Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100586 Ver 2_Court Case Correspondence_20110527STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF WAKE 11 EHR 1254 M A ALEXANDER III ) Petitioner ) PETITIONER S FIRST SET OF v ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL ) DOCUMENTS RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER ) QUALITY ) Respondent ) [will fill in here with general objections etc [ RESPONSE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1 Admit that Lauren Witherspoon did not complete a Stream Identification Form in conjunction with her on site visit on our around February 20 2008 RESPONSE Admitted 2 Admit that Lauren Witherspoon did not consider any information (including but not limited to maps aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the construction alteration and or maintenance of Feature A prior to the determination dated February 22 2008 regarding Feature A RESPONSE Denied Ms Witherspoon considered statements by Mr Alexander and /or ks agents regarding the history of the Property 3 Admit that Lauren Witherspoon did not conduct a site investigation of the adjacent property north (upslope) of Feature A prior to the determination dated February 22 2008 regarding Feature A RESPONSE r Page I Field Code Changed` Comment [BEM11 LW d d SM talk t y b t th a Denied Ms Witherspoon at least observed the adjacent property from the north side of Yeargan Road and may have entered the adjacent property as well 4 Admit that Laaren Witherspoon did not conduct a s to invest gation of the adjacent property south of Feature A (downslope) prior to the determination dated February 22 2008 regarding Feature A RESPONSE Admitted 5 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined that evidence of an active /relic flood plain was Absent RESPONSE Admitted 6 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined that evidence of Soil Texture or Stream Substrate Sorting was Weak RESPONSE Admitted 7 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined that evidence relating to In channel Structure Riffle pool Sequence was Weak RESPONSE Admitted 8 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined that evidence relating to Depositional Bars or Benches pool Sequence was Moderate RESPONSE Admitted 9 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined Page 2 r i that there was NO Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other document evidence RESPONSE Admitted 10 Admit that Amy Chapman did not consider any information (including but not limited to maps aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the construction alteration and or maintenance of Feature A prior to the determination dated August 23 2010 regarding Feature A RESPONSE Denied Amy Chapman considered statements from Mr Alexander and /or his agents L regarding the history of the Property Steve Mitchell did discuss with Amy Chapman at the vehicles parked across Year an Rd from the site that he thought Feature A was a stream 11 Admit that Amy Chapman did not conduct a site investigation of the adjacent property north (upslope) of Feature A prior to the determination dated August 23 2010 regarding Feature A RESPONSE Denied Amy Chapman did not enter the site north of Feature A but observed the site briefly from the north side of Yeargan Road 12 Admit that Amy Chapman did not conduct a site investigation of the adjacent property south of Feature A (downslope) prior to the determination dated August 23 2010 regarding Feature A RESPONSE Admitted 13 Admit that on or around August 18 2010 in its evaluation of Feature A as evidenced on the Stream Identification form completed by Amy Chapman DWQ determined that evidence of a continuous bed and bank was Strong RESPONSE Admitted 14 Admit that evidence of a continuous bed and bank can be indicative of an artificial or man made ditch Page 3 Comment IBEM21 AC d d SM t Ik t y b t th RESPONSE Admitted (Will likely object that this is vague because while evidence of a continuous bed and bank can be ipdicatrve of ap artificial or man made ditch it can also be indicative of natural streams ) 15 Admit that along the northern portion of Feature A the channel appears to have been excavated as much as 6 8 feet below the natural grade of the land surrounding Feature A RESPONSE Denied While DWQ admits that portions of Feature A do appear to have been excavated DWQ does not have sufficient information to determine how deeply those portions of Feature A may have been excavated 16 Admit that excavation of a channel 6 8 feet below the natural grade of the surrounding land would increase the likelihood of groundwater flow or discharge into Feature A RESPONSE Denied While DWQ admits that any excavation below land surface would increase the likelihood of groundwater flow or discharge into a hypothetical channel it is unclear that this is what occurred with Feature A A 17 Admit that there is substantial evidence of spoil piles along the banks of Feature RESPONSE Denied While DWQ admits that there was evidence of spoil along some portions of Feature A the downstream portion has little or no spoil 18 Admit that evidence of spoil piles along a bank can be indicative of an artificial or man made ditch RESPONSE Admitted (Will probably object that this is vague because while DWQ admits that spoil piles can be indicative of artificial or man made ditch it can also be indicative of a modified natural stream ) 19 Admit that Feature A is an artificial or man made ditch RESPONSE Page 4 Denied As shown by the USGS map the soils map and by the characteristics noted by DWQ staff in their on site inspections Feature A exhibits the characteristics of at least an intermittent stream 20 Admit that Feature B has been determined by DWQ to NOT be subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules per its letter of August 23 2010 RESPONSE Admitted 21 Admit that no site investigation of the adjacent property north (upslope) of Feature A was conducted by DWQ prior to the determination dated February 15 2011 regarding Feature A RESPONSE Dented Periann Russell and �Ian McMillan did not enter the adjacent property but observed the property briefly from the north side of Yeargan Road 22 Admit that Feature A receives some water from a pipe that runs from the adjacent property north (upslope) of Feature A under Yeargan Road and discharges into Feature A RESPONSE Admitted 23 Admit that Feature A receives water from storm run off along Yeargan Road RESPONSE Admitted (Will probably object that this is vague because not all water for Feature A comes from stormwater runoff ) 24 Admit that Feature A intersects with Feature B near the southern edge of the property RESPONSE Admitted 25 Admit that no site investigation of the adjacent property south (downslope) of Feature A was conducted by DWQ prior to the determination dated February 15 2011 regarding Feature A RESPONSE Page 5 Comment [BEM3] IM d d y b ry th Illl pt amp p rty as w II Denied DWQ staff JEric Kulz9J performed a site investigation of the feature downstream of Feature A on [DATE) determining that it was a perennial stream JAmy to provide copy] 26 Admit that any water from Feature A and Feature B runs into a pipe that runs from the subject property under Highway 70 toward adjacent property south (downslope) of Feature A RESPONSE DWQ does not have sufficient information to answer since DWQ staff did not directly observe the alleged pipe under Highway 70 27 Admit that the DWQ s determination that Feature A was subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules as evidenced in its letter dated February 15 2011 was based upon the evidence enclosed with that letter RESPONSE Denied DWQ s determination dated February 15 2011 was based on the on site observations of DWQ staff on February 11 2011 as well as DWQ staffs review of the most recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey 2R Admit that enclosed in DWQ s determination letter dated February 15 2011 was a Wake County Soil Survey map on which had been written IJM 2/11/2011 and the letter A had been circled RESPONSE Admitted 29 Admit that IJM on the soil map enclosed in the letter dated February 15 2011 stands for DWQ staff member Ian McMillan RESPONSE Admitted 30 Admit that the area indicated by A on the soil map enclosed in the letter dated February 15 2011 is located south of the intersection of US 70 West and Yeargan Road RESPONSE Page 6 Admitted 31 Admit that the area Indicated by A on the soil map enclosed in the letter dated February 15 2011 is not located on the Property RESPONSE Admitted 32 Admit that on the 2002 Lake Wheeler NC 7 5 USGS quadrangle map a blue line depicting an intermittent stream indicates a beginning point south of the intersection of US 70 West and Yeargan Road RESPONSE �Adm�tted� 33 Admit that the 2002 Lake Wheeler NC 7 5 USGS quadrangle map there is no indication of a blue line intermittent stream on the Property RESPONSE Admitted 34 Admit that the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System does not indicate a stream on the Property RESPONSE Admitted 35 Admit that the North Carolina Floodplam Mapping Information System does not indicate a Foodplain on the Property RESPONSE Admitted 36 Admit that DWQ officials and staff members have published findings indicating that the USGS 1 24 000 scale topographic maps and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) county soil survey maps are unreliable sources for determining small first second and sometimes third order streams 4 RESPONSE I Denied DWQ admits that DWQ staff members John Dorney and Periann Russell were co i authors of an article stating that the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic Page 7 s t Comment IBEM41 Th th q t I e- m I d y b t w th th 2002 t po p d d by AI and an h d maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey greatly underestimate the presence of small streams and the soil survey maps prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture usually overestimate the presence of small streams However this is not an official DWQ position 37 Admit that DWQ officials and staff members have stated that extensive stream mapping errors on USGS topographic maps and NRCS soils maps raise serious questions about use of these maps in regulatory applications for which they were not intended RESPONSE Denied DWQ admits that DWQ staff members John Dorney and Periann Russell were co authors of an article that included the statement above but it was not an official DWQ position Page 8 fl�ll I7�T.iZIZllll CI].� I fly I Identifv the person or persons answering or assisting with answering these discovery requests and identify the request that each person answered or assisted in answering Counsel for Respondent Lauren Witherspoon Amy Chapman Ian McMillan Periann Russell (see interrogatories below for additional identifying information) 2 If you cannot answer any of the requested admissions then as to each such requested admission set forth in detail the reasons why you cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter (identifying facts persons and documents as required by the Definitions and Instructions preceding this request) See above 3 For each request for admission that you have denied in whole or in part state the following (a) The basis for your denial See above (b) All facts supporting your denial See above (c) The identity of all persons known to have knowledge of such facts and See above [I will need to fill this in later (d) The identity of all documents that contain information pertaining to such facts Documents in the DWQ file including but not limited to the most recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the 124 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey and the stream forms dated August 23 2011 and February 11 2011 2 Identify each person who has knowledge of this case that you or your attorneys expect to call as a witness at the contested case hearing As to each person describe Lauren Witherspoon Business address 1628 Mad Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1628 Business telephone (919) 7914200 Title Environmental Senior Specialist Job description Conduct stream determinations for buffer rule and 401 Water Quality Certification applications Perform inspections of commercial industrial residential and Page 9 other sites to determine compliance status as it relates to streams wetlands and buffer regulations Present employer is NC DENR Ian McMillan Business address 1650 Mad Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1650 Business telephone (919) 807 6400 Title 401 Coordinator Job description Process permit applications conduct field work and meetings and write General and Individual permits and Isolated Wetland permits Present employer is NC DENR (a) the substance of the expected testimony of the witness Lauren Witherspoon is expected to testify regarding her communications with Mr Alexander and his consultants her observations at her on site inspection and the determination dated February 22 2008 regarding the application of the Buffer Rule to the features on the Property Ian McMillan is expected to testify regarding his communications with Mr Alexander and his consultant his observations at the on site inspection February 11 2011 and the determination dated February 15 2011 regarding the application of the Buffer Rule to the features on the Property Respondent reserves the right to update this list of witnesses as the matter progresses (b) the person s relation to or employment by Respondent Each is a current employee of Respondent (c) a summary of the witness qualifications that make him or her competent to testify on the matters outlined in subpart (a) above Lauren Witherspoon has been trained in identifying streams for purposes of the Buffer Rule has conducted numerous site inspections regarding the Buffer Rule and has a degree in 1�� Ian McMillan has been trained in identifying streams for purposes of the Buffer Rule has conducted numerous site inspections regarding the Buffer Rule and has a degree in =[ 3 With respect to each person you or your attorneys expect to call as an expert witness at the hearing to be held on this matter please provide the following Information (a) Identify each such person Periann Russell Business address 2321 Crabtree Blvd Suite 250 Raleigh NC 27604 2260 Page 10 1 Comment [BEMS] LW pleas I'll th and any th I ant q al f t Wh t y ballpark f g f th mb f team call y h d t d egard g th B ff R I Comment[BEM6] IM pleas fll th and any ther I ant q al f at PI I I t m k w y ballpark fg f th mb f t am 11 y h d ted gard g th B ff R I Business telephone (919) 715 6835 Title Environmental Senior Specialist Job description Geomorphologist specializing in headwater stream identification mapping and modeling Present employer is NC DENR Amy Chapman Business address 1650 Mad Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1650 Business telephone (919) 807 6400 Title Statewide Buffer Coordinator Job description Technical review of riparian buffer authorizations and variance applications revise the present buffer rules perform site visits to determine subjectivity to the riparian buffer rules and present major variance requests to the EMC at their scheduled meeting dates Present employer is NC DENR Respondent reserves the right to update this list of experts as the matter progresses (b) For each person identified describe the subject matter about which the expert is expected to testify Amy Chapman is expected to testify regarding the Buffer Rule her discussions with Mr Alexander and his consultant(s) her observations at her on site inspection and her determination regarding the application of the Buffer Rule to the features on the Property Periann Russell is expected to testify regarding the North Carolina stream manual and associated form methodology for evaluating the existence of streams field evaluation of the existence of streams differentiating between streams subject to the Buffer Rule and ditches her observations during the on site inspection February 11 2011 (c ) For each person identified describe the substance of the facts and opinions about which the expert is expected to testify Respondent is in the process of determining the extent of the subject matter on which each expert witness may testify the substance of the facts an opinions to which they may testify and a summary of the grounds of each opinion (d) For each person identified describe the grounds for each opinion identified in response to subsection (c) of this interrogatory Respondent is in the process of determining the extent of the subject matter on which each expert witness may testify the substance of the facts an opinions to which they may testify and a summary of the grounds of each opinion (e) Identify any and all documents that contain information pertaining to such expert testimony Page 1 l Respondent is in the process of determining the extent of the subject matter on which each expert witness may testify the substance of the facts an opinions to which they may testify and a summary of the grounds of each opinion a s..c � ogoes c x mad�.c ooeo 4 Please describe all information (including but not limited to maps aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the construction alteration and or maintenance of Feature A reviewed or considered PRIOR to the determination made by DWQ on 2/20/2008 that Feature A was subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules Please see response to Request for Admission number 2 above 5 Please state whether PRIOR to 2/20/2008 DWQ made a formal determination that Feature A was not a ditch a) Yes or No No b) If the response is Yes please describe who made the determination and all information that was relied upon in making such determination and the basis for such determination 6 Please describe all additional information (including but not limited to maps aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the construction alteration and or maintenance of Feature A not detailed above in response to Interrogatory 5 reviewed or considered PRIOR to the determination made by DWQ on 8/23/2010 that Feature A was subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules Please see response to Request for Admission number 10 above 7 Please state whether PRIOR to 8/23/2010 DWQ made a formal determination that Feature A was not a ditch Yes a) Yes or No b) If the response is Yes please describe who made the determination and all information that was relied upon in making such determination and the basis for such determination Determination dated February 20 2008 Determination made by Lauren Witherspoon Ms Witherspoon relied upon the most recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey and her on site observations 8 Please describe all additional information (including but not limited to maps aerial photographs personal testimony) regarding the history of the construction alteration and Page 12 or maintenance of Feature A reviewed or considered PRIOR to the determination made by DWQ on 2/15/2011 that Feature A was subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules DWQ staff considered the statements of Mr Alexander and /or his consultant regarding the history of the Property as well as the Powerpoint presentation made by Mr Alexander to DWQ staff regarding that topic 9 Please state whether PRIOR to 2/15/2011 DWQ made a formal determination that Feature A was not a ditch Yes a) Yes or No b) If the response is Yes please describe who made the determination and all information that was relied upon in making such determination and the basis for such determination Determination dated February 20 2008 Determination made by Lauren Witherspoon Ms Witherspoon relied upon the most recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey and her on site observations Determination dated August 23 2010 Determination made by Amy Chapman Ms Chapman relied upon the most recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topograph c maps prepared b) the United States Geologic Survey and her on site observations 10 With regard to DWQ s determination that Feature A is subject to the Buffer Rule provide the following information a) State the legal and factual basis for your determination Feature A is approximately shown on both the most recent version of the soil survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey In addition on site observations by DWQ staff confirmed that Feature A exhibits the characteristics of an intermittent stream b) Identify by name and address all persons known to you to have knowledge of these facts Lauren Witherspoon Amy Chapman Ian McMillan Periann Russell (see above interrogatories for addresses) Page 13 C) Identify any and all documents that contain information pertaining to such facts Documents in the DWQ file including but not limited to the most recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey and the stream forms dated August 23 2011 and February 11 2011 11 With regard to DWQ s determination that Feature A is subject to the Buffer Rule does DWQ contend that the entire length of the feature is an intermittent stream9 If yes please state the basis for that conclusion If no please describe the determination point at which the feature constitutes an intermittent stream and state the bans for that conclusion DWQ contends that the entire length of Feature A is at least an intermittent stream However the downstream portion of Feature A exhibits characteristics of a perennial stream The bans for these conclusions are that Feature A is approximately shown on the most recent version of the sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the most recent version of the 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geologic Survey as well as DWQ staffs on site observations that Feature A exhibits the characteristics of at least an intermittent stream and that the downstream portion of Feature A exhibits the characteristics of a perennial stream Explanation on the process for differentiating between an intermittent and perennial stream can be found in the manual entitled North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11 12 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February I 1 2011 please state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there was Strong evidence of an active /relict floodplain and identify all documentation of that evidence recorded on or before February 11 2011 DWQ staff observed wetlands adjoining Feature A Such wetlands are indicative of an active or relic floodplam Documentation includes the stream form dated February 11 2011 13 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February It 2011 please state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there was Strong evidence relating to Particle Size of Stream Substrate and identify all documentation of that evidence recorded on or before February 11 2011 Coarse sediments (fine sand to gravel sized) were observed in the channel bed and were very different from the finer silt observed in the floodplam and in the area adjacent to the floodplam Explanation for the process related to this indicator can be found in the manual entitled North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11 Page 14 14 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February 11 2011 please state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there was Moderate evidence relatirg to In channel Structure and identify all documPntat or of tha evidence recorded on or before February 11 2011 Channel structure was observed including thalweg pools and riffles These bedforms were observed as being moderately formed and transitions between pools and riffles were not immediately obvious Explanation for the process related to this indicator can be found in the manual entitled North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11 15 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February 11 2011 please state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there was Strong evidence relating to Depositional Bars or Benches and identify all documentation of that evidence recorded on or before February 11 2011 At least two large bankfull benches were observed along the margins of Feature A Explanation for the process related to this indicator can be found in the manual entitled North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11 16 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February 1 ] 2011 please state with particularity the evidence on which DWQ based its determination that there WAS Soil based Evidence of High Water Table and identify all documentation of that evidence recorded on or oetore February 11 2011 A sod auger was used to pull a 6 to 3 inch soil sample from the toe of the stream ba-ik at the top of a bankfull bench Sods indicative of anaerobic conditions were observed Explanation related to this indicator can be found in the manual entitled North Carolina Division of Water Quality Methodology of Identification Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11 17 With regard to the evaluation conducted by DWQ on February 11 2011 please state with particularity the reasons that the evaluation was conducted using the form entitled Methodology of Identification Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins v 4 11 rather than the form entitled Stream Identification Form Version 3 1 which was the basis for the evaluation appealed from As of September 1 2010 Version 4 11 was the official current version of the stream identification methodology and form 18 Identify all documents relied upon or consulted by you in preparing your responses to the above interrogatories Respondent has consulted the following documents Page 15 1) the 2002 version of the Lake Wheeler 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic map prepared by the United States Geologic Survey 2) the documents in the Respondent s files on the Property 3) Selected pages regarding the mapping unit description from the 1970 Wake County sod survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture [Periann to send these pages to mel Page 16 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I Produce all documents identified in the above interrogatories or consulted in preparing your resporses to the above requests for admissions and interrogatories Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request except for those enclosed [will enclose sods map pages from Periann[ 2 Produce the resume of each expert witness identified in your response to the foregoing interrogatories Resumes for Respondent s expected expert witnesses are enclosed 3 Produce any and all reports prepared by expert witnesses that you intend to use at trial Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request 4 Produce all data and reports not already submitted to Petitioner relating to whether Feature A is subject to the Buffer Rule Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request 5 Produce any and all photographs drawings maps plans or other graphical representations of the Property between January 1 2008 and today s date Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request 6 Produce any and all data and reports prepared by your past or present staff consultants engineers or contractors relating to Feature A Petitioner is already in possession of all data and reports responsive to this Request 7 Produce all aerial photographs of the Property in your possession custody or control Petitioner is already in possession of all aerial photos in Respondent s possession custody or control except for the 1914 aerial map enclosed [will enclose 1914 map[ 8 Produce the 2007 version of the Wake County soil survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture Petitioner is already in possession of this document as indicated by Petitioner s response to Respondent s first set of discovery requests 9 Produce the 2002 version of the Lake Wheeler 1 24 000 scale (7 5 minute) quadrangle topographic map prepared by the United States Geologic Survey Petitioner is already in possession of this document as indicated by Petitioner s response to Respondent s first set of discovery requests Page 17 10 Produce all exhibits you intend to introduce into evidence or use at hearing Respondent is still in the process of determining which exhibits will be introduced at hearing Petitioner has a copy of all potential exhibits except those enclosed [Will be including two a mails from Steve Mitchelil Page 18