You are on page 1of 5

SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.

* IN THE

Plaintiff * CIRCUIT COURT

v. * FOR

BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF * BALTIMORE CITY


SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS
*
Defendant Case No. 24-C-17-006516
*

* * * * *
BCBSC’s RESPONSES TO SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.’s
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO BCBSC

To: Plaintiff, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (“SBG”)

From: Defendant, Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners (“BCBSC”)

Defendant, the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, by and

through undersigned counsel, submits these Responses to Plaintiff’s first request for

production of documents as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

A. The information supplied in these Responses may not be based solely


on the knowledge of the executing party and may include knowledge of the party’s
agents, representatives, and attorneys, unless privileged.

B. The word usage and sentence structure may be that of the attorneys
who in fact prepared these Responses, and thus does not necessarily purport to be
the precise language of the executing party.

C. The Requests for Production of Documents have been interpreted and


answered in accordance with the Maryland Rules, plain English usage, and, to the
extent not specifically challenged by objection, the definitions and instructions
included with the Interrogatories.

D. The Responses herein accurately reflect the information presently


available. If further or different information becomes available, these Responses
will be timely supplemented.
GENERAL OBEJCTIONS

1. BCBSC generally objects to the Responses to the extent that they


impose, attempt to impose, or purport to impose obligations different from or
beyond those imposed by the Maryland Rules.

2. BCBSC generally objects to the Responses to the extent that they


purport to require the disclosure of confidential business information or documents.

3. BCBSC generally objects to the Responses to the extent that they seek
information subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product
doctrine. Inadvertent production or disclosure of any such information shall not
constitute a waiver of any such privilege or immunity.

4. BCBSC generally objects to the Responses to the extent that they seek
the discovery of matters that are not relevant to the claim or defense of any party to
this action.

5. BCBSC generally objects to the Responses to the extent that they are
not sufficiently limited in time and scope.

6. BCBSC generally objects to the Responses to the extent that they


require BCBSC to draw a legal and/or medical conclusion or to disclose a legal
and/or medical theory.

7. These general objections are hereby incorporated into each specific


answer and objection as if fully set forth therein. Citation to a particular general
objection in the specific objections below is not a waiver of any general objection not
cited therein.

RESPONSES

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1: All documents that mention, discuss,


reference, relate to, contemplate, evaluate, analyze or consider the MPIA Requests.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1: BCBSC objects that

SBG has filed a complaint in the above-captioned case seeking “judicial

review” pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Gen. Prov. § 4-362, to which there is no

2
discovery in cases seeking judicial review as said statute does not permit

discovery nor do the applicable Maryland Rules relating to judicial review

as Md. Rule 7-201, et. seq., “which governs actions for judicial review,” do

not provide for a party to seek discovery from an opposing party. See Md.

Rule 7-201, et. seq. In Hammen v. Balt. County Police Dep’t, 373 Md. 440, 453

(2003), the Maryland Court of Appeals stated “We hold that, absent a

statute the contrary, the rules of discovery applicable to circuit court

proceedings are not, generally, applicable in respect to MPIA proceedings.

BCBSC makes this objection with the full intent to preserve any and all

other objections available to BCBSC should a subsequent order compelling

discovery production be imposed.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: All documents that mention, discuss,


reference, relate to, contemplate, evaluate, analyze or consider the MPIA Denials.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: BCBSC incorporates

its response to document request number 1 as if fully stated herein.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: All documents identifying any person who


attended a meeting, formal or otherwise, during which the MPIA Requests were
discussed.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: BCBSC incorporates

its response to document request number 1 as if fully stated herein.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4: All documents identifying any person who


attended a meeting, formal or otherwise, during which the MPIA Denials were
discussed.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4: BCBSC incorporates

its response to document request number 1 as if fully stated herein.

3
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5: All documents identifying any person who
attended a meeting, formal or otherwise, during which allegations of grade
changing at any Baltimore City Public School was discussed.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5: BCBSC incorporates its

response to document request number 1 as if fully stated herein.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6: All drafts of the “Statement on Legal Action


Brought by Sinclair Broadcast Group” issued by you on December 21, 2017.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6: BCBSC incorporates

its response to document request number 1 as if fully stated herein.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7: All documents that relate to the “Statement


on Legal Action Brought by Sinclair Broadcast Group,” issued by you on December
21, 2017.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7: BCBSC incorporates

its response to document request number 1 as if fully stated herein.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: All documents that discuss, mention or


relate to this MPIA lawsuit, from December 20, 2017 through the date of your
response to this Request for Production of Documents.

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: BCBSC incorporates

its response to document request number 1 as if fully stated herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Tamal A. Banton
Tamal A. Banton, Senior Counsel
Amanda L. Costley, Associate Counsel
Office of Legal Counsel
Baltimore City Public Schools
200 East North Avenue, Suite 208
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(443) 642-4256 telephone
(410) 396-2955 facsimile
Attorneys for BCBSC

4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of January 2018, a copy of the

foregoing BCBSC’s Responses to Sinclair Broadcast Group’s First Request for

Production of Documents to BCBSC was sent first-class postage prepaid to:

Scott H. Marder, Esquire


Thomas & Libowitz, P.A.
100 Light Street, Suite 1100
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-1053
shmarder@tandllaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Tamal A. Banton
Tamal A. Banton