<p> STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR COUNTY OF MASON</p><p>File No. 11-415-CZ Hon. Richard I Cooper</p><p>TONI SWIGER And TOM ROTTA, 137 E Dowland Ludington, MI 49431 Plaintiffs,</p><p>Vs.</p><p>CITY OF LUDINGTON 400 S. Harrison Ludington, MI4943l Defendant,</p><p>Plaintiffs' Supplement to Motion to Quash the Deposition of Plaintiff Swiger </p><p>Comes now Plaintiffs SWIGER and ROTTA and hereby submits this supplement to SWIGER's Motion to Quash Subpoena filed with this court on January 19, 2012. In support of this supplement Plaintiff admits to this court as follows:</p><p>1) Plaintiff SWIGER had paid for and served the court and defendant with a Motion to Quash on 1-19-2012 stating among other objections to the subpoena that it had called for her to produce documents, some totally irrelevant to the defendant's case, for the defendant in under 14 days in contrary to MCR 2.305(B)(1).</p><p>2) By 10:15 AM, 1-26-2012, the Motion to Quash's merits had yet to be determined by the court to the plaintiffs' knowledge and belief.</p><p>3) Plaintiff SWIGER's deposition had been scheduled for 10:00 AM 1-26-2012; with the Motion to Quash still in question, Plaintiffs contend by law she had no obligation to attend the deposition.</p><p>4). Plaintiff ROTTA was contacted by Defendant's attorney George Saylor on his phone at about 10:15 AM on 1-26-2012, saying "Hi this is George Saylor calling for Mr. Rotta or Ms. Swiger. This is the telephone number I have from the court pleadings file. I'm trying to determine if Ms. Swiger is appearing for her deposition-- it's now after ten, I am now here as is the court reporter and no one is here for Ms. Swiger. If you would call me at this number XXX-XXXX or contact my office... let me know if there is a reason you are not here."</p><p>5) Plaintiff ROTTA, who had a 1:00 PM subpoena for a deposition, appeared at the place at that time, with SAYLOR and the court reporter present.</p><p>6) After SAYLOR stated that Plaintiff had done something wrong by not showing up in the morning and being reminded by ROTTA of the undetermined Motion to Quash, Plaintiff ROTTA was deposed for two hours and forty-one minutes with no breaks taken or offered by deposer. </p><p>7) A review of that deposition in full would be instructive as to whether there were any legal merits to the length or substance of the deposition or whether its aims was to be oppressive, burdensome, and annoying, as per MCR 2.302(C).</p><p>8) At about the time the deposition was ending, 3:40 PM, the attached Exhibit 1 was sent to Plaintiff ROTTA's E-mail from one of SAYLOR's fellow attorneys from the Gockerman, et. al. law firm that represents the Defendants as counsel, Richard WILSON.</p><p>9) WILSON's E-mail, presumably misdirected to me, says, verbatim: "BTW, George says Ms. Swiger apparently didn't show up for her dep this morning. He's not back yet, so I presume Rotta did appear and is still being grilled. George's last words on leaving this morning was that he wanted to make someone cry before the day was over!"</p><p>10) WILSON's E-mail sums up that the defendant’s aims are to intimidate Plaintiff SWIGER and ROTTA, not to gain any genuinely legal benefits from these depositions. </p><p>11) WILSON's E-mail and SAYLOR's claim to "make someone cry" at the depositions also shows the Defendants intentions appear to be to inflict both plaintiffs with annoyance, oppression, undue burden, and expense, rather than seek information for legal purposes in this civil action. This was supplementally confirmed at the end of ROTTA’s deposition when SAYLOR stridently threatened to sanction SWIGER for not appearing at her deposition that day and threatened to impede legal progress if Plaintiffs continued serving process to the Ludington City Clerk (at the Ludington City Attorney’s office).</p><p>12) WILSON's E-mail demonstrates that he and SAYLOR are engaging in conduct unbecoming of attorneys, especially ones who serve as both Plaintiff ROTTA's and SWIGER's City Attorney. This is a dereliction of their duties to the citizens of Ludington who pay their salary and expect professional conduct in looking out for the City's interests.</p><p>13) According to the latest City Attorney Agreement in Ludington, SAYLOR and WILSON receive $195 per hour for working on special projects, of which this deposition and work on this civil action falls under. 14) WILSON’s E-mail suggests that the Defendant is using public resources in a manner that is not recognized by codes of ethical conduct as pertains to public servants or as per public attorneys, or consistent with the public interest.</p><p>15) Subjecting Plaintiff SWIGER to a future deposition-- knowing that the Defendant's attorney's stated goals are to make her cry-- not gain substantive material for their frivolous counterclaim or their baseless defense against Plaintiff's claim, would not only subject her to lengthy, unnecessary, interrogation but also cost the taxpayer's, including both plaintiffs, about $2000 in wasted resources. </p><p>WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, and the reasons stated in the original Motion to Quash, Plaintiff SWIGER respectfully requests: A) This honorable court to quash the aforementioned subpoena, and any future subpoena that requests her to testify before the defendants, or in the alternative, to issue a protective order as per 2.301(C) that addresses the aforementioned concerns. B) Remand the conduct of the Defendants attorneys in their execution of deposition in this discovery process. C) Consider the overall intent of the defendant in this civil action, and dismiss their counterclaim on its lack of merit, and contradiction to the aims of the FOIA.</p><p>______Date Submitted Toni Swiger</p><p>______Tom Rotta</p>