You are hereForums / Residency and beyond / Residency Program Issues / Morehouse and khattab
Morehouse and khattab
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 KHALDOUN KHATTAB, )
)
Plaintiff, Pro Se ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
Vs ) NO. 1:07-CV-196-RW.
)
MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF )
MEDICINE, )
)
Defendant. ) Honorable Judge Richard W Story
Honorable Judge Linda T Walker Motion to Honorable Chief Judge Camp to Intervene and Release all this case hearings recorded tapes . COMES NOW khaldoun khattab , the Pro Se Plaintiff herein, and files this Motion to Honorable Chief Judge Camp to Release the recording of all this case Hearings. ,and address this Court as follows: 1
The Pro Se Plaintiff file this Motion in an effort to resolve a simple dispute without addressing this matter with the US 11th circuit court of appeals 2
The Pro Se Plaintiff File this Motion and address it to Honorable Chief judge CAMP in an effort to avoid filing a lawsuit against this district court .
Honorable Judge Walker chamber and or the clerks office is not cooperating in providing a copy of all recorded tapes in this pending lawsuit. 3
The Pro Se Plaintiff respects Honorable Judge Walker
Who issued verbal and written orders which contradicted other Federal District Judges opinion , and further is Not supported by any US SUPREME COURT DECISION. 4
The Pro Se Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in July 2006 in the Eastern District court of Michigan.
The US District court of Eastern Michigan Granted the Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in FORMA PAUPERIS( See 2-06-CV-13343)
The United States fifth Circuit court of appeal Granted the Pro Se Plaintiff to appeal against the decision of a District Judge inthe Eastern District court of Michigan and to Continue proceeding in the US Appeal courts in FORMA PAUPERIS (Without Payment). 5
This case was transferred to this honorable court in January 2007 and has been pending for almost 2 years because of Honorable Judge Walker actions extending discovery without compelling it appropriately and against the wishes of the Pro Se Plaintiff who requested one month discovery only 6
This Honorable court usually release its hearings recorded tapes, and the Pro Se Plaintiff should not be an exception and should be allowed to review the tapes which were recorded by honorable Judge Walker 7
This court should release the tapes to resolve
a disputes between the plaintiff and Morehouse school of Medicine, a dispute about Judge Walker verbal statements and attorney Sara Doyle verbal statement. 8
Honorable Judge Walker is proceeding without any party consent for a trial by a Magistrate judge , the pro Se Plaintiff did NOT sign a consent for a trial by a Magistrate Judge and reserve the right to receive a Jury Verdict .
Honorable Magistrate judge Walker tapes were recorded in an open hearings , therefore the tapes should never be considered confidential and should be released. 9
This court should resolve issues related to disputes between the 2 parties about Honorable Judge Walker verbal statements during numerous court hearing. 10
The Defendant claimed that the court did NOT provide any transcript for any of this pending case hearings , and the clerks office and Honorable Judge Walker did not help the plaintiff to receive a copy of all this pending case tapes(Tapes recorded by honorable judge Walker). 11
This court did Not provide a court reporter for any open court hearing or phone conference in this case and honorable judge Walker verbally stated that the US Government does not provide funds for such actions(court reporter). 12
If this case or issues related to this case , is going to be Forwarded to the US 11 circuit court of appeal , then district court should provide a copy of its Hearings records(Tapes-Transcripts .if available ,,,.etc ). 13
Honorable Judge Walker did NOT deny her verbal statement during an open court hearing on February,13, 2007 like for example her honor verbal statements
WE ARE IN DISCOVERY ,
They (Morehouse) did it based on your origin not color.. Morehouse will contact you shortly to take you deposition
, ALL WE NEED IS your DEPOSITION,
Morehouse is interested in resolving this case. 14
Honorable Judge Walker did not deny her statement during an open court hearing on April/18/2008 like for example
I did a mistake regarding Discovery (The Start of Discovery) 15
During a court hearing Honorable Judge Walker verbally informed the Plaintiff that she will provide a Transcript and a also court reporter, unfortunately this did never happen and the judge verbal statements probably were recorded. 16
the Defendant attorneys committed LYING During Discovery and this court hearings, therefore and providing the Hearings recorded tapes may help the plaintiff to provide a clear evidence of the defendant Contempt of court . 17
Finally Plaintiff believes this Motion should be granted Based on the reasons explained previously and the fact that this District court usually release copies of its open hearings tapes to any plaintiff. ==================
In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION 2121 Richard B. Russell Federal Building
and United States Courthouse
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 KHALDOUN KHATTAB, )
)
Plaintiff, Pro Se ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
V ) NO. 1:07-CV-196-RWS.
)
MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF )
MEDICINE, )
)
Defendant. ) Honorable Judge Richard W Story
Honorable Judge Linda T Walker Motion to Honorable Judge Story to certify .clarify or reverse Honorable Judge Walker orders issued in 2008. Comes Now the Pro Se Plaintiff and submit this Motion to
Honorable Judge Story to certify, clarify or reverse Honorable Magistrate Judge Walker orders issued in 2008,and address this court as follows 1
The Pro Se Plaintiff file this Motion in an effort to avoid appealing to the US 11th circuit court of appeals ,and also to clarify Honorable Judge Story opinion before contacting the court of appeals 2. This case has been pending in this honorable court for more than 20 mouths although plaintiff previously requested one mouth discovery period. 3 The Pro Se Plaintiff proceeding without payment respect Honorable Judge Linda T Walker although her honor issued written and verbal orders in favor of Morehouse School of Medicine without any legal explanation ,and further those orders contradict the legal opinion of other District and appeals court judges. 4
The Pro Se Plaintiff File this Motion and address it to Honorable judge Story in an effort to avoid filing a lawsuit against this district court as Honorable Judge Walker is preventing the plaintiff from deposing critical witnesses and also protecting the defendant from admitting genuine facts 5
In 2008 the pro Se Plaintiff Filed numerous Motions and appealed to the assigned honorable district judge , However Magistrate judge Walker issued an order Deferring them. 6
In 2007 Honorable Judge Walker denied a lot of Motions without any written or verbal explanation and further deferred referring them to the district judge when the plaintiff Filed appeals according to FRCP 72. 7
Honorable Judge Walker is proceeding without any party consent for a trail by a Magistrate Judge, and honor is insisting to continue make decision in this case and her honor refused to transfer to Honorable Judge Forrester. 8
Morehouse School of Medicine (a Historically black institution in Atlanta, Georgia ) refused to sign consent for a trial by Magistrate judge Lind T Walker .. 9
Honorable Judge Walker may have the power to grant Motions or Protective orders in cases Filed by Pro Se Plaintiffs without any explanations or even without reading or reviewing the contents of the Pro Se Plaintiff Motions ,however the plaintiff reserve the right to File a lawsuit against this honorable court to reserve his rights as a human being. 10
On one occasion Honorable Judge Walker verbally informed the plaintiff that answering discovery needs work and time from Morehouse and its attorney , therefore she denied one of the plaintiff Discovery requests , Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge story certify this opinion, clarify it or reverse it. 11
The Pro Se Plaintiff hope that Judge story would accept that a party opposing discovery (in this case Morehouse)bears the burden of Showing why discovery should be denied.” Perez Librado v. M.S. Carriers, Inc., No. Civ.A.3:02-CV-2095-D, 2003 WL 21075918, *4 (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2003). “In order to satisfy its burden, the objecting party must make a specific, detailed showing of how an interrogatory is burdensome.” Id. “Broad-based, non-specific objections are almost impossible to assess on their merits, and fall woefully short of the burden that must be borne by a party making an objection to an interrogatory or document request.” Id. 12
Plaintiff hope Honorable Judge story would accept or agree that Defendant’s broad allegations, non-specific objections to numerous Plaintiffs Interrogatories and requestes for admission is insufficient to satisfy Morehouse burden of showing that the discovery should be denied
Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985). 13
On few occasions Honorable Judge Walker may have accepted objections as a answer to the plaintiffs Discovery requests , Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge story certify or clarify this personal legal opinion or reverse it. 14
On numerous occasions defendant offered Objections to the plaintiffs Discovery based on allegations of overbroad, or unduly burdensome or even unjustified and unexplained allegations of private confidential information , However the Defendant failed to offers evidence of overbreadth ,Confidentiality and burdensomeness, Therefore the pro Se Plaintiff respectfully request that the assigned district judges interfere in discovery and clarify his legal opinion or at least issue order certifying that his honor accept all Magistrate judge Walker verbal and written discovery orders .
. 15
The Pro Se Plaintiff File this Motion and address it to Honorable judge Story in an effort to clarify the district judge opinion about preventing a Pro Se plaintiff from deposing critical witnesses and also protecting the defendant from admitting facts in this simple case . 16
The Pro Se Plaintiff File needs to know Honorable judge Story opinion about prohibiting a Pro Se Plaintiff from submitting a one Final Amendment compliant
Plaintiff hope that Honorable judge Story agree that
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that “leave to amend shall be
freely given when justice so requires.” Plaintiff claim that In other courts , Judges encourage Pro Se Plaintiffs to be familiar with the civil law and FILE amendments to their initial complaints ,while Honorable Judge Walker deny the Plaintiffs Motion to File a one single amendment ,therefore indirectly preventing the suffering Pro Se plaintiff from addressing legal issues and explaining his case facts and materials in a simple method . Plaintiff submitted a Memorandum of law in support of his Motion to amend the initial complaint , However judge walker refused to certify weather her honor review the memorandum of law 17
On one occasion Honorable Judge Walker refused to certify that her honor reviewed a Motion before denying, and plaintiff needs to know if honorable judge story accept denying pro Se Plaintiffs Motions without explanation and without review. 18 Honorable Magistrate Judge Walker can recommend that this court dismiss this case at any time with or without prejudice or even recommend that the court deny the plaintiff Motion to reserve his right to receive a Jury verdict ,However the final decision of dismissing a Pro Se Claim should be the responsibility of the assigned district judge. 19
At least during one occasion Honorable judge Walker delayed ruling on a pending Pro Se plaintiff Motions for only 8 months ,and after the 8 months her honor denied the motion and refused to refer the plaintiff appeals to the district judge., Plaintiff respectfully request clarifying Honorable Judge Story opinion about extending discovery without compelling it contrary to the plaintiffs wishes. 20
Plaintiff respectfully request that judge story certify accepting judge Walker opinion directing the Pro Se Plaintiff to find this information ON HIS OWN, or alternatively reverse the decision and ask defendant to provide the information which is available to Morehouse. State the last known address, and telephone
Number of any person who you believe met with the plaintiff during your alleged March 22,2005 Residency advisory committee Meeting with the plaintiff 21
Judge Walker believe that the number of white Caucasians currently employed at Morehouse(2008) is not related to any discrimination or not relevant to this case
Plaintiff allege that a plan to Fire Caucasians white and replace them by black or Non Caucasians has something to do with color discrimination
Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge Story clarify this matter or certify in writing honorable judge Walker verbal opinion 22
Honorable Judge Walker can issue orders per the defendant requests to strike Plaintiffs Motions and even her honor can issue an order preventing the plaintiff from any future interlocutory appeal if the her honor believe that this might be a correct decision ,however the plaintiff can appeal to the 11th circuit court of appeals without the pre-approval of the district court (See the 6th circuit court decision in khattab v Morehouse where the court granted the plaintiff application to proceed without payment in his appeal against a n honorable District judge order and also against the written decision of the district judge preventing the Dr Khattab from addressing his issues with the court of appeal in Cincinnati Ohio without securing pre-payment , Indeed in this case Honorable Judge Victoria issued a reconsideration within 24 Hours of receiving a letter from the court of appeals.(the plaintiff filed a copy of the letter in this court previously). 23
Honorable Judge Walker issued numerous orders during this case litigation without any explanation ,Further her honor and Morehouse Failed to provide a solid written legal ground or any US court of appeals opinion to support the denial of Discovery(Request for admissions ,Productions and Fully answering Interrogatories) Further on one occasion Judge Walker Directed the Pro Se Plaintiff to find information on his own , and in February 2007her honor verbally stated that Morehouse (did it based on your national origin and NOT race or color (It might be very hard to convince honorable judge Walker to accept that Morehouse discriminate against people based on skin color and race as the judge s stated in February 2007 that they DID IT BASED ON YOUR ORIGION NOT COLOR.
Plaintiff respectfully request releasing a copy of all his case recorded tapes(Hearing tapes) and that Judge Walker certify ,clarify or reverse Honorable Judge Walker Discovery denial orders. 24
Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge Story Reverse honorable judge Walker decision to protect the defendant from producing documents related to comparing the treatment of the Africans and black Nigerian resident physicians with the treatment Dr Khattab received under same
Conditions (PROBATION allegation Patient care outcome -Sick leave –workers compensation benefits ,working Evaluations etc ). 25 During this case discovery Honorable Judge Walker neglected the facts that The burden "rests upon the objecting party to show why a particular discovery request is improper."Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Protection Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447,
449-50 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
The burden "rests upon the objecting party to show why a particular discovery request is improper."Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Protection Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447,
449-50 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
The objecting party must show with specificity that the request is improper. Graham v. Casey's
General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 253, 254 (S.D. Ind. 2002)., at least on one occasion Morehouse objected simply because it can object without any explanation, but maybe Morehouse was expecting judge Walker to issue orders favoring Morehouse without any legal solid ground or even any written explanation., therefore the Honorable District judge might need to interfere , reverse previous discovery denial decisions or certify accepting Honorable judge Walker discovery written and verbal orderes and decisions. 26
Honorable Judge Walker protected the defendant from admitting or denying material and genuine, therefore this will create a problem when addressing any Motion for summary judgment, However Plaintiff hope that Honorable Judge Story will accept that An issue of fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106
S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 211 (1986).
Plaintiff further hope that Judge Story will accept that an issue is “genuine” if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. See id.; see also
Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538, 552 (1986). 27 During this case discovery the defendant provided objections bases on Board scope or attorney client privilege or attorney-client communication privilege and/or work product doctrine, While Morehouse through attorney Mr Vernon Strickland failed to identify its objections and used terms like (OR),Plaintiff hope that Honorable Judge Story will accept the 11th circuit court of appeals opinions about privilege communications and specifically this alleged decision. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Cox v. Administrator U.S.
Steel & Carnegie, stated that “the doctrine of waiver by implication reflects the position that the attorney-client privilege was intended as a shield, not a sword. In other words, [a] defendant may NOT use the privilege to prejudice his opponent's case or to disclose some selected communications for self-serving purposes.” 17 F.3d 1386, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994)(internal quotations and citations omitted).
See Also Honorable Judge J. OWEN FORRESTER opinion in this court case 1:05-CV-0652-JOF QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL Vs PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE, P.C., 28
Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge Walker Reverse protecting defendant from admitting or denying facts related to abusing the plaintiff after his workers compensation incident and refusing to ensure compliance with the institution Bylaw and Georgia state law beside allegations of connections .(Connections to be used against Dr Khattab per Morehouse employees allegations) 29
Honorable Judge Walker denied at least one of plaintiffs Motion to compel discovery based on a verbal opinion that Morehouse needs time and effort to answer Plaintiff discovery However The mere fact that discovery requires work and may be time consuming is not sufficient to establish undue burden.” Fagan v. District of Columbia, 136 F.R.D. 5, 7 (D.D.C. 1991); see also PHE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 139 F.R.D. 249, 257 (D.D.C. 1991)., Therefore Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge Story accept or reverse Honorable judge walker opinion. .
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 KHALDOUN KHATTAB, )
)
Plaintiff, Pro Se ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
Vs ) NO. 1:07-CV-196-RW.
)
MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF )
MEDICINE, )
)
Defendant. ) Honorable Judge Richard W Story
Honorable Judge Linda T Walker Motion to Honorable Chief Judge Camp to Intervene and Release all this case hearings recorded tapes . COMES NOW khaldoun khattab , the Pro Se Plaintiff herein, and files this Motion to Honorable Chief Judge Camp to Release the recording of all this case Hearings. ,and address this Court as follows: 1
The Pro Se Plaintiff file this Motion in an effort to resolve a simple dispute without addressing this matter with the US 11th circuit court of appeals 2
The Pro Se Plaintiff File this Motion and address it to Honorable Chief judge CAMP in an effort to avoid filing a lawsuit against this district court .
Honorable Judge Walker chamber and or the clerks office is not cooperating in providing a copy of all recorded tapes in this pending lawsuit. 3
The Pro Se Plaintiff respects Honorable Judge Walker
Who issued verbal and written orders which contradicted other Federal District Judges opinion , and further is Not supported by any US SUPREME COURT DECISION. 4
The Pro Se Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in July 2006 in the Eastern District court of Michigan.
The US District court of Eastern Michigan Granted the Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in FORMA PAUPERIS( See 2-06-CV-13343)
The United States fifth Circuit court of appeal Granted the Pro Se Plaintiff to appeal against the decision of a District Judge inthe Eastern District court of Michigan and to Continue proceeding in the US Appeal courts in FORMA PAUPERIS (Without Payment). 5
This case was transferred to this honorable court in January 2007 and has been pending for almost 2 years because of Honorable Judge Walker actions extending discovery without compelling it appropriately and against the wishes of the Pro Se Plaintiff who requested one month discovery only 6
This Honorable court usually release its hearings recorded tapes, and the Pro Se Plaintiff should not be an exception and should be allowed to review the tapes which were recorded by honorable Judge Walker 7
This court should release the tapes to resolve
a disputes between the plaintiff and Morehouse school of Medicine, a dispute about Judge Walker verbal statements and attorney Sara Doyle verbal statement. 8
Honorable Judge Walker is proceeding without any party consent for a trial by a Magistrate judge , the pro Se Plaintiff did NOT sign a consent for a trial by a Magistrate Judge and reserve the right to receive a Jury Verdict .
Honorable Magistrate judge Walker tapes were recorded in an open hearings , therefore the tapes should never be considered confidential and should be released. 9
This court should resolve issues related to disputes between the 2 parties about Honorable Judge Walker verbal statements during numerous court hearing. 10
The Defendant claimed that the court did NOT provide any transcript for any of this pending case hearings , and the clerks office and Honorable Judge Walker did not help the plaintiff to receive a copy of all this pending case tapes(Tapes recorded by honorable judge Walker). 11
This court did Not provide a court reporter for any open court hearing or phone conference in this case and honorable judge Walker verbally stated that the US Government does not provide funds for such actions(court reporter). 12
If this case or issues related to this case , is going to be Forwarded to the US 11 circuit court of appeal , then district court should provide a copy of its Hearings records(Tapes-Transcripts .if available ,,,.etc ). 13
Honorable Judge Walker did NOT deny her verbal statement during an open court hearing on February,13, 2007 like for example her honor verbal statements
WE ARE IN DISCOVERY ,
They (Morehouse) did it based on your origin not color.. Morehouse will contact you shortly to take you deposition
, ALL WE NEED IS your DEPOSITION,
Morehouse is interested in resolving this case. 14
Honorable Judge Walker did not deny her statement during an open court hearing on April/18/2008 like for example
I did a mistake regarding Discovery (The Start of Discovery) 15
During a court hearing Honorable Judge Walker verbally informed the Plaintiff that she will provide a Transcript and a also court reporter, unfortunately this did never happen and the judge verbal statements probably were recorded. 16
the Defendant attorneys committed LYING During Discovery and this court hearings, therefore and providing the Hearings recorded tapes may help the plaintiff to provide a clear evidence of the defendant Contempt of court . 17
Finally Plaintiff believes this Motion should be granted Based on the reasons explained previously and the fact that this District court usually release copies of its open hearings tapes to any plaintiff. ==================
In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION 2121 Richard B. Russell Federal Building
and United States Courthouse
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 KHALDOUN KHATTAB, )
)
Plaintiff, Pro Se ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
V ) NO. 1:07-CV-196-RWS.
)
MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF )
MEDICINE, )
)
Defendant. ) Honorable Judge Richard W Story
Honorable Judge Linda T Walker Motion to Honorable Judge Story to certify .clarify or reverse Honorable Judge Walker orders issued in 2008. Comes Now the Pro Se Plaintiff and submit this Motion to
Honorable Judge Story to certify, clarify or reverse Honorable Magistrate Judge Walker orders issued in 2008,and address this court as follows 1
The Pro Se Plaintiff file this Motion in an effort to avoid appealing to the US 11th circuit court of appeals ,and also to clarify Honorable Judge Story opinion before contacting the court of appeals 2. This case has been pending in this honorable court for more than 20 mouths although plaintiff previously requested one mouth discovery period. 3 The Pro Se Plaintiff proceeding without payment respect Honorable Judge Linda T Walker although her honor issued written and verbal orders in favor of Morehouse School of Medicine without any legal explanation ,and further those orders contradict the legal opinion of other District and appeals court judges. 4
The Pro Se Plaintiff File this Motion and address it to Honorable judge Story in an effort to avoid filing a lawsuit against this district court as Honorable Judge Walker is preventing the plaintiff from deposing critical witnesses and also protecting the defendant from admitting genuine facts 5
In 2008 the pro Se Plaintiff Filed numerous Motions and appealed to the assigned honorable district judge , However Magistrate judge Walker issued an order Deferring them. 6
In 2007 Honorable Judge Walker denied a lot of Motions without any written or verbal explanation and further deferred referring them to the district judge when the plaintiff Filed appeals according to FRCP 72. 7
Honorable Judge Walker is proceeding without any party consent for a trail by a Magistrate Judge, and honor is insisting to continue make decision in this case and her honor refused to transfer to Honorable Judge Forrester. 8
Morehouse School of Medicine (a Historically black institution in Atlanta, Georgia ) refused to sign consent for a trial by Magistrate judge Lind T Walker .. 9
Honorable Judge Walker may have the power to grant Motions or Protective orders in cases Filed by Pro Se Plaintiffs without any explanations or even without reading or reviewing the contents of the Pro Se Plaintiff Motions ,however the plaintiff reserve the right to File a lawsuit against this honorable court to reserve his rights as a human being. 10
On one occasion Honorable Judge Walker verbally informed the plaintiff that answering discovery needs work and time from Morehouse and its attorney , therefore she denied one of the plaintiff Discovery requests , Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge story certify this opinion, clarify it or reverse it. 11
The Pro Se Plaintiff hope that Judge story would accept that a party opposing discovery (in this case Morehouse)bears the burden of Showing why discovery should be denied.” Perez Librado v. M.S. Carriers, Inc., No. Civ.A.3:02-CV-2095-D, 2003 WL 21075918, *4 (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2003). “In order to satisfy its burden, the objecting party must make a specific, detailed showing of how an interrogatory is burdensome.” Id. “Broad-based, non-specific objections are almost impossible to assess on their merits, and fall woefully short of the burden that must be borne by a party making an objection to an interrogatory or document request.” Id. 12
Plaintiff hope Honorable Judge story would accept or agree that Defendant’s broad allegations, non-specific objections to numerous Plaintiffs Interrogatories and requestes for admission is insufficient to satisfy Morehouse burden of showing that the discovery should be denied
Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985). 13
On few occasions Honorable Judge Walker may have accepted objections as a answer to the plaintiffs Discovery requests , Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge story certify or clarify this personal legal opinion or reverse it. 14
On numerous occasions defendant offered Objections to the plaintiffs Discovery based on allegations of overbroad, or unduly burdensome or even unjustified and unexplained allegations of private confidential information , However the Defendant failed to offers evidence of overbreadth ,Confidentiality and burdensomeness, Therefore the pro Se Plaintiff respectfully request that the assigned district judges interfere in discovery and clarify his legal opinion or at least issue order certifying that his honor accept all Magistrate judge Walker verbal and written discovery orders .
. 15
The Pro Se Plaintiff File this Motion and address it to Honorable judge Story in an effort to clarify the district judge opinion about preventing a Pro Se plaintiff from deposing critical witnesses and also protecting the defendant from admitting facts in this simple case . 16
The Pro Se Plaintiff File needs to know Honorable judge Story opinion about prohibiting a Pro Se Plaintiff from submitting a one Final Amendment compliant
Plaintiff hope that Honorable judge Story agree that
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that “leave to amend shall be
freely given when justice so requires.” Plaintiff claim that In other courts , Judges encourage Pro Se Plaintiffs to be familiar with the civil law and FILE amendments to their initial complaints ,while Honorable Judge Walker deny the Plaintiffs Motion to File a one single amendment ,therefore indirectly preventing the suffering Pro Se plaintiff from addressing legal issues and explaining his case facts and materials in a simple method . Plaintiff submitted a Memorandum of law in support of his Motion to amend the initial complaint , However judge walker refused to certify weather her honor review the memorandum of law 17
On one occasion Honorable Judge Walker refused to certify that her honor reviewed a Motion before denying, and plaintiff needs to know if honorable judge story accept denying pro Se Plaintiffs Motions without explanation and without review. 18 Honorable Magistrate Judge Walker can recommend that this court dismiss this case at any time with or without prejudice or even recommend that the court deny the plaintiff Motion to reserve his right to receive a Jury verdict ,However the final decision of dismissing a Pro Se Claim should be the responsibility of the assigned district judge. 19
At least during one occasion Honorable judge Walker delayed ruling on a pending Pro Se plaintiff Motions for only 8 months ,and after the 8 months her honor denied the motion and refused to refer the plaintiff appeals to the district judge., Plaintiff respectfully request clarifying Honorable Judge Story opinion about extending discovery without compelling it contrary to the plaintiffs wishes. 20
Plaintiff respectfully request that judge story certify accepting judge Walker opinion directing the Pro Se Plaintiff to find this information ON HIS OWN, or alternatively reverse the decision and ask defendant to provide the information which is available to Morehouse. State the last known address, and telephone
Number of any person who you believe met with the plaintiff during your alleged March 22,2005 Residency advisory committee Meeting with the plaintiff 21
Judge Walker believe that the number of white Caucasians currently employed at Morehouse(2008) is not related to any discrimination or not relevant to this case
Plaintiff allege that a plan to Fire Caucasians white and replace them by black or Non Caucasians has something to do with color discrimination
Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge Story clarify this matter or certify in writing honorable judge Walker verbal opinion 22
Honorable Judge Walker can issue orders per the defendant requests to strike Plaintiffs Motions and even her honor can issue an order preventing the plaintiff from any future interlocutory appeal if the her honor believe that this might be a correct decision ,however the plaintiff can appeal to the 11th circuit court of appeals without the pre-approval of the district court (See the 6th circuit court decision in khattab v Morehouse where the court granted the plaintiff application to proceed without payment in his appeal against a n honorable District judge order and also against the written decision of the district judge preventing the Dr Khattab from addressing his issues with the court of appeal in Cincinnati Ohio without securing pre-payment , Indeed in this case Honorable Judge Victoria issued a reconsideration within 24 Hours of receiving a letter from the court of appeals.(the plaintiff filed a copy of the letter in this court previously). 23
Honorable Judge Walker issued numerous orders during this case litigation without any explanation ,Further her honor and Morehouse Failed to provide a solid written legal ground or any US court of appeals opinion to support the denial of Discovery(Request for admissions ,Productions and Fully answering Interrogatories) Further on one occasion Judge Walker Directed the Pro Se Plaintiff to find information on his own , and in February 2007her honor verbally stated that Morehouse (did it based on your national origin and NOT race or color (It might be very hard to convince honorable judge Walker to accept that Morehouse discriminate against people based on skin color and race as the judge s stated in February 2007 that they DID IT BASED ON YOUR ORIGION NOT COLOR.
Plaintiff respectfully request releasing a copy of all his case recorded tapes(Hearing tapes) and that Judge Walker certify ,clarify or reverse Honorable Judge Walker Discovery denial orders. 24
Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge Story Reverse honorable judge Walker decision to protect the defendant from producing documents related to comparing the treatment of the Africans and black Nigerian resident physicians with the treatment Dr Khattab received under same
Conditions (PROBATION allegation Patient care outcome -Sick leave –workers compensation benefits ,working Evaluations etc ). 25 During this case discovery Honorable Judge Walker neglected the facts that The burden "rests upon the objecting party to show why a particular discovery request is improper."Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Protection Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447,
449-50 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
The burden "rests upon the objecting party to show why a particular discovery request is improper."Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Protection Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447,
449-50 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
The objecting party must show with specificity that the request is improper. Graham v. Casey's
General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 253, 254 (S.D. Ind. 2002)., at least on one occasion Morehouse objected simply because it can object without any explanation, but maybe Morehouse was expecting judge Walker to issue orders favoring Morehouse without any legal solid ground or even any written explanation., therefore the Honorable District judge might need to interfere , reverse previous discovery denial decisions or certify accepting Honorable judge Walker discovery written and verbal orderes and decisions. 26
Honorable Judge Walker protected the defendant from admitting or denying material and genuine, therefore this will create a problem when addressing any Motion for summary judgment, However Plaintiff hope that Honorable Judge Story will accept that An issue of fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106
S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 211 (1986).
Plaintiff further hope that Judge Story will accept that an issue is “genuine” if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. See id.; see also
Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538, 552 (1986). 27 During this case discovery the defendant provided objections bases on Board scope or attorney client privilege or attorney-client communication privilege and/or work product doctrine, While Morehouse through attorney Mr Vernon Strickland failed to identify its objections and used terms like (OR),Plaintiff hope that Honorable Judge Story will accept the 11th circuit court of appeals opinions about privilege communications and specifically this alleged decision. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Cox v. Administrator U.S.
Steel & Carnegie, stated that “the doctrine of waiver by implication reflects the position that the attorney-client privilege was intended as a shield, not a sword. In other words, [a] defendant may NOT use the privilege to prejudice his opponent's case or to disclose some selected communications for self-serving purposes.” 17 F.3d 1386, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994)(internal quotations and citations omitted).
See Also Honorable Judge J. OWEN FORRESTER opinion in this court case 1:05-CV-0652-JOF QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL Vs PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE, P.C., 28
Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge Walker Reverse protecting defendant from admitting or denying facts related to abusing the plaintiff after his workers compensation incident and refusing to ensure compliance with the institution Bylaw and Georgia state law beside allegations of connections .(Connections to be used against Dr Khattab per Morehouse employees allegations) 29
Honorable Judge Walker denied at least one of plaintiffs Motion to compel discovery based on a verbal opinion that Morehouse needs time and effort to answer Plaintiff discovery However The mere fact that discovery requires work and may be time consuming is not sufficient to establish undue burden.” Fagan v. District of Columbia, 136 F.R.D. 5, 7 (D.D.C. 1991); see also PHE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 139 F.R.D. 249, 257 (D.D.C. 1991)., Therefore Plaintiff respectfully request that Honorable judge Story accept or reverse Honorable judge walker opinion. .
