Case 1:99-cv-00160-jgm Document 351 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 4

Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik

DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US
Date: 2010.05.12 16:30:48 +03'00'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

SCOTT HUMINSKI, )
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
RUTLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., ) Case No. 1:99-cv-160
DEPUTY SHERIFF R. J. ELRICK, )
HON. NANCY CORSONES, )
HON. M. PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN, )
KAREN PREDOM and )
RUTLAND DISTRICT COURT, )
Defendants )

OBJECTION TO SCOTT HUMINSKI'S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY

NOW COMES Defendant, The Honorable Nancy Corsones I (hereinafter referred to as

"Judge Corsones") and objects to Plaintiff's Motion for the following reasons:

1. This case is closed. The Plaintiff is not entitled to what essentially amounts to
pre-suit discovery.

The Plaintiff asserts that he wishes to file interrogatories to investigate the meaning and

scope of the following quote:

"The last claim involves a statement made to attomey Capriola [Huminski's

attorney] warning that the defendant [Huminski] would be charged with
additional crimes if he did not clam [sic] down. The statement is a reference to
the defendant's [Huminski's] continued harassment of the victim and the
investigating officer in this case through the court process. The defendant has
filed a civil action against the victim because of his participation in this criminal
case.... The statement was a proper warning made through the defendant's
representative." (State's [Vermont's] Response to Motion to Dismiss #4).

See Motion For Limited Discovery at page 1. Thus, Plaintiff seeks discovery in a closed case

regarding a statement not made by any of the Defendants to the above docket that was not in

I The undersigned also represents The Honorable M. Patricia Zimmerman. However, Mr. Huminski's current
Motion appears to be limited to Judge Corsones.

1
 Case 1:99-cv-00160-jgm Document 351 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of4

issue in this docket. The instant matter involved Plaintiff's allegations of deprivations of his

First Amendment rights as a result of his removal from the Rutland County District Court and a

Notice Against Trespass that was served against him.

There is no pending action allowing the Plaintiff to file interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 33. Nor has Plaintiff made a proper petition that would allow him to obtain pre-suit

discovery via deposition to preserve testimony which can be allowed in certain extraordinary

situations. See, M., Fed. R. Civ. P. 27. The pre-suit discovery process is designed to allow for

the preservation of testimony that may otherwise be unavailable after an action starts; not a

method of discovery to seek evidence. See In re Wolfson, 453 F. Supp. 1087, 1096 (S.D.N.Y.

1978). It is not a vehicle to determine whether a cause of action exists or to determine who to

make a party. See In re Gurnsey, 223 F. Supp. 359, 360 (D.D.C. 1963).

While this case should not even be reopened for all of the reasons stated in Judge

Corsones' and Judge Zimmerman's objection to reopening the case (Paper #339, January 7,

2010) as well as the objections filed by other co-defendants, it is clear that unless and until the

case is reopened, there is no procedure for the Plaintiff to obtain discovery. Further, even then, it

is doubtful whether he would have the right to seek additional discovery. See infra.

2. Plaintiff's assertion that he wants to file interrogatories upon Judge Corsones

appears to be limited to statements made by a person in the Bennington County States
Attorney's office and there is not even an allegation that Judge Corsones has any
discoverable information regarding such statements.

Plaintiff purports to file interrogatories upon Judge Corsones limited to an inquiry

concerning the above quoted statement apparently made by a Bennington County States

Attorney. However, it is clear that Judge Corsones did not make such statement nor has he

alleged that she would even have any relevant information to provide regarding the States

2
 Case 1:99-cv-00160-jgm Document 351 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 4

Attorney's statement. Plaintiff asserts that he will seek information relating to why the alleged

threat was made by the State, what was its desired result and when was it revoked, among other

issues. See Motion at 1. Discovery may be had only upon any "non-privileged matter that is

relevant to any parties' claim or defense". Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). In the instant docket, the

allegations against Judge Corsones were based upon his removal from a courtroom in which she

was the Presiding Judge. Judge Corsones had nothing to do with any alleged threat and

particularly in the essentially pre-suit position that the parties find themselves in, it would be

inappropriate to allow discovery.

3. Plaintiff was allowed full discovery during the pendency of the now closed
action and is not entitled to any further discovery.

Even if this case was reopened, further discovery would not be appropriate. The Plaintiff

had a full and complete opportunity to do discovery during the pendency of the case. This case

began when Plaintiff filed his first complaint on June 1, 1999. (paper #1). It was litigated fully

and aggressively until the United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a mandate

dated January 16,2007 (paper #324), finally closing the case.

In the seven and a half years that the case was active, the Plaintiff had the full opportunity

to do discovery, and, in fact, did file substantial discovery requests upon the parties. He has

identified nothing that would have precluded him from seeking discovery regarding the quoted

stated during the pendency of the case (assuming it was even relevant)? Obviously, if it was not

relevant during the seven and a half years that the case was active, it is not relevant now.

2 Although Mr. Huminski was pro se originally, Attorney Robert L. Corn-Revere appeared for him in December of
2000. See Motion for Robert L. Corn-Revere to Appear Pro Hac Vice (document #44).

3
 Case 1:99-cv-00160-jgm Document 351 Filed 02/12/10 Page 4 of 4

CONCLUSION

Allowing Plaintiff what is essentially pre-suit discovery amounts to nothing more than a

fishing expedition not allowed by the Federal Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, it is respectfully

requested that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Discovery.

Dated at Rutland, Vermont, this 12 th day of February, 2010.

HaN. NANCY CORSONES and

HaN. M. PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN

KENLAN, SCHWIEBERT, FACEY & GOSS, P.e.

By: lsI Shalmon A. Bertrand

Shannon A. Bertrand
Post Office Box 578
Rutland, VT 05702-0578
802-665-2680

4
 Case 1:99-cv-00160-jgm Document 351-1 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

SCOTT BUMINSKI, )
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
RUTLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., ) Case No. 1:99-cv-160
DEPUTY SHERIFF R. J. ELRICK, )
BON. NANCY CORSONES, )
BON. M. PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN, )
KAREN PREDOM and )
RUTLAND DISTRICT COURT, )
Defendants )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Shannon A. Bertrand, Esq., of the firm of Kenlan, Schwiebert, Facey & Goss, P.C.,
attorneys for appellant, The Honorable Nancy Corsones, hereby certify that I have this 12th day
of February, 2010, served a copy of The Honorable Nancy Corsones' OBJECTION TO SCOTT
HUMINSKI'S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY upon the following persons by the
method delineated with respect to each:

David L. Cleary
dIe@clearyshahLcom
VIACMlECF

Pietro J. Lynn (terminated)

plynn@IYlmlawvt.com
mking@lynnlawvt.com
VIACMlECF

Mark J. Patane
mpatane@atg.state.vt.us
angelav@atg.state.vt.us
cg01dstein@atg.state. vt.us
rhooker@atg.state.vt.us
VIACMlECF

Heather E. Thomas (terminated)

hthomas@lynnlawvt.com
aspears@lynlawvt.com
VIACMIECF
 Case 1:99-cv-00160-jgm Document 351-1 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2

Claudine C. Safar, Esq.

Lynn, Lynn & Blackman, P.C.
76 St. Paul Street, Suite 400
Burlington, VT 05401
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

Joseph Zemik
1853 Foothill Blvd.
La Verne, CA 91750
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

Joseph L. Winn
Vt. Office of the Atty. General
Environmental Unit
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609-1001
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

Scott Huminski
2624 South Bahama Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85295
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

HON. NANCY CORSONES and

HON. M. PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN

KENLAN, SCHWIEBERT, FACEY & GOSS, P.C.

By: /s/ Shannon A. Bertrand

Shannon A. Bertrand, Esq.
Post Office Box 578
Rutland, VT 05702-0578
802-665-2680
 -.,1 . . f.

neopost.
KENLAN, SCHWIEBERT, FACEY & GOSS, P.C. 02/1212010
P.O. BOX 578 lI}lI:l·~i'®at $00.61 2
RUTLAND, VERMONT 05702-0578

~ ZIP 05702
041111210104

Joseph Zernik
18S3 FootHill Blvd.
La Vern,~, CA 91750

·3l-?:':·:-=':·~t"·;·::~·::~:;, \ \ :\ ! ! : : : \ I':::\:\:\~ i\::~: ::i1::1::1:\::\::1\::i:1:::j\::!i::i