Plaintiff states that the clear wording of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 56 is that "within 30 days" to respond is unambiguous. The failure to respond to production of document request in a timely manner is a violation of the clear meaning of the Rule.

Plaintiff states that the Response, filed September 20, to the Motion to Compel filed by plaintiff on the 21st day of September does render the defendant's Response the same as not filed. The Honorable Court has not stated that the clerk of the court was not timely filing plaintiff pleadings. Therefore the only conclusion is that the defendant's Response was not based upon the plaintiff's Motion to Compel.

Plaintiff contends that the defendant's objections to plaintiff's request for Production of Documents are erronious. Plaintiff proivides attachment #1 as proof that the application for a driver's license as requested in Production of Documents #6 which states: "The Driver License Applications that are maintained in electronic format." The attachment is a copy of the electronic formated application on the defendant web site at http://www.dor.state.mo.us/mvdl/drivers/forms/mailinlic.pdf .

The Plaintiff contends that the bad faith displayed in the answer and objections to the plaintiff's request for Production of Documents was not only a mistake on the part of defendant's counsel, but also a deliberate atttempt to mislead the Honorable Court as to the facts concerning this case. The statements made in open court on the 1st day of October 2001 concerning the availablity of these records in electronic format, and accepted by the Honorable Court as true, were in fact incorrect. Plaintiff contends that pursuant to the Rules of Proffesional Conduct the Assistant Attorney Generals, and Bar members, and honorable members of the court have an oath and a obligation to be vigilant in the accuracy of the response made to the court. The court allowed the testimony of defense counsel without allowing the plaintiff to cross examine, and in fact went so far as to make rulings of fact and law which were not based on the truth.

In light of the fact that the response to Plaintiff's request for Production of Documents was not timely made; that defendant response to plaintiff's motion to compe was in fact nullified by the filing of the response prior to the filing of the Motion to Compel; that the Defendant did misrepresent to the court the truth about electronic documents. Plaintiff request that the court reissue an Order compeling the defendant to produce the documents requested at no charge to the offended plaintiff. Plaintiff requests that the honorable court take what ever remedy that is lawful upon the defendant and defendant counsel to ensure that the rules of court and the honor of the trial court be protected in the future.