IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO

Robert A. Neinast Plaintiff, -vs- Board of Trustees of the Fairfield County District Library, Defendant.

: : : : : : : : :

CASE NO. 2009-CV-0657 JUDGE CHRIS A. MARTIN

DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM CONTRA PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

At issue are five Interrogatories out of total of twenty-two submitted by Plaintiff which Defendant has objected to on the basis of speculation. If the Court were to review Plaintiff's Interrogatory Numbers Thirteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen, the Court will see that Plaintiff is asking Defendant to guess what a hypothetical patron out of many patrons might feel or might have an opinion about. In other words, Defendant is being asked to guess as to what may be inside the head of any given patron on any given day and in any given situation. If the Defendant were to be required to guess as to what a patron might be thinking or having an opinion about, then which patron do we choose among many patrons who may have many differing opinions and thoughts? Defendant’s speculation and conjecture simply to satisfy a hypothetical question posed by Plaintiff serves no legitimate purpose in this case.

If a patient with certain symptoms goes to a doctor for a diagnosis and treatment, the patient is not asking the doctor to guess what the problem is or to guess what the best treatment would be. The patient is securing a professional opinion from an educated and skilled physician to accurately diagnosis and to accurately treat that patient. Guessing and speculation has no place in the medical field. Likewise, if a governmental agency were charged with the responsibility of building and maintaining a bridge, that agency would not go to a contractor and ask the contractor to merely guess as to what structural load a steel beam might have in building that bridge. The governmental agency would not wait until the bridge collapsed to determine just what the weight bearing load of that steel beam might be. Speculation and conjecture in the engineering field is not appropriate. Yet, Plaintiff is asking Defendant in this case to guess and speculate as to what a patron might think or have an opinion about in the legal field. Defendant suggests to this Court that the type of speculation and guess work that Plaintiff is asking for in this case is, likewise inappropriate, and therefore, objectionable. Defendant ought not be required to answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Numbers Thirteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, or Eighteen.

Roy E. Hart (0023826) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Defendant, Boart of Trustees of the Fairfield County District Library 201 South Broad Street — Suite 400 Lancaster, Ohio 43130 740-653-4259 or 614-837-2699 Fax 740-553-4708

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum Contra was sent by ordinary U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to Robert A. Neinast, acting pro se, at his address of 8617 Ashford Lane, Pickerington, Ohio 43147, this 29^th day of September, 2009.

Roy E. Hart (0023826) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Attorney for Defendant