Motion for an Order Compelling More Complete Answers to Interrogatories

    D is r/O F r '',C E

6 5 1 /2

DOC K ET F IL IN G  D A TE
N/S

R D E M A N D JUDGE JU R Y
YR. N U M B E R MO. D A Y Y EA R J 0 R 23 S I j O O O o t h e r N U MBER DEM. 'y r.

7 5 0 1 4 5 o 4  0 8
—■ . ,j_____ 1

7 5 3 1 1 5 1 0 5
7 5

D O C K ETiCiRK t'

U S '
PLAINTIFFS

GARNER, CLEAMTEE, father and next of kin . 
of EDWARD EUGENE GARNER, a deceased minor

DEFENDANTS
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT: CITT OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE: WYETH CHAI'IDLER, MAYOR OF MEMPHIS: JAY W. HUBBARD, Director of Police of Memphis; and 
E. R. HYliON, Police Office of /the 
City of Memphis

m  %

CAUSE
Action for songful death under k 2 USE §1981, I983, I985, I986 and I988 resulting from 
violation of the rights of the deceased under the U. S. Constitution, federal laws and 
under the laws of Tennessee, while acting under color of law.

ATTORNEYS
Walter Lee Bailey, Jr. 

and
D;Army Bailey 
901 Tenoke Bulding 
Memphis 38IO3
521-1560

and
Jack Greenberg 
Charles S. Ralston 
Drew S. Days 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Arthur Dhea
Assistant City Attorney 
City Hall
125 North Main Street 
Memphis, 38103

FOR City of Mphs: 
atty. for defts.

Henry L. Klein
3500, 100 N. Main Bldg.
Memphis, Tn. 38IO3

212-586-8397
ft[ i rs

L

f i
PC?-
r

I i HERE
'HECK i 

HERE  
IF CASE WAS 
FILED IN 
FORiVA  
PAUPERIS

FILING FEES PAID S T A T IS T IC A L  C A R D S

____

U N IT E D  STATES D IS T R IC T  C O U R T  DOCKET

'VAILED !

D C -1 1 1 (Rev. 1 'To



‘ h

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

CLEAMTEE GARNER,
Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL ACTION 
No. C-75-145MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al..

Defendants,

MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING MORE 
COMPLETE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 
PURSUANT TO RULE 37(a)(2) and (3) F.R.C.P.

Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby 
moves this Court for an order compelling defendants to make more 
complete answers to the following interrogatories propounded to 
them by plaintiff. Specifically, plaintiff seeks more complete 
answers to the following interrogatories:

1. With respect to Defendant Wyeth Chandler
a) Plaintiff's interrogatory # 3(b) asked for Wyeth's 

particular responsibilities and authority with 
respect to the City of Memphis Police Department. In 
his response Wyeth indicated that he appointed the 
Director, Interim Director and had "general authority 
over the City of Memphis Police Department." Plain­
tiff submits that further answer is necessary in 
order to clarify what defendant Chandler means speci­
fically by use of the term "general authority" in 
his response.

2. With respect to Defendant E.R. Hymon
a) Plaintiff's interrogatory # 16 requested information 

as to whether Hymon had been a defendant in any other



police misconduct suit. Hymon responded to this 
interrogatory in the affirmative. Interrogatory # 17 
asked for specifics regarding any such suit. His 
response indicated .that he knew the dates of the suits 
only vaguely, could not remember the names of the 
plaintiffs, the names of the court sitting on the 
cases nor their dispositions. Plaintiff submits that 
defendant's response is incomplete, evasive and 
inadequate since these are matters directly involving 
defendant which he ought to know the specifics of or 
could obtain with relative ease exercising due 
diligence.

b) Plaintiff's interrogatories #'s 25 and 25 ask whether 
Hymon or his employer were insured on or about 
October 3, 1974 against judgments of personal liabi­
lity arising out of his official conduct. Hymon's 
response "I do not know" to those interrogatories is 
incomplete, evasive and inadequate in that such 
matters should be within his personal knowledge or 
easily ascertainable through exercise of due diligence 
on his part.

3. With respect to Defendant Jay W. Hubbard
i

a) Plaintiff's interrogatory # 17 asked Hubbard whether 
he was familiar with the capabilities and qualities of 
the service revolver and ammunition issued to Memphis 
police officers as of October 3, 1974 in terms of the 
type of injury they inflict upon the human body. 
Hubbard's answer to that interrogatory was in the 
affirmative. Interrogatory # 18 asked, in the event 
of an affirmative answer to # 17, to indicate the .
nature and source of his familiarity. Hubbard's answer

I

to that interrogatory indicated the nature and source (
I

-  2 I



,iX-

of his familiarity as to the service revolver in use 
but not as to the ammunition in use. Since this 
litigation focuses, in part, upon the,ammunition used 
to shoot the deceased, Hubbard's answer with regard 
to this part of interrogatory # 18 is pertinent and 
crucial.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully moves 
that this Court compel more complete answers from defendant 
Chandler to interrogatory # 3(b), from defendant Hymon to 
interrogatories #'s 17, 25 and 26 and from defendant Hubbard 
to interrogatory # 18.

Respectfully submitted.

JACK GREENBERG 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
DREW S. DAYS, III 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

WALTER LEE BAILEY, JR.
D'ARMY BAILEY

Suite 901, Tenoke Building 
161 Jefferson Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Attorneys for Plaintiff



Miktti niiiijir*! ■Ma iiaabiia

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this day of January, 1976,
I served a copy of the foregoing "Motion for an Order Compelling 
More Complete Answers" upon counsel for defendants, Henry L. 
Klein, Esq., City of Memphis - Suite 3500, 100 North Main 
Building, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, by placing same in the 
United States mail, postage prepaid.

Attorney for Plaintiffs

- 4 -