Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 133

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AUSTIN DIVISION

#
#
HEATHER JOHNSON #
Plaintiff, #
# A-08-CA-643-SS
v. #
#
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN #
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL #
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, #
Defendants

OFFER OF SETTLEMENT

TO DEFENDANTS ~i.sIcR~& &~~~4ttVAND THEIR ATTORNEYS


OF RECORD: ..
Pursuant to Rule 167 of the Texas rule of Civil proc~~ant to Rule
68 of the Federal rule of Civil Procedure, the Plainti . ..~ ~~
("Plaintiff') hereby offers to allow settlement to be entered against it in this action or:
1) Future and current lost wages based on leaving salary
2) Attorney's Fees and Court Costs
3) Loss of past and future employment benefits
4) Damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment
5) Damages for loss of opportunities for career advancement, and damage to
reputation
6) Exemplary damages
in the amount of$I,OOO,OOO.OO.Please see table below. The Plaintiff feels this is a fare
and balanced offer due to the malice allegations filed against the defendants. With the
malice treatment and termination of the Plaintiff came the squandering and lost ability of
the Plaintiff to file with the State Incentive and Productivity Commission "brilliant" ideas
resulting in an insurmountable savings for taxpayers, bond and vendor owners, and
grantors and grantees of Travis County creating a boundless fountain of percentage
earrings for the Plaintiff and other Travis County employees. Susan Spataro without a
doubt is already guilty of having employed five plus auditors without CPA's, violated
numerous other statuary, federal, and global equity laws, and created a social distorted
closed circle environment with the equation "1-1 = 1." Thus, I believe it is in the "best"
interest of Travis County to settle the case quickly and promptly without an abundance of
media exposure, time, and tax dollars spent. The only defense it seems the defendants are
swaying heavily on is their ability to claim sovereign immunity? This action seems

)
Potential Lawsuit for Termination on 614108 I
Eauitv based on Trust Assets backed Security
Settlement Outlook variable increase or decrease Settlement Outlook
due to market conditions of the $'s worth
39 vears of potential service 1065000 39 years of potential service 35500 1065000
Retirement 7.00% match of income 74550 Retirement 7.00% match of income 74550
Cobra Medical Insurance 280800 Cobra Medical Insurance 280800
Cobra Dental Insurance 70200 Cobra Dental Insurance 70200
Unforeseen Medical Cost 100000 Unforeseen Medical Cost 100000
Connection loss due to termination 500000 Connection loss due to termination 500000
Emotional damaaes 250000 Emotional damaaes 250000
Attornev fees 25000 Attorney fees 25000

2365550 2365550
circular and turned within itself because all the evidence so far presented by the
defendants has been based on word testimony, hence; this action only supports the closed
circular environment created by Susan Spataro. Therefore, if this goes to trial with the
evidence fmally gathered, all the testimony collected, and the cases resting with in the
hands of the public then the confidence of a guilty conviction will surely rest on the
Plaintiff's shoulders in a "perfect" outcome giving rise to other possible future lawsuits
against Travis County from the people of Texas, United States of America, and the rest of
the Global World.

This offer of settlement is intended to resolve all of Plaintiffs' claims in this action. This
offer shall not be filed with the court.

To accept this offer, Plaintiff must serve written notice of acceptance by March 25,2009.

Dated: March 9, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

BY:~~~
Heather M. Johnson
SELF REPRESENTIVE OF AMERICA CIVIL LIBERTIES
601 Blessing Ranch Rd.
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
(512) 778-6099 Voice
(512)778-6628 Facsimile
Email: hmi7476@hughes.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 9th day of March, 2009, I faxed, emailed, and mailed the
settlement offer via certified parcel # 7oYr£/ JCJo ()cofdS-21 :2t;/jto the following:

Anthony J. Nelson
ASSISTANT TRAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
Travis CounZ Attorney's Office
314 West 11 Street
Room 420
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 854·4801
Fax: 512/854-4808
Email: tony.nelson@co.travis.tx.us

Leslie W. Dippel
ASSISTANT TRAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
Travis County Attorney's Office
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767
(512) 854-9513
Fax: 512/854·4808
Email: leslie.dippel@co.travis.tx.us

BY~
Heather . Johnson
SELF REPRESENTIVE OF AMERICA CIVIL LIBERTIES
hp officejet 5500 series 5510 Personal Printer/Fax/CopierlScanner

Log for
HEATHER JOHNSON
(512)-778-6628
3/9/20094:13PM

Last Transaction
Date Time T~pe Identification Duration Pages Result
03109 04:11p Fax Sent 15128544808 1:52 4 OK
DAVID A. ESCAMILLA LITIGATION DIVISION
COUNTY ATTORNEY SHERINE E. THO MASt
DIRECTOR
STEPHEN H. CAPELLE
FIRST ASSISTANT ELAINE A. CASAS
JAMES W. COLLINS FELIX TARANGO
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
ANTHONY J. NELSON
314 W. 11TH, STREET
GRANGER BLDG., SUITE 420 LESLIE W. DIPPEL
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
JENNIFER KRABER
P. O. BOX 1748
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767

(512) 854-9513 tMEMBER 01' THE COLLEGE

FAX: (512) 854-4808 OF THE STATE BAR

March 24, 2009

Via Certified Mail RRR


# 7004289000022964471
Heather Johnson
601 Blessing Ranch Road
Liberty Hill, Texas 76842

Re Cause No. A-08-CA-643-SS; Heather Johnson v. Travis County and


Susan Spataro, In her Individual and Official Capacities; In the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division

Dear Ms. Johnson:

Enclosed please find a copy of Defendants' Alternative Dispute Resolution Report filed
today with regard to the above mentioned matter.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call our office.

Sincerely,

~~
Leslie W_Dippel _~.
Assistant County Attorney

LWD/mc
Enc_
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

.HEATHER JOHNSON §
§
~ § A-08-CA-643-SS
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO §
IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL §
CAPACITIES §

DEFENDANTS' ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT

TO THE HONORABLE SAM SPARKS:

Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro file this Alternate Dispute Resolution Report

in accordance with Local Rule CV-88, and state the following in support:

I. The status of settlement negotiations is that Plaintiff and Defendants have informally

discussed settlement opportunities and are actively pursing all available options. Pursuant to the

Court's Scheduling Order, Plaintiffhas provided an initial settlement offer to which Defendants will

timely respond. The Court's Scheduling Order orders the parties to complete discovery by July 31,

2009, and the parties fully intend to use the discovery process to further explore the possibility of

... = settlement during the course of th~.s~.~~oceedings.

2. Plaintiff pro se is the party responsible for settlement negotiations on her behalf.

Anthony Nelson, Leslie Dippel, and Susan Spataro are the parties responsible for settlement

negotiations on behalf of Defendants. All formal settlement agreements are further subject tothe

approval of the Travis County Commissioner's Court.

200846-1 245.882

200846-1 245.882
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of March, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing

Defendants' Alternative Dispute Resolution with the Clerk of Court using the CM'ECF system,

and I have mailed a copy of this document by certified U.S. Mail to the following non-CMlECF

participant:

CMRR 700428900002 29674741


Heather Johnson
601 Blessing Ranch Road
Liberty Hill, TX 78642

ony J. Nelson
Leslie W. Dippel

200846-1 245.882
DAVID A. ESCAMILLA LITIGATION DIVISION
COUNTY ATTORNEY
SHERINE E. THO MASt
DIRECTOR
STEPHEN H. CAPELLE
FIRST ASSISTANT ELAINE A. CASAS
JAMES W. COLLINS
FELIX TARANGO
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
ANTHONY J. NELSON
314 W. II'H, STREET
GRANGER BLDG., SUITE 420
LESLIE W. DIPPEL
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
JENtHFER KRABER
P. O. BOX 1748
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767

(512) 854·9513 t ••EMBER Of THE' COl.LEGE

FAX: (512) 854·4808 OF THE STATE BAR

March 25,2009

Confidential Settlement Communication

Gertified Mail R/R/R #2005 2570 0000 5005 3133


Heather Johnson
601 Blessing Ranch Road
Liberty Hill, Texas 78642

Re: Settlement Offer

Dear Ms. Johnson:

We have received your settlement demand dated March 9, 2009. We are not aware of any
facts that would support a claim of discrimination. However, in exchange for a full release of
claims, Travis County submits the following counter-offer:

1. Travis County will agree to characterize your separation of employment as a voluntary


resignation.

Please advise of your decision on the above counter-offer. Please contact me with any
questions, comments, or concerns.

LWD/rnpc
April 22, 2009

Via Hand Delivery


William G. Pulunicki
Clerk of Court, United States District Court
Western District of Texas
200 West 8th Street
Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Civil Action # A: 08-CA-643-SS; Heather Johnson v.


Travis County Texas and Susan ~fataro, in her Individual
and Official Capacity; In the 200t Judicial District Court;
Travis County, Texas

Dear Mr. Putnicki:

Enclosed please find for filing in the above-referenced matter the original and one
copy of the Amended Pleading.

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter

Sincerely,

Heather M. Johnson
prose

cc: Leslie W. Dippel, with enclosures (viafacsimile 512-778-6628)


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON §
Plaintiff §
V. §
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN § CIVIL ACTION NO. A: 08-CA-643-SS
SPATAOR IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICAIAL CAPACITIES §
Defendants §

PLANTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING

Heather M. Johnson, Plaintiff in this action, pursuant to Federal Rule 15 in the above

civil action, moves the court for permission to file an amended pleading, consisting of

factual background surrounding circumstances occurring from 5/12/2008-7/3/2008,

the date of the final decision in the grievance process. Per Fed. R. 15(a)(I), following

is the factual background the Plaintiff proposes to be added to the initial pleading

section V. Factual Background. Most of the documentation validating the 12 events

is located within the property of Travis County belonging to the people of United

States of America, thus the plaintiff is in the current process of requesting the

evidence with discovery:

1. After Tracy LeBlanc, who worked for the Defendant five plus years without a

CPA degree as an Associate Auditor II, was unable to explain how to make the

necessary journal entries balancing a $60.48 difference between the encumbrance

(PO's) of the GM (payables system) and the PI (purchasing system), the Plaintiff

.became aware of how Ms. LeBlanc is unaware of accounting procedures,

practices, language, and the functionality of accounting software. The H.T.E.

software seemed to magically drop the amount from the system and Ms.

Motion To Amend I
LeBlanc's only explanation was the amount somehow would magically reappear

back into the department's unencumbered department fund balance. Ms. LeBlanc

was responsible for approving and updating new encumbrances and/or changes

entered against existing encumbrances by the Defendants' Purchasing

Department. The daily automated updates crossed future payable entries (PO's)

against revenue accounts from the PI system creating encumbrances in the GM

system of the H.T.E. software. Ms. LeBlanc explanation, "The PI system reports

do not matter. The encumbrance report in the PI syste~ is only for the

departments' reference. The GM encumbrance reports are the only reports to

reconcile bringing into balance by forcing entries with the social distorted idea the

encumbrance(capital, assets) must equal the liquidation(conversion, flow)

creating the formula "1-1 = 1."

Date occurred: 5112/08 or 5/13/08, numerous emails to Ms. Leblanc

explaining the error 5/12-5/16/08

2. Due to Ms. LeBlanc's inability to explain the accuracy of her thought process or

move on her position and understand the Plaintiff's concerns through various

examples sent via email.Ms. Johnson was instructed to converse with Sean

O'Neil, a Financial Analyst V working for the Defendant fifteen plus years.

During the conversation Mr. O'Neil expressed, "The Disbusmements Division of

the Travis County Auditor's Office does not account or audit for revenue." Their

prime focus is expenditures. He confirmed Ms. LeBlanc's comments in regards

to the functions and the application of the H.T.E. software. Only the GM batches

were used in reporting finances to the public. However, from the time of

Motion To Amend 2
employment to the time of termination the Plaintiff entered daily transactions due

for payment into the PI system against the encumbrances. The entries were

updated daily. The updates crossed the transactions from the PI system into GM

system creating a batch. The batches were audited for errors and processed for

payments weekly. Ms. Johnson also received numerous emails and phone

conversations while working for the Defendants from other departments in

reference to transactions necessary to enter for the balancing and closing of the

encumbrances. Final approval was given by Ms. LeBlanc through email. Thus,

since Mr. O'Neil was the prime financial analyst in charge of bonds, due to the

above points, the defendants are in violation of statues by not understanding the

basic principals of GAAP accounting practices and the inability to recognize and

realize the functationility of their accrual based software linking GM and PI

reports. The expenditures are part of a continual rolling revenue process of future

payables and receivables in the form of bonded projects paid out through the

encumbrance process.

Date occurred: 5119108-numerous emails to follow regarding my

theories into errors with the PO process and the necessary need for

the PI reports to balance with the GM encumbrance reports up to

my termination on 6/4/08.

3. In the meantime on 5115108, after the Plaintiff was turning in her weekly GM

batch reports into Sandy Hendrix, a Financial Analyst V working for the

Defendants ten plus years who was in charge of auditing the Plaintiff's batches

proceeded to slam her fist on her desk displaying acts of brutality with threatening

Motion To Amend 3
facial expressions asking, "Where are your groups for the week?" Ms. Johnson

tried to calmly explain to her this does not consistently happen, but there was an

encumbrancelPO issue she was addressing with an employee. When discussing

her hostility, the situation became clear Mrs. Hendrix was having issues with

other individuals she was auditing, so Ms. Johnson proceeded to ask if Mrs.

Hendrix could address and focus on the problems she was having with her to

warrant the outbreak. Mrs. Hendrix went on to accuse Ms. Johnson of

consistently not turning in her batch reports on time. Therefore, Ms. Johnson

asked her to provide the reports that validated her accusations. Ms. Johnson

walked back to her office and later sent a couple of emails to Mrs. Hendrix

regarding otherconcems on 5/16-5/19/08.

4. Due to the above events, on Tuesday, 5/20/08, Ms. Johnson had a meeting with

Mike Crawford, a Financial Analyst V and Jose Palacios, Chief Assistant County

Auditor. The main focus of the meeting was for Mr. Crawford and Mr. Palacios

to address my inability to turn in my reports on time, my accuracy, and my

communication skills. Once again, Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Palacios to show the

reports validating Mrs. Hendrix's claim. Mr. Palacios said he would have to give

me the reports on a later date. It was in this meeting, the Plaintiff after trying to

express to Mr. Palacios her concerns of the lost $60.48 he informed her how the

Travis County Auditor's Office does not keep track of Income nor does it have

the responsibility of handling the finances of the departments. Finances of each

individual county department are handled by the departments, themselves. This

statement is completely false and can be proven through phone conversations,

Motion To Amend 4
emails, and financial transactions produced by the Defendant from the start of my

employment on 11/7/08 until 6/4/08. Due to the fact Mr. Palacios is a manager in

charge of the Disbursement Division of the Travis County Auditor's Office, the

meeting on 5/20/08 only proved how he is unable to appropriately train

employees to accurately account/audit/practice financial procedures necessary for

governing county finance. Thus, according to Tex. Gov Code Sec. 554.002 and

, by the Defendant's own manual, a manager at any level is an appropriate person

to report a violation of finance. The auditor has auditing and reporting

responsibilities for the entire county government dealing with county finances.

Mr. Palacios would go on to confirm why the employees on the above and below

points are unaware of accounting procedures and practices violating numerous

Texas Statues.

5. After a discussion with Yolanda Jones, a financial analyst for the Defendant,

regarding a cash receipt from an employee in relation to a personal car rental and

where to credit the payment, Mrs. Jones claimed the receivable accounts and cash

receipts were processed through the Treasure's Department and are only audited

by the Auditor's Department. After further investigation, this turned out not to be

the case.

Date occurred: 5/27-5/29/08 emails to back up proof and phone

conversations with Rhonda Ambrose of the Treasure's Dept.-week of

6/2/08

6. Due to the Plaintiffs findings from points one, two, five, and six. During the last

week of May of2008 through 6/3/08, Ms. Johnson sent emails and had phone

Motion To Amend 5
conversations with Nancy Barchus ofthe Defendant's Purchasing Department an

encumbrance. The communication explained to her a new way of processing PI

transactions. The process explained Ms. LeBlanc's errors and how to correctly un

liquidate and unencumber on both sides, plus correct other issues such as line

requisition errors. This would eliminate the unnecessary need of the rolling

process of asking for the money back from various soucrces in charge of the

major general funds. False to what Mrs. LeBlanc and Mr. O'Neil claimed

foregoing the money does not return back to the unencumbered balance of the

project/departmental/grant fund source. Ms. Johnson was scheduled to have a

meeting with Mrs. Barchus in the second week of June.

7. On 6/3/08, the Plaintiff had a meeting with Mr. Palacios, Mr. Crawford, and April

Bacon, Chief Assistant County Auditor, regarding the meeting on 5/20/08 and my

professional performance since the meeting. Ms. Johnson was handed a PIP

memo. Below listed are highlights from the meeting and the PIP memo:

a) At the beginning, Mr. Palacios claimed to provide proof of the GM batch reports

Ms. Johnson had been asking for on 5/20/08. Again this is another false statement. Mr.

Palacios had to ask Mr. Crawford in the meeting to retrieve the reports from his office.

When Mr. Crawford returned with the reports she had been asking for a month, Ms.

Johnson had to explain to Mr. Palacios the reported time on the printouts were blacked

out do to the copy machine. Therefore, the issue surrounding the Plaintiff's inabilities

to turn her groups in on time still went unaddressed.

b) Mr. Palacios and Mr. Crawford also claimed the meeting to be on 5/19/08 and not

5/20/08. Mr. Palacios listed within the PIP memo the date three times, incorrectly.

Motion To Amend 6
When trying to explain to Mr. Palacios and Mr. Crawford the date was incorrect, both

got very defensive. Mr. Palacios questioned, "Whether I noticed if his television was

turned on because if his television was tuned on then the meeting did not happen on

Tuesday because his television was on Tuesday all day due to Commissioner Court."

Ms. Johnson sent two emails to Ms. Bacon verifying proof the meeting did not happen

on 5/19/08-one late on 6/3108 after the meeting and one earlier in the morning on

6/4/08. One fact is there was a check run on Monday, therefore; Ms. Johnson can

verify she was working on auditing upload batches into OM. Her upload did not need

the approval of Ms. Hendrix's. She also received an email from Mr. Crawford on

Monday morning when the meeting was supposedly occurring.

c) From the meeting on 6/3/08, Mr. Palacios and Mr. Crawford expressed one of the

main focal points of the meeting on 5/20/08 was contract issues. This is a false

statement. However, contract issues were addressed on 6/3108. Mr. Crawford and Mrs.

Bacon undermined Ms. Johnson's ability to question and respond on emails sent to the

departments concerning contract problem/issues on invoices due for payment. Their

concerns contradict Mr. Palacios comments in the meeting on 5/20/08 giving Ms.

Johnson credit and a compliment for generally having an inquisitive mind. The three

contracts mentioned on 6/3108 were Honda Motorcycle's, Envision, and Covert

Chevrolet. Problems with the three invoices bringing up concerns talked about on

6/3/08:

A <Honda Motorcycle--inventory overloading; people make

excessive payments at the bottom for inventory to just

accumulate in their basement. At the end of the meeting,

Motion To Amend 7
April fmally admitted the Honda Motorcycle contract

should have been written in better terms. Thus,

April's statement circles in on itself contradicting Mike's points

and her points at the beginning of the meeting invalidating

most of the meeting: emails sent between 5/21108-6/4/08.

B<Envision>transaction occurring inside a small secular

group structure of individuals isolating and not benefiting

the whole general public: emails sent between 5/21/08-

6/4/08, phone conversations, laserfische images.

C<Covert Chevrolet>Ms. Johnson finally received OEM

price list manuals on 6/3/08 from the dealer. She did not

have a chance to check and see if Covert for over a year

had been under invoicing according to the bid markup cost

of 16% on OEM material. In the business world

this is just one way you do business and form relationships

long term. The vendor will invoice at a discounted rate

instead of the agreed upon bid price if you agree to keep

renewing their bid. emails sent between 5/21/08, OEM

manuals, laserfische images, and phone conversation

The PIP memo contradicts Mr. Crawford's approach in the past who continually gave

me the ok to directly email the Purchasing Department with contract questions. Ms.

Johnson was instructed since the beginning of her employment in weekly meetings to

pull and know a contract a week as one of her responsibilities. She also helped develop

Motion To Amend 8
a flow chart for dealing with vendor changes on contracts awarded to vendors through a

bid process, due to their legality issues with CoCom. The flowchart would help the

Defendant avoid future lawsuits.

e) From the meeting on 6/3/08, the plaintiff feels Ms. Bacon to have been an abusive

person in nature not warranting any of the claims and allegations she addressed. The

Defendant expressed how Ms. Johnson was to be a perfect employee and always stand

above every other employees of Travis County in her work performance and personal

approaches. By signing the PIP memo, Ms. Bacon claims to have gathered evidence

from a variety of sources to my performance as an employee. When asked, "Ms.

Bacon, have you done this to any other employees working in Ms. Johnson's position

for the duration in which she has worked, and how did they compare?" Ms. Bacon

responded, "That is none of your business." Ms. Johnson went on to explain to Ms.

Bacon this would be the case if she was individually employed, however; since the

plaintiff worked with six other plus Associate Auditors I and II there should be relative

reports to compare performance levels without addressing who is the individual.

Furthermore, what was Mr. Crawford doing in both meetings ifhe was not a manager

or a supervisor addressing Ms. Johnson's work performance, according to the

Defendants policy he should not be aware or addressing concerns of Ms. Johnson's

performance because in Ms. Bacon's words, "it was none of his business." Privacy?

8. After returning to work the next morning the plaintiff sent an email to the

Defendant, Mrs. Bacon. Due to the inaccuracy of the memo, the email sent on the

morning of 6/4/08 explained to Mrs. Bacon how Ms. Johnson was reluctant to

sign the PIP memo until it was redrafted because the memo was asking to

Motion To Amend 9
improve on her accuracy immediately. It was ten minutes later after overhearing

a conversation right outside the Plaintiffs office, an employee of the Travis

County Auditor's office was asking Ms. LeBlanc, "How do you account for Cash

Receipts?" Ms. LeBlanc responded, "They have been accounting the cash

receipts incorrectly, but now they are going to start crediting the receivables

account." Since the conversation was right outside Ms. Johnson's office she

proceeded to interject in the conversation by asking a simply question of Ms.

LeBlanc, "Who informed you they were incorrectly accounting for revenue?"

Sean O'Neil walked by the hall at this time and responded with, "Now is not a

very good time." Ms. Johnson then responded with asking, "Why he was not

letting them know she was the one who pointed out the problem in the first

place?" Displaying yet another contradiction and proves the PIP memo to be

slandidourus statement regarding my accounting/auditing/contractual abilities.

9. A few seconds later Ms. Johnson was given a termination letter in Mr. Palacios's

office with Mrs. Bacon, and a questionable Mr. Crawford present. Afterwards,

Ms. Johnson was escorted back to her office to pick up her personal belongings.

When she was trying to pull personal emailsfromheraccount, Mr. Flanagan, an

employee of the Defendants, ran into the office creating a commotion by

unplugging the computer. Therefore, Ms. Johnson would not be able to take any

emails from the Defendants. During this time Mr. Palacios and Mrs. Bacon were

present standing in the office in a state of extreme paranoia with over excessive

authoritarianism stating the police would be called if Ms. Johnson did not leave

immediately. Why were those actions necessary? What are in those emails

Motion To Amend 10
.(

making the above scene necessary? From the point of conversation with Ms.

LeBlanc on 5/12/08 to the termination on 6/4/2008, the plaintiff stands by her

claims the Defendants abused their power of authority creating false truths and

forcing Ms. Johnson to sit back as a submissive employee, violating her First

Amendment rights of freedom of speech to ask basic questions in her job as an

auditor such as '"Who's, Who's", "What's, What's", and "Where's, Where's"

1O. Also, within the time frame stated above, the plaintiff found numerous other errors

with equity transactions. The defendant seems to credit and debit equity instead

of cash. According to all basic rules of accounting, crediting equity pooled in

cash at time of receipt or debiting it at the time of payment is invalid and a

dysfunctional equation. The transaction should never return to equity until after it

has been deposited in cash, not equity pooled in cash. By Global Finance Laws of

Governance "Equity=Assets-Liabilities", therefore; the equity can not be within

the assets/cash itself this would produce an equity circulating within itself.

11. Ms. Johnson also found examples of federal grants that have been in debt for

numerous years. Due to point one, two, four, five, and six from above, the

transactions do not seem to return back to the funds correctly. Therefore, the debt

of the federal grants can be reduced significacently with JE reconciliations.

12. On the day ofthe grievance proceedings 6/24/08, Ms. Spataro made the Plaintiff

and her attorney of charge, Steven J. Moss, aware Ms. Johnson was hired as an

"auditor and not an accountant." However, it was the understanding of Ms.

Johnson an auditor was a type of an accountant usually with higher capabilities

and experience than regular accountants, so an auditor should posses the

Motion To Amend 11
necessary background in accounting to recognize procedural errors when it comes

to the process of accounting. Later, she became aware Mrs. Spataro could was in

violation by hiring the plaintiff and six plus other employees without CPA's to

practice public accountancy Texas State Board of Public Accountancy v. Fulcher,

515 S.W.2d (1974). Mrs. Johnson at the time of employment had six plus years

in job cost accrual based accounting, therefore; obtained the knowledge through

work experience and her own studies to address the issues outlined. It was not

only her job to audit expenditures, but as it is any accountant's job to know your

software and how the transactions are crediting and debiting each and every

account. As a result of Mrs. Spataro's decision in the grievance process, the

above fmance violations to points 1-12 were reconfirmed and finalized from the

Federal Financial Management Circulars of the Office of Management and

Budget and the following Texas Statues:

TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.003, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.004
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.005, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.007
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.008, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.010
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.033, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.034,
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.036, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.037
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.038, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.039
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.040, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.041
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.041, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.042
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.043, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.044
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.0705, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.0706
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.0708, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.091
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.092, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.093
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 111.094, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 112.002
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.005, TEXLOC GOV'T CODE § 112.006
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 112.007, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 112.008
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 112.051, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 112.052
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.053, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.054
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 113.047, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 114.001
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 114.001, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 114.002
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 114.022, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 114.023

Motion To Amend 12 .
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 114.024, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 114.025
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 115.002, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 115.003
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 115.004, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 115.021
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 115.091, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 116.058
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 116.112, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 117.083
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 783.006; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1301.003
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1301.004; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.010
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.011; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.012
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.013; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.014
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1434.052; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.011
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.012; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.014
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.015; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.016
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.017; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.023
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.026; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.028
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.051; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.056
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.081; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.082
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.083; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.084
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.085; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.086
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.087; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.002
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.005; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.006
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.007; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.008
TEX. GOV'T CODE §
TITLE 9 PUBLIC SECURITIES
CHAPTER 1471-1472, 1474-1477
CHAPTER 1473
SUBTITLE I
TEX. GOV'T CODE §
CHAPTER 314
315
TEX. GOV'T CODE §
CHAPTER 2256 PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT
SUBCHAPTER A
B

Motion To Amend 13
Respectfully submitted,

HEATHER M. JOHNSON
Self Representative
for American Civil Liberties
and Global Human Rights
601 Blessing Ranch Rd.
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
(512) 497-2114: PHONE
(512) 778-6628: FAX

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Amended

Pleading Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 15 was served on the Defendants'

counsel via facsimile (512) 854-4808 before 5


/

Defendants' Attorneys:
ANTHONY J. NELSON/LESLIE W. DIPPEL
Travis County Assistant Attorneys
314 W. 11th Street, Suite 420
Austin, TX 78701
Phone Number: (512) 854-9513

Motion To Amend 14
Case 1:08-cv-00643 Document 17 Filed 04/29/2009 Page 1 of 2

HEATHER JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

-vs- Case No. A-08-CA-643-SS

TRAVIS COUNTY aiid SUSAN SPATARO, in her


individual and official capacities,
Defendants.

ORDER •

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and

specifically the plaintiff Heather Johnson's Motion to Amend Pleading [#16] filed April 22, 2009,

and thereafter, enters the following:

IT IS ORDERED that the --Motion to Amend Pleading


.
is GRANTED as Heather Johnson had

that right under the scheduling order existing in this case. Ho~ever, plaintiff's Motion to Amend
I

Pleading is in itself a pleading that does not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil·

Procedure.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Heathe:.- Johnson file an amended pleading within

eleven days of the date of this orderin compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
.il'· .

Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires "A pleading that states a claiin for relief must contain: ... (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for

the relief sought .... "


Case 1:08-cv-00643 Document 17 Filed 04/29/2009 Page 2 of 2

The Rule further requires "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical

form is required."

In the amended complaint, Heather Johnson is ORDERED to state a short and plain

statement, concisely, of each claim against each defendant she sues in this lawsuit and further state

what relief she seeks from each defendant.


- -- --- - - -- - --
-, -. -
The Motion to Amend Pleadings is a rambling statement that does not comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and simply alleges extraneous opinions and conclusions about facts

and legal citations.

Heather Johnson is also advised she is proceeding pro se in this lawsuit and any references

in the pleadings to "self-representative for American civil liberties and global human rights" are not

only unnecessary but are improper and shall be stricken from the pleadings.
-a:
SIGNED this the ~ day of April 2009.
,

~J.. " ';'j""~ ~

UNITEDSTA~T:nj])(m

-_. I L r , 1

-2-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON §
Plaintiff §
V. §
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN § CIVIL ACTION NO. A: 08-CA-643-SS
SPATAOR IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICAIAL CAPACITIES §
Defendants §

PLANTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING

Heather M. Johnson, Plaintiff in this action, pursuant to Federal Rille 15 in the above

civil action, moves the court for permission to file a second amended pleading. In

compliance with Federal Rule 8, the Plaintiff reiterates her allegations from the

original petition. The Plaintiff repeatedly through the good will and within good faith

of her profession reported to the Defendants serious financial and contractual errors

along with accounting irregu1arities affecting the fmancial conditions of the people of

Travis County, the United States, and the World. Per Fed. R.15(a)(I), below are the

following details relating to the allegations the Plaintiff reserved the right to amend in

the original petition section V. Factual Background (8).

8(a). After Tracy LeBlanc, working for the Defendants five plus years as an

Associate Auditor II, was unable to explain how to make the necessary journal entries

balancing a $60.48 difference between the encumbrancelPO of the GM payables

system and the PI purchasing system, the Plaintiff became aware of how the

Defendants might possibly be forcing entries and misappropriating funds with the

social distorted idea the encumbrance( capital, assets) must equal the

liquidation(conversion, flow) creating the formula "1-1 =1."

Motion To Amend 1
Date occurred: 5/12/08 or 5/13/08, numerous emailsto Ms. LeBlanc

explaining the error 5/12-5/16/08.

8(b). As a result, Ms. Johnson was instructed to converse with Sean O'Neil, a

Financial Analyst V working for the Defendants fifteen plus years regarding her

concern. Mr. O'Neil seemed to claim the Disbursements Division ofthe Travis

County Auditor's Office only audits for expenditures and not revenue. However, the

expenditures are part of a continual rolling revenue process of future payables and

receivables in various forms paid out through the encumbrance process, thus again;

the Plaintiff realized how employees of the Defendants could be unaware of certain

GAAP accounting practices, language, and the function of their accrual based H.T.E.

accounting software linking GM and PI report.

Date occurred: 5/19/08-numerous emails to follow regarding my

concerns and theories into errors with the PO process and the

necessary need for the PI reports to balance with the GM

encumbrance reports up to my termination on 6/4/08.

8(c). Due to the above events, on Tuesday, 5/20/08, Ms. Johnson had a meeting

with Mike Crawford, a Financial Analyst V and Jose Palacios, a Chief Assistant

County Auditor for the Defendants. It was in this meeting, the Plaintiff made a good

faith complaint of the Defendants alleged inappropriate fmancial practices by

expressing her concerns of the lost $60.48. The Plaintiff seemed to be instructed the

matters were only the concern of other Departments and not to concern herself with

the matters and theories reported anymore during working hours.

Motion To Amend 2
8(d). After receiving email/phone communication from an employee of Travis

County in regards to a cash receipt and discussing with Yolanda Jones, a Financial

Analyst V for the Defendants and Rhonda Ambrose of the Travis County Treasury

Department, it seemed unclear on who accounts/audits for receivables. After further

investigation, it appeared there were other possible accounting procedural errors with

cash receipts causing inappropriate accounts to be credited.

Date occurred: 5/27-5/29/08 emails to back up proof and phone

conversations with Rhonda Ambrose of the Treasure's Dept.-week of

6/2/08

8(e). During the last week of May of 2008 through 6/3/08, Ms. Nancy Barchus of

the Travis County Purchasing Department emailed and phoned the Plaintiff with

questions concerning alleged errors with numerous other financial transactions of the

Defendants. The communication sent from the Plaintiff explained to Mrs. Barchus a

new way of processing PI transactions to eliminate future errors. Ms. Johnson was

scheduled to have a meeting with Mrs. Barchus in the second week of June concerning

the possible accounting irregularities of the encumbrance process affecting bond,

contract, grant, and other payable entries.

8(f). Also, within the timeframe stated above, the Plaintiff found numerous

concerns with questionable equity transactions creating accounting irreguralties with

possibly serious financial significant. The Defendants seems to be crediting and

debiting equity instead of cash. According to all basic rules of accounting, crediting

equity pooled in cash at time of receipt or debiting it at the time of payment is invalid

and a dysfunctional equation. The equity can not be within the assets/cash itself this
Motion To Amend 3
would produce an equity circulating within itself. The correct universal equation by

Global Finance Laws of Governance is "Equity=Assets-Liabilities,"

8(g). Due to a transaction Ms. Johnson was processing for payment, the Plaintiff

also found examples of grants/projects that have been in debt for numerous years. Due

to allegations ,S(a)-8(f), the transactions do not seem to return back to the funds

correctly. Therefore, the debt of the grants/projects could have a chance to be reduced

significantly with the proper JE reconciliations.

8(h). On 6/3/08, the Plaintiff had a meeting with Mr. Palacios, Mr. Crawford, and

April Bacon, a Chief Assistant County Auditor. Ms. Johnson was handed a PIP memo

in retaliation for doing her job as an Associate Auditor I III and reporting in good faith

possible contract violations. Three examples of supposed contract violations discussed

in the meeting were Honda Motorcycle, Envision, and Covert Chevrolet. From

5/21/08-6/4/08, on all three, there were emails, phone conversations, and payable

documents verifying conversations between Travis County employees, the vendors, and

the Plaintiff. Ms. Johnson sent an email to Mrs. Bacon after the meeting on 6/3/08 and

one earlier the next morning on 6/4/08 in reference to the inaccuracy and slanderous

allegations of the PIP memo. The Plaintiff was terminated on 6/4/08 before receiving a

response.

8(i). As a result of Mrs. Spataro's decision in the grievance proceeding process

from 6/24/08-7/3/08, possible serious and significant finance violations to allegations

8(a)-8(h) of certain sections of the Federal Financial Management Circulars ofthe

Office of Management and Budget A-I 02, A-I33 and the below Texas Statues were

reported in good faith to an appropriate law enforcement authority who in turn denied
Motion To Amend 4
factual evidence to be turned over and further investigation of the allegations, thus; the

County Auditor's actions were a willful and blatant violation ofthe Texas

Whistleblower Act, Section 554.002. Therefore, the Plaintiff will also show as stated in

the original petition Mrs. Spataro actions deprived Ms. Johnson of her First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights made actionable by 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.003, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.004
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.005, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.007
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.008, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.010
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.033, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.034
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.036, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.037
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.038, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.039
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.040, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.041
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.041, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.042
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.043, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.044
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.0705, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.0706
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.0708, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.091
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.092, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.093
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 111.094, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.002
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.005, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.006
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.007, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.008
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.051, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.052
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.053, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 112.054
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 113.047, TEX LOCGOV'T CODE § 114.001
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 114.001, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 114.002
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 114.022, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 114.023
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 114.024, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 114.025
TEX LOC GPV'T CODE § 115.002, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 115.003
TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 115.004, TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 115.021
TEX LOC GOV'T CODE § 115.091, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 116.058
TEX LaC GPV'T CODE § 116.112, TEX LaC GOV'T CODE § 117.083
TEX. oov-r CODE § 783.006; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1301.003
TEX. GOV'T CODE § l301.004; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.010
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.011; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.012
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.013; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1432.014
TEX. GOV'l' CODE § 1434.052; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.011
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.012; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.014
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.015; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.016
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.017; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.023
TEX. GOV'lf CODE § 1471.026; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.028
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.051; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.056

Motion To Amend 5
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.081; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.082
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.083; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.084
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.085; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.086
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1471.087; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.002
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.005; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.006
TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.007; TEX. GOV'T CODE § 1472.008
TEX. GOV'T CODE §
TITLE 9 PUBLIC SECURITIES
CHAPTER 1471-1472, 1474-1477
CHAPTER 1473 SUBTITLE I
TEX. GOV'T CODE § CHAPTER 314,315
TEX. GOV'T CODE § CHAPTER 2256 PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT
SUBCHAPTER A, B

According to the original petition section XI. Relief Sought (23) & (24) and in

compliance with the Federal Rule 8, the plaintiff seeks monetary relief for the

allegations against the Defendant Spataro in her individual capacity under 42

U.S.C.A. § 1983 and seeks monetary relief for the allegations against the Defendant

Travis County under the Texas Whistleblower Act for the damages set forth in the

original petition.

Respectfully submitted,

HEATHER M. JOHNSON
601 Blessing Ranch Rd.
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
(512) 497-2114: PHONE
(512) 778-6628: FAX

Motion To Amend 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Second Amended

Pleading Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 15 and 8 was served on the

Defendants' counsel via facsimile (512) 854-4808 efore Sp.m. on the 6th of May 2009.

ffl;l ./

Defendants' Attorneys:
ANTHONY J. NELSON/LESLIE W. DIPPEL
Travis County Assistant Attorneys
314 W. 11th Street, Suite 420
Austin, TX 78701
Phone Number: (512) 854-9513

Motion To Amend 7
Fax
To: Travis County Attomey's Office: From: Heather M. Johnson

Leslie W. Dipple/Anthony J. Nelson

Fax: (512)-854-4808 Pages: 1-7

Phone: Date: 5/612009

Re: Second lVIotionto Amend cc:

It] Urgent o For Review o Please Comment i2JPlease Reply o Please Recycle

~ ,. -.
HP Officejet J4500 AU-in-One series . Fax Log for
May 06 2009 10:35AM

Last Transaction

Date Time Type Station to Duration Pages Result

, May 6 10:29AM Fax Sent 15128544808 2:45 7 OK


,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON §
§
V. § A-08-CA-643-SS
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO §
IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL §
CAPACITIES §

DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF

TO: Plaintiff, pro se, .Heather Johnson, 601 Blessing Ranch Road, Liberty Hill, Texas
78642

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26 and 33, you are required to respond to the following

Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff

pursuant to the included instructions and definitions within thirty (30) days after service.

This discovery shall be deemed continuing so as to require supplemental answers

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

".. J,..
>- .

. .

Defendants' First Set of lnterrogatoncs to Plaintiff


189656-1 094.269
Respectfully submitted,

DAVID ESCAMILLA
County Attorney, Travis County
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
Telephone: (512) 854-9513
Facsimile: (512) 854-4808

By: ~~~
Anthony J. Nelson
State Bar No. 14885800
Leslie W. Dippel
State Bar No. 00796472
ATTORNEYS FORDFENDANTS
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN
SPATARO

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' First Set

of Interrogatories to Plainti ff has been served in accordance with the Federal Rules of

th
Civil Procedure, via Facsimile and certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 15

day of April 2009, as follows:

Via Certified MaiL


RlR/R # 70052570000050053164
Heather Johnson
Plaintiff. pro se
601 Blessing Ranch Road
Liberty Hill, Texas 78642

Anthony J. Nelson
Leslie W. Dippel

Defendants' ril'St Set of lntcrrogatoeics to Plaintiff 2


t 89656-1 094.269
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

A. Instructions

L Answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is
properly objected to, in which event state the reasons for the objection in lieu of an answer.
If you respond with an objection, answer any portion of the interrogatory to which you do
not object.

2. An evasive or incomplete answer may be deemed to be a failure to answer.

3. You are under a continuing duty to promptly supplement your response as soon as
practicable after you discover that a previous answer is either inaccurate, no longer accurate,
or incomplete.

4. If there are any documents, which answer in whole or in part, any of these
interrogatories, they may be attached to your answers and incorporated in the answers by
specific reference.

5. Ifa document required to be identitied by these interrogatories was, but is no longer,


in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of the
document as well as the date(s), or approximate date(s), on which such disposition was
made and state the nature of and the circumstances surrounding the disposition.

6. In the event tbat a privilege is claimed as the ground for not answering any
interrogatory, either in whole or in part, you are instructed to identify such information by its
subject matter and state with particularity the facts and grounds constituting the nature and
basis for any such privilege or other ground for non-disclosure. Only such parts of your
answer which are privileged from disclosure, according to your claim, may be withheld.
Any part of your answer to which you did not claim privilege or work product should be
given in full.

7. Although subsequent discovery and/or investigation may yield additional


information in the future and make it necessary for you to supplement your responses,
Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro request that you answer these interrogatories
as fully and completely as possible by providing all such responsive information as is
known to you at the time your original answers to these interrogatories are due. This
necessarily includes the facts known to you at the time Plaintiffs Original Petition was filed
and which formed the basis for the allegations contained therein with regard to Defendants.

8. For any requested information about a document that no longer exists or cannot be
located, identify the document, state how and when ceased to existence, or when it could no
longer be located, and the reasons for the disappearance. Also, identify each person having
knowledge about the disposition or loss, and identify each document evidencing the
existence or nonexistence of each document that cannot be located.

Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff 3


189656.1094.269
B. Definitions

The following definitions shall have the following meanings, unless the context requires
otherwise:

1. "Plaintiff' or "Heather Johnson," as well as a party's full or abbreviated name or a


pronoun referring to a party, means the party, and where applicable, her agents,
representatives, officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate agents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, or any other person acting in concert with her or under her control, whether
directly or indirectly, including any attorney.

2. "Travis County" means Travis County, Texas and as the context requires, including
its agents, representatives, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and persons acting or
purporting to act on its behalf or under its control.

3. "Defendants" means Travis County, Texas and/or Susan Spataro as the context
requires, includes their agents, representatives, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and
persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.

4. "You" or "your" means Plaintiff, Heather Johnson, her successors, predecessors,


divisions, subsidiaries, present and former officers, agents, employees, and all other persons
acting on behalf of Plaintiff or her successors, predecessors, divisions, and subsidiaries.

5. "Document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage


of this term in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34(a). A draft ofa non-identical copy is
a separate document within the meaning of this term.

6. "Possession, custody, or control" of an item means that the person either has physical
possession of the item or has a right to possession that is equal or superior to the person who
has physical possession of the item.

7. "File" means any collection or group of documents maintained, held, stored, or used
together, including, without limitation, all collections of documents maintained, held, or
stored in folders, notebooks, or other devices for separating or organizing documents.

8. "Person" means any natural person, corporation, firm association, partnership, joint
venture, proprietorship, governmental body, or any other organization, business, or legal
entity, and all predecessors or successors in interest.

9. "Relating to"· and "relates to" mean, without limitation, embodying, mentioning, or
concerning, directly or indirectly, the subject matter identified in the interrogatory.

10. "Concerning" means, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, referring to, relating to,
connected with, conunenting 01], responding to, showing, describing, analyzing, reflecting,
or constituting.

Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff


189656-1094.269 4
11. "Date" means the exact date, month, and year, if ascertainable, or, if not, the best
available approximation.

12. "Mobile device" means cellular telephone, satellite telephone, pager, personal
digital assistant, palm top computer, hand-held computer, electronic rolodex, or walkie-
talkie.

13. "Identify" or "describe" when referring to a person, means you must state the
following:

a. The full name.

b. The present or last known residential address and residential phone number.

c. TIle present or last known office address and office telephone number.

d. The present occupation, job title, employer, and employers address at the
time ofthe event or period referred to in each particular interrogatory.

e. In the case of any entity, identify the officer, employee, or agent most closely
connected with the subject matter of the interrogatory, and the officer who is
responsible for supervising that officer or employee.

14. "Identify" or "describe" when referring to a document, means you must state the
following:

a. The nature (e.g., letter, handwritten note) of the document.

b. The title or heading that appears on the document.

c. The date of the document and the date of each addendum, supplement, or
other addition or change.

d. The identity of the author and of the signer of the document, and of the
person on whose behalf or at whose request or direction the document was
prepared or delivered.

e. The present location of the docwnent, and the name, address, position or
title, and telephone number of the person or persons having custody of the
document.

15. "Communication" means any contact between two or more persons, companies,
corporations, joint ventures or partnerships and shall include, without limitation, electronic
communication, letters, memoranda, telegrams, or telecopies, ,and any oral contract such as
face-to-face meetings and telephone conversations.

Defendants' First Set or lruerrogaiorics to Plaintiff 5


189656-1 004.269
16. "Lawsuit" shall mean the lawsuit styled Heather Johnson v. Travis County and
Susan Spataro, in her Individual and Official Capacities, In the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, Cause No. A-08-CA-643-SS.

17. "EEOC Charge" shall mean the EEOC complaint filed with the U.S. Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission, Charge Number 36A-2008-00319.

18. "Health Care Provider" means any practitioner of the healing arts, and may include
medical doctors, dentists, hospitals, clinics, radiologists, psychologists, psychiatrists,
counselors, chiropractors, osteopaths, emergency room services, ambulances, pharmacists,
pathologists, and therapists.

19. "Describe in detail " means to give a complete and full description concerning the
matter about which inquiry is made, including the full name, address, and telephone number
(both office and home) of persons involved, if appropriate, along with the dates, times,
places, amounts, and other particulars which make the answers to the interrogatory fair and
meaningful.

20. "Income" means any source of revenue you receive on a weekly, biweekly,
monthly, semi-annual, or annual basis which is derived from any form of employment, gifts,
royalties, government assistance, etc.

21. As used in these Interrogatories, the singular encompasses the plural and the plural
encompasses the singular.

22. Whenever the masculine gender is used herein, it should- be taken to include
feminine gender where appropriate.

23. The word "and" means "and/or."

24. The word "or" means "or/and."

Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff


189656-1094.269 6
Personal financial information comes within the zone of privacy
protected by California Constitution, Article I, § 1 (Va/ley Bank of Nevada IJ.
Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656). The Insurance Information Act and
Privacy Protection Act, Ins. Code §§ 793, et seq., limits the disclosure of
information in connection with insurance transactions (Griffith v. State Farm
Mutua/Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 65-71). "Privileged
information" means any individually identifiable information that both: (1)
relates to a claim for insurance benefits ... (2) is collected in connection with or
in reasonable anticipation of a claim for insurance benefits .... " Ins. Code, §
791.02, subd. (v)(1), (2).)
DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF

INTERROGATORY NO. I:

Please state the full name, including your middle name or names, all nicknames by which
you are known, and any name by which you were ever known.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.2:

Identify each person answering these interrogatories, supplying information, or assisting in


any way with the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.3:

Please state the complete address of your residence for the last 10 years.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.4:

State whether you have been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any
misdemeanors or felonies within the past ten (10) years, except for minor traffic
violations. If so, describe for each the nature of the charge, the date, location and
circumstances of the conviction, the ultimate disposition of the case, and if you are
presently on probation in connection with any such conviction

ANSWER:

Defendants' First Set or 11llf;~ITOg:ttorics 10 Plaintiff 7


189656-1 094.269
INTERROGATORY NO.5:

Identify any and all psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, physicians, or any other health
care providers whose services you have ever retained for counseling, treatment, or analysis
of any physical, emotional, mental, or psychological condition or complaint for the past ten
years.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.6:

Have you ever complained to a previous employer or any governmental agency of any form
or kind of discrimination, retaliation, or constitutional violation? If so, please identify the
employer and provide the date and nature of your complaint. Please also include what
resolution was reached, if any.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.7:

Identify any cause of action or administrative claim you have brought against any person or
entity by providing the cause number and the court in which it was filed; state the nature of
the litigation; and, state the resolution, if any.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.8:

Please state the basis of your allegation that your rights under the Texas Whistleblower Act
were violated.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.9:

Please state the basis for your allegation that Defendants' conduct constitutes a willful and
blatant violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act.

Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories 10 Plaintiff 8


189656~1 094.269
ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Please state when, how, and to whom you expressed your concerns relating to the alleged
accounting irregularities that violated laws and regulations of the State of Texas to your
supervisors and managers employed by the Defendants, including Susan Spataro.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Please state of the basis of your allegation that Defendants deprived you of your First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Please state of the basis of your allegation that Defendants deprived you of your Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Please state the name, address and qualifications of each person you expect to call as an
expert witness at the trial of this cause, the subject matter upon which the expert is expected
to testify, the documents and/or tangible things reviewed or prepared by the expert, the
mental impressions and opinions held by each such witness, and the facts known to the
expert which relate to or form the basis ofthe mental impressions and opinions held by each
such witness.

ANSWER:

Defendants' First Set of huerrogatories to Plaintiff


189656-1 094.269
9
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Please state the name, address and qualifications of each expert used for consultation who is
not expected to be called as a witness at the trial of this cause but whose worlc product forms
the basis, either in whole or in part, of the opinions of any testifying expert who is to be
called as witness at trial, and state the mental impressions and opinions held by the expert,
the facts known to the expert, and the documents reviewed or prepared by the expert.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Please identify and describe, in detail, each element of damages claimed by Plaintiff in
connection with the incidents made the basis of this suit, the factual basis for each element
of damages, the amount in dollars and cents of reimbursement or compensation claimed due
to the Plaintiff in connection with each element of damages, the factual basis for the
computation of the damage amount specified.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Describe all attempts you have made to secure employment since your separation from
Travis County. If currently employed, please identify you current employer and current
position.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Identify each and every employer you have had for the IO-year period prior to your
employment with the Travis County Auditor's Office, stating the name and address of such
employer(s), your job title, the dates of employment for each, and the reason for leaving.

ANSWEd:

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories 10 Plaintiff


189656·1 094.269
10
Please identify any source of income you have received since your separation from Travis
County including but not limited to unemployment, social security, disability, wages, and/or
other sources. Include the dates the income was received, the amount, and the source of
each such income.

ANSWER:

Defendants' First Set or Interrogatories to Plaintiff


18%56~1094.269 11
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF RESPONSES TO THE DEFENDANTS'

INTERROGATORIES

I: My full name is Heather Marie Johnson.

2: The Plaintiff, Heather Marie Johnson is the only person answering these

interrogatories.

3: The Plaintiff's complete address of residence for the last 10 years is-

5/2005-currentl601 Blessing Ranch Rd Liberty Hill, TX 78642

7/2001-71200517800 San Felipe Blvd. No. 702 Austin, TX 78729

7/2000-7/2001lApartment Complex on Riverside Dr. Austin, TX

5/1999-612000/Apartments in San Marcos, IX

4: The Plaintiff has not been convicted of, pled guilty, or nolo contendere to any

misdemeanors or felonies within the past ten (10) years.

5: Objection: The subject interrogatory NO.5 seeks information that is irrelevant

and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial

because the information is protected from disclosure by the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and invasive to the Plaintiff's privacy.

6: No, the Plaintiff has never complained to a previous employer or any

governmental agency of any for or kind of discrimination, retaliation, or

constitutional violation.

7: The Plaintiff has not brought any cause of action or administrative claim against

any person or entity.

Plaintiff's First Set of Responses to the Defendants' Interrogatories


8: Objection to the subject of the interrogatory NO.8 on the grounds it is overbroad,

vague, and somewhat repetitive to NO.9.

9: The Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory NO. 9 on the ground it is overboard and

unduly burdensome. The interrogatory is also irrelevant and invasive to her privacy,

since the case is to be presented, argued, and decided before a jury. In addition, the

Plaintiff is in the process of requesting factual evidence through discovery.

10: The Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory NO. 10 on the ground it is overboard and

unduly burdensome. The interrogatory is also irrelevant and invasive to her privacy,

since the case is to be presented, argued, and decided before a jury. In addition, the

Plaintiff is in the process of requesting factual evidence through discovery.

II: The Plaiptiff objects to Interrogatory NO. lion the ground it is overboard and

unduly burdensome. The interrogatory is also irrelevant and invasive to her privacy,

since the case is to be presented, argued, and decided before a jury. In addition, the

Plaintiff is in the process of requesting factual evidence through discovery.

12: The Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory NO. 12 on the ground it is overboard and

unduly burdensome .. The interrogatory is also irrelevant and invasive to her privacy,

since the case is to be presented, argued, and decided before a jury. In addition, the

Plaintiff is in the process of requesting factual evidence through discovery.

13&14: Ms. Johnson does not expect to call an expert witness at the trial, but the

Plaintiff reserve the right to answer the interrogatory in the future if she feels an

expert witness is needed to be called upon.

15: The Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory NO. 15 on the ground it is overboard and

unduly burdensome. The interrogatory is also irrelevant and invasive to her privacy,

Plaintiff's First Set of Responses to the Defendants' Interrogatories 2


since the trial is to be presented, argued, and decided before a jury. In addition the

Plaintiff is in the process of requesting factual evidence through discovery.

16: The Plaintiff has applied for over fifty different positions since her separation

from Travis County. Ms. Johnson has not heard back from anyone position.

17: Please see attached resume.

18: The Plaintiff has received no income since her separation from Travis County.

Plaintiff'S First Set of Responses to the Defendants' Interrogatories J


HNSON
PROSE
601 Blessing Ranch Rd.
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
Telephone: (512) 778·6099
Facsimile: (512) 778·6628

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Fist Set of

Responses to the Defendants' Interrogatories has been served in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, via certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the

14thday of May 2009, as follows:

Via Certified Mail


RIRIR # 70072560000083909125
Anthony J. Nelson
Lelie W. Dippel
Assistant County Attorneys
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767

Plaintiff's First Set of Responses to the Defendants' Interrogatories 4


HEATHER M. JOHNSON
601 Blessing Ranch Rd • Liberty Hill, TX 78642
Cell; (512) 497-2114· Home; (512) 778-6099· Fa:x (512) 778-6628· Email;hmj7476@hughes.net

ACCOUNTANT
AccouDts Payable· Purchase Orders. Iovcatosy » Fixed Assets »Job Coer» ORice Supply Manager
• Timberline & Great .PlainsSoftware· MS ORice Suite. Crystal Rcpons » Basic Web Design· QuickBooks

PROFILE Self motivated, ambitious, meticulous, accountant with a solid administrative background. Competent and ready to
perform in a fast paced environment for a diverse group of individuals. Excellent organizational and networking skills
vital for efficiently completing multi-task projects on a daily basis. Advanced knowledge of current computer
applications and the readiness to learn and master new programs.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ---------------------
Travis County Auditor's Office-1ustin, T.X 11/07"()6/2008
Disbursements division of governmental accounting focusing on the auditing! enforcement procedures of tax payers dollars.

Magnolia Pictures, LLC - Austin, T.X 04/2006-05/2007


Tbeatricai & H()lIIe E"tmmn/hen/ distribuli()IJ branch of Todd IJ:7agller & Mark Cuban s 2929 Entertainmmt, f()C1IJing on a distinctiw and diverse group ()ffiuns.

Enviroquip, Inc. - Austin, TX 08/2000-10/2005


An intemationai supplier oflVIembranc, Aeration, Bar S trem, Symbio, & Belt Filter Press material to govcmmmtol alld c()lJlIJJcrdalwas/CWOlff aJld water plan/s.

Accomplishments
-- 1 of 2 accountants performing financial tasks for a 40+ employee based company.
- Designed a computerized e>..-pensereport using excel.
---Recreated a manual time sheet in excel for Enviroquip's hourly employees.
- Balanced two general ledger accounts unreconciled for 1.5 veers.

Accounts Payable
• Entered and generated daily invoices using either a general ledger and/or job cost
accounting format.
• Processed 4 different weekly check runs.
• Audited and processed travel expense reports.
• Recorded, generated, and disposed of fixed assets into a DOS database.
• Reconciled and reported journal entries to comptroller.
• Maintained and cleaned up hundreds of vendor files for 3 different companies
• Allocated over $30,000 worth of monthly credit card charges.
Purchasing
• Exported buyout files and imported them into a job cost purchase order format for the
receiving department and vendors.
• Registered inventory into an excel spreadsheet and documented monthly totals into a
DOS database.
• Purchased office supplies and furniture for the company.
• Filed and sorted purchase orders.
Billing
• Invoiced customers for large contract amounts and small travel and parts expenses.
• Researched, reconciled, and recorded expenses owed by employees.
• Organized and filed contact documents.
Employment
Histo!;y
---------------------------------
Temporary Personnel Services- Accountants on Call, Austin, TX (7/00-8/00,1/06-4/06)
Water Safety Instructor-Austin Parks and Recreation, Austin, TX (6/00-8/00)
Career Associate-Career Services at TSU, San Marcos, TX (8/99-5/00)
&TrNning-------------------------------
Education
liA,~atJdAtt-TSU, Cum Laude with a GPA of 3.44, San Marcos, T.X (8/94-5/00)
New HorizoD""-"'foorottOffice 2000 Suite, Levels 1-3, Austin, TX (2001-2002)
TSCS-Beginning & Advanced Crystal Reports, Houston, TX (2004)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON §
§
V. § A-08-CA-643-SS
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN §
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICIAL §
CAPACITIES §

DEFENDANTS' FIRST REOUEST


FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF

TO: Plaintiff, pro se, Heather Johnson, 601 Blessing Ranch Road, Liberty Hill, Texas
78642

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26 and 34, you are required to respond to the following

Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro's First Request for Production of Docwnents

to Plaintiff pursuant to the included instructions and definitions within thirty (30) days after

service. This discovery shall be deemed continuing so as to require supplemental answers

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff


190032-1 94.269
Respectfully submitted,

DA VID ESCAMILLA
County Attorney, Travis County
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
Telephone: (512) 854-9513
Facsimile: (512) 854-4808

By: ~~
Anthony J. Nelson
State Bar No. 14885800
Leslie W. Dippel
State Bar No. 00796472
ATTORNEYS FOR DFENDANTS
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS AND
SUSAN SPATARO

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' First Set

of Request for Production to Plaintiff has been served in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 15th day of

April 2009, as follows:

Via Certified Mail


RRR#7005 2570000050053164
Heather Johnson,
Plaintiff, pro se,
601 Blessing Ranch Road
Liberty Hill, Texas 78642

Anthony J. Nelson
Leslie W. Dippel

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff 2


190032-1 94.269
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

Please use the following definitions in responding to the following Requests for
Production:

I. "Plaintiff," "you" or "your" means Heather Johnson Plaintiff herein, and as the
context requires includes her agents, representatives, affiliates, predecessors,
successors, and persons acting or purporting to act on Plaintiff's behalf or under
Plaintiffs control.

2. "Travis County" means Travis County, Texas and as the context requires includes
its agents, representatives, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and persons acting or
purporting to act on its behalf or under its control.

3. "Defendants" means Travis County, Texas and/or Susan Spataro and as the context
requires includes their agents, representatives, affiliates, predecessors, successors,
and persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf or under their control.•.'~· ' .
.,

4. "Persons" as used herein includes natural persons, general partnerships, limited


partnerships, joint ventures, associations, corporations, governmental agencies,
departmental units or subdivisions thereof, and any other form of business entity or
association, as the case may be.

5. "Documents" means "documents and tangible things" within the broad sense of the
FED. R. Crv. P. 34(a), and includes, with out limitation, all written, recorded or
graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, now or at any time in your
possession, custody or control, or subject to your control, including, without
limitation, all letters, correspondence, statements, reports, papers, memoranda,
books, accounts, invoices, drawings, drafts, charts, photographs, negatives,
electronic or videotape recordings, any other data compilations from which
information may be obtained, and includes drafts and non-identical copies of
documents. Documents are deemed subject to your control if you have the right to
secure the item or copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity
having actual physical possession thereof. If any document requested herein was,
but is no longer subject to your control, please state what disposition was made of it,
and the date or dates or the approximate date or dates of such disposition.

6. "Concerning" includes referring to, alluding to, pertaining to, responding to,
relating to, in connection with, commencing on, in respect of, about, regarding,
discussing, showing, describing, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, constituting, or
evidencing.

7. "Communication" means any contact between two or more persons, companies,


corporations, joint ventures or partnerships and shall include, without limitation,
written contact by means such as letters, memoranda, telegrams, telecopies or

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff 3


\90032-1 94.269
telexes, or by any document, and any oral contract such as face-to-face meetings and
telephone conversations.

8. "Lawsuit" shall mean the lawsuit styled Heather Johnson v. Travis County, Texas
and Susan Spataro, in her Individual and Official Capacities, In the United States
District Court Western District of Texas, Austin Division, Cause Number A-08-CA-
643-SS.

9. "Health Care Provider" means any practitioner of the healing arts, and includes
medical doctors, dentists, hospitals, clinics, radiologists, psychologists, psychiatrists,
counselors, chiropractors, osteopaths, emergency room services, ambulances,
pharmacists, pathologists, and therapists.

10. "Income" means any source of revenue you receive on a weekly, biweekly,
monthly, semi-annual, or annual basis which is derived from any form of
employment, gifts, royalties, government assistance, etc.

II. As used in these Requests for Production of Documents, the singular encompasses
the plural and the plural encompasses the singular.

12. Whenever the masculine gender is used herein, it should be taken to include
feminine gender where appropriate.

13. The word "and" is defined to mean "and/or".

14. The word "or" is defined to mean "or/and".

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff 4


190032-1 94.269
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST NO. t:

Any and all documents reflecting or describing any investigation of the incident
forming the basis ofthis lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.2:

All documents, photographs, moving pictures, films, videotapes, and audio


recordings that are connected with or related, in any way, to this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO.3:

Discoverable documents and tangible things evidencing or relating in any way to


any allegation contained in Plaintiff's original complaint and subsequent pleadings, if any.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.4:

Documents and tangible things consisting of any written statements or transcriptions


of oral statements purporting to have been made by Plaintiff or Plaintiff's agents in
connection with the allegations in Plaintiff's suit against these Defendants.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.5:

Documents and tangible things consisting of any writing originating with Plaintiff
and/or signed by Plaintiff which are in the custody or control of Plaintiff or herlhis agents
which concern the alleged incident.

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff


190032-1 94.269
RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO.6:

Any written, verbal, recorded, or other statements of Defendants that are connected
with or related, in any way, to this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO.7:

Any written, verbal, recorded, or other statements of Plaintiff that are connected with
or related, in any way, to this lawsuit.

REQUEST NO.8:

Any and all documents or records of regularly conducted business activities which
Plaintiff may introduce into evidence at the time of trial of this case or which may be used in
the examination of any witness at trial or by deposition in this case.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.9:

All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared for or reviewed
by any expert who may be called to testify as a witness in this case. In the event that there is
an expert witness about whom you or your attorney have knowledge, whom you or your
attorney cannot positively aver will not testify, then you are hereby requested that the factual
observations, test, supporting data, calculations, photographs, and opinions of each such
expert be recorded and reduced to a tangible form and produced in response to this request.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 10:

All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared for any expert in
anticipation of the expert's trial and/or deposition testimony.

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff 6


190032-1 94.269 •
RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 11:

All documents and tangible things that have been made or prepared Qy an expert
used for consultation purposes that forms the basis, either in whole or in part, of the opinions
of an expert who may be called as a witness.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 12:

Any and all documents reflecting the current curriculum vitae, resume, biography,
and bibliography of published works for each expert witness Plaintiff expects to call as a
witness in this case.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 13:

Any and all published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history,


medicine, or other science or art upon which Plaintiff or Plaintiff's expert witnesses claim to
be reliable authority which may be introduced into evidence at the trial of this case or which
may be used in the examination of any witness at trial or by deposition in this case.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 14:

The contract itself and every document which evidences or relates to the contract of
employment between you and any of your testifying or non-privileged consulting experts.

RESPONSE:

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff 7


190032-1 94.269
REOUEST NO. 15:

All documents evidencing or referring to any correspondence between you


(including your attorneys} and any of your testifying or non-privileged consulting experts
relating to this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 16:

All documents or tangible things concerning this litigation, which were given by you
to any person who you intend to call and/or may call at trial as an expert witness.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 17:

All written instructions or any instructions or directions recorded in any form from
you, or your attorneys, to any of your experts or non-privileged consulting experts
concerning the formation of their opinions in this litigation.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 18:

All check stubs, federal income tax returns receipts or other documents that refer to
evidence or relate to any wages lost by Plaintiff as a result of the incident made the basis of
this suit.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 19:

Complete the attached authorization permitting the full disclosure of all employment
records which are reasonably related to the loss or damages asserted by the Plaintiff. An
authorization for release of employment records is attached to this request for production for
signing.

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff 8


\90032-\ 94.269
RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 20:

Any and all documents which describe, support, reflect, or bear upon, either directly
or indirectly, the past or future loss of wages or earning capacity of Plaintiff, and which
Plaintiff claims as damages in this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 21:

Any and all documents which are in possession of the Plaintiff, her attorney, or any
of his agents that are related to this incident made by any witness or purported witness,
including witness statements.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 22:

Any and all documents that were mentioned in your responses to Defendants' First
Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, but not included in this request for production.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 23:

Any and all documents not prepared specifically by or for Plaintiffs attorney
containing any description or account of how the incident[s] made the basis of this suit
occurred, including any documents created by any law enforcement officials.

RESPONSE:

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff 9


190032-1 94.269
REQUEST NO. 24:

Every statement of the Defendants, recorded in any form whatsoever, concerning


any of the fact issues involved in this lawsuit.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 25:

Any and all documents reflecting a settlement or any agreement regarding any of
your claims in this lawsuit with any person.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 26:

All documents relating to any prior lawsuits or claims for damages made by
Plaintiff, including copies of deposition transcripts.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 27:

Copies of Plaintiffs resume and/or curriculum vitae for 1995 to the present.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 28:

Copies of any and all job applications made by Plaintiff and copies of any job
postings or job bulletins collected by Plaintiff

RESPONSE:

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff \0


190032-1 94.269
REQUEST NO. 29:

All Calendars, appointment books, logs, notes and diaries belonging to you, kept
by you or kept on your behalf from January 2004 through the present.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 30:

All documents in your possession, custody or control that you intend to rely upon
or introduce at the trial in this matter.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 31:

All documents evidencing, referring or relating to any arrest, indictment or


conviction of you for any crime, other than minor traffic violations, for the last ten years.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 32:

All charges, complaints or other documents filed and/or received at any time by or
on behalf of you with any governmental entity, including, but not limited to, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the Texas Commission on Human Rights, the
Texas Workforce Commission, the Social Security Administration, NASD, and the Texas
Department of Insurance, evidencing, referring or relating to your employment with
Travis County.

RESPONSE:

Defendants' First.Request for Production to Plaintiff 11


190032-1 94.269
REQUEST NQ. 33:

All Documents that evidence, refer or relate to any claims for attorneys' fees
against Travis County and Susan Spataro in this action, including, but not limited to~ all
documents reflecting a fee agreement between you and your attorneys and any invoices
or statements pursuant thereto.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 34:

Complete the attached authorization permitting the full disclosure of all medical
records. An authorization for release of medical records is attached to this request for
production for signing.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 35:

All documents in your possession, custody, or control evidencing, referring or


relating to any source of income, benefits, insurance payments or compensation,
including commissions, earned or received by you since June 4, 2008 including, but not
limited to, all W -2 forms and state and federal income tax returns, payroll check stubs,
workers' compensation documents, unemployment compensation documents and
disability documents, including Social Security documents, and any documents related to
income earned or received by any employment, sole proprietorship, consulting
relationship or business you have participated in during such period.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 36:

All documents evidencing, relating or referring in any way to your attempts to


engage in self-employment or to obtain employment with another employer since June 4,
2008, including, but not limited to, job applications, classified ads for jobs sought by you,
telephone logs, resumes, tests, correspondence with prospective employers or job
placement agencies, offer and rejection letters, job search files, expense records and
reimbursement records.

Defendants' First Request fOT Production to Plaintiff 12


190032-1 94.269
RESPONSE:

Defendants' First Request for Production to Plaintiff 13


190032-1 94.269
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OR
DISCLOSURE OF HEALTH INFORMATION

By signing below, I hereby authorize to disclose certain


individually identifiable health information (the "information") as provided in the Authorization.
Printed Name: -'- _
Date of Birth:
Social Security Number: _

Information to be released ("the entire medical record: or "billing records" or identify more
specifically the records requested: the entire medical records, including but not limited to: face
sheet, discharge summary, history and physical, consultation reports, operative reports..radiology
reports, lab reports, pathology reports, any diagnostic reports, emergency room records, nurses
notes, and doctors notes.

Purpose of Request:
The request is being made fore the purpose of -'

Who and Where to SendlRelease the Information: _

Expiration and Revocation of this Authorization:


I understand that I may revoke this Authorization at any time prior to the expiration date or
event, but that my revocation will not have any affect on actions taken by the Health Care
Provider, its employees or agents before they receive niy revocation. Should I desire to revoke
this Authorization, I must send written notice to (Health Care Provider and address): .. '

__________________________ - Unless revoked, this


authorization will expire on the following date or event
___________ , or 180 days from the date of signature.

Signature of Patient or Personal Representative Who May Request Disclosure:


I understand that I do not have to sign this authorization, I can inspect or copy the protected
health information to be used or disclosed. I authorize this healthcare provider to releasethe
protected health information specified above. A copy of this authorization shall have the same
force as the originaL

I understand that if the recipient authorized to receive the information is not a covered entity
(i.e.: insurance company or health care provider), the released information may no longer be
protected by federal or state privacy regulations, I further understand that my health care and the
payment of my health care will not be affected if I do not sign this form.

Signature (patient): _ Date: _

Signature (witness): _ Date: _

202268-1 094269
!

EMPLOYEE'S RELEASE AND AUTHORIZATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS 3


3
COUNTY OF TRAVIS 3

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Heather Johnson who, after
being first duly sworn, did depose and say:

That she does hereby authorize all of her prior employers in all jobs she has had to give the Travis
County Attorney, or any of his representatives, any and all information relative to any employment
she may have had with any persons, individual, corporation, partnership, association and any other
business entity whatsoever. Information revealed may include, but is not limited to, federal income
tax wage and earning statements, 1099 forms, employment files, time sheets, employment
applications, interoffice memoranda and any other written or verbal communication pertaining to
her employment and compensation.

That she does also hereby authorize all employers to provide oral or written statements, copies of all
records and any and all other documents concerning or in any way connected with the employment
provided her.

That she does hereby further authorize all employers who have employed her to submit to the Travis
County Attorney or his representatives any reports setting forth the history, hiring, firing,
compensation or any information whatsoever concerning her employment.

That her identifying information is as follows:

Date of Birth:
Social Security Number:
Driver's License Number:

Any photostatic copy of this authorization shall serve as an original.

Heather Johnson

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO on this _ day of , 2009.

Notary Public In and For


The State of Texas

/
/

202266-1 094.269
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST RESPONSES TO THE DEFENDANTS' REOUEST FOR

PRODUCTION:

I: The basis of this lawsuit resulted because a proper law enforcement official did

not investigate, therefore; there would be no documents reflecting or describing an

investigation.

2: All documents, photographs, moving pictures, films, videotapes, and audio

recordings that are connected with or related, in any way, to the lawsuit are in the

possession of Travis County and at this time are being requested through the

discovery process by the Plaintiff.

3: Again, Ms. Spataro and Travis County already has in their possession a packet of

discoverable documents, audio recordings, and tangible evidencing relating in any

way to any allegation contained in Plaintiff's original complaint and subsequent

pleadings. The Plaintiff is in the process of requesting discoverable documents from

discoverable documents granted by the Defendants she plans to use as evidence.

4: Again, please refer to response 3.

5: The request is denied because additional support is in the process of being

requested through the discovery process. The request is broad and unduly

burdensome, and intrudes on her and the public's privacy as the allegations are set to
be argued and determined before a jury.

6&7: The Plaintiff reserve the right to turn in any written, verbal, recorded, or other

published statements of the Defendants and Plaintiff that are connected with or

Plaintiff's First Responses To The Defendants' Request for Production

call an expert witness.

18: The Plaintiff was terminated from Travis County, therefore; lost her annually

salary of$35,500. Attached are pay stubs. (1<.).'(( 2W\C( !(jJ~r.\itUJe ,h fV-daI~\
19: The Plaintiff denies the request because there are no employment records which

are reasonably related to the loss or damages asserted by the Plaintiff, expect those

within Travis County. Travis County was her only place of employment when she

was terminated, and she has not been employed since her termination, hence; the

request is irrelevant and invasive to her privacy.

20: The request is denied because additional support is in the process of being

requested through the discovery process. The request is also overbroad and unduly
Plaintiffs First Responses To The Defendants' Request for Production 2

"
, t,,' . . I,"!'
I 'I I
I I 'I

I I

I I

.\'
, I ,. ... '
'I' ,

II
"-"'--~"""""WfI •• I•1•• . II

t"ltl
related, in any way to this lawsuit before discovery closes, but at this time does not

have anything new to turn over that is not already in the possession of the Defendants.

8: Any documents or records of regularly conducted business activities which the

Plaintiff may introduce into evidence at the time of trial of this case or which may be

used in the examination of any witness at trial or by deposition in this case is in the

process of being requested in the discovery process and will be turned on a later date

if there are any.

9-17: The Plaintiff does not foresee herself using an expert witness, therefore; Ms.

Johnson reserves the right in the future to respond to requests 9-17 if she decides to

call an expert witness.

18: The Plaintiff was terminated from Travis County, therefore; lost her annually

salary of $35,500. Attached are pay stubs. (, \0.'( v~( luJ~r-\ilUk


b~
.. ); r~.c0JM-.\
.
)
19: The Plaintiff denies the request because there are no employment records which

are reasonably related to the loss or damages asserted by the Plaintiff, expect those

within Travis County. Travis County was her only place of employment when she

was terminated, and she has not been employed since her termination, hence; the

request is irrelevant and invasive to her privacy.

20: The request is denied because additional support is in the process of being

requested through the discovery process. The request is also overbroad and unduly

burdensome, and intrudes on her and the public's privacy as the case is set to be

argued and determi?ed before ajury.

21: Currently, the only documents in possession of the Plaintiff that are related to

this incident made by any witness or purported witness is the attached TWC

Plaintiffs First Responses To The Defendants' Request for Production 2


statements. The Plaintiff is in the current process of requesting email documentation

and phone conversations through the discovery process.

22: There are no documents.

23: The suit is based on the actions of Travis County and Susan Spataro who clearly

terminated and did not investigate allegations which were reported in good faith to

the appropriate law enforcement official. Also, again Ms. Johnson is currently in the

process of requesting documentation through the discovery process.

24: Again, the Plaintiff is in the current process of requesting phone conversations

and email documentation through the discovery process, thus; she currently has no

new statements for the Defendants.

25: There has been no settlement or any agreements regarding any of the claims in

this lawsuit with any person.

26: There have been no prior lawsuits or claims for damages made by the Plaintiff.

27: see attached

28 & 36: see attached

29: Ms. Johnson does not keep calendars, appointment books, logs, notes and diaries.

It is also an irrelevant an invasive question concerning her privacy that does not lead

to calculated discovery of admissable evidence.

30: Ms. Johnson is currently not in possession, custody, or control of all documents

she intends to rely upon or introduce at the trial because she is currently in the process

of requesting documentation in the discovery process. Again, the Defendants have

within their custody all evidence within the possession of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's First Responses To The Defendants' Request for Production 3


31: The Plaintiff has never been arrested, indictment, or convicted of any crime for

the last ten years.

32:seeattached (w ,I, ~vd (O-~ /1(J(e 1-0 Vi{«(fhfle. J


33: see attached C VJ ,/1 {}QnJ Ial-er ?1()e 6 CG{(CWl tV
34: Denied because the Defendants seek information that is irrelevant and not

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial because

the information is protected from disclosure by the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act of 1996 and invasive t~ the Plaintiffs privacy . fl \


35: see attached C V'J ' l( ~ nvf lCc\t c- rIlo It fo ~~"0~L (0

Plaintiff's First Responses To The Defendants' Request for Production 4


HEATHER M. OHNSON
PROSE
601 Blessing Ranch Rd.
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
Telephone: (512) 778-6099
Facsimile: (512) 778-6628

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Fist

Responses to the Defendants' Request for Production has been served in accordance with

the Federal Rilles of Civil Procedure, via certified mail, return receipt requested, on this

the 14thday of May 2009, as follows:

Via Certified Mail


RIR/R # 70072560000083909125
Anthony J. Nelson
Lelie W. Dippel
Assistant County Attorneys
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767

f7~ II Heather M. Johnson

Plaintiff's First Responses To The Defendants' Request for Production 5


.oJ
o
cr

t==2~~~=-~
.oJ

<;6 't,$ s """'d

1\ 'i I ~9H!le,

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • • •


• Complete items I, 2, and 3. Also complete A.SignaIlae
n
ltem 4 Restricted Delivery is·desired. o Agent
• Print your name and address on the reverse
X o Addressee
so that we can return the card to you. C. Dale of DeIive<y
• Attach this card 10 the back of the rnallpiece,
or on the front n
space permits.
DYes
ONo

PE TO TH!=l1fGHT ' •.• 4. Restrlcted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes


TDOTTEOWNI';
-------------
'AIL ,_ 7007 2560 DDOD 839D 9125
.1111111111111 'Y 2004 Domestic Return Raceipt - llJ2595<l'CM.l540
WUUW~~-----------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON §
§
V. §
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN § A-08-CA-643-SS
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICIAL §
CAPACITIES §

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERRROGA TORIES TO DEFENDANTS

TO: Anthony J. Nelson and Leslie W. Dippel, Attorneys for the Defendants, Susan

Spataro and Travis County, P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Susan Spataro and the following employees

of Travis County: Tracy LeBlanc, Mike Crawford, Sandy Hendrix, Sean O'Neil, Jose

Palacios, Yolanda Jones, April Bacon, and Blain Keith are required to respond to the

subsequent Plaintiff s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants pursuant to the included

instructions and definitions within thirty (30) days after service. This discovery shall be

deemed continuing so as to require supplemental answers pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(e).

Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Dc:fendaolS 1


Respectfully submitted,

tl~Jj(;,~
I
HEATHER M. JOHNSON
PROSE
601 Blessing Ranch Rd.
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
Telephone: (512) 778-6099
Facsimile: (512) 778-6628

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Fist Set of

Interrogatories to Defendants has been served in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, via certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 16th day of May

2009, as follows:

Via Certified Mail


RIRIR # 70072560000083909132
Anthony J. Nelson
Lelie W. Dippel
Assistant County Attorneys
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767

Plainllff's Ftrst Set of Interrogatories to Defendants 2


DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

A. Instructions

1. Answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is
properly objected to, in which event state the reasons for the objection in lieu of an
answer. If you respond with an objection, answer any portion of the interrogatory to
which you do not object.

2. An evasive or incomplete answer may be deemed to be a failure to answer.

3. An answer does not have to be either yes or no, therefore; please think about your
answers thoroughly before responding and explain in detail your response.

4. You are under a continuing duty to promptly supplement your response as soon as
practicable after you discover that a previous answer is inaccurate, no longer accurate, or
incomplete.

5. If there are any documents, which answer in whole or in part, any of these
interrogatories, they may be attached to your answers and incorporated in the answers by
specific reference.

6. If a document required to be identified by these interrogatories was, but is no longer,


in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of the
document as well as the date(s), or approximate date(s), on which such disposition was
made and state the nature of and the circumstances surrounding the disposition.

7. In the event that a privilege is claimed as the ground for not answering any
interrogatory, either that a privilege is claimed as the ground for not answering any
interrogatory, either in whole or in part, you are instructed to identify such information by
its subject matter and state with particularity the facts and grounds constituting the nature
and basis for any such privilege or other ground for non-disclosure. Only such parts of
your answer which are privileged from disclosure, according to your claim, may be
withheld: Any part of your answer to which you did not claim privilege or work product
should be given in full.

8. Although subsequent discovery and/or investigation may yield additional information


in the future and make it necessary for you to supplement your responses, Plaintiff,
Heather Johnson request that you answer these interrogatories as fully and completely as
possible by providing all such responsive information as is known to you at the time your
original answers to these interrogatories are due.

9. For any requested information about a document that no longer exists or cannot be
located, identify the document, state how and when it ceased to existence, or when it
could no longer be located, and the reasons for the disappearance. Also, identify each

Plaintiff's Fint Set of Interrogatories to Defendants 3


person having knowledge about the disposition or loss, and identify each document
evidencing the existence or nonexistence of each document that cannot be located.

B. Definitions
The following definitions shall have the following meanings, unless the context requires
otherwise:

1. "Defendants" means Travis County, Texas and/or Susan Spataro as the context
requires, includes their agents, representatives, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and
persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.

2. "Travis County" means Travis County, Texas and as the context requires, including
its agents, representatives, affiliates and persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf
or under is control.

3. "Plaintiff" or "Heather Johnson," as well as a party's full or abbreviated name or a


pronoun referring to a party, means the party, and where applicable, her agents,
representatives, officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate agents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, or any other person acting in concert with her or under her control, whether
directly or indirectly, including any attorney.

4. "You" or "your" means the following employees of the Defendant Travis County,
Texas: April Bacon, Jose Palacios, Mike Crawford, Sandy Hendrix, Sean O'Neil, Tracy
LeBlanc, Yolanda Jones, and Blain Keith, and the Defendant Susan Spataro, their
successors, predecessors, divisions. subsidiaries, present and former officers, agents,
employees, and all other persons acting on their behalf or their successors, predecessors,
divisions, and subsidiaries.

5. "Document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage


of this term in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34(a). A draft of a non-identical copy is
a separate document within the meaning of this term.

6. "Possession", custody, or control" of an item means that the person either has
physical possession of the item or has a right to possession that is equal or superior to the
person who has physical possession of the item.

7. "File" means any collection or group of documents maintained, held, stored, or used
together, including, without limitation, all collections of documents maintained, held, or
stored in folders, notebooks, or other devices for separating or organizing documents.

8. "Person" means any natural person, corporation, firm association, partnership, joint
venture, proprietorship, governmental body, or any other organization, business, or legal
entity, and all predecessors or successors in interest.

Plaintifrs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants 4


9. "Relating to" and "relates to" mean, without limitation, embodying, mentioning, or
concerning, directly or indirectly, the subject matter identified in the interrogatory.
10. "Concerning" means, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, referring to, relating
to, connected with, commenting on, responding to, showing, describing, analyzing,
reflecting, or constituting.

II. "Date" means the exact date, month, and year, if ascertainable, or, if not, the best
available approximation.

12. "Mobile device" means cellular telephone, satellite telephone, pager, personal
digital assistant, palm top computer, hand-held computer, electronic rolodex, or walkie-
talkie.

J3. "Identify" or "describe" when referring to a person, means you must state the
following:

a. The full name.


b. The present or last known residential address and residential phone
number.
c. The present or last known office address and office telephone number
d. The present occupation, job title, employer, and employer's address at
the time of the event or period referred to in each particular
interrogatory .
e. In the case of any entity, identify the officer, employee, or agent most
closely connected with the subject matter of the interrogatory, and the
officer who is responsible for supervising that officer or employee.

14. "Identify" or "describe" when referring to a document, means you must state the
following:

a. The nature (e.g. letter, handwritten note) of the document.


b. The title or heading that appears on the document.
c. The date of the document and the date of each addendum,
supplement, or other addition or change.
d. The identity or the author and of the signer ofthe document, and
of the person on whose behalf or at whose request or direction
the document was prepared or delivered.
e. The present location of the document, and the name, address,
position or title, and telephone number of the person or persons
having custody of the document.

15. "Communication" means any contact between tow or more persons, companies,
corporations, joint ventures or partnerships and shall include, without limitation,
electronic communication, letters, memoranda, telegrams, or telecopies, and any oral
contract such as a face-to-face meetings and telephone conversations.

Plaintitrs First Set of lnterrogatortes to Defendants 5


16. "Lawsuit" shall mean the lawsuit styled Heather Johnson V. Travis County and
Susan Spataro, in her Individual and Official Capacities, In the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, and Cause No. A-08-CA-643-
ss.

17. "Health Care Provider" means any practitioner of the healing arts, and may
include medical doctors, radiologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors,
chiropractors, osteopaths, emergency room services, ambulances, pharmacists,
pathologists, and therapists.

18. "Describe in detail" means to give a complete and full description concerning the
matter about which inquiry is made, including the full name, address, and telephone
number (both office and home) of person involved, if appropriate, along with the dates,
times, places, amounts, and other particulars which make the answers to the
interrogatory fair and meaningful.

19. "Income" means any source of revenue you receive on a weekly, biweekly,
monthly, semi-annual, or annul basis which is derived from any form of employment,
gifts, royalties, government assistance.

20. As used in these Interrogatories, the singular encompasses the plural and the plural
encompasses the singular.

21. Whenever the masculine gender is used herein, it should be taken to include
feminine gender where appropriate.

22. The word "and" means "and/or."

23. The word "or" means "or/and."

Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants 6


PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS

INTERROGATORY NO.1:

Please state the full name, including your middle name or names, all nicknames by which
you are known, and any name by which you were ever known.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.2:

Identify each person answering these interrogatories, supplying information, or assisting


in any way with the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.3:

Please state the complete address of your residence for the last 10 years.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.4:

State whether you have been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any
misdemeanors or felonies within the past ten (10) years, except for minor traffic
violations. If so, describe for each the nature of the charge, the date, location. and
circumstances of the conviction, the ultimate disposition of the case, and if you are
presently on probation in connection with any such conviction.

ANSWER:

Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants 7


INTERROGATORY NO.5:

Identify any and all psychiatrists, psychologist, counselors, physicians, or any other
health care providers whose services you have ever retained for counseling, treatment, or
analysis or any physical, emotional, mental, or psychological condition or complaint for
the past ten years.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.6:

Identify each and every employer you have had for the past I O-year period, stating the
name and address of such employer(s), your job title, the dates of employment for each,
and the reason for leaving.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.7:

Did you posse a C.P.A. at the time of the Plaintiff's employment?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO.8:

Identify any personal financial debt you have had in the last IO-year period and how you
personally manage your debt?

ANSWER:

Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants 8


INTERROGATORY NO.9:

In your accounting software, H.T.E., it has a GMBA encumbrance section. In this


section what is the proper equation for balancing of cJosinthe PO( encumbrance), and
should the encumbrance equal the liquidation before closing the PO (encumbrance)?
Please provide printouts from all screen levels of the GMBA encumbrance inquiry and
printouts from the Accounts Payable Transaction detailed inquiry screen of the H.T.E.
software explaining and validating your answer.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. to:

In the same GMBA encumbrance section, what is the process of correcting a PO if an


encumbrance is issued to a wrong vendor in the following situations: before an invoice
has been entered against the PO, after an invoice has been entered against the PO creating
a partial entry, and after an invoice has been entered completing the PO. Please provide
printouts from the H.T.E. software explaining and validating your answers.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Within the same GMBA encumbrance section, what happens to an amount if it is un


liquidated from the PO vs. unencumbered, and why would someone choose to un
liquidate vs. unencumber? Please provide printouts from the H.T.E. software explaining
and validating your answers.

ANSWER:

Plalntitrs First Set of lnterrogatories to Defendants 9


INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Please explain why for the fiscal year 2008 and prior years, the following project
DDDC08 is out of balance, close to $25,000 in debt. Please provide printouts from the
H.T.E. software explaining and validating your answers.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Is an expenditure part of the revenue process, thus; becoming revenue? Is a budget


considered income, and is income considered revenue?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

If someone called asking what account should be referenced on a cash receipt in order for
it to be properly credited then who would be the person to ask?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

When a cash receipt is credited to an account, what was the process in April of 2008 vs.
April of 2009? Was or is more then one account credited or debited simultaneously when
entering the transactions? Does the money return to the proper account without a JE?
Please provide printouts from H. T.E. validating and explaining your answers.

ANSWER:

Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants 10


INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

What is the correct universal equation for equity?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Can you please explain what words Travis County uses to name and describe #29 oftheir
fund activity basic within the account balance inquiry screen and # 10I of their fund
activity basic and sub activity within the account activity listing screen from the account
balance inquiry transactions screen? What would be the correct equation for credits and
debits applied to #29 and # I a I from the words used to describe and name their account
activity? Please provide printouts from the H. T.E. software explaining and validating
your answer.

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. IS:

Does Travis County view their general fund sources as parenting accounts from which all
fiscal activity is derived? What does this say about bonded projects which the County
has agreed to furnish?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

What is the correct equation for bonded activity and who stands to benefit?

ANSWER:

Plaiutifrs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants II


INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

What is the definition of remainder?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

If Travis County awarded to purchase from a vendor through a bid process two specific
items on a particular contract, but the contract allows for Travis County to purchase the
remainder of the two specific items if there is money left in their budget for the fiscal
year, however; the two specific items have already been purchased and paid, should you
then pay the invoice?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

If Travis County agrees to pay a vendor through a contract for consulting work regarding
information on the geographically and marketable layout of land and the vendor is in a
partnership with a fiscal entity who is a stakeholder in land, therefore; the fiscal entity
benefits from the sale of the land, should you then pay the invoice?

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

If Travis County agrees to pay a vendor a contract price of 15 percent makeup on all
OEM material listed awarded through a bid process, but the invoice shows a reduction in
the counter sale price of the item then what is the correct process of double checking
making sure the vendor is invoicing at the correct contract price?

Plaintiff's First Set of tuterrogarortes to Defendants 12


ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

Was Mike Crawford a manager at the time of the Plaintiff's employment, and did Mr.
Crawford preach in meetings. 'The number one responsibility of an associate auditor is to
pull and know a couple of contracts a week?"

ANSWER:

INTERROGATORY NO. 25:


Who has auditing and reporting responsibilities for the entire county government and is
responsible for the, "strict enforcement of the laws governing county finances?"

ANSWER:

Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Derendanrs 13


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON §
§
V. §
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN § A-08-CA-643-SS
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICIAL §
CAPACITIES §

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF

TO: Anthony J. Nelson and Leslie W. Dippel, Attorneys for the Defendants, Susan

Spataro and Travis County, P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34, Susan Spataro and/or Travis County are

required to respond to the subsequent Plaintiffs First Request for Production to

Defendants pursuant to the included instructions and definitions within thirty (30) days

after service. This discovery shall be deemed continuing so as to require supplemental

answers pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

Plaintitrs First Request For Production to Defendants


Respectfully submitted,

~~
HEATHER M. JO SON
PROSE
601 Blessing Ranch Rd.
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
Telephone: (512) 778-6099
Facsimile: (512) 778-6628

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ihereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Fist

Request for Production to Defendants has been served in accordance with the Federal
th
Rules of Civil Procedure, via certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 16 day

of May 2009, as follows:

Via Certified Mail


R/R/R # 70072560000083909132
Anthony J. Nelson
Lelie W. Dippel
Assistant County Attorneys
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767

Heather M. Johnson

Phlintitrs First Request For Production to Defendants 2


DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

Please use the following definitions in responding to the following Requests for
Production:

I. "Defendants," "you" or "your" means Travis County, Texas and/or Susan Spataro
and as the context requires, includes their agents, representatives, affiliates, predecessors,
successors, and persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.

2. "Travis County" means Travis County, Texas and as the context requires, including
its agents, representatives, affiliates and persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf
or under is control.

3. "Plaintiff", "her", or "she" means Heather Johnson and as the context requires,
includes their agents, representatives, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and persons
acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.

4. "Persons" as used herein includes natural persons, general partnerships, limited


partnerships, joint ventures, associations, corporations, governmental agencies,
departmental units or subdivisions thereof, and any other form of business entity or
association, as the case may be.

S. "Documents" means "documents and tangible things" within the broad sense of the
FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a) and includes, with out limitation, all written, recorded or graphic
matter, however produced or reproduced, now or at any time in you possession, custody
or control, or subject to your control, including, without limitation, all letters,
correspondence, statements, reports, papers, memoranda, books, accounts, invoices,
drawings, drafts, charts, photographs, negatives, electronic or videotape recordings, any
other data compilations from which information may be obtained, and includes drafts and
non-identical copies of documents. Documents are deemed subject to your control if you
have the right to secure the item or copy thereof from another person or a public or
private entity having actual physical possession thereof. If any document requested
herein was, but is no longer subject to your control, please state what disposition was
made of it, and the date or dates or the approximate date or dates of such disposition.

6. "Concerning" includes referring to, alluding to, pertaining to, responding to, relating
to, in connection with, commencing on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing,
showing, describing, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, constituting, or evidencing.

7. "Communication" means any contact between two or more persons, companies,


corporations, joint ventures or partnerships and shall include, without limitation, written
contact by means such as letters, memoranda, telegrams, telecopies or telexes, or by any
document, and any oral contract such as face-to-face meetings and telephone
conversations.
PlaintilT's First Request Fer- f>rod.uction to Defendants 3
8. "Lawsuit" shall mean the lawsuit styled Heather Johnson V. Travis County and
Susan Spataro, in her Individual and Official Capacities, In the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, and Cause No. A-08-CA-643-
ss.

9. "Income" means any source of revenue you receive on a weekly, biweekly,


monthly, semi-annual, or annul basis which is derived from any form of employment,
gifts, royalties, government assistance.

10. As used in these Interrogatories, the singular encompasses the plural and the plural
encompasses the singular.

II. Whenever the masculine gender is used herein, it should be taken to include
feminine gender where appropriate.

12. The word "and" means "and/or."

13. The word "or" means "orland."

Plaintiff's First Request For Production to Defendants 4


REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

REQUEST NO.1:

Please provide documentation which states it is against the policy and procedures
of Travis County and/or other privacy laws within the United States to allow employees
access to analyst reports, documentation, and/or be present in closed door meetings
regarding the performance goals and behavior of other individuals who are working for
Travis County.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.2:

Please supply the necessary documentation that warranted Mike Crawford, a


Financial Analyst V, working for Travis County, to be in all three closed door meetings
with the Plaintiff's managers on a debatable 5/19/08, a certain 6/3/08, and 6/4/08
concerning her performance, behavior, and termination.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.3:

Since the printout of the time is included on the GMBA batch groups, provide
examples ofGMBA batch groups from 4/01108-5/0\/08 turned in by the Plaintiff
validating Ms. Hendrix's, a Financial Analyst, verbal accusation on 5/15/08. Mrs.
Hendrix's accusation of the Plaintiff's work not being turned in on a timely manner was
the major reason for the closed door meeting on a questionable 5/19/08, and is the leading
accusation listed in bullet style only to repeat itself on point four( 4.) within the PIP memo
handed to Ms. Johnson on 6/3/08.

RESPONSE:

rlalntUT's First Request For Producttua to Defendants 5


REQUEST NO.4:

Please present documentation stating why the Plaintiff was never granted Request
NO.3 when Ms. Johnsonasked Mr. Palacios, a Chief Assistant County Auditor, to
provide the GMBA batch groups basing your allegations in the first meeting on a
debatable 5/19/08, and when she asked on 6/3/08 to provide the evidence not yet granted
you proceeded in providing GMBA batch groups with the time blackened out from the
copy machine in the first meeting.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.5:

Please provide documentation and an adequate explanation as to why Request


NO.4 is not an example of your inability to understand the key points before leaving or
engaging in a discussion.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.6:

On the GMBA batch groups provided, from REQUEST NO.3 explain in detail
Ms. Hendrix's comments. In reference to Ms. Johnson's inaccuracy, supply the
necessary documentation validating the notations (claims) on the groups. Please do not
provide examples of groups past the date 5/09/08, as again the Plaintiff repeatedly asked
for examples of groups dated prior to Mrs. Hendrix's outburst on 5/15/08, and the
meeting with Mr. Palacios and Mr. Crawford on a questionable 5/19/08, thus; leading to
the meeting on 6/3/08. When presented the groups in the meeting on 6/3/08, the majority
of the remarks on the group had to do with Laserfrische images being citied wrong.
Laserfische is an electronic filing system for invoices and has nothing to do with the
accuracy of the batch groups used in all financial reporting for Travis County including
your weekly payables.

RESPONSE:

PlaintilTs First Request For Production to Defendants 6


REQUEST NO.7:

The following request is for your documentation referring to the factual


background Travis County gathered explaining their allegations and conclusions about
the Plaintiffs work performance, behavior, and the accuracy ofthe factual circumstance
stated within the PIP memo, itself:
• Please provide the evidence that validates the meeting was held on 5/19/08 and
not 5/20/08, such as email activity and activity within H.T.E. on 5/19 vs. 5/20
from the three individuals involved in the meeting. As the Plaintiff already
requested this information in emails on 6/3/08 and 6/4/08 to April Bacon, a Chief
Assistant County Auditor who was present in the meeting on 6/3/08 and never
fulfilled her request.
• Please give ample examples of non effective communication skills by the
Plaintiff prior to 5115/08 and include all email exchange between her and Amy
Draper and her and Mrs. Hendrix.
• Please supply the necessary evidence that validates bullet two was talked about
and addressed in the meeting on a debatable 5119/08.
• Please explain in detail the daily tasks of an associate auditor up to 6/3/08 and
present publications of how an auditor's position is not an accounting position.
• Please provide the evidence validating your accusations on point (3.) Ms.
Johnson received her BA in Art and Anthropology, therefore; she feels the
comment is a highly slanderous and false allegation to the Plaintiffs expression,
thoughts, behaviors, and beliefs, and hopes the evidence is not based on one
occurrence.
• Please explain why she is considered an Associate Auditor I on the signature
line because according to the attached document, the Plaintiff received a
promotion to an Associate Auditor II and was told by Mr. Palacios the day
she was handed the article, "You received a promotion due to a universal
promotion within Travis County."

RESPONSE:

PlaintiJrs First Request For Production to Defendants 7


REQUEST NO.8:

Please provide all other evidence referring to the factual/opinion background


Travis County gathered from other employees explaining the Defendant's allegations and
conclusions about the Plaintiff s work performance and behavior and supply the
documentation explaining all your attempts at consultation.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.9:

Relating to the Defendant's alleged financial violations by the Plaintiff, please


supply all emails sent, forwarded, received, and replied from the Plaintiff's domain
heather.johnson@co.travis.tx.us to and from Ms. LeBlanc for the work week of 5112/08
expressing her concerns after Ms. LeBlanc asked the Plaintiff how to process a
transaction on PO#380801 and instead offollowing Ms. Johnson's advice Ms. LeBlanc
decided to do it a different way. This resulted in the H.T.E. software to drop $60.48 from
the system alluding to the need to make the necessary JE somewhere out there to which
the Plaintiff sent a variety of different examples expressing her trepidation to Mrs.
LeBlanc.

RESPONSE:

REOUEST NO. 10:

Please provide the reports validating how $60.48 from PO#380801 returned to the
correct unencumbered balance of the account. Also, provide documentation explaining
why Mr. Palacios did not and could not provide the reports to the Plaintiff in the first
place when she addressed her concerns in the meeting on an arguable 5/19/08, but instead
along with Mr. Crawford instructed Ms. Johnson not to concern herself with this matter
and the difference between a modified accrual system and a corporate accrual system
during working hours.

RESPONSE:

I'laintitrs first Request For r-rocueaon to Defendants


REQUEST NO. 11:

Please provide reports from 3/1/08-4/1/08 showing how encumbrances from


GMBA that are un liquidated or unencumbered return to the unencumbrance balance of
the necessary accounts. Please do not give reports with transactions dated after the
Plaintiff's termination.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 12:

Please grant the necessary phone conversations and emails that were sent,
received, forwarded, and replied from the Plaintiff's domain
heather.johnson@co.travis.tx.us for the timeframe 5/12/08-6/4/08 to and from Sean
O'Neil for the following three reasons:
• She was instructed by Mrs. LeBlanc to talk to Mr. O'Neil who is in charge of
sending monthly open PO (encumbrance) reports to the departments regarding her
concerns with PO#380801 before the meeting on a questionable 5/l9/08.
• Ms. Johnson also went to Mr. O'Neil with another PO concern, #379421 when
she received phone calls and emails from Mrs. Barchus, Purchasing Agent II. The
Plaintiff became aware again of how there were possible financial violations and
accounting irregularities with the encumbrance process of Travis County and your
H.T.E. software. She sent an email within the above timeframe requesting from
Mr. O'Neil certain reports. Yet again, Mr. Palacios was overheard by the
Plaintiff outside her office denying the request to Mr. O'Neil.
• Lastly the Plaintiff went to Mr. O'Neil with a question regarding cash receipts
after Yolanda Jones, a Financial Analyst, was unable to answer. The exchange
of words lead the Plaintiff to believe there were other accounting irregularities
with the revenue process of cash receipts and sent various emails explaining her
theories into your errors and how to correct the problem.

RESPONSE:

Plaintil'rs First Request For Production to Defendants 9


REQUEST NO.13:

Please provide phone conversations and emails that were sent, received,
forwarded, and replied from the Plaintiff's domain heather.iohnson@co.travis.tx.us
during 5/12-6/4/08 to and from Mrs. Barchus regarding PO#379421 and alternate
solutions to the problem/error in question.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 14

The Plaintiff reserves the right to request email and phone conversations
exchanged between Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Palacios on a given day, but that day is yet to be
determined as it pertains to an email requested in production sent to Mr. O'Neil. In the
TWC hearings, Mr. O'Neil denied communicating to anyone concerning Ms. Johnson's
verbal claims, questions, correspondence, and email allegations communicated to Mr.
O'Neil by the Plaintiff, however; please Refer back to Request No. 16.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 15

On same note, but different tune, the Plaintiff reserves the right to request email
and phone conversations exchanged between Mr. O'Neil and Mrs. Hendrix on a given
day, but that day is yet to be determined as it pertains to an email requested in production
sent to Mr. O'Neil by the Plaintiff in reference to possible financial violations. Mrs.
Hendrix was seen walking to Mr. O'Neil's office and then overheard initiating a
conversation regarding the email sent. Refer to Request No.i6. and No.I S

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 16

Please provide phone conversations and emails that were sent, received,
forwarded, and replied from the Plaintiff's domain heather.johnson@co.travis.tx.us to
Plaintifrs First Request For Production to Defendants 10
and from Rhonda Ambrose, a Treasury employee and Yolanda Jones in reference to a
phone call from a Travis County employee questioning how to apply a cash receipt for a
personal car rental. The email records and phone calls precede and are relevant evidence
to the details of the disruptive conversation outside her office the morning of 6/4/08 prior
to her termination.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 17

Please provide phone conversations and email exchanges between Mr. O'Neil,
Ms. LeBlanc, and Mr. Keith on 6/4/08 as it is questionable as to why having a
conversation right outside the Plaintiffs office concerning a new way of handling cash
receipts (Ms. Johnson's ideas and theories expressed to Mr. 0 'Neil after questioning
alleged financial activity which she later reported to Mrs. Spataro as potential financial
violations in the grievance proceedings and the real reason behind the termination) was
an appropriate place to meet up and have a conversation, since the night before the
Plaintiff was put on a PIP memo for her work performance and behavior.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.18:

Please provide reports, documentation, and explanations as to the procedures of


handling cash receipts from 111108-5/01/08 vs. from 7/1I08-present.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 19:

Please provide a photo ID of Mr. Keith verifying the ID of the employee as the
Plaintiff only knows Mr. Keith by sight and was not aware of the associated name with
the individual employee while working for Travis County.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff's First Request For Production to nerencams 11


REQUEST NO. 20:

Please provide phone conversations and emails that were sent, received,
forwarded, and replied from the Plaintiff's domain heather.johnson@co.travis.tx.us from
5/12/08-6/4/08 to and from the following employees of Travis County regarding contract
issues and possible violations discussed in the meeting on 6/3/08: Christine Rodriguez,
Bonnie Floyd, Lorean Breland, Lori Clyde, Mike Crawford, Donald Rollack, and Nancy
Barchus,

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 21:

Please provide phone conversations and emails that were sent, received,
forwarded, and replied from the Plaintiff's domain heathedohnson@co.travis.tx.us
during 5/12/08-6/4/08 to and from the following vendors regarding contract issues and
violations discussed in the meeting on 6/3/08: Envision, Honda Motorcycle, and Covert
Chevrolet.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO. 22:

Please provide a copy of Envision, Honda Motorcycle, and Covert Chevrolet's


contract and a copy of all invoices and correspondence regarding the invoices due for
payment pertaining to the foregoing potential contract violations at the time of the
Plaintiff's employment.

RESPONSE:

Plaintltrs First Request For Production to nereneams 12


REQUEST NO. 23:

Please provide a copy of the Covert Chevrolet's OEM manuals received by the
Plaintiff the day before she was terminated in relation to a probable contract violation.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.24:

The Plaintiff would like to ask permission to schedule a day when she can visit
the premise to look through her email domain, listen to phone conversations, view images
scanned into laserfische, and look at word documents she created while working for
Travis County relevant to proving her allegations for the lawsuit, therefore; no
unnecessary and confidential information will be leaked and granted, and no factual,
truthful, helpful documentation will be denied from the Plaintiff, thus; eliminating the
potential for here say on both sides.

RESPONSE:

REQUEST NO.25:

If the Defendants claim there is no record of the requested emails and phone
conversations then Ms. Johnson would like evidence pertaining to the activity from the
archives of your information system mainframe servers to make sure there have been no
deletions as this would be a violation of the law punishable up to 5-7 years iffound
guilty.

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff's first Request For Production to Defendants 13


Plaintilrs first Request for Productlcn to Defendants 14
PAF Number: 0125979 PERSONNEL ~l'ION FORM 11/15/07
FINAL 16:11:29

Employee Id Number. 926461 Hire Date: 00/00/0000


Employee. JOHNSON, HEATHER M Eligible to work: y

PAF Action .. Appointment & Re-Appoint Effective Date of Action: 11/05/2007


Type . .. Regular, CC approval not required.

Comment :

CURRENT STATUS NEW STATUS

Authorized Posn. Code . 15634


Authorized Posn. Title. AUD ASSOCIATE AUDITOR II
Actual Position Code. 13634
Actual Position Title AUD ASSOCIATE AUDITOR I
Grade/Step. 0l3/01
Dep/Div/Act . . 06-10-516

Authorization (Slot) Nbr: 00035

Employee Status . . . REGULAR


Full Time/Part Time . Full Time
Exempt from Overtime. No
No. Hours/Week. . . . 40

Hourly Rate $ 17.0673


Annual Rate $ 35,500.00

Expense Distribution. . 001-0610-516-0701 100.000%

i>.PPROVALS:
Requisitioner Approval CASIASJ CASIAS, JACKIE - County A 11/05/2007 Approved
Department Approval WARNERD WARNER, DIANA L - County 11/05/2007 Approved
fmMD Review PAFAUTO PAF Automatic Upload/Appr 11/08/2007 Reviewed
~uditor Approval - No Chg OWENSP OWENS, PREVIA - Co~ty Au 11/15/2007 Approved
(
PAF Number, 0130860 PERSONNEL ACTION PORM 3/31/08
PINAL 9,33,30

Employee Id Number. 926461 Hire Date, 11/05/2007


Employee. . ... JOHNSON, HEATHER M Eligible to work: Y

PAF Action .. Mobility Effective Date of Action, 03/16/2008


Type . .. Reclassification (non-POPS)

Comment. .. Implementation of new pay grades and titles for County


Auditor1s positions.

CURRENT STATUS NEW STATUS

Authorized Posn. Code . 15634 17635


Authorized Poso. Title. AUD ASSOCIATE AUDITOR II AUD ASSOCIATE AUDITOR II
Actual Position Code. 13634 15635
Actual Position Title AUD ASSOCIATE AUDITOR I AUD ASSOCIATE AUDITOR I
Grade/Step. 013/01 015/01
Dep/Div/Act . 06-10-516

Authorization (Slot) Nbr: 00035

Employee Status _ . REGULAR


Full Time/Part Time Full Time
Exempt from Overtime. No
No. HourS/Week. . . 40

Hourly Rate $ 17.0673


Annual Rate $ 35,500.00

Expense Distribution. 001-0610-516-0701 100.000%

APPROVALS,
Requisitioner Approval CASIASJ CASIAS, JACKIE - County A 03/25/2008 Approved
Department Approval WARNERD WARNER, DIANA L - County 03/25/2008 Approved
HRMD Review PAFAUTO PAF Automatic Up1oad/Appr 03/28/2008 Reviewed
Auditor Approval - No Chg OWENSP OWENS, PREVIA - Co~t~ Au 03/31/2008 Approved

' .

TRAVIS COl;:"'TY TRAVIS COUr.;TY


AUDITOR'S OFFICE AD:\U:-;ISTRATJO:-: BmLDTNG
P.O BOX 1748
LIBERTY HILL, TX. 78767
scsex A. SPATARO, CPA, ClL-\ (512) 854-9125
COU:\TY Au"'UITOR FA.X: (512) 854-9164

June 5, 1008

Heather Johnson
601 Blessing Ranch Road
Liberty Hill, TX 78642

Dear Ms. Johnson:

Please find enclosed your final check. This check covers your compensation the period
May 16, 2008 through noon June 4, 2008. This, also, includes the compensation for your
accrued Sick and Vacation Leave under current Travis County Policy. A detail of the
hours paid has been included. There will be no other direct deposits or checks for you.

If you have any questions related to your insurance coverage, please contact Travis
County Human Resources @512 ..854-04Q-l..

For information related to YOUT retirement account at the Texas County and District
Retirement System. please caJl 512-328-8889 or through their website: www.tcdrs.org.

Sincerely, I

~~gh~J~.~
Chief Assistant County Auditor
Payroll and Benefits Auditing
· '.

PRrOOUBl TRAVIS COUNTY 6/05/08


Hours Entry 10:20:17

Employee JOH....~SON, ~EJl..THER r·t 926461


pay period SE.1'11-MQKl':!LY 11
position . . . AUD ASSOC:ATE h~~ITOR II - County Auditor
Ov~rtime status SAL~RIED ~ON-EXEMPT OVERTIME
ie information,

l
press Enter.

Hours Date Dollars Account Override


Type (2) rnrndd (2) Rate(4) Fnd DpDvAct BlOb
g~ ~~gg ~g: 170673
~7D673
2f- ~ 2792-

I"

~
More •..
1"92.00 27.92-
F3=Exit F4_prompt F5_Year override F7=Copy field Fa-Paste field
F9_Alt data Fll~Accrual inquiry F12=Cancel F24=More keys
TR.-\VIS CO(':\TY TRAVIS COUNTY
AliDITOR'S OFFICE KED A. GR.~"GER BUILDING
P.O. BOX 1748
S(,SA.'\' A. SPATARO. CPA. DU AUSTf.\I, TX 78767
COl'l\'TY Al'DITOR (512) 854-9125
FA-X: (512) 854-9164

Memorandum
To: Heather Johnson

From: Jose Palacios


Dale: June 3, 2008
Re: Personal Improvement Plan

.>• .---~

iOn May j.9, you, Mike and I discussed your performance, which had raised concerns
aooblt-:jpur understanding of our expectations for your position. During that discussion
we focused on three areas: prioritizing your workload to meet deadlines, following the
protocols for your position, and developing effective communication skills. In the
meeting you were instructed to:
"' ' ...

• focus on your job duties, making sure your work was complete, asecurate and on time;
• work more closely with the appropriate contract staff, making sure you ask them
about contract issues before asking questions of county staff outside of our office;
worry less about accounting principals. since your position is not an accounting
position


enhance your communications by toking notes during the discussion
summarizing the important points before leaving the discussion; and
~ receRJi~o ~Ian<:tions proyided bll ~nior personnel.
and/O}~,... \.
:--
1\
"t~SIJ-:,',
Cqr C\.A (t\0.--
tJ \
,fuC~.·
I
\f\\~1"''-='lV_~L' LCVY\mi~11(tlte> '\\.. .
The following wee~ it appeared as if you either did not understand or chose to ignore
those instructions.! Yo did not et closed within the timelines provided by
your Fin=..cial Analyst. our work was not accurate ac In ~o. Ice Invoic -
proeedures. When refe en Ing inS ru Ions . May 19 'cussion to ask your
(" ntract questions of our contract staff, you re ponded' n unrelated comment

..
c, , ~j@tes.!rom an April ?~.
staff i1leeting ~3Ile sllTiasKrngconi'rac{ quesHo~~?t~
~ ~chasln Sfafflatt1e-r1f1an auditor staff. rO-
LQLU~'
~
~ 61312008
Co fidenfia/ Page 2
I
Additionally. your communications have been unprofessional on several recent
occasions. You engaged in a heated and loud discussion with Sandy Hendrix which
was easily overheard by co-workers. You responded in an insubordinate manner to
Mike Crawford in an email exchange regarding a motorcycle purchase. You interrupted
a conversation among co-workers in the file room with an angry and unrelated remark.
making them uncomfortable and confused. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Your position requires professionalism. effective communication. good judgment in


executing your assigned tasks, and the ability te understand and follow instructions.

These skills are necessary to performing as a team member in this office. When you
are given an explanation or instruction, you must listen carefully and communicate any
additional questions or concerns clearly without anger or sarcasm. Staff want to help
you understand the work of the office. but they also depend on you in meeting their own
performance goals. Coworkers must be able to rely on a professional response in their
interaction with you.

You must correct your actions immediately. You are expected to:

1. Treat co-workers with courtesy, despite any personal feelings you may have
regarding a particular set of circumstances.
2. Make sure you have attentively listened and understood a discussion by
summarizing your understanding of the conversation, and allowing the other
participants to correct any miscommunication immediately.
3. If you ask a question that is not answered adequately for your understanding, ask
the question a different way rather than repeating the same question several
times. If you listen to or read the communication carefully, you should be able to
determine the point of confusion or misunderstanding and resolve it.
4. Turri in your work on time according to the schedules you are given. Make sure
that all work is accurate and complete before turning it in.
5. Attend to your invoice workload rather than attempting contract or accounting
analysis assigned to other positions. When you are told by a manager or
contract/accounting analyst position that an invoice should be paid, or that there
are no contract issues to hold up payment, or that the system properly accounts
for accruals. or that our office does not have authority over the process you are
questioning. accept that determination. Follow their instructions.
6. Ask either Mike Crawford or Sean O'Neal any questions you have regarding a
contract, but only after you have first read the comments section in the contract
database and did not find the information you needed to audit the invoice
according to the procedures for your position.

2
Confidential Page 3 61312fJOB

7. Copy me on any contract correspondence issues that are not quickly resolved.
For purposes of this plan, quickly resolved means within one conversation or an
exchange of two (the original and the response) emails.
,,-
Additionally, i ur May 19 ;;Jeeting, Mike formed the opinion that you were
surreptitiousl t' nversation. If so, you will stop taping co-workers without
their permission. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust, and is
counterproductive to the operations of this office.

Because attitude and approach are personal commitments, you may identify other steps
that will bring your performance to office standards. If you cannot meet these
expectations for any reason, please take this opportunity to express your .concerns.
Failure to implement the requirements of this Personal Improvement Plan and meet the
performance standards of this office will result in disciplinary action up to and including
termination. It is not enough to show some progress, you must show and maintain

--~
immediate improvement.
...

/
----'--~.'
\\d~f:~-
J9se Palacios, Chief Asst. County Auditor
.,'Disbursements Auditing Division

I
I have read and discussed this memorandum with my manager. I understand its I
contents and the consequences of not improving. I understand that I can provide a
written response for· inclusion in my personnel file.

Date: _
Heather Johnson, Associate AUditor I

C: Susan Spataro, County Auditor


Diana Warner, First Assistant County Auditor
Employee File

3
500 E WHITESTONE
CEDAR PARK, TX 78613-9998

j OSt16J2QOS

Sales Receipt
04:14:11 PM

----
Product
Sale Unit Fi na l
Qty Pr-i ce Price
Description
--------_ .._---- ---_.-----_.---- ---

$2.07
AUSTIN, fX
78767
zonev t First-Class t1aiH!)
Large Envelope
o lb. 7.40 oz. $2.80
Certified Hai Jl" $2.30
Returr. Receipt (U.S. tlail)
=========
$7,17
Issue postage:
::;;::::::========
Total: $7.H

Paid by: $7,17


DebitCard XXXXXXXXXXXX9028
Account #:
A.pproval #: 151951
Transact; on #: 387
23_902480623-99
Receipt #: 040591

80
Transaction Humbsr: 481565-9550
USPS® #
To check on the delivery status of
your Certified Mail'" article, visit
our Track & Confi rm webs" te at
www.usps.com or use this Automated
postal Center~ (or any Automated
Postal CentBr~ at other postal
locations).
Please retain all receipts from
affixed forms. For inquiries, both
the salas-receipt and the customer
copy from the affixed form shall be
required.
Thanks.
It's a pleasure to serve you.

ALL SALES FINAL ON STAMPS AND POSTAGE,


REFUNDS FOR GUARANTEEO SERVICES ONLY.
Page I of2

Heather M. Johnson

From: "Heather M. Johnson" <hmj7476@hughes.net>


To: <leslie. dippel@co.travis.lx.us>; <tony. nelson@co.travis.tx.us>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 9: 18 AM .
Attach: SONint.doc; TLBint.doc; YJint.doc; BKint.doc; JPint.doc; MCint.doc; SHint.doc; SSint.doc; p int.doc
Subject: Plaintiffs Interrogatories
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON §
§
V. §
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN § A-08-CA-643-SS
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §

r~--
'AND OFFICIAL §
§
-~---'-l
CAPACITIES

l______
J ______J
~.. --.-. - --_--==-======-=--::::--- ....-.=:==-============:::==-- :====--:':::""::==--==:J

Good Morning District Attorney's Office:

Attached please find the Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. A certified copy was mailed out
late on 5/16/09, however; I forgot to included copies for all individuals needing to respond
individually. Again, once cooperation is granted then I will be more then obliged to better
answer your first set and request to the best of my abilities. If you have any questions please feel
free to contact me regarding this matter via phone or email. My fax is still having problems
communicating, so if there is error then please leave me a message.

Sorry for the Delay.

6/17/2009
Page 2 of2

Sincerely,

~IJI' o!( cJdlmsmt

:)(:
Heather M. Johnson
Pro Se
60 I Blessing Ranch Rd
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
(512)-497-2114
Fax: (512)-778-6628
hmj7476@hughes.net

6/17/2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON §
§
V. §
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN § A-08-CA-643-SS
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICIAL §
CAPACITIES §

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order issued on November 7, 2008 per Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 16, the Plaintiff respectfully submits the following exhibit and witness list.

PLAINTlfF"S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST Page 1 of 6 pages


OAO J 87 (Rev. 7/87) Exhibit and Witness List

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AUSTIN DIVISION

HEATHER JOHNSON, Plaintiff,

V. PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST

TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN


SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND Case Number: A-08-CA-643-SS
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, Defendants.

PRESIDING JUDGE: PLAINTIFF'S DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY:


ATTORNEY: Assistant County Attorneys
Sam Sparks Anthony J. Nelson,
ProSe Leslie W. Dippel

TRIAL OATE (S) COURT REPORTER COURTROOM DEPUTY


October 2009
PLF. DEF. DATE MARKED ADMITTED DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS' AND WITNESS
NO. NO. OFFERED
Witness: Susan Spataro, Travis County Auditor, 314 W. IIID Street, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78701. If called, Mrs. Spataro is expected to have personal
knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Travis County Auditor's
Office. She is also expected to have personal knowledge of her position, its
function. and the routine tasks of a County Auditor. Finally, Susan Spataro is
expected to have personal knowledge of Ms. Johnson's employment with
Travis County, her disciplinary actions, her termination, subsequent appeal. and
reports made by the Plaintiff' of possible contract and financial violations of the
Defendants. (may call)

Witness: April Bacon, Chief Assistant County Auditor, 314 W. 111Il Street,
Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701. If called, Mrs. Bacon is expected to have personal
knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Travis County Auditor's
Office. She is also expected to have personal knowledge of her position, its
function, and the routine tasks of a Chief Assistant County Auditor. Finally,
April Bacon is expected to have personal knowledge of Ms. Johnson's
employment with Travis County, her disciplinary actions, reports made by the
Plaintiff of possible contract and financial violations of the Defendants, and
ultimarelv her termination. (mav call)
Witness: Jose Palacios, Chief Assistant County Auditor, 314 W. 11'" Street.
Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701. If called, Mr. Palacios is expected to have
personal knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Travis County
Auditor's Office. He is also expected to have personal knowledge of his
position, its function, and the routine tasks of a Chief Assistant County Auditor.
Jose Palacios is also expected to have personal knowledge of Ms. Johnson's
employment with Travis County, her disciplinary actions, reports made by the
Plaintiff of possible contract and financial violations of the Defendants, and
ultimatelv her termination. Imav call)
PLAINTIFF S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST Page 2 of 6 pages
Witness: Sean O'Neil, Financial Analyst V, 314 W. lit Street, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78701. If called, Mr. O'Neil is expected to have personal
knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Travis County Auditor's
Office. He is also expected to have personal knowledge of his position, its
function, and the routine tasks ofa Financial Analyst V. Sean O'Neil is also
expected to have personal knowledge of his working relationship with Ms.
Johnson, her termination, and possible information regarding numerous
exchanges of communication between the Plaintiff and himself relating to
potential financial violations of the Defendants, and ideas and theories
necessarv for corrections. (mav tam
Witness: Diana Warner. First Assistant County Auditor, 314 w. 1111IStreet,
Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78701. If called. Mrs. Warner is expected to have
personal knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Travis County
Auditor's Office. She is also expected to have personal knowledge of her
position, its function, and the routine tasks ofa First Chief Assistant County
Auditor. Finally, Diana Warner is also expected to have personal knowledge of
her working relationship with Ms. Johnson. her disciplinary actions, and
ultimately her termination. (may call)
Witness: Mike Crawford. Financial Analyst Y, 314 W. 11 Street, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78701. If called, Mr. Crawford is expected to have personal
knowledge of the policies and procedures ofthc Travis County Auditor's
Office. He is also expected to have personal knowledge of his position, its
function, and the routine tasks of a Financial Analyst V. Finally, Mike
Crawford is also expected to have personal knowledge of his working
relationship with Ms. Johnson, her disciplinary actions, and ultimately her
termination along with possible information regarding numerous exchanges of
communicatioo between the Plaintiff and himself relating to potential contract
violations of the Defendants, and ideas and theories necessary for corrections.
(mar call)
Witness; Blain Keith, Chief Assistant Auditor, 314 W. II Street, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78701. If called, Mr. Keith is expected to have personal
knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Travis County Auditor's
Office. He is also expected to have personal knowledge of his position, its
function, and the routine tasks of a Chief Assistant Auditor. Finally, Blain
Keith is also expected to have personal knowledge of his working relationship
with Ms. Johnson, her termination, and possible information regarding
numerous exchanges of communication between Mr. O'Neil and himself
relating to potential financial violations of the Defendants, and ideas and
theories for corrections.Imav cain
Witness: Tracy LeBlanc, 314 W. 1111 Street, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78701. If
called, Mrs. LeBlanc is expected to have personal knowledge of the policies
and procedures of the Travis County Auditor's Office. She is also expected to
have personal knowledge of her position, its function, and the routine tasks of
an Associate Auditor JI. Finally, Tracy LeBlanc is also expected to have
personal knowledge of her working relationship with Ms. Johnson, her
termination, and possible information regarding numerous exchanges of
communication between the Plaintiff and herself relating to potential financial
violations of the Defendants, and ideas and theories necessary for corrections.
(mev cam
Witness: Yolanda Jones, Financial Analyst, 314 W. II Street, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78701. If called, Mrs. Jones is expected to have personal
knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Travis County Auditor's
Office. She is also expected to have personal k-nowledge of her position, its
function, and the routine tasks of a Financial Analyst. Finally, Mrs. Jones is
also expected to have personal knowledge of her working relationship with Ms.
Johnson, her termination, and possible information regarding a few exchanges
of communication between the Plaintiff and herself relating to potential
financial violations of the Defendants, and ideas and theories necessary for
corrections. (may call)
Witness: Rhonda Ambrose, Treasury Employee of Travis County, 314 W. J 111I
Street, Suite 160 Austin, Texas 78701. If called, Mrs. Ambrose is expected to
have pe.~~nal knowledge of the role and function of her position within Travis
County. may call)
Witness: Nancy Barchus, Purchasing Agent II, 314 W. 11m Street, Suite 400
Austin, Texas 7870 I. If called. Mrs. Barchus is expected to have personal
knowledge of her position, its function, and the routine tasks of a Purchasing
Agent Il. She is also expected to have personal knowledge of her working
relationship with Ms. Johnson., and possible information reeerdlna numerous

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST Page 3 of 6 pages


exchanges of communication between the Plaintiff and herself relating to
potential financial violations, and ideas and theories of corrections necessary for
Travis Countv.-(~av cail)'
Witness: Lori Clyde, Bonnie Floyd, Lorean Breland, and/or Donald Rollack,
Purchasing Agents for Travis County, 314 W. I J tIIo Street, Suite 400 Austin,
Texas 78701. If one is called, they are expected to have personal knowledge of
their working relationship with Ms. Johnson, and possible information
regarding numerous exchanges of communication between the Plaintiff and
themselves relating to potential contract violations of the Defendants. {may
calli
Witness: Christine Rodriguez, an employee for Travis County. If called, Mrs.
Rodriguez is expected to have personal knowledge her working relationship
with Ms. Johnson, and possible information regarding numerous exchanges of
communication between the Plaintiff and herself relating to potential financial
and contract violations of the Defendants, and ideas and theories of necessary
for corrections. (may calll-
Witness: Sandy Hendrix, Financial Analyst, 314 W. II tIIo Street, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 7870 I. If called, Mrs. Hendrix is expected to have personal
knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Travis County Auditor's
Office. She is also expected to have personal knowledge of her position, its
function, and the routine tasks ofa Financial Analyst. Finally, Sandy Hendrix:
is also expected to have personal knowledge of her working relationship with
Ms. Johnson, reported allegations by Mrs. Hendrix regarding the Plaintiff's
work performance and behavior, and possible information regarding a few
exchanges of communication between Mr. O'Neil and herself relating to
potential financial violations of the Defendants, and ideas and theories of
necessary for corrections. rmav cal1\
Witness: Dominic Audino, Arboretum Plaza One, 9442 N. Capital of Texas
Highway, Suite 500 Austin, Texas 78759, If called Mr. AUdi~~J1iSexpel~~ed to
have knowledge on the issue of the Plaintiffs anornev's fees. mav call
Witness: Steven J. Moss, 13809 Research Blvd. Suite 701 Austin, Texas 78750.
If called, Mr. Moss is expected to have knowledge of the issue of the Plaintiff's
attorney's fees. He also has personal knowledge concerning the appeal on
6125/08. (may calli
Witness: Anthony J. Nelson, 3J4 W. I Jilt Street Suite 420 Austin, Texas 78701.
If called, Mr. Nelson is expected to have knowledge on the issue of the
Defendant'S attorney's fees. He also has personal knowledge concerning the
grievance process of the Plaintiff up to and was present at the appeal on
6125108. (mav call)
Witness: Leslie W. Dippel, 314 W. lido Street, Suite 420 Austin, Texas 78701.
If called, Mrs. Dippel is expected to have knowledge on the issue of the
Defendant's attorney's fees. (may caiil·
1 Exhibit: Policy and Procedure Manual of the Travis County Auditor's Office.

2.1- Exhibits: Travis County Code Manuals for the Policies, Procedures, and
Regulations for a1l Travis County Employees
2.2
3 Exhibit: Personnel Aclion Form Final of Johnson, Heather M. dated 3/31108 &
Travis County Hours Entry backup regarding the Plaintiff's last paycheck from
Travis CountY relatinz to Ms. Johnson's position title uoon termination.
4 Exhibit: Wiley !FRS 2009: Interpretation and Application ofInternational
Accountine and Financial Reeortina
5 Exhibit: Wiley GAAP 2009: Interpretation and Application ofOenerally
Accepted Accoununa Practices
6.1- Exhibits: Comprehensive Annul Financial Reports 2007, 2008, & 2009 for
Travis County
6.3
7 Exhibit: A booklet of charts and diagrams created by the Plaintiff questioning
the auditing and accounting policy and procedures of Travis County regarding
eorential financial, contract. and auditine violations ofthe Defendants.
8.1- Exhibits: Defendants' responses, documentation, and communication provided
to the Plaintiffs Request for Production
8.25
9.1- Exhibits; Defendants' answers, documentation, and communication provided
to the Plaintiffs Set of interrogatories
9.9
10 Exhibit: OEM manuals of Covert Chevrolet

PLAINTlFF'S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST Page 4 of 6 pages


11 Exhibit www.ci.austm.tx.us/wallercreek

12 Exhibit to be presented in booklet format, emails and attachments sene from


the Plaintiffs home domain hmj7476ral:hughes.net to Travis County employees
and her own domain at Travis County heather johnSQn@oo.travis.tx.us
regarding financial theories and questions to potential violation and errors of the
Defendant while working for Travis County:
Sent to the Plaintiffs own domain on 5/13/08 subject po#liquadation, attach:
380803J.xls
Sent 10 Tracy leBlanc on 5/16108 subject: 380801 attach: 380801 ~
freightliner.doc
Sent to Sandy Hendrix on 5/19/08 subject: income statement
Sent to Mike Crawford on 5/19/08 subject accrual accounting. attach:
accrual.doc; modified accrual. doc; explantetion.doc;
Attempted to send to Sean O'Neil 5120108 subject: so's-Accruers-rrccess
attach: accruaL doc; modified.accrual.doc; encumbrance example. doc;
encumbrance explanatation.doc
The rest were sent to her domain where she later would make minuet
changes and forward to Sean O'Neil during non working hours
5122108 subject: mas. attach mas.doc
5/30/08 subject: answer to the riddle, attach \\'WW phoneplusmag com-
anicJes471 featOl.mdi.; w\vw ftc.goY.soecches-<lther-dyimfl6.mdl;
www.mouthsut.com·review-Ouestnet·140687.I.mdi
6/01/08 subject: Ttrrtrt, attach: en.widipedia.org-wiki-Dyslexia.mdi,
en.wikipediaorg-wiki-AuditorLProcessin&..,.Disorder.mdi

13 Exhibit: records of em ail communication from the Plaintiffs domain


hmj7476@)hughes.netdatedbetween6l10-6l11l08sentfromthePlaintifftoand
from the County Judge, Sam Briscoe regarding the grievance proceedings for 8
Travis COWltV emolovee within the Auditor's Office.
14 Exhibit: Fax received at the Plainti.ff's house on 6/5/08 all0:20pm regarding a
document from her office while working for Travis County.
15 Exhibits: Digital recording ofa disciplinary meeting between the Defendant,
Travis County and the Plaintiff on a questionable 5/19/08 and a partial digital
recording of a disciplinary meeting on 613/08 regarding Ms. Johnson's work
oerformance and behavior.
16 Exhibit: Plaintiff reserve the right to ask permission for a computer to be set up
having access to Travis COW1ty'S Auditor's Office accounting software, H.T.E.,
their document scanning filing system Laserfische, and internet access.
Any witness listed by the Defendant.
Any witness necessary for authentication, impeachment or rebuttal.

Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional witnesses depending on


Defendant's witness and exhibit designations.
Plaintiff reserves the right to submit a revised exhibit list after the closing of
discovery on July 31, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

prose

HEATHER M. JOHNSON
601 Blessing Ranch Rd.
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
(512)497-2114: PHONE

PLAIN1lfF·S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST Page 5 of 6 pages


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff s Exhibit and

Witness List pursuant to the Scheduling Order issued on November 7, 2008 per Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 16 was served on the Defendants' counsel via facsimile (512)

Defendants' Attorneys:
ANTHONY J. NELSONILESLIE W. DIPPEL
Travis County Assistant Attorneys
314 W. 11th Street, Suite 420
Austin, TX 78701
Phone Number: (512) 854-9513

PLAINTIFF·S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST Page 6 of 6 pages


HP Ofllcejet J4500 AII-In-One series Fax Log for
Jun 17 2009 8:22PM

NOTE: Blocked calls are not displayed on this report.


For more information, see Junk Fax Report and the Caller ID Report.
fleiA~ ~C)Qd-.
Last 30 Transactions

Date Time Type Station ID Duration Pages Result


Caller ID

Apr 24 10:36AM Received 0:26 1 OK

Apr 24 2:49PM Received 0:41 0 No fax

Apr 27 1:33PM Received 0:35 1 OK

Apr 30 11:03AM Received 0:41 0 No fax

May 5 6:18PM Received 0:40 0 No fax

May 6 10:29AM Fax Sent 15128544808 2:45 7 OK


May 6 11:06AM Received 0:40 0 No fax

May 6 11:57AM Fax Sent 15128544808 3:08 8 OK


May 9 10:39AM Received 0:41 0 No fax

May 11 10:54AM Received 0:40 0 No fax

May 14 11:03AM Received 0:41 0 No fax

May 14 11:23AM Received 0:41 0 No fax

May 1412:32PM Received 0:41 0 No fax

May 141:23PM Received 0:41 0 No fax

May 143:51PM Received 0:40 0 No fax

May 15 10:31AM Received 0:40 0 No fax

May 152:15PM Received 0:40 0 No fax

May 152:36PM Received 0:41 0 No fax

May 1611 :59AM Received 0:40 0 No fax

May 162:15PM Received 0:41 0 No fax

May 189:26AM Received 0:41 0 No fax


May 18 11:13AM Received 0:40 0 No fax

May 21 3:34PM Fax Sent 15128544808 0:00 0 No answer


May 213:38PM Fax Sent 15128544808 0:42 0 Cancel
May 21 9:38PM Fax Sent 15123200975 0:00 0 No answer
May 219:46PM Fax Sent 15123200975 0:51 0 Cancel
May 21 9:47 ax Sent 123200975 0:4 K
226- 1 2:2 6 OK
un 5 12:12PM Fax Sent 14787573144 1:46 4
Jun 6 6:45PM Fax Sent 15123201413 1:08 2 OK
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

§
HEATHER JOHNSON, §
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § A-08-CA-643-SS
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN §
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, §
Defendants. §

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND


PLEADING

COME NOW Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro ("Defendants"), by

and through their attorney of record and file this Responseto Plaintiff's Second Motion

to Amend Pleading. Defendants offer the following in support:

I. INTRODUCTION

Following her termination from Travis County, Plaintiff sued Defendants alleging

violations of the Texas Whistleblower Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
.,
the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend

her complaint on April 22, 2009. The Court granted her leave to amend but ordered her

to file an amended complaint complying with FED. R. CN. P. 8. In response, Plaintiff

filed a Second Motion to Amend Pleading.

DEFENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFf'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING

204259-1 PAGE J OF4


II. ARGUMENT

In response to the Court's Order Plaintiff filed a Second Motion to Amend

Pleading. Defendants object to Plaintiff's motion because it does not state a basis for

leave to amend her Complaint. Further, the proposed amendments do not assert

additional facts or causes of action. Rather, the proposed amendments contain

interpretations of and conclusions from facts she has already asserted. Finally, Plaintiff

does not attach a copy of the proposed amended complaint to her motion for leave.

Accordingly, Defendants request the Court deny Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend

Pleading as it does not comply with FED. R. CIV. P. 8 or the Court's Order of April 29,

2009.

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants request the Court

deny the Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend Pleading. and grant further relief to which

Defendants may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID ESCAMILLA
TRAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
P. O. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767
(512) 854-9415
FAX: (512) 854-4808

By:~~
ANTHONY J. NELSON
Assistant Travis County Attorney
State Bar No. 14885800
LESLIE W. DIPPEL
Assistant Travis County Attorney
State Bar No. 00796472
Attorney for Defendants Travis
County and Susan Spataro

DEFENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING

204259-1 PAGE20F4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 20th day of May, 2009, I electronically filed the
foregoing Defendants' Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro's Response to
Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend Pleading with the Clerk of the Court using the
CM'ECF system, and I have mailed a copy of this document by certified U.S. Mail to the
following non-CMlECF participant:

CMRR 70052570 000050053195


Heather Johnson
601 Blessing Ranch Road
Liberty Hill, TIC 78642

Anthony J. Nelson
Leslie W. Dippel
Assistant County Attorneys

DEFENDANTS TRAylS CQIINTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING

204259-1 PAGE30F4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

§
HEATHER JOHNSON, §
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § A-08-CA-643-SS
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN §
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, §
Defendants __ -~
ORDER

On " 2009, this Court considered Plaintiff's Second Motion to

Amend Complaint. Having considered the motion, the Defendant' response, and the

applicable law, this Court denies the Plaintiffs Second Motion to Amend Pleading.

SIGNED AND ENTERED on this day of --', 2009.

Presiding Judge

DEfENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING

204259·1 PAGE40F4
Case 1:08-cv-00643 Document 21 Filed 06/08/2009 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F-'LED


FOR THE wESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS '1m JUN~8 PH 2: 06
AUSTIN DMSION ...
. ~;!;};RS',"'w.;~:.
~Viir
~ew~rt.ql(j'1·~;f#tt.Kl*1.:
. BY
HEATHER JOHNSON, - (H7ft1y¥
Plaintiff,

-vs- Case No. A-08-CA-643-SS

TRAVIS COUNTY and SUSAN SPATARO, in her


individual and official capacities,
Defendants.

ORDER

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and

specifically Plaintiff Heather Johnson's Second Motion to Amend Pleading [#18] filed May 20,

2009, and Defendants' Response thereto [# 19]. After considering the motion, the response, and the
t ," ,.Il.

case file as it whole, the Court enters the following order.

On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Pleading [# 16]. The Court granted

said motion on April 29, 2009, ordering the Plaintiff to file an amended pleading in compliance with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 within eleven days of the order. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed

her second motion to amend. Defendants object to the second motion to amend, pointing out the

motion lacks a basis for leave to amend and lacks an attached amended complaint. Upon reviewing -

the second motion to amend, the Court concludes the pleading is in fact the PlaintifPs response to

the Court's order to file an amended complaint improperly titled as a motion to amend. Plaintiff is

proceeding pro se and her pleadings must be liberally construed. The Court will therefore construe
...
Case 1;08-cv-00643 Document 21 '
.' , ~, . Filed 06/08/2009 Page 2 of 2

the Plaintiff s "Second Motion to Amend Pleading" as a supplement to her complaint, and dismiss

the motion to amend as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Heather Johnson's Second Motion to

Amend Pleading [#18] is construed as a supplement to the Plaintiff s complaint and the

request to amend is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

SIGNED this the g k day of June 2009.

'd~~
SAMSPARK~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

t.

-2-