SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.

* IN THE

Plaintiff * CIRCUIT COURT

v. * FOR

BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF * BALTIMORE CITY

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

* * * * *
BCBSC’s ANSWERS TO SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC’s
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

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

Defendant BCBSC, by and through undersigned counsel, submits these

Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

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

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

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

C. The Interrogatories have been interpreted and answered in accordance

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

D. The Answers herein accurately reflect the information presently

available. If further or different information becomes available, these Answers will
be timely supplemented.
 GENERAL OBJECTIONS

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

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

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

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

3. BCBSC generally objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they

seek information subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-
product doctrine. Inadvertent production or disclosure of any such information
shall not constitute a waiver of any such privilege or immunity.

4. BCBSC generally objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they

seek the discovery of matters that are not relevant to the claim or defense of any
party to this action.

5. BCBSC generally objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they

are not sufficiently limited in time and scope.

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

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

7. These general objections are hereby incorporated into each specific

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

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify each person who participated, or

assisted, in the preparation of the answers to these Interrogatories.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: BCBSC objects that SBG has filed

a complaint in the above-captioned case seeking “judicial review”

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

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

2
discovery nor do the applicable Maryland Rules relating to judicial review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

other objections available to BCBSC should a subsequent order compelling

discovery production be imposed.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each person with knowledge of the

MPIA Denials and state the subject of their knowledge.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: BCBSC incorporates its answer to

interrogatory number 1 as if fully stated herein.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify each person who participated in

preparing the MPIA Denials of has knowledge of any facts that you contend
support the exemptions claimed in the MPIA Denial.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: BCBSC incorporates its answer to

interrogatory number 1 as if fully stated herein.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify each person, other than a person

intended to be called as an expert witness at trial, having discoverable
information that tends to support a position that you have taken or intend to
take in this action, and state the subject matter of the information possessed by
that person. (Standard General Interrogatory No. 1.)

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: BCBSC incorporates its answer to

interrogatory number 1 as if fully stated herein.

3
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each person whom you expect to call as
an expert witness at trial, state the subject matter on which the expert is
expected to testify, state the substance of the findings and opinions to which the
expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds of each opinion, and,
with respect to an expert whose findings and opinions were acquired in
anticipation of litigation or for trial, summarize the qualifications of the expert,
state the terms of the expert’s compensation, and attach to your answers any
available list of publications written by the expert and any written report made
by the expert concerning the expert’s findings and opinions. (Standard General
Interrogatory No. 2.)

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: BCBSC incorporates its answer to

interrogatory number 1 as if fully stated herein.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: If you intend to rely upon documents,

electronically stored information, or tangible things to support a position that
you have taken or intend to take in the action, provide a brief description, by
category and location, of all such documents, electronically stored information,
and tangible things, and identify all persons having possession, custody, or
control of them. (Standard General Interrogatory No. 3.)

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: BCBSC incorporates its answer to

interrogatory number 1 as if fully stated herein.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify each document that you believe is exempt

from production in response to the MPIA Requests and provide the following
information:

a. A description of the document, including its date, author(s), and subject

matter;

b. The specific statutory exemption(s) that you have claimed excuse

production of the document;

c. The factual basis for the claimed exemption(s) for the document;

d. An explanation of how disclosure would damage the interests protected by

the claimed exemption(s); and

e. The identity of each person other than your employees and attorneys, and
any entity other than you (including your government agencies), that has

4
 been provided a copy of the document or has otherwise reviewed all or a
portion of the document.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: BCBSC incorporates its answer to

interrogatory number 1 as if fully stated herein.

As to legal objections and legal arguments,

Tamal A. Banton ____

Tamal A. Banton, Senior Counsel
Sally A. Robinson, Senior Counsel
Amanda L. Costley, Associate Counsel
Office of Legal Counsel
Baltimore City Public Schools
200 East North Avenue, Suite 208
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(443) 642-4256 telephone
(410) 396-2955 facsimile
tabanton@bcps.k12.md.us
alcostley@bcps.k12.md.us
Attorneys for BCBSC

5
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

foregoing BCBSC’s Answers to Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.’s First Set of

Interrogatories were mailed to:

Scott H. Marder, Esquire

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

Tamal A. Banton
Tamal A. Banton