Pretrial Maneuvers in ND Suit

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: noharmm-l@eskimo.com
Originator: noharmm-l@eskimo.com
Sender: noharmm-l@eskimo.com
Precedence: bulk
From: dvoskuil@emh1.tic.bismarck.nd.us (Duane Voskuil, Ph.D.)
To: Multiple recipients of list 
Subject: Pretrial Maneuvers in ND Suit
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c – ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

The following is a list of pretrial questions, etc., Zenas Baer has served
on the State of ND. I post them so others may learn how we are proceding
and learn from our mistakes and makes suggestions as we go along. This is
certainly not going to be the only court fight, so we all need to learn how
to do the best possible so eventually someone will win  the legal approach.
Duane
*****************

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
[It has been moved from Fargo to Bismarck]

Donna Fishbeck, Individually, and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Her
Infant Son, Jonathan Fishbeck; Jody McLaughlin; and Duane Voskuil, Ph.D.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
The State of North Dakota,
Defendant.

COMBINED INTERROGATORIES,
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION

Civil No. A1-96-64

To: Defendant above named, and its attorney.

Plaintiff in the above-stated case hereby demands that the following
Interrogatories and Requests be answered, under oath, by you and that the
answers to said Interrogatories and Requests be served on Defendant within
thirty (30) days in accordance with the North Dakota Rules of Civil
Procedure.

These Interrogatories and Requests are deemed to be continuing and should
you discover answers after the date that the answers are served on the
Plaintiff, you are duty-bound to disclose those answers to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff also requests Defendant, within thirty (30) days after service of
these Requests and Interrogatories, to make the following disclosures for
the purpose of this action only and subject to pertinent objections to
admissibility which may be interposed at the trial:

[After a few pages of Definitions, the document procedes:]

INTERROGATORIES [REQUESTS AND ADDMISSIONS]

INTERROGATORY NO. l: Please identify the individual or individuals who are
providing information to answer the Complaint and Interrogatories.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each individual or person who has information
regarding the allegations in the Complaint, Answer, and legislative
history.

REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO. 3: Please produce the entire legislative history for
Senate Bill 2454, including audiotape and/ or transcript of all proceedings
of the legislature regarding Senate Bill 2454.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that "routine male circumcision"
involves a procedure where "a person knowingly separates or surgically
alters normal, healthy functional genital tissue" [a quote from  Senate
Bill 2454].

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If you deny the above Request for Admission, please
describe the factual basis for the denial.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Jonathan Fishbeck, upon birth, was
an "individual" as defined by the Constitution of North Dakota, Article I,
Section l.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that if Senate Bill 2454 were gender
neutral, routine circumcision would be a Class C felony.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that the North Dakota Medical
Association supported Senate Bill 2454.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that the [ND] Board of Medical Examiners
supported Senate Bill 2454.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: What is the rate of routine male circumcision in the
State of North Dakota, for each of the past ten (10) years?

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: When was the last "female genital mutilation" case
known to the State to have been performed in the State of North Dakota?

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify each person/individual known to you to have
been subject to female genital mutilation as defined in Senate Bill 2454.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: What amount of money has been spent by the State of
North Dakota to reimburse medical doctors or Medicare/Medicaid for female
genital mutilation prior to passage of Senate Bill 2454?

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: What amount of money was spent by the State of North
Dakota to reimburse medical doctors and/or Medicare/Medicaid for routine
male circumcision in the State of North Dakota for the past ten (10) years?

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: What evidence of medical need was presented to the
State legislature to make Senate Bill 2454 gender specific?

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Are you aware of any medical literature which
supports a medical need for routine infant male circumcision?

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please identify each title of medical literature
which you claim supports the medical need for routine infant male
circumcision, by including the title, author, and cites.

REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO. 13: Please produce a copy of each and every title
referred to above which is in your possession.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify the medical basis for banning female genital
mutilation.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify the policy basis for banning female genital
mutilation.

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify the various types of female genital mutilation.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that "female genital mutilation" is
practiced as a religious ritual in some regions of Africa and the Mideast.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that routine infant male circumcision
is religious ritual common amongst the Jewish and Muslim religions.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that routine infant male circumcision
is culturally accepted in the State of North Dakota.

INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please identify why you feel infant girls should be
protected from mutilation but not infant boys.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Admit that routine infant male circumcision
involves the use of force against an "incompetent child" which causes
disfigurement to the infant child's otherwise normal penis.

INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Please identify the known risks to routine infant
male circumcision.

REQUEST TO PRODUCE NO. 28: Please produce a complete legislative history
for the passage of N.D.C.C. 12.1-05-05, including the transcript of any
proceedings and/or audiotapes of the proceedings [apparently a repetition
of No. 3].

INTERROGATORY NO. 29: List the names of all expert witnesses you expect to
testify at the trial of this matter.

INTERROGATORY NO. 30: As to each expert disclosed in your answer to the
preceding interrogatory who will be expected to testify at trial, state:

(a) The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;

(b) The substance of his or her opinion and the facts on which the expert
is expected to rely for his or her opinion;

(c) A summary of the grounds for each such opinion.

This interrogatory is to be considered continuing in nature pursuant to
Rule 26.05(1). These Interrogatories are to be deemed continuing in nature
and should you, your counsel, or anyone representing your interest learn of
any additional person or persons having knowledge relating to the matters
into which these interrogatories inquire, you are requested and directed to
furnish the names of such persons to the undersigned, giving timely notice
of additional witnesses to any of the issues involved herein.

June 1996

Zenas Baer
Attorney for Plaintiffs
331 6th St., Box 249
Hawley, MN 56549
218-483-3372
The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.