Document YDmNBnZzdYLLNaLjQGzB3pZg8
#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM R. GAFFEY, Plaintiff,
vs. PETER MONTAGUE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
))
) Cause No.91-1938-C-7
) )
) )
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Come now defendants, and for their response to plaintiff's
request for admissions, state as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied.
5. Denied.
6. Denied.
7. Denied.
8. Denied.
9. .OBJECTION: This is vague as to what is meant by
"performed or were involved in" or "type of study."
10. Denied.
11. Defendants cannot admit or deny, as this asks
defendants to speculate as to what is in the minds of readers.
12. Denied.
13 Denied.
EVANS & DIXON
BY: KjZJZlu^
_______
John A. Michener
#22509
Kathi L. Chestnut
#33358
Co-Counsel for Defendants
1200 Saint Louis Place
200 North Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
621-7755
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
.
Copy of the foregoing mailed this
, Noverntet*-
0 day of -Octobor,
1991 to Richard A. Wunderlich, Daniel D. Zegura, Attorneys for
Plaintiff, 8182 Maryland Avenue, Suite 400, Clayton, MO 63105;
and Gerald R. Ortbals, Attorney for Defendants, 1800 Equitable
Building, 10 South Broadway, St. Louis, MO 63102.
LstL>