) days of service.
You are reminded that by virtue of Civ. R. 26(E), you must reasonably supplement your responses hereto with respect to any question directly addressed to the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters, the identity of any person expected to be called as an expert witness, and to correct any response which you now or later learn is incorrect or incomplete.
Where the name or identity of a person is requested, state their full name, and home or business address and phone number.
At the option of Defendant, in lieu of producing the documents requested, you may attach true and correct copies of those documents to these interrogatories as Exhibits thereto, and they will be deemed to be a part of these interrogatories to which response is made under oath.
As used herein, “Library” means the Fairfield County District Library.
As used herein, “disruptive” means a condition in the Library which, by its nature, disturbed, distracted, or annoyed other Library patrons beyond normal Library conditions.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please identify any persons by name, address, and Library position who answered or assisted in answering these Interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
In her June 19, 2008 letter to Mr. Neinast, Library Director Marilyn Steiner stated that, at the May 20, 2009 Board Meeting, the shoe policy was upheld to provide for the “proper decorum for our organization.” Is “proper decorum” the reason that the Board upheld the shoe policy at that meeting?
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
After Mr. Neinast gave a presentation to the Board in October regarding the shoe rule addressing both decorum and safety, in a December 1, 2008 email to him, Ms. Steiner stated that the Board now had safety concerns. Is it the case that the Board's concern after Neinast's presentation changed to safety issues?
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
In response to that December 1 email, on December 3, 2008, Mr. Neinast emailed to Ms. Steiner an extensive set of references regarding barefoot and shod safety, and a list of lawsuits regarding both barefoot and shod injuries. At the February 19, 2009 Board Meeting, the Board officially upheld the shoe policy. Were those references and list of lawsuits shared with the Board members? Before that Board Meeting, was any investigation done regarding safety issues to validate or refute Neinast's claims and to determine the relative risks associated with various footwear? Were any experts consulted about those safety issues, particularly as they might apply in a library environment? If any experts were consulted, please identify them.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Please attach to your Answers a current copy of the Library's Code of Conduct.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Does the Library have an insurance policy covering the Library against the negligent, wanton, or willful acts of its employees that might result in an injury tort action against the Library? If so, please attach details on the extent of the coverage.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Does the Library have a contract with any cleaning service or other company in which that service agrees to defend, indemnify, or insure against any portion of injury lawsuits filed against the Library? If so, please identify that service and attach relevant portions of that contract.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Please state whether any of the Library's insurance policies require, at any time required, or is being (or has been) interpreted to require, that the Library enforce a barefoot policy as part of coverage. If so, please append a copy of the relevant portion of these insurance policies to your Answers.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Please provide a list of known physical defects within or on the grounds of the Library that are a danger to barefooted patrons but not to shod patrons.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Please provide a list of conditions in the Library that constitute a hazard to barefooted patrons but not to shod patrons. Additionally, please provide the basis for considering each condition a hazard. If any experts were consulted, please identify them.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Please provide details about any lawsuits by patrons against the Library in the past five (5) years, including only lawsuits in which the patron was injured on Library premises. Please include the court, the case title, the case number, the type of injury, the type of footwear the patron was wearing (if known), and whether the patron recovered or not (if known).
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Do you contend that any relevant Health Department requires shoes in public buildings? If so, which Health Department? Please include a copy of any Health Department regulation.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Do you contend that bare feet on a patron are in any way disruptive of the Library environment, or represent a danger to any other patrons? If so, in what way? And if so, how are flip-flops not equally disruptive or dangerous?
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Does the Library have a rule to prevent children from sitting or crawling on the floor? Please provide a simple yes or no answer.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Is it possible that a patron, in reaching up for a book or books on a higher shelf, could have a book drop down upon his or her head, or onto his or her foot? If so, is it your contention that proper operation and management of the Library would include making a rule that all patrons wear hard hats or steel-toed shoes? And if so, in what way?
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Is it possible for a patron wearing high-heeled shoes to catch one of those heels in the carpeting, to twist his or her ankle due to the height of the heel and/or some minor defect in the floor of the Library, or to otherwise injure him- or herselves while in the Library? If so, is it your contention that proper operation and management of the Library would include making a rule that banned high heels? And if so, in what way?
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
It is possible that a patron might be infected with the H1N1 influenza virus which could then be spread to other Library patrons? It is your contention that proper operation and management of the Library would include requiring that every patron, before entering the Library, provide proof of vaccination against that virus? If so, in what way?
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
Is it your contention that the conditions in the Library regarding barefoot use are different than the conditions in the Fairfield County Hall of Justice and the Ohio Statehouse? If so, please detail the differences that justify a shoe rule as part of the proper operation and management of the Library.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
When was the shoe rule first enacted by the Board? Please provide a copy of the meeting minutes of that first enactment.
Robert A. Neinast
Plaintiff, pro se
8617 Ashford Lane
Pickerington, OH 43147
Phone: (614) 759-1601
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served, by regular U.S. mail, upon Roy E. Hart, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for Defendants, 201 South Broad Street – Suite 400, Lancaster, OH, 43130, this day of June, 2009, with an electronic copy (Word) on disc included in the same envelope.
Robert A. Neinast
Plaintiff, pro se