IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY
STATE OF MISSOURI

DEFENDANT'S1 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

REQUEST NO.1: All records maintained by the Department in its various capacities for Lee Allen Martin. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, attached is a copy, printed from a computer program, of an application on file from Lee Allen Martin

REQUEST NO.2: All records maintained by the Department in its various capacities for Carol Russell Fischer. ANSWER:Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is over broad and burdensome, and most, if not all such records, would be considered confidential employment records not subject to discovery.

REQUEST NO.3: The Expert witnesses that defendant may call pursuant to rule 56.01(b)4 and 5, name address, occupation, place of employment, qualifications to give an opinion, curriculum vitae, and state the subject matter expert is called to testity. ANSWER: Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request.

REQUEST NO.4: The Application for a Driver's License in all formats, electronic and printed. ANSWER: An application is not available in an electronic format, nor are there any blank printed applications. Clerks take the information from the applicant and enter it into a computer program. The only "electronic" application is generated by the Department of Revenue's computer program system, and the entire program, which is not available to the public, is necessary to generate such "electronic" application.

REQUEST NO.5: The Policy and Procedures of the Department of Revenue Personnel in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, the Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, the Defendant will make the requested policies and procedures available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.6: The Driver License Applications that are maintained in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Additionally, the Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request as they are not available in "electronic" format. Furthermore, such information is confidential under Missouri Law and is not subject to discovery.

REQUEST NO.7: The Oath of Office of all Driver License Personnel and where on file in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, the Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request.

REQUEST NO.8: The Policy and Procedures of the Custodian of Record for the Department in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the requested policies and procedures available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.9: The Policy and Procedures of the Department's Legal Division in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisf~~ this request. However, Defendant will make the requested policies and procedures available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.10: The Policy and Procedures of the interaction of Department of Safety and the Department of Revenue Personnel in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request as there is no "Department of Safety."

REQUEST NO.11: The Policy and Procedures of all Branch Offices as promulgated on the behest or by the Department of Revenue in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is over broad and burdensome, and is vague and ambiguous.However, as stated previously, the Defendant will make policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.12: The Policy and Procedures of the Lottery Commission in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the requested policies and procedures available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.13: The Policy and Procedures of the Motor Vehicle and Drivers Licensing Division in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.14: The Policy and Procedures of the Taxation and Collection Division in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.15: The Policy and Procedures for all internal auditors used either as sub contractor, contractors, or employee in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.16: The Policy and Procedures for Planning and Public Information in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.17: The Policy and Procedures for Performance and Excellence in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.18: The Policy and Procedures for Budget Administrator in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.19: The Policy and Procedures for Human Resource Services in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is over broad and burdensome, and is vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.20: The Policy and Procedures for the Information Services in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request. However, Defendant will make the policies and procedures of the Department available in paper format for Plaintiff to view, by appointment, in Jefferson City at the Truman Building.

REQUEST NO.21: A list of all financial institutions that the Department of Revenue maintains any amount of funds in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. Furthermore, Defendant does not have any documents that satisfy this request.

REQUEST NO.22: The personnel records of the Defendant, Carrol Russell Fischer. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, such records are required to be kept confidential under state law and are not subject to discovery.

REQUEST NO.23: The list of all Financial Records needed to be kept for the case of audit in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is over broad and burdensome, and is vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, the Defendant does not have any documents to satisfy this request.

REQUEST NO.24: The list of email addresses for all department Personnel in electronic format. ANSWER: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the Defendant does not have any documents to satisfy this request.

Respectfully submitted,

JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON
KEITH D. HALCOMB
Assistant Attorney General
Missouri Bar No.43941
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0899
(314)751-4087
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, this 4th day of September, 2001, to:

Lee Allen Martin
7050 County Road 2810
West Plains, MO 65775

Keith D. Halcomb

_______________________________________

¹Director of Revenue, Custodian of Records for the Department and Carol Russell Fischer are all the same person, and for purposes of this answer, are all referred to as the Director.