Lumumba V ST D Complete File

Case: 25CI1:16-cv-00115-JAW
Document #: 59
Filed: 12/12/2016
Page 1 of 3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
CHOKWE ANTAR LUMUMBA, INDIVIDUALLY AND

ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF CHOKWE LUMUMBA
VS.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO.
ST. DOMINICS HOSPITAL; ST. DOMINICS

EMERGENCY HOSPITAL; NURUDEEN A.
SHEKONI; HEATHER EVANS; JOHN DOES 1-10
DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTIONFOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

COME NOW, Plaintiffs by and through counsel, pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of
Civil Procedure, and file this their Motion for Protective order. Plaintiffs request this Court
consider this matter urgent and necessitous, and arrange for a definite time and place for the
subject motion to be heard.
1.
This case arises out of a wrongful death lawsuit filed against the Defendants in
this matter.
2.
Defendants are requesting depositions and other documents in this matter that
should be protected from the public and media being that this is a high profile case.
3.
Miss.R.Civ.Pro 26 (d) states upon motion by a party or by the person from
whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending,
or in the case of a deposition the court that issued a subpoena therefor, may make any order
which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
or undue burden or expense.
4.
Document #: 59
Filed: 12/12/2016
Page 2 of 3
Plaintiffs contend that justice requires an order to protect certain information as
said order would protect Plaintiffs.

5.
This case involves the death of the former Mayor of Jackson, Mississippi. Also,
one of the Plaintiffs is currently running for Mayor of Jackson, Mississippi. Thus, this could
potentially be a highly publicized case.
6.
Plaintiffs submit that discovery request and deposition testimony may seek
information that have little probative value to the case but could cause a substantial hardship for
Plaintiffs.
7.
In particular, justice requires a protective order be entered because deposition
testimony may reveal personal information that could cause annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
restricting deposition testimony strictly to matters related to the complaint. Also, Plaintiff asks
the Court enter an Order sealing deposition testimony.
For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to enter a
protective order.
Respectfully submitted on the 12st day of December, 2016.
SWEET & ASSOCIATES
BY:/s/ Dennis C. Sweet, IV
DENNIS C. SWEET, IV
Document #: 59
Filed: 12/12/2016
Page 3 of 3
OF COUNSEL:
Dennis C. Sweet, IV (MSB # 103009)
SWEET & ASSOCIATES
158 East Pascagoula, Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: 601-965-8700
Facsimile: 601-965-8719
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff has on this day filed the above and foregoing document via the Electronic filing
system which will send notice of same to all counsel of record.
This the 12th day of December, 2016.
BY:/s/Dennis C. Sweet, IV
Dennis C. Sweet, IV
Document #: 66-1
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 1 of 5
Document #: 66-1
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 2 of 5
Document #: 66-1
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 3 of 5
Document #: 66-1
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 4 of 5
Document #: 66-1
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 5 of 5
Document #: 64
Filed: 12/15/2016
Page 1 of 5

RUKIA LUMUMBA , CHOKWE ANTAR LUMUMBA
AND KAMBON THURMAN,
COLLECTIVELY AND
V.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-115

HOSPITAL SERVICES, INC.; NURUDEEN A.
SHEKONI; NORTH JACKSON MEDICAL CLINIC,
PLLC; HEATHER EVANS; AND JOHN DOES 1-10
DEFENDANTS
NURUDEEN A. SHEKONI, M.D. AND NORTH JACKSON MEDICAL

CLINIC, PLLCS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants Nurudeen A. Shekoni, M.D. and North Jackson Medical Clinic, PLLC
(Defendants), respond to Plaintiffs so-called Emergency Motion for Protective Order as
follows:
1.
Defendants admit this is a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Defendants in this
2.
Defendants admit they have repeatedly requested the depositions of Plaintiffs and
matter.
other fact witnesses, including immediate family members and others who were at the hospital
with decedent before he died, but deny that there is any necessity for a protective order or any
emergency. Defendants admit this is a high profile case and is why, in part, Defendants have
moved to transfer venue [Doc. 20].
3.
Defendants admit that Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provide a mechanism
for entry of a protective order when good cause is shown; however, Plaintiffs have failed to
identify any good cause, and cannot meet the required burden of proof for entry of a protective
order.
Document #: 64
Filed: 12/15/2016
Page 2 of 5
Defendants merely seek to depose the Plaintiffs and fact witnesses with direct
relationships and involvement with the Plaintiffs and the decedent.
Defendants seek no
discovery for the purposes of annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or

expense, and Plaintiffs have failed to identify any such discovery.
4.
Plaintiffs make the blanket allegation that justice requires an order to protect
certain information, but set forth no basis whatsoever for the protective order or what
information they seek to protect.
5.
Defendants admit the case involves the death of the former Mayor of Jackson and
that one of the Plaintiffs is currently running for Mayor of Jackson. Defendants further admit
that this suit could be a highly-publicized case.
Again these assertions merely support
Defendants motion to transfer venue in this matter.

6.
Plaintiffs baldly allege that unspecified discovery requests and deposition
testimony may seek information that has little probative value, but could cause substantial
hardship. Here, too, Defendants cannot imagine what the Plaintiffs are referring to, and they do
not give Defendants nor the Court the benefit of what discovery requests or depositions they seek
to preclude, limit or protect. To date Defendants have sought only discovery and depositions of
the Plaintiffs in this case and fact witnesses with direct, relevant information to the claims at
hand.
7.
Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that justice requires a protective order be entered because
deposition testimony may reveal personal information that could cause annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense to Plaintiffs and requests the Court enter
an order restricting deposition testimony strictly to matters related to the Complaint. Again,
seeking discovery of facts directly related to the claims at issue and seeking the deposition of the
Document #: 64
Filed: 12/15/2016
Page 3 of 5
Plaintiffs and persons with direct knowledge of the claims at issue per se cannot fall into the
categories mentioned. Plaintiffs further ask the Court before any depositions have been taken to
enter an order restricting deposition testimony to strictly matters related to the Complaint. This
request unduly and improperly limits discovery under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.
These Plaintiffs, like any other litigants, should be required to submit to deposition testimony. If
any areas are delved into in the depositions that Plaintiffs believe should be protected or sealed,
the attorneys may file a motion with the Court at that time and would be able to provide Defense
Counsel and the Court with much-needed context and specificity.
Finally, Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order sealing the deposition testimony.
Defendants have already offered to keep confidential any and all confidential information, such
as social security numbers. Indeed, such information is already protected under Miss. R. Civ. P.
5.1 and the Administrative Procedures for Mississippi Electronic Courts 5 and 9.
Sealing the record imposes many significant burdens and should not be done here or
lightly. It is well settled that the public has a right to access to judicial records. Plaintiffs have
failed to identify a single valid reason to seal the record. As the Court is aware, when a case is
sealed, it disturbs the function and utility of the MEC; it places additional burdens on the parties
in filing and disseminating pleadings; it affects access to the record if and when a case is
appealed; and so on. Moreover, depositions are not generally public records, but portions of
depositions are often used in Court in support of motions or in response to motions. Plaintiffs
have failed to identify or set forth any basis whatsoever for sealing the record or deposition
testimony and to do so would impose undue burdens and restrictions on Defendants.
Document #: 64
Filed: 12/15/2016
Page 4 of 5
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants respectfully request this Court

deny Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Protective Order in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted, this 15th day of December, 2016.
NURUDEEN A. SHEKONI AND NORTH
JACKSON MEDICAL CLINIC, PLLC
By:
/s/ Walter T. Johnson

Walter T. Johnson, MSB # 8712
Susan L. Steffey, MSB # 9038
W. Abram Orlansky, MSB # 104172
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC
400 E Capitol Street (39201)
Post Office Box 650
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Telephone: (601) 965-1900
Facsimile: (601) 965-1901
E-Mail: wjohnson@watkinseager.com
ssteffey@watkinseager.com
Document #: 64
Filed: 12/15/2016
Page 5 of 5
I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing pleading or other
paper with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification of such filing to
all counsel of record.

Walter T. Johnson
Document #: 66
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 1 of 4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

RUKIA LUMUMBA CHOKWE ANTAR LUMUBA
AND KAMBON THRUMAN,
COLLECTIVELY AND
VS
PLAINTIFF

SHEKONI, NORTH JACKSON MEDICAL CLINIC,
DEFENDANTS
______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT NURUDEEN A. SHEKONIS RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Civil Procedure, and file this their Reply to Defendant Nurudeen A. Shekonis Response to
Plaintiffs Motion for Emergency Protective order.
1.
On December 12, 2016 Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Emergency Protective Order. On
December 15, 2016 Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Transfer Venue.
2.
Plaintiffs Motion for Emergency Protective Order to transfer venue is incorporated
herein.
Motion for Protective Order
1.
Defendant argues Plaintiffs; Motion for protective order should be denied. However,
Defendants failed to reference any case law as authority for their argument.
2.
Defendant argues Plaintiffs can not show that Plaintiffs will suffer annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense. However, Defendants state in their
Document #: 66
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 2 of 4
Motion to Transfer Venue that this case is highly publicized and people have commented on the
case. That publication and comments themselves will cause Plaintiffs to suffer annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense. One example of this is the public
response to Defendants own motion to transfer venue.
There has been substantial media
coverage regarding this Motion. There have also been negative comments posted online about
this motion. (See. Exhibit A).
2.
Defendant argues Plaintiffs failed to specify the discovery request and deposition
testimony that would present a hardship to Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffs Motion to Seal was
not filed under seal and therefore is public record. Thus, Plaintiffs will suffer undue hardships if
they were to fully specify and disclose the specific material that would cause such hardships, in
their Motion to seal.
3.
However, Plaintiff states one discovery request in particular may elicit testimony that
may prejudice Plaintiffs.
Defendants served Plaintiffs the following Interrogatory:
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State whether Chokwe Lumumba has ever made a claim
for damages prior to this lawsuit or has ever been involved in a lawsuit as a party, witness, or
otherwise, and if your answer is in the affirmative, state the nature of the claim or the style of the
lawsuit and the Court in which it was filed.
RESPONSE NO. 18:
Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 18, on the grounds
that it is overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks information that is protected
by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product. Further this interrogatory is
not relevant and does not lead to discoverable information. Without waiving said objection
Plaintiffs submit Mr. Lumumba has been a part of numerous lawsuits as he was an
Document #: 66
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 3 of 4
attorney. Plaintiffs are not aware of any lawsuits where Mr. Lumumba was the Plaintiffs
over the past 10 years.
`
Upon investigating this Interrogatory Plaintiffs discovered Mr. Lumumba has made
claims for damages in his capacity as an attorney. Plaintiffs discovered that Mr. Lumumba made
claims in this Court and this Court recused themselves from hearing Mr. Lumumbas case. This
interrogatory and deposition questions surrounding this type of questioning would surly create
undue hardships for Plaintiffs. Further, upon information and belief this Court filed a bar
complaint on Mr. Lumumba.
Again, interrogatory responses and deposition testimony
surrounding this area would surely create an undue hardship and burden for Plaintiffs.
4.
Plaintiffs will be able to fully disclose all of the potentially harmful discovery questions
and fully brief any associated Motions once the file has been sealed. This includes information
as to why this Court should recuse themselves from the case.
5.
Defendants argue the appropriate means to handle Plaintiffs concerns are to transfer
venue. However, transferring the venue is done for trial purposes so that a jury pool is not
tainted.
(Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue is incorporated by
reference).
Transferring venue will have absolutely no effect on the hardship Plaintiffs
described in their Motion to Seal. Thus, Defendants argument that the proper action to relieve
Plaintiffs of any potential harship would be to simply transfer venue, is not supported by law.
5.
Thus, plaintiffs move this Court to grant their Motion to seal the file or in the alternative
to recuse themselves from the case pursuant to URCCC Rule 1.15. (Plaintiff will timely supplement
the requisite recusal affidavit before this motion is set for hearing. The supplemented affidavit is
incorporated by reference and will be referred to as Exhibit B).
Conclusion
Document #: 66
Filed: 12/16/2016
Page 4 of 4
For the reasons stated herein Plaintiffs request the Court grant Defendants Motion to
Seal the record enter a protective order or in the alternative recuse this court from hearing this
case..
Respectfully Submitted this 16 Day of December 2016.
RUKIA LUMUMBA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
By /S/ Dennis C. Sweet, IV
I Dennis C. Sweet, IV, do hereby certify that I have this day filed a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court who will send notification to all counsel
of record.
BY: /s/ Dennis C. Sweet, IV
Document #: 60
Filed: 12/12/2016
Page 1 of 2

RUKIA LUMUMBA, CHOKWE ANTAR LUMUMBA
AND KAMBON THURMAN,
COLLECTIVELY AND
V.
PLAINTIFFS

PLLC; HEATHER EVANS AND JOHN DOES 1-10
DEFENDANTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff will bring on for hearing their Emergency Motion
For Protective Order before the Honorable Jeff Weill, Sr. on Monday, December 19th at 9:00
a.m. or as soon thereafter can be heard at the Hinds County Court in Jackson, MS.
Respectfully submitted,
SWEET & ASSOCIATES
By:/s/Dennis C. Sweet, III
Of Counsel:
Dennis C. Sweet, IV
Sweet & Associates
158 E. Pascagoula Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Ph. 601.965.8700
Fx. 601.965.8719
Email: dennis.sweetiv@sweetandassociates.net
Document #: 60
Filed: 12/12/2016
Page 2 of 2
I, Dennis C. Sweet, IV, certify that I have this day filed, via electronic mail, a true and
correct copy of the foregoing with the Clerk of Court who shall forward a copy to all counsel of
record via the electronic filing system:
This the 12th day of December 2016.
/s/ Dennis C. Sweet, IV

DENNIS C. SWEET, IV
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 1 of 23


VS.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO.

DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT NURUDEEN A. SHEKONIS MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Civil Procedure, and file this their Response to Defendant Nurudeen A. Shekonis Motion to
Compel.
Introduction
Defendant Nurudeen A. Shekoni (also referred to as Defendant) served their discovery
request on June 27, 2016.
Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed on an extension to answer
Defendants discovery request. Plaintiffs responded to Defendants request on August 25, 2016.
Defendant notified Plaintiff via letter that Defendant sought additional information. Plaintiffs
counsel spoke to Defendants counsel and agreed to supplement Plaintiffs responses. Defendant
filed a Motion to Compel Discovery on October 14, 2016. Plaintiffs supplemented the discovery
responses on November 10, 2016. Plaintiffs supplementation was done over a month before the
Motion to Compel was set for hearing. Plaintiffs supplemented the response in good faith to try
to complete discovery without Court intervention. Plaintiffs supplementation addressed the
1
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 2 of 23
issues raised in Defendants Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs sent correspondence to Defendant

asking Defendant to review the supplemental discovery and withdraw the Motion to Compel as
to the answers Defendant felt were sufficient. Defendants corresponded back with Plaintiffs and
stated that they would not withdraw any part of the motion.
(Please See Exhibit A.
Correspondence between counsel). Plaintiffs have worked in good faith to address any discovery
issues.
At this point, Plaintiffs have fully answered all propounded request.
Further,
Defendants Motion to Compel does not address Plaintiffs supplemental discovery answers.
(Please See Exhibit B. Plaintiffs supplemental discovery). Plaintiffs supplemental motions are
signed under oath.
Discussion
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Describe in detail each and every act of negligence which you
allege was committed by Dr. Shekoni which are supported by an expert witness and for each act
of negligence alleged state the following:
a.
all of the facts on which each allegation is based;
b.
identify the applicable standard of care which you contend Dr. Shekoni
breached;
c.
describe in detail how Dr. Shekoni allegedly breached the applicable

medical standard of care;
d.
state in detail the duty you contend Dr. Shekoni owed to Chokwe
Lumumba as his admitting physician;
e.
the name, occupation, and residence and business address of all persons
having knowledge of the facts on which each allegation of negligence
against Dr. Shekoni is based;
f.
if you contend treatment was inappropriate, state specifically what

treatment you contend should have been rendered; and
g.
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 3 of 23
the identity and location of any and all documents which support or
otherwise relate to the facts on which each allegation of negligence is
based.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 1:
Plaintiffs
object
to
interrogatory No. 1, on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vague,

compound, seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and
attorney work-product. Plaintiffs direct Defendant to the Complaint. Further,
Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as it calls for legal conclusions. Further, this
interrogatory seeks information that calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving
said objection Plaintiffs states discovery is still ongoing. Plaintiffs have not yet
made a determination as to who will be called to testify to give expert opinions.
Further without waiving said objections Plaintiffs directs Defendant to the
Complaint which states the following: Defendant breached the standard of care for
providing reasonable medical treatment to Mr. Lumumba. On or about February
25, 2014 at 9:00am Chokwe Lumumba checked into St. Dominics Emergency
Room which is owned and operated by Defendants St. Dominics Hospital and St.
Dominics Health Services, Inc. (Collectively St. Dominics). Chokwe Lumumba
expressed to St. Dominics staff, employees, and physicians that he was suffering
from chest pains.
At the time Chokwe Lumumba checked into St. Dominics. St.
Dominics was aware of Mr. Lumumbas medical history because he had previously
been a patient at St. Dominics. Chokwe Lumumba was in St. Dominics care from
around 9:00 a.m. until he passed away around 5:00 p.m. that afternoon. While Mr.
Lumumba was in St. Dominics custody, its employees, the hospitals staff and
physicians, failed and/or refused to conduct any test(s) to diagnose a dissecting
aneurysm with the thoracic aorta. St. Dominics employees, staff, and physicians
3
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 4 of 23
failed to treat a dissecting aneurysm. Mr. Lumumba ultimately died as a result of

St. Dominics and others failures to properly diagnose, test, and treat Mr.
Lumumba.
At some point St. Dominics cardiologist advised Mr. Lumumba
needed a blood transfusion. The cardiologist did not do any test or diagnosis to
determine if Mr. Lumumba was suffering from a dissecting aneurysm.
St.
Dominics staff and employees, as well as Dr. Evans and Dr. Shekoni (physician
Defendants) amongst other things - failed to review Mr. Lumumbas medical
records from his previous visits at St. Dominics Hospital, failed to check for an
aortic aneurism, and failed to conduct any test to diagnose a dissecting aneurysm of
the thoracic aorta with hemopericardium. Further, upon information and belief,
Mr. Lumumba was not provided any medical attention until hours after he initially
arrived at St. Dominics at 9:00am that morning. Mr. Lumumba received medical
treatment that was below the standard of care for a hospital or doctor. As a result
of St. Dominics and the treating physicians failure to properly diagnose and treat
Mr. Lumumba, Mr. Lumumba died in the custody of St. Dominics Hospital. The
act(s) and/or omission(s) of the above-referenced physicians as well as the above
referenced employees and staff of St. Dominic and other employees and staff of St.
Dominic caused and/or exacerbated the condition and untimely death of Chokwe
Lumumba. Based upon information and belief that Mr. Lumumbas death was
directly and proximately caused by the act(s) and/or omission(s) of these
defendants, Plaintiff is prepared to show by the appropriate standard of proof that
these defendants breached the standard of care owed to Chokwe Lumumba,
deceased. As a result of the act(s) and/or omission(s), Mr. Lumumba sustained
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 5 of 23
conscience pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, economic as well as other
non-economic damages. The extent of the injury includes the aforementioned
elements as well as death.
As a proximate cause of the breach of this standard of
care, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, Rukia Lumumba, as well as the heirs and
beneficiaries of Chokwe Lumumba, deceased, seek damages for sustained physical
pain, severe emotional distress, psychological distress, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, conscience pain and suffering, wrongful death, economic damages
(of all kinds), non-economic damages (of all kinds), funeral expenses, medical
expenses and other damages as a result of this incident. Plaintiff submits
Defendants breached the standard of care because The acts and omissions of
employees, agents, and physicians of St. Dominics Hospital, Nurudeen A. Shekoni,
M.D. and Heather Evans, M.D. are attributable to the aforementioned Defendants.
Defendants were imposed with non-delegable duties related to the care, treatment,
and provision of medical care to Chokwe Lumumba, including but not limited to, to
provide minimally competent healthcare treatment, diagnoses, and prognosis with
regard to his health and physical wellbeing. Physician Defendants owed to Mr.
Lumumba a duty to exercise that standard of care required of a minimally
qualified physician practicing in a hospital with the same or substantially the same
medical resources as were available at St. Dominics Hospital.
Defendants breached that duty of care.
Physician
St. Dominics Hospital, through its
employees, agents, doctors, nurses, and/or medical staff, breached the standard of
care by failing to check for or treat an aortic aneurism, failing to test for or treat a
dissecting aneurysm, failing to adequately review Mr. Lumumbas previous
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 6 of 23
medical records, failing to provide adequate medical treatment, failing to make

proper medical diagnosis, failing to provide timely medical care, failing to provide
appropriate medical facilities, and other actions or inactions. Additionally, St.
Dominics Hospital, their employees, agents and consultants, includes, but is not
limited to, one or more of the following acts and omissions: The failure to provide a
requisite number of staff necessary to assist the patients with their needs; The
failure to provide sufficient numbers of qualified personnel, including nurses,
licensed practical nurses, certified nurse assistants, and medication aides, and the
nursing staff (hereinafter nursing personnel) to meet the total needs of Mr.
Lumumba. The failure to provide nursing personnel sufficient in number to
ensure that Mr. Lumumba attained and maintained his highest level of physical,
mental and psychosocial well-being; The failure to adequately assess, evaluate and
supervise nursing personnel so as to ensure that Mr. Lumumba received
appropriate nursing care, in accordance with Defendants policy and procedures
manual, and the statutorily mandated regulations implemented by the Mississippi
Department of Health and its agents, including the Division of Health Facilities
Licensure and Certification; The failure to provide a nursing staff that was
properly staffed, qualified, and trained; and Other acts to be shown at trial. Dr.
Heather Evans and Dr. Nurudeen A. Shekoni breached the standard of care by
failing to check for an aortic aneurism, failing to test for or treat a dissecting
aneurysm, failing to adequately review Mr. Lumumbas previous medical records,
failing to provide adequate medical treatment, failing to make proper medical
diagnosis, failing to treat Mr. Lumumbas aortic aneurysm and other actions or
inactions.
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 7 of 23
Defendants herein acted in a reckless and/or willful and wanton
manner, in gross
disregard for the rights and safety of Mr. Lumumba, and this
gross misconduct constituted a
reckless indifference to the consequences of said
acts so as to give rise to an assessment of punitive damages. The longevity, scope

and severity of Defendants failures and actions as heretofore described constitute
gross negligence. Specifically, such conduct was undertaken by Defendants without
regard to the health and safety consequences to those patients, such as Mr.
Lumumba, entrusted to their care. Moreover, such conduct evidences such little
regard for their duties of care, good faith, and fidelity owed to Mr. Lumumba. As a
direct and proximate result of the above cited malice, gross negligence which
evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, Mr.
Lumumba suffered injuries which lead to his death. She also suffered extreme
pain, suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment, and fright, all of which required
hospitalization and medical treatment, and all of which required Mr. Lumumba to
incur significant hospital and medical expenses and resulted in his death.
Wherefore, based on such conduct of Defendants as set out above, Plaintiff asserts a
claim for judgment for all compensatory damages and punitive damages against
Defendants including, but not limited to, medical expenses, physical pain, suffering,
mental anguish, disability, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, fright and
disfigurement in an amount to be determined by the jury, plus costs and all other
relief to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled by law. Defendant owed a duty to
patients, including Chokwe Lumumba, to hire, train, and supervise employees so
that such employees delivered care and services to patients in a safe and beneficial
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 8 of 23
manner. Dr. Heather Evans and Dr. Nurudeen A. Shekoni breached the standard
of care by failing to check for an aortic aneurism, failing to test for or treat a
proper medical diagnosis, failing to treat Mr. Lumumbas dissecting aneurysm and
other actions or inactions. Wherefore, based on such conduct of Defendants as set
forth above, Plaintiff asserts a claim for judgment for all compensatory damages
and punitive damages against Defendants including, but not limited to, medical
expenses, physical pain, suffering, mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, loss of
enjoyment of life, humiliation, and fright in an amount to be determined by the
jury, plus costs and all other relief to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled by law. As
a patient of the Defendants facility, Mr. Lumumba was particularly dependent for
his daily care and well-being upon the Defendants, their employees and agents.
Because of the nature of this dependency and the representations of the Defendants
that they could and would provide necessary care, Mr. Lumumba and his family
held in the Defendants a special confidence and trust which the Defendants
accepted by admitting Mr. Lumumba to their facility, and by determining the level
of care to be provided to Mr. Lumumba .Mr. Lumumba and his family relied upon
the alleged superior knowledge, skill, and abilities of the Defendant which the
Defendant held themselves out to have. Also, Mr. Lumumba and his family relied
on the Defendant to provide care for Mr. Lumumba who was not able to care for
himself at the time. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty and duty of good
faith and fair dealing to Mr. Lumumba by failing to provide the appropriate level
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 9 of 23
of care and services to which Mr. Lumumba was entitled, by accepting payment for
services and care not provided to Mr. Lumumba. As a proximate cause of the
foregoing breaches of duty by the Defendants, Mr. Lumumba suffered injuries as
set forth above. The act(s) and/or omission(s) of these Defendant constitute a
reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiff herein. Further, these
act(s) and/or omission(s) were perpetrated with such callousness that a reasonable
person can certainly conclude that these act(s) and/or omission(s) were carried out
without any regard as to their effects. Therefore, the act(s) and/or omission(s)
constitute a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiff as defined
under Mississippi law. The act(s) and/or omission(s) of these Defendants were a
proximate cause as to the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff further states that Plaintiffs claims are highlighted by the medical
records and the autopsy report. Plaintiff has produced the medical records, a
medical authorization and the autopsy report.
defendants have discoverable information.
Plaintiffs state that all the
Plaintiffs states that all individuals
listed in the autopsy report and the medical records may have discoverable
information.
Discussion
Plaintiffs objected to interrogatory No. 1, on the grounds that it is overly broad,
burdensome, vague, compound, seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client
privilege and attorney work-product.
Plaintiff submits that this interrogatory is attorney work product as it seeks information
that was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Plaintiffs are not required by law to produce the
9
Document #: 62
work product done in anticipation of litigation.
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 10 of 23
The work-product doctrine protects an
attorney's thoughts, mental impressions, strategies, and analysis from discovery by opposing
counsel.
Flechas v. Pitts (Miss. 2014) 138 So.3d 907.
This interrogatory clearly seeks
information that seeks Plaintiffs attorneys thoughts, mental impressions, strategies, and analysis.
Plaintiffs are required by law to confer with a doctor before filing a medical malpractice suite. It
is clearly established law that this pre-trial consultation is done in anticipation of trial and is
work product.
Further, this interrogatory seeks expert opinions. The interrogatory seeks information
about duty, standard of care, breach of duty, and medical treatment questions. Plaintiff is not an
expert and can not give expert opinions. Miss.Rule.Civ.Pro.Rule 26 (b)4(B) states that a party
may not seek the opinions from an expert not retained to testify at trial unless they can not get
this information from an expert designation. This Interrogatory seeks information prohibited by
Miss.Rule.Civ.Pro.Rule 26 (b)4(B). The proper way to obtain expert opinions is thru the
expert designation. The Supreme Court of Mississippi previously stated the proper means of
obtaining expert opinions. The Supreme Court stated Miss. Section 13-1-226(b)(4) titled Trial
Preparation: Experts states:
Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable
under subsection (b)(1) of this section, and acquired or developed in anticipation
of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:
(A)(i) A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each
person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state
the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the
substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a
summary of the grounds for each opinion. (ii) Upon motion, the court may order
further discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and such
provisions, pursuant to subsection (b)(4)(C) of this section, concerning fees and
expenses as the court may deem appropriate.
Huff v. Polk Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 27, 1982 408 So.2d 1368
10
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Thus, Defendants have used improper means to solicit expert opinions.
Page 11 of 23
Plaintiffs will
designate an expert in this case. The expert designation will provide Defendants with the facts
and opinions sought in the discovery.
However, without waiving said objection Plaintiffs completely answered Defendants
interrogatory to the best of their ability at this time. Thus, Plaintiff asks Defendants to remove
their Motion to Compel.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify any and all individuals who may
have discoverable knowledge.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 3: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 3, on
the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks information that
is protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product. Without waiving
said objection, plaintiffs state individuals who treated Mr. Lumumba on the date of the
incidents described in the Complaint have discoverable information. These individuals are
listed in the medical records. Also, individuals who conducted the autopsy and prepared
the autopsy may have discoverable information. Chokwe Antar Lumumba was with Mr.
Lumumba on the subject dates, thus, he may discoverable information.
Also, Gloria
Elmore was present at St. Dominics Hospital at some point during the incident
surrounding the allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiff believes Gloria Elmore is a Hinds
County resident. Plaintiff does not know Ms. Elmores address or phone number. Plaintiff
is not aware of any one else with discoverable information at this time.
11
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 12 of 23
Discussion
Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 3, on the grounds that it is overly broad,
This interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, vague,
compound as Plaintiffs stated Defendants and Defendants employees may have discoverable
knowledge.
However, Plaintiff has no way of knowing each and every person who has
discoverable knowledge. However, without waiving said objection Plaintiffs listed the people
known to Plaintiffs to have discoverable knowledge at this time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If you or your attorneys have spoken to any person or
interviewed any person about this lawsuit or the facts underlying it, then with respect to each
such person, state their name, telephone number, and the dates upon which such interview or
discussion took place as well as whether any records, transcript, or other documentation of that
interview or discussion if it exists. (This Interrogatory seeks the identity of all such persons,
except non-treating medical personnel who have been contacted as prospective expert witnesses.)
said interrogatory Plaintiff states there has been communications with Dr. Baden. The
contents of that information is subject to attorney work-product and attorney client
privilege.
However, Plaintiff submitted Dr. Badens autopsy report.
Also, Plaintiff
consulted with a physician about the case before the lawsuit was filed. That consultation is
protected by attorney client privilege and is work product. Further, Plaintiffs are not
12
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 13 of 23
required to disclose the identity of consulting physicians. Defendant has the same
opportunity as Plaintiffs to depose Dr. Baden, locate Dr. Baden or subpoena Dr. Badens
documents.
Discussion
privilege and attorney work-product. This interrogatory is clearly work product as it seeks
information prepared in anticipation of litigation. Plaintiffs refer to the discussion portion under
Interrogatory 1 regarding attorney work product. However, without waiving said objection
Plaintiffs answered the interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each physician, nurse or other medical provider
of any type with whom Chokwe Lumumba or anyone acting on his behalf discussed the care
provided to Chokwe Lumumba by Dr. Shekoni or others. (This Interrogatory does not seek the
identity of expert witnesses retained by Plaintiffs, but any other medical personnel that had
discussions either during the treatment of Chokwe Lumumba or afterwards regarding the
treatment rendered by Dr. Shekoni.
said objection Plaintiffs would direct Defendant to Mr. Lumumbas medical records from
the date of the subject incident. Without waiving said interrogatory Plaintiff states there
has been communications with Dr. Baden. The contents of that information is subject to
13
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 14 of 23
attorney work-product and attorney client privilege. However, Plaintiff submitted Dr.
Badens autopsy report. Also, Plaintiff consulted with a physician about the case before
the lawsuit was filed. That consultation is protected by attorney client privilege and
attorney work product.
Discussion
information sought in anticipation of trial. Please see the discussion portion of Interrogatory one.
Without waiving said objection Plaintiff supplemented this interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please give the names, phone numbers, and addresses of
all witnesses who may be called at trial of this cause.
RESPONSE NO. 6: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
vague and overly broad. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs would state there has
not been a determination as to who may be called at trial in this matter. Plaintiffs may be
called as witnesses at trial. Also, any medical provider or anyone who conducted a medical
evaluation or autopsy may be called as a witness in trial. Plaintiff has provided Plaintiffs
address and phone number.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objections. This objection is overly broad as it does not specify
whose witnesses. Plaintiffs can not anticipate who another party may call at trial or who the
Defendants may call at trial. However, Plaintiff supplemented the response.
14
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 15 of 23
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify by names, phone numbers and addresses

all individuals who were with Chokwe Lumumba on the day of his death, both before and while
he was at St. Dominics.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 7: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is vague and overly broad. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs submit
that Mr. Lumumbas son, Chokwe Antar Lumumba was with him on the day of the subject
incident. His phone number is (601) 629-4455. His address is 7 Pear Orchard Park
Jackson MS, 39211. Plaintiff belives Gloria Elmore was with Chokwe Lumumba during
his stay at St. Dominics. Plaintiffs believe she is a Hinds County resident. However,
Plaintiffs do not have her address or phone number.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objection. This interrogatory is broad and vague. Plaintiffs
hasve no way of knowing each and every person that was with Mr. Lumumba on the day of his
death. Plaintiff answered the interrogatory by stating the two people he knew were with Mr.
Lumumba. Also, the interrogatory does not state the time of the St. Dominics visit as it states
both before and while he was at St. Dominics.
The question is vague and confusing.
However, Plaintiffs answered the interrogatory to the best of their ability.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify, stating the name, address, telephone number and
relationship of each and every parent, sibling, child, spouse, or former spouse of Chokwe
Lumumba.
vague, overly broad, burdensome and irrelevant. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs
15
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 16 of 23
state Mr. Lumumba has three children. Theyre names are Chokwe Antar Lumumba,
Rukia Lumumba, and Kambon Thurman. They can all be reached at (601) 629-4455.
Chokwe Antar Lumumbas address is 7 Pear Orchard Park Jackson MS, 39211. Rukia
Lumumba resides at 1002 Hallmark Drive 39206 Jackson, MS Rukia Lumumbas phone
number is (510) 847-8744. Kambon Thurman is a resident of Atlanta Georgia Metropolitan
Area. Mr. Thurman can be contacted at Chokwe Antar Lumumba or Rukia Lumumbas
telephone number. Mr. Lumumba was married to Nubia Lumumba. Nubia Lumumba
passed away several years before the time of the incident described in the Complaint. Mr.
Lumumba was married once before he was married to Nubia Lumumba. Mr. Lumumba
has several siblings who reside in Michigan.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objection. However, Plaintiffs answered the interrogatory to the
best of their ability.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
State specifically the substance, time, date, and any
witnesses of any and all conversations and disclosures between any member of the family of
Chokwe Lumumba and Dr. Shekoni.
RESPONSE NO. 9: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 9, on the grounds that it is
overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks information that is protected by the
attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objection.
16
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 17 of 23
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If you contend that Dr. Shekoni or any representative or
person purporting to speak on behalf of Dr. Shekoni has made any statement which is an
admission of fault or a statement against interest or any statement which you contend tends to
support your position in this case, then, with respect to each such statement, state the person who
made it, the time and place at which it was made, the complete content of the statement, and the
identity of each person who was present when the statement was made.
SUPPLENMETAL RESPONSE NO. 10: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 10,
on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks information
that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product. Without
waiving said objection Plaintiffs direct Defendants to the medical records provided by
Plaintiffs. At this time Plaintiff is not aware of any other admissions or representations Dr.
Shekoni has made regarding this matter.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objection. However, Plaintiff answered without waiving said
objection. This interrogatory is vague. Defendants ask for admissions. Plaintiff submits that
admissions may have been made in the medical records. However, plaintiffs are not an expert
and can not give expert opinions. (Please see the discussion portion of interrogatory 1.) Thus,
Plaintiffs directed Defendants to the medical records.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If you believe that any person or entity other than any
defendant committed some act or is guilty of some omission which caused or contributed to the
injuries complained of in this lawsuit, then identify each such person or entity by name, address,
and telephone number, describe their conduct which caused or contributed to Chokwe
Lumumbas injury and describe the problems that their conduct caused.
17
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 18 of 23
RESPONSE NO. 11: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 11, on the grounds that it
is overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks information that is protected by the
attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product. Further, this interrogatory seeks legal
conclusion. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs direct Defendant to the Complaint.
Discussion
In addition to being vague and ambiguous this
interrogatory clearly calls for work product and expert opinions. Please refer to the discussion
portion of Interrogatory 1.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please state in detail the medical history of Chokwe
Lumumba including, but not limited to, the following:
a.
Please list any and all hospitals, psychiatrists, outpatient facilities, mental
health facilities where Chokwe Lumumba was treated in the last ten (10)
years preceding any treatment by Dr. Shekoni, giving time, places, and
reasons for hospitalization;
b.
As an alternative to responding in detail to this Interrogatory, please

identify the health provider specified above and execute the attached
medical authorization allowing procurement of Mr. Lumumbas medical
records (see attached Exhibit A); and
c.
As an alternative to responding to this Interrogatory in detail, please

identify his medical providers and execute the attached medical
authorization allowing access to Mr. Lumumbas medical records (see
attached Exhibit A).
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 13: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 13,

waiving said objection Plaintiffs directs Defendant to the medical records from the date of
the subject incident.
Also, Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Lumumba received medical
18
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 19 of 23
treatment from St. Dominics Hospital prior to the incident described in the Complaint.
Plaintiffs will execute a medical authorization for 5 years prior to his death. Also, Mr.
Lumumba received medical treatment from the Mayo clinic. Plaintiff is not aware of any
other medical provider. Plaintiffs have produced a medical authorization for all of the
medical facilities Plaintiffs are aware that Mr. Lumumba attended over the past 10 years.
Discussion
Plaintiffs supplemented and answered this interrogatory.
Further, Plaintiff provided
Defendants with medical authorizations for all of the medical facilities listed in the answer.
Plaintiff asks Defendant to withdraw this interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify any pictures, recordings, video
tapes, drawings, or other documents of any kind which relate to the circumstances and
allegations made subject to this lawsuit, or any other fact relevant to this lawsuit including, but
not limited to, any such photographs or other tangible things you may use at trial and/or
introduce into evidence in this case.
Plaintiffs object to interrogatory
No. 14, on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks
information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product.
Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs direct Defendant to the medical records, death
certificate and autopsy report related to the incident subject to this action. Plaintiff has
provided all documents not subject to attorney client privilege and work product relating
to this lawsuit.
Discussion
19
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 20 of 23
Without waiving said objections Plaintiffs supplemented this interrogatory and provided
all non-privileged items to Defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state the factual basis for and itemize the amounts
of all damages which you claim in this case.
RESPONSE NO. 17:
Plaintiffs objects to Interrogatory No. 17 on the grounds
that it is overly broad, vague, compound, and overly burdensome. Without waiving said
objection Plaintiffs directs Defendant to the damages portion of the complaint. Plaintiffs
reserve the right to supplement.
Discussion
This interrogatory calls for an expert opinion. An economist would be the appropriate
person to itemize out life ling damages. Plaintiffs will supplement accordingly. Please see the
discussion portion of Interrogatory 1. Further, Defendants seek the factual basis for damages.
Plaintiffs is not sure what Defendants mean by factual basis. However, the reasons behind the
damages are listed in the Complaint.
RESPONSE NO. 18:
20
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 21 of 23
Discussion
This interrogatory is vague and burdensome;. The interrogatory does not specify whether
it seeks that Mr. Lumumba made a claim for damages for himself or as an attorney for other
people. The interrogatory is burdensome as Mr. Lumumba practiced law for over three decades
and may have made claims for damages hundreds of time. Further, Plaintiffs are not aware of the
times Mr. Lumumba has made claims for damages. Also, defendants have that right to access
that information just as Plaintiffs do.
Further, this information is not relevant to the pending
action.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify each medical article, text, treatise, or publication
relied upon by you and/or any expert witness retained by you to support your claim against Dr.
Shekoni which will be used in your case in chief. [Please state the exact title, name, and/or issue,
the authors, the date of publication, and the specific pages and statements relied upon.
RESPONSE NO. 20:
by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product.
Without waiving said
objection Plaintiffs state they have not yet made a determination as to who will be called to
give expert opinion testimony at this time.
21
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 22 of 23
Discussion
This interrogatory calls for work product and expert opinions. The information sought is
information gathered in anticipation of trial. Please see the discussion portion of Interrogatory
No. 1.
Identify the factual basis for your claim of punitive
damages against Dr. Shekoni and specify what acts constitute grounds for such in your mind.
RESPONSE NO. 21:
by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product. Further, Plaintiffa object to
this interrogatory as it calls for legal conclusions. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs
direct Defendant to the Complaint.
Discussion
No. 1.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein Plaintiffs request the Court deny Defendants Motion to
Compel.
22
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
23
Page 23 of 23
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 1 of 23


VS.
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO.

DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT NURUDEEN A. SHEKONIS MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Civil Procedure, and file this their Response to Defendant Nurudeen A. Shekonis Motion to
Compel.
Introduction
Defendant Nurudeen A. Shekoni (also referred to as Defendant) served their discovery
request on June 27, 2016.
Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed on an extension to answer
Defendants discovery request. Plaintiffs responded to Defendants request on August 25, 2016.
Defendant notified Plaintiff via letter that Defendant sought additional information. Plaintiffs
counsel spoke to Defendants counsel and agreed to supplement Plaintiffs responses. Defendant
filed a Motion to Compel Discovery on October 14, 2016. Plaintiffs supplemented the discovery
responses on November 10, 2016. Plaintiffs supplementation was done over a month before the
Motion to Compel was set for hearing. Plaintiffs supplemented the response in good faith to try
to complete discovery without Court intervention. Plaintiffs supplementation addressed the
1
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 2 of 23
issues raised in Defendants Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs sent correspondence to Defendant

asking Defendant to review the supplemental discovery and withdraw the Motion to Compel as
to the answers Defendant felt were sufficient. Defendants corresponded back with Plaintiffs and
stated that they would not withdraw any part of the motion.
(Please See Exhibit A.
Correspondence between counsel). Plaintiffs have worked in good faith to address any discovery
issues.
At this point, Plaintiffs have fully answered all propounded request.
Further,
Defendants Motion to Compel does not address Plaintiffs supplemental discovery answers.
(Please See Exhibit B. Plaintiffs supplemental discovery). Plaintiffs supplemental motions are
signed under oath.
Discussion
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Describe in detail each and every act of negligence which you
allege was committed by Dr. Shekoni which are supported by an expert witness and for each act
of negligence alleged state the following:
a.
all of the facts on which each allegation is based;
b.
identify the applicable standard of care which you contend Dr. Shekoni
breached;
c.
describe in detail how Dr. Shekoni allegedly breached the applicable

medical standard of care;
d.
state in detail the duty you contend Dr. Shekoni owed to Chokwe
Lumumba as his admitting physician;
e.
the name, occupation, and residence and business address of all persons
having knowledge of the facts on which each allegation of negligence
against Dr. Shekoni is based;
f.
if you contend treatment was inappropriate, state specifically what

treatment you contend should have been rendered; and
g.
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 3 of 23
the identity and location of any and all documents which support or
otherwise relate to the facts on which each allegation of negligence is
based.
Plaintiffs
object
to
interrogatory No. 1, on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vague,

compound, seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and
attorney work-product. Plaintiffs direct Defendant to the Complaint. Further,
Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as it calls for legal conclusions. Further, this
interrogatory seeks information that calls for an expert opinion. Without waiving
said objection Plaintiffs states discovery is still ongoing. Plaintiffs have not yet
made a determination as to who will be called to testify to give expert opinions.
Further without waiving said objections Plaintiffs directs Defendant to the
Complaint which states the following: Defendant breached the standard of care for
providing reasonable medical treatment to Mr. Lumumba. On or about February
25, 2014 at 9:00am Chokwe Lumumba checked into St. Dominics Emergency
Room which is owned and operated by Defendants St. Dominics Hospital and St.
Dominics Health Services, Inc. (Collectively St. Dominics). Chokwe Lumumba
expressed to St. Dominics staff, employees, and physicians that he was suffering
from chest pains.
At the time Chokwe Lumumba checked into St. Dominics. St.
Dominics was aware of Mr. Lumumbas medical history because he had previously
been a patient at St. Dominics. Chokwe Lumumba was in St. Dominics care from
around 9:00 a.m. until he passed away around 5:00 p.m. that afternoon. While Mr.
Lumumba was in St. Dominics custody, its employees, the hospitals staff and
physicians, failed and/or refused to conduct any test(s) to diagnose a dissecting
aneurysm with the thoracic aorta. St. Dominics employees, staff, and physicians
3
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 4 of 23
failed to treat a dissecting aneurysm. Mr. Lumumba ultimately died as a result of

St. Dominics and others failures to properly diagnose, test, and treat Mr.
Lumumba.
At some point St. Dominics cardiologist advised Mr. Lumumba
needed a blood transfusion. The cardiologist did not do any test or diagnosis to
determine if Mr. Lumumba was suffering from a dissecting aneurysm.
St.
Dominics staff and employees, as well as Dr. Evans and Dr. Shekoni (physician
Defendants) amongst other things - failed to review Mr. Lumumbas medical
records from his previous visits at St. Dominics Hospital, failed to check for an
aortic aneurism, and failed to conduct any test to diagnose a dissecting aneurysm of
the thoracic aorta with hemopericardium. Further, upon information and belief,
Mr. Lumumba was not provided any medical attention until hours after he initially
arrived at St. Dominics at 9:00am that morning. Mr. Lumumba received medical
treatment that was below the standard of care for a hospital or doctor. As a result
of St. Dominics and the treating physicians failure to properly diagnose and treat
Mr. Lumumba, Mr. Lumumba died in the custody of St. Dominics Hospital. The
act(s) and/or omission(s) of the above-referenced physicians as well as the above
referenced employees and staff of St. Dominic and other employees and staff of St.
Dominic caused and/or exacerbated the condition and untimely death of Chokwe
Lumumba. Based upon information and belief that Mr. Lumumbas death was
directly and proximately caused by the act(s) and/or omission(s) of these
defendants, Plaintiff is prepared to show by the appropriate standard of proof that
these defendants breached the standard of care owed to Chokwe Lumumba,
deceased. As a result of the act(s) and/or omission(s), Mr. Lumumba sustained
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 5 of 23
conscience pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, economic as well as other
non-economic damages. The extent of the injury includes the aforementioned
elements as well as death.
As a proximate cause of the breach of this standard of
care, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, Rukia Lumumba, as well as the heirs and
beneficiaries of Chokwe Lumumba, deceased, seek damages for sustained physical
pain, severe emotional distress, psychological distress, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, conscience pain and suffering, wrongful death, economic damages
(of all kinds), non-economic damages (of all kinds), funeral expenses, medical
expenses and other damages as a result of this incident. Plaintiff submits
Defendants breached the standard of care because The acts and omissions of
employees, agents, and physicians of St. Dominics Hospital, Nurudeen A. Shekoni,
M.D. and Heather Evans, M.D. are attributable to the aforementioned Defendants.
Defendants were imposed with non-delegable duties related to the care, treatment,
and provision of medical care to Chokwe Lumumba, including but not limited to, to
provide minimally competent healthcare treatment, diagnoses, and prognosis with
regard to his health and physical wellbeing. Physician Defendants owed to Mr.
Lumumba a duty to exercise that standard of care required of a minimally
qualified physician practicing in a hospital with the same or substantially the same
medical resources as were available at St. Dominics Hospital.
Physician
St. Dominics Hospital, through its
employees, agents, doctors, nurses, and/or medical staff, breached the standard of
care by failing to check for or treat an aortic aneurism, failing to test for or treat a
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 6 of 23

proper medical diagnosis, failing to provide timely medical care, failing to provide
appropriate medical facilities, and other actions or inactions. Additionally, St.
Dominics Hospital, their employees, agents and consultants, includes, but is not
limited to, one or more of the following acts and omissions: The failure to provide a
requisite number of staff necessary to assist the patients with their needs; The
failure to provide sufficient numbers of qualified personnel, including nurses,
nursing staff (hereinafter nursing personnel) to meet the total needs of Mr.
Lumumba. The failure to provide nursing personnel sufficient in number to
ensure that Mr. Lumumba attained and maintained his highest level of physical,
mental and psychosocial well-being; The failure to adequately assess, evaluate and
supervise nursing personnel so as to ensure that Mr. Lumumba received
appropriate nursing care, in accordance with Defendants policy and procedures
manual, and the statutorily mandated regulations implemented by the Mississippi
Department of Health and its agents, including the Division of Health Facilities
Licensure and Certification; The failure to provide a nursing staff that was
properly staffed, qualified, and trained; and Other acts to be shown at trial. Dr.
Heather Evans and Dr. Nurudeen A. Shekoni breached the standard of care by
failing to check for an aortic aneurism, failing to test for or treat a dissecting
aneurysm, failing to adequately review Mr. Lumumbas previous medical records,
failing to provide adequate medical treatment, failing to make proper medical
diagnosis, failing to treat Mr. Lumumbas aortic aneurysm and other actions or
inactions.
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 7 of 23
Defendants herein acted in a reckless and/or willful and wanton
manner, in gross
disregard for the rights and safety of Mr. Lumumba, and this
gross misconduct constituted a
reckless indifference to the consequences of said
acts so as to give rise to an assessment of punitive damages. The longevity, scope

and severity of Defendants failures and actions as heretofore described constitute
gross negligence. Specifically, such conduct was undertaken by Defendants without
regard to the health and safety consequences to those patients, such as Mr.
Lumumba, entrusted to their care. Moreover, such conduct evidences such little
regard for their duties of care, good faith, and fidelity owed to Mr. Lumumba. As a
direct and proximate result of the above cited malice, gross negligence which
evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, Mr.
Lumumba suffered injuries which lead to his death. She also suffered extreme
pain, suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment, and fright, all of which required
hospitalization and medical treatment, and all of which required Mr. Lumumba to
incur significant hospital and medical expenses and resulted in his death.
Wherefore, based on such conduct of Defendants as set out above, Plaintiff asserts a
claim for judgment for all compensatory damages and punitive damages against
Defendants including, but not limited to, medical expenses, physical pain, suffering,
mental anguish, disability, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, fright and
disfigurement in an amount to be determined by the jury, plus costs and all other
relief to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled by law. Defendant owed a duty to
patients, including Chokwe Lumumba, to hire, train, and supervise employees so
that such employees delivered care and services to patients in a safe and beneficial
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 8 of 23
manner. Dr. Heather Evans and Dr. Nurudeen A. Shekoni breached the standard
of care by failing to check for an aortic aneurism, failing to test for or treat a
proper medical diagnosis, failing to treat Mr. Lumumbas dissecting aneurysm and
other actions or inactions. Wherefore, based on such conduct of Defendants as set
forth above, Plaintiff asserts a claim for judgment for all compensatory damages
and punitive damages against Defendants including, but not limited to, medical
expenses, physical pain, suffering, mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, loss of
enjoyment of life, humiliation, and fright in an amount to be determined by the
jury, plus costs and all other relief to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled by law. As
a patient of the Defendants facility, Mr. Lumumba was particularly dependent for
his daily care and well-being upon the Defendants, their employees and agents.
Because of the nature of this dependency and the representations of the Defendants
that they could and would provide necessary care, Mr. Lumumba and his family
held in the Defendants a special confidence and trust which the Defendants
accepted by admitting Mr. Lumumba to their facility, and by determining the level
of care to be provided to Mr. Lumumba .Mr. Lumumba and his family relied upon
the alleged superior knowledge, skill, and abilities of the Defendant which the
Defendant held themselves out to have. Also, Mr. Lumumba and his family relied
on the Defendant to provide care for Mr. Lumumba who was not able to care for
himself at the time. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty and duty of good
faith and fair dealing to Mr. Lumumba by failing to provide the appropriate level
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 9 of 23
of care and services to which Mr. Lumumba was entitled, by accepting payment for
services and care not provided to Mr. Lumumba. As a proximate cause of the
foregoing breaches of duty by the Defendants, Mr. Lumumba suffered injuries as
set forth above. The act(s) and/or omission(s) of these Defendant constitute a
reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiff herein. Further, these
act(s) and/or omission(s) were perpetrated with such callousness that a reasonable
person can certainly conclude that these act(s) and/or omission(s) were carried out
without any regard as to their effects. Therefore, the act(s) and/or omission(s)
constitute a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiff as defined
under Mississippi law. The act(s) and/or omission(s) of these Defendants were a
proximate cause as to the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff further states that Plaintiffs claims are highlighted by the medical
records and the autopsy report. Plaintiff has produced the medical records, a
medical authorization and the autopsy report.
defendants have discoverable information.
Plaintiffs state that all the
Plaintiffs states that all individuals
listed in the autopsy report and the medical records may have discoverable
information.
Discussion
Plaintiffs objected to interrogatory No. 1, on the grounds that it is overly broad,
Plaintiff submits that this interrogatory is attorney work product as it seeks information
that was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Plaintiffs are not required by law to produce the
9
Document #: 62
work product done in anticipation of litigation.
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 10 of 23
The work-product doctrine protects an
attorney's thoughts, mental impressions, strategies, and analysis from discovery by opposing
counsel.
Flechas v. Pitts (Miss. 2014) 138 So.3d 907.
This interrogatory clearly seeks
information that seeks Plaintiffs attorneys thoughts, mental impressions, strategies, and analysis.
Plaintiffs are required by law to confer with a doctor before filing a medical malpractice suite. It
is clearly established law that this pre-trial consultation is done in anticipation of trial and is
work product.
Further, this interrogatory seeks expert opinions. The interrogatory seeks information
about duty, standard of care, breach of duty, and medical treatment questions. Plaintiff is not an
expert and can not give expert opinions. Miss.Rule.Civ.Pro.Rule 26 (b)4(B) states that a party
may not seek the opinions from an expert not retained to testify at trial unless they can not get
this information from an expert designation. This Interrogatory seeks information prohibited by
Miss.Rule.Civ.Pro.Rule 26 (b)4(B). The proper way to obtain expert opinions is thru the
expert designation. The Supreme Court of Mississippi previously stated the proper means of
obtaining expert opinions. The Supreme Court stated Miss. Section 13-1-226(b)(4) titled Trial
Preparation: Experts states:
Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable
under subsection (b)(1) of this section, and acquired or developed in anticipation
of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:
(A)(i) A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each
person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state
the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the
substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a
summary of the grounds for each opinion. (ii) Upon motion, the court may order
further discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and such
provisions, pursuant to subsection (b)(4)(C) of this section, concerning fees and
expenses as the court may deem appropriate.
Huff v. Polk Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 27, 1982 408 So.2d 1368
10
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Thus, Defendants have used improper means to solicit expert opinions.
Page 11 of 23
Plaintiffs will
designate an expert in this case. The expert designation will provide Defendants with the facts
and opinions sought in the discovery.
However, without waiving said objection Plaintiffs completely answered Defendants
interrogatory to the best of their ability at this time. Thus, Plaintiff asks Defendants to remove
their Motion to Compel.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify any and all individuals who may
have discoverable knowledge.
said objection, plaintiffs state individuals who treated Mr. Lumumba on the date of the
incidents described in the Complaint have discoverable information. These individuals are
listed in the medical records. Also, individuals who conducted the autopsy and prepared
the autopsy may have discoverable information. Chokwe Antar Lumumba was with Mr.
Lumumba on the subject dates, thus, he may discoverable information.
Also, Gloria
Elmore was present at St. Dominics Hospital at some point during the incident
surrounding the allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiff believes Gloria Elmore is a Hinds
County resident. Plaintiff does not know Ms. Elmores address or phone number. Plaintiff
is not aware of any one else with discoverable information at this time.
11
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 12 of 23
Discussion
This interrogatory is overly broad, burdensome, vague,
compound as Plaintiffs stated Defendants and Defendants employees may have discoverable
knowledge.
However, Plaintiff has no way of knowing each and every person who has
discoverable knowledge. However, without waiving said objection Plaintiffs listed the people
known to Plaintiffs to have discoverable knowledge at this time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If you or your attorneys have spoken to any person or
interviewed any person about this lawsuit or the facts underlying it, then with respect to each
such person, state their name, telephone number, and the dates upon which such interview or
discussion took place as well as whether any records, transcript, or other documentation of that
interview or discussion if it exists. (This Interrogatory seeks the identity of all such persons,
except non-treating medical personnel who have been contacted as prospective expert witnesses.)
said interrogatory Plaintiff states there has been communications with Dr. Baden. The
contents of that information is subject to attorney work-product and attorney client
privilege.
However, Plaintiff submitted Dr. Badens autopsy report.
Also, Plaintiff
consulted with a physician about the case before the lawsuit was filed. That consultation is
protected by attorney client privilege and is work product. Further, Plaintiffs are not
12
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 13 of 23
required to disclose the identity of consulting physicians. Defendant has the same
opportunity as Plaintiffs to depose Dr. Baden, locate Dr. Baden or subpoena Dr. Badens
documents.
Discussion
information prepared in anticipation of litigation. Plaintiffs refer to the discussion portion under
Interrogatory 1 regarding attorney work product. However, without waiving said objection
Plaintiffs answered the interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each physician, nurse or other medical provider
of any type with whom Chokwe Lumumba or anyone acting on his behalf discussed the care
provided to Chokwe Lumumba by Dr. Shekoni or others. (This Interrogatory does not seek the
identity of expert witnesses retained by Plaintiffs, but any other medical personnel that had
discussions either during the treatment of Chokwe Lumumba or afterwards regarding the
treatment rendered by Dr. Shekoni.
said objection Plaintiffs would direct Defendant to Mr. Lumumbas medical records from
the date of the subject incident. Without waiving said interrogatory Plaintiff states there
has been communications with Dr. Baden. The contents of that information is subject to
13
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 14 of 23
attorney work-product and attorney client privilege. However, Plaintiff submitted Dr.
Badens autopsy report. Also, Plaintiff consulted with a physician about the case before
the lawsuit was filed. That consultation is protected by attorney client privilege and
attorney work product.
Discussion
information sought in anticipation of trial. Please see the discussion portion of Interrogatory one.
Without waiving said objection Plaintiff supplemented this interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please give the names, phone numbers, and addresses of
all witnesses who may be called at trial of this cause.
vague and overly broad. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs would state there has
not been a determination as to who may be called at trial in this matter. Plaintiffs may be
called as witnesses at trial. Also, any medical provider or anyone who conducted a medical
evaluation or autopsy may be called as a witness in trial. Plaintiff has provided Plaintiffs
address and phone number.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objections. This objection is overly broad as it does not specify
whose witnesses. Plaintiffs can not anticipate who another party may call at trial or who the
Defendants may call at trial. However, Plaintiff supplemented the response.
14
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 15 of 23
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify by names, phone numbers and addresses

all individuals who were with Chokwe Lumumba on the day of his death, both before and while
he was at St. Dominics.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 7: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the
grounds that it is vague and overly broad. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs submit
that Mr. Lumumbas son, Chokwe Antar Lumumba was with him on the day of the subject
incident. His phone number is (601) 629-4455. His address is 7 Pear Orchard Park
Jackson MS, 39211. Plaintiff belives Gloria Elmore was with Chokwe Lumumba during
his stay at St. Dominics. Plaintiffs believe she is a Hinds County resident. However,
Plaintiffs do not have her address or phone number.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objection. This interrogatory is broad and vague. Plaintiffs
hasve no way of knowing each and every person that was with Mr. Lumumba on the day of his
death. Plaintiff answered the interrogatory by stating the two people he knew were with Mr.
Lumumba. Also, the interrogatory does not state the time of the St. Dominics visit as it states
both before and while he was at St. Dominics.
The question is vague and confusing.
However, Plaintiffs answered the interrogatory to the best of their ability.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify, stating the name, address, telephone number and
relationship of each and every parent, sibling, child, spouse, or former spouse of Chokwe
Lumumba.
vague, overly broad, burdensome and irrelevant. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs
15
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 16 of 23
state Mr. Lumumba has three children. Theyre names are Chokwe Antar Lumumba,
Rukia Lumumba, and Kambon Thurman. They can all be reached at (601) 629-4455.
Chokwe Antar Lumumbas address is 7 Pear Orchard Park Jackson MS, 39211. Rukia
Lumumba resides at 1002 Hallmark Drive 39206 Jackson, MS Rukia Lumumbas phone
number is (510) 847-8744. Kambon Thurman is a resident of Atlanta Georgia Metropolitan
Area. Mr. Thurman can be contacted at Chokwe Antar Lumumba or Rukia Lumumbas
telephone number. Mr. Lumumba was married to Nubia Lumumba. Nubia Lumumba
passed away several years before the time of the incident described in the Complaint. Mr.
Lumumba was married once before he was married to Nubia Lumumba. Mr. Lumumba
has several siblings who reside in Michigan.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objection. However, Plaintiffs answered the interrogatory to the
best of their ability.
State specifically the substance, time, date, and any
witnesses of any and all conversations and disclosures between any member of the family of
Chokwe Lumumba and Dr. Shekoni.
RESPONSE NO. 9: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 9, on the grounds that it is
overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks information that is protected by the
attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product.
Discussion
16
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 17 of 23
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If you contend that Dr. Shekoni or any representative or
person purporting to speak on behalf of Dr. Shekoni has made any statement which is an
admission of fault or a statement against interest or any statement which you contend tends to
support your position in this case, then, with respect to each such statement, state the person who
made it, the time and place at which it was made, the complete content of the statement, and the
identity of each person who was present when the statement was made.
SUPPLENMETAL RESPONSE NO. 10: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 10,
waiving said objection Plaintiffs direct Defendants to the medical records provided by
Plaintiffs. At this time Plaintiff is not aware of any other admissions or representations Dr.
Shekoni has made regarding this matter.
Discussion
Plaintiffs stand by their objection. However, Plaintiff answered without waiving said
objection. This interrogatory is vague. Defendants ask for admissions. Plaintiff submits that
admissions may have been made in the medical records. However, plaintiffs are not an expert
and can not give expert opinions. (Please see the discussion portion of interrogatory 1.) Thus,
Plaintiffs directed Defendants to the medical records.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If you believe that any person or entity other than any
defendant committed some act or is guilty of some omission which caused or contributed to the
injuries complained of in this lawsuit, then identify each such person or entity by name, address,
and telephone number, describe their conduct which caused or contributed to Chokwe
Lumumbas injury and describe the problems that their conduct caused.
17
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 18 of 23
RESPONSE NO. 11: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 11, on the grounds that it
is overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks information that is protected by the
attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product. Further, this interrogatory seeks legal
conclusion. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs direct Defendant to the Complaint.
Discussion
In addition to being vague and ambiguous this
interrogatory clearly calls for work product and expert opinions. Please refer to the discussion
portion of Interrogatory 1.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please state in detail the medical history of Chokwe
Lumumba including, but not limited to, the following:
a.
Please list any and all hospitals, psychiatrists, outpatient facilities, mental
health facilities where Chokwe Lumumba was treated in the last ten (10)
years preceding any treatment by Dr. Shekoni, giving time, places, and
reasons for hospitalization;
b.
As an alternative to responding in detail to this Interrogatory, please

identify the health provider specified above and execute the attached
medical authorization allowing procurement of Mr. Lumumbas medical
records (see attached Exhibit A); and
c.
As an alternative to responding to this Interrogatory in detail, please

identify his medical providers and execute the attached medical
authorization allowing access to Mr. Lumumbas medical records (see
attached Exhibit A).
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 13: Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 13,

waiving said objection Plaintiffs directs Defendant to the medical records from the date of
the subject incident.
Also, Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Lumumba received medical
18
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 19 of 23
treatment from St. Dominics Hospital prior to the incident described in the Complaint.
Plaintiffs will execute a medical authorization for 5 years prior to his death. Also, Mr.
Lumumba received medical treatment from the Mayo clinic. Plaintiff is not aware of any
other medical provider. Plaintiffs have produced a medical authorization for all of the
medical facilities Plaintiffs are aware that Mr. Lumumba attended over the past 10 years.
Discussion
Plaintiffs supplemented and answered this interrogatory.
Further, Plaintiff provided
Defendants with medical authorizations for all of the medical facilities listed in the answer.
Plaintiff asks Defendant to withdraw this interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify any pictures, recordings, video
tapes, drawings, or other documents of any kind which relate to the circumstances and
allegations made subject to this lawsuit, or any other fact relevant to this lawsuit including, but
not limited to, any such photographs or other tangible things you may use at trial and/or
introduce into evidence in this case.
Plaintiffs object to interrogatory
No. 14, on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vague, compound, seeks
information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product.
Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs direct Defendant to the medical records, death
certificate and autopsy report related to the incident subject to this action. Plaintiff has
provided all documents not subject to attorney client privilege and work product relating
to this lawsuit.
Discussion
19
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 20 of 23
Without waiving said objections Plaintiffs supplemented this interrogatory and provided
all non-privileged items to Defendants.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state the factual basis for and itemize the amounts
of all damages which you claim in this case.
RESPONSE NO. 17:
Plaintiffs objects to Interrogatory No. 17 on the grounds
that it is overly broad, vague, compound, and overly burdensome. Without waiving said
objection Plaintiffs directs Defendant to the damages portion of the complaint. Plaintiffs
reserve the right to supplement.
Discussion
This interrogatory calls for an expert opinion. An economist would be the appropriate
person to itemize out life ling damages. Plaintiffs will supplement accordingly. Please see the
discussion portion of Interrogatory 1. Further, Defendants seek the factual basis for damages.
Plaintiffs is not sure what Defendants mean by factual basis. However, the reasons behind the
damages are listed in the Complaint.
RESPONSE NO. 18:
20
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 21 of 23
Discussion
This interrogatory is vague and burdensome;. The interrogatory does not specify whether
it seeks that Mr. Lumumba made a claim for damages for himself or as an attorney for other
people. The interrogatory is burdensome as Mr. Lumumba practiced law for over three decades
and may have made claims for damages hundreds of time. Further, Plaintiffs are not aware of the
times Mr. Lumumba has made claims for damages. Also, defendants have that right to access
that information just as Plaintiffs do.
Further, this information is not relevant to the pending
action.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify each medical article, text, treatise, or publication
relied upon by you and/or any expert witness retained by you to support your claim against Dr.
Shekoni which will be used in your case in chief. [Please state the exact title, name, and/or issue,
the authors, the date of publication, and the specific pages and statements relied upon.
RESPONSE NO. 20:
by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product.
Without waiving said
objection Plaintiffs state they have not yet made a determination as to who will be called to
give expert opinion testimony at this time.
21
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
Page 22 of 23
Discussion
No. 1.
Identify the factual basis for your claim of punitive
damages against Dr. Shekoni and specify what acts constitute grounds for such in your mind.
RESPONSE NO. 21:
by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product. Further, Plaintiffa object to
this interrogatory as it calls for legal conclusions. Without waiving said objection Plaintiffs
direct Defendant to the Complaint.
Discussion
No. 1.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein Plaintiffs request the Court deny Defendants Motion to
Compel.
22
Document #: 62
Filed: 12/14/2016
23
Page 23 of 23
Document #: 24
Filed: 07/28/2016
Page 1 of 6

RUKIA LUMUMBA CHOKWE ANTAR LUMUMBA,

AND KAMBON THURMAN,
COLLECTIVELY AND
VS.
PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

Plaintiffs Rukia Lumumba, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, and Kambon Thurman collectively
and on behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Chokwe Lumumba file this motion in
response to Defendants motion to transfer venue, and states:
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs filed this action on February 16, 2016. Plaintiffs amended the complaint on
June 3, 2016. On July 15, 2016 Defendant Nurudeen A. Shekoni, M.D., and North Jackson
Medical Clinic, PLLC (Defendants) filed a motion to transfer venue. Defendants argue venue
should be transferred to ensure a fair trial.
However, venue should not be transferred as
Defendants failed to meet the requirements to change venue under Mississippi statute and
Mississippi case law.
Document #: 24
Filed: 07/28/2016
Page 2 of 6
II. Discussion
A change of venue is appropriate when the movant presents to the court a petition under
oath that he has good reason to believe prejudice exist in the public mind and he cannot obtain a
fair and impartial trial in the county where the action is pending. MISS. CODE ANN 11-11-51.
Defendants failed to meet this standard. [This Court has] described a plaintiff's ability to
choose a forum as a right: Of right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues and his
choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual
basis for the claim of venue. Bayer Corp. v. Reed, 932 So.2d 786, 790 (Miss.2006) (quoting
Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So.2d 1149, 1155 (Miss.1992)). It is the plaintiff's prerogative
to decide where, among permissible venues, to sue the defendant. Forrest County Gen. Hosp. v.
Conway, 700 So.2d 324, 326 (Miss.1997). Therefore, absent weighty reasons, a plaintiff's choice
of forum should not be disturbed. Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Estate of Heffner, 904 So.2d 100, 102
(Miss.2004). Bayer Corp., 932 So.2d at 78889. Further, In general, a voir dire is presumed
sufficient to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Ross v. State, 954 So.2d at 988 (Miss. 2007). In
the present case, Defendants are absent weighty reasons as to why Plaintiffs choice of form
should be disturbed.
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Estate of Heffner, 904 So.2d 100, 102
(Miss.2004). Bayer Corp., 932 So.2d at 78889.

First, the motion is pre-mature. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held, it is pre-mature
to file a motion to change venue long before a trial because the effects of the publicity would be
too remote for a determination of resulting prejudice in the community. Beech v. Leaf River
Forest Products, Inc. 691 So.2d 446, 449 (Miss. 1997). In the present case, it is too early to
determine whether the effects of any publicity have any prejudice on the community. This case
is not close to proceeding to trial. The case is not on the trial docket. Further, there is no
2
Document #: 24
Filed: 07/28/2016
Page 3 of 6
scheduling order and discovery has not been completed. Thus, the motion should not be granted
because it is pre-mature.
Defendants argue they would not be able to receive a fair trial because Mr. Lumumba and
Chokwe Antar Lumumba are prominent figures in Hinds County. However, evidence of a party
being a prominent figure in a county does not meet the requisite standard to change venue.
Defendants relied on the ruling in Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So. 2d 31 (Miss.
2004).
However, Janssen is distinguished from the present case.
In Janssen, venue was
transferred because the community was connected to the litigation. In Janssen the Plaintiffs
consisted of over a hundred Plaintiffs (some prominent figures in the community) who lived in
the county.
Also, the Plaintiffs alleged other members in the county were harmed by
Defendants tortious conduct. Also, In Janssen there was negative publicity connected to the
subject litigation.
In the present case there are no community connections to the subject litigation. Also,
there is no negative publicity connected to the subject litigation. The present action does not
involve claims alleging tortious conduct harming other members of the county. Also, the current
action does not involve over one hundred plaintiffs who are spreading information about the
subject litigation to other members of the county. Defendants failure to provide evidence
supporting how many Hinds County residents have similar causes of actions pending against
Defendants, the negative publicity targeting Defendants, and the connection to the community of
this subject lawsuit, distinguishes this instant motion for change of venue from Janssen. Thus,
the factors which led the Supreme Court to approve a venue change in Janssen are not reflected
in the present action.
Document #: 24
Filed: 07/28/2016
Page 4 of 6
Defendants argue venue should be transferred because there is media coverage

surrounding the subject litigation. However, evidence of media coverage alone does not meet
the requisite standard to change venue. Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton 94 So.3d 1051 (Miss. 2012).
Defendants cites River Oaks Health System v. Steptoe-Finley, 2004 WL 3115061 (Miss. 2004) as
authority. However, River Oaks is substantially distinguished from the present case. In River
Oaks the court transferred venue because of an article that included an assertion from one of the
plaintiff's lawyers (identifying him by name) that a medical procedure performed by one of the
defendants in his office, should have been performed in a hospital. Stating where the procedure
was performed was factual. Stating where the procedure should have been performed was a
matter of opinion which goes beyond the general nature of the claim. Id. The Court held Such
specific opinions of wrongful conduct should not be provided by counsel to the press, where the
opinions are likely to be published to the public, including potential jurors, and likely to
influence opinions about the case. Id. Also, another lawyer representing the plaintiff, who was
also identified by name in the article, supplied the reporter who wrote the article with video
depositions taken in the case, including the deposition of at least one of the defendants. The
article recited the substance of deposition testimony from this defendant. The Court held this
pretrial dissemination to the public (including potential jurors) of sworn testimony, potentially to
be used at trial, was improper, and has the potential to prejudice the defendants, and to impact
witness sequestration at trial. Id. The present case is distinguished from River Oaks, because
neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs counsel made any statement or contact to the media about the
subject lawsuit, have provided discovery to the media, or made any statement about the
complaints alleged in the media.
Document #: 24
Filed: 07/28/2016
Page 5 of 6
Defendants also cite Hayes v. Entergy Miss., Inc., 871 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2004)., as
authority to transfer venue due to media coverage. However, the present case is substantially
distinguished from Hayes. In Hayes the trial court's decision to transfer venue was based on
substantial media attention during the first trial, including newspaper reports on evidence that
was ruled inadmissible and upon a concern of community bias or intimidation of the jurors, in
the event the verdict was in favor of Entergy. Id. The present case is distinguished from Hayes
because there has been no media coverage regarding any trial, no media coverage regarding
community bias, and no media coverage about jury intimidation.
Thus, Defendants failed to produce evidence that a change of venue is warranted.
Defendants failed to produce evidence they would not be able to receive a fair and impartial trial.
Thus, Defendants are absent weighty which would cause plaintiff's choice of forum to be
disturbed. Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Estate of Heffner, 904 So.2d 100, 102 (Miss.2004).
III.
Conclusion
Defendants motion should be denied. Defendants have not put forth sufficient evidence
that they cannot have a fair and impartial trial in Hinds County. Accordingly, Plaintiffs asks this
Court to deny Defendants motion to transfer venue. Plaintiffs request a hearing on this matter.
RESPECTFULLY submitted, this the 28th day of July, 2016.
RUKIA LUMUMNA ON BEHALF OF ALL
WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES

Dennis C. Sweet, IV
OF COUNSEL:
Dennis C. Sweet, IV (MSB# 103009)
SWEET & ASSOCIATES
5
Document #: 24
Filed: 07/28/2016
Page 6 of 6

Jackson, MS 39201
Ph. 601.965.8700
Fx. 601.965.8719
I, Dennis C. Sweet, IV, attorney for the plaintiff, do hereby certify that I have this date
filed this matter with the Clerk of Court via the MEC filing system that caused a true and correct
copy of the above and foregoing to be sent via electronic mail to all counsel of record.
This the 28th day of July, 2016.
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 1 of 9

RUKIA LUMUMBA , CHOKWE ANTAR LUMUMBA
AND KAMBON THURMAN,
COLLECTIVELY AND
V.
PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

Defendants Nurudeen A. Shekoni, M.D. and North Jackson Medical Clinic, PLLC,
(Dr. Shekoni), by and through the undersigned counsel, files this motion for transfer of venue,
and states:
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff Chokwe Antar Lumumba (Plaintiff) filed this action on February 16, 2016.
On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff amended his Complaint to add Rukia Lumumba and Kambon
Thurman as additional plaintiffs. Dr. Shekoni was served with the Amended Complaint on June
8, 2016.
Plaintiff claims Dr. Shekoni and his co-defendants provided substandard medical care to
Plaintiffs decedent, former Mayor of Jackson, Chokwe Lumumba (Mayor Lumumba or
Decedent), and seeks damages for this alleged negligent care and for Decedents alleged
wrongful death. At the time of his death in February 2014, Decedent had been mayor of Jackson
for just under eight months, after having been elected in 2013. Before serving as mayor,
Decedent had been a member of the Jackson City Council for four years (2009-2013) and a well-
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 2 of 9
known activist for all of his adult life. Mayor Lumumba was, and is, an undeniably high-profile
public figure in the city. Additionally, in the 2014 special election to fill the remainder of Mayor
Lumumbas four-year term, Plaintiff himself was a mayoral candidate who received extensive
media coverage. Plaintiff has already declared his candidacy for mayor in the regular election
scheduled for 2017. He remains a well-known community activist and is a high-profile public
figure in his own right.
Accordingly, Dr. Shekoni moves this Court to transfer venue in this action. Not only
does Plaintiff enjoy a significant degree of local fame in Hinds County as a respected public
personality and current mayoral candidate, but Mayor Lumumba himself remains a revered
figure among a large portion of the potential Hinds County jury pool. Equally important, the
circumstances surrounding Mayor Lumumbas death received tremendous local media coverage
at the time. To ensure a fair trial, venue should be transferred to a county either on the
Mississippi Gulf Coast or in the area bordering Tennessee.
II.
Factual Background
Mayor Lumumbas death was covered extensively in all forms of media print, radio,
television, and various forms of social media. A small sampling of articles and news reports
surrounding his death and funeral are attached as Exhibit 1, Tab A. Mayor Lumumba was such a
revered figure in the community, there were multiple memorial services in celebration of his life.
Those included, but were not necessarily limited to (1) his body lying in state at City Hall
followed by a remembrance hour; (2) a celebration of life service at the Jackson Convention
Center; (3) an elaborate plan to escort Mayor Lumumba to his resting place with police and
mourners lining the streets; and (4) interment following the celebration of life service. (See, e.g.,
Exhibit 1, Tab B.) Additionally, Jackson State University and Word of Worship also hosted
tributes to Mayor Lumumba. Hundreds of mourners attended each of these memorials. (See,
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 3 of 9
e.g., Exhibit 1, Tab C.) Jackson Police Chief Lee Vance said The Mayor was very much loved.
He was almost like a rock star in certain ways. (Exhibit 1, Tab D.)
Before Mayor Lumumbas death, he enjoyed renown as well. He was, of course, elected
as Mayor of the City of Jackson, which included celebrations throughout the city and various
inaugural events city-wide. (Exhibit 2, Tab A.) Mayor Lumumba was a well-known prominent
local attorney and had a long and honored history of activism. (Exhibit 2, Tab B.) Indeed, after
Mayor Lumumbas death, various well-known members of the Jackson community publicly
questioned the manner of his passing. (Exhibit 2, Tab C.) Plaintiff himself lent some credence
to these rumors in acknowledging them and promising to explore all possible causes of his
death. (Exhibit 2, Tab D.)
Additionally, a community center in Jackson was named in Mayor Lumumbas honor.
(Exhibit 2, Tab E.)
Because of the Mayors renown, this lawsuit has already received extensive local media
coverage and will continue to do so. (See, e.g., composite Exhibit 3.)
In addition to Mayor Lumumbas prominence, Plaintiff and the mayors namesake,
Chokwe Antar Lumumba, enjoys considerable community prominence as well. Before Mayor
Lumumbas passing, Plaintiff was the campaign spokesman for his father and was covered and
followed by the media before his own run for mayor. (Exhibit 4.) After Mayor Lumumbas
death, Plaintiff delivered a barn-burning eulogy that was generously covered by the media.
(Exhibit 5.) Plaintiff is repeatedly lauded as the heir apparent for fulfilling his fathers dreams
and ambitions.
Indeed, Plaintiff is following in his fathers footsteps as an activist and
community leader. Despite his young age, Plaintiff was a mayoral candidate himself after his
father died. He won the primary election, but lost in a close run-off election. (See, e.g.,
Composite Exhibit 6.) Plaintiff has received extensive media coverage for (1) filing this lawsuit;
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 4 of 9
(2) his representation of the Jonathan Sanders family in Stonewall involving an altercation with a
police officer and Sanders subsequent death; and (3) the current Jackson airport controversy.
(See, e.g, Composite Exhibit 7.) Most recently, and since the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff has
again declared his candidacy for Mayor of Jackson in the upcoming 2017 electiona decision
that will keep him consistently in the public eye until at least the spring of 2017.
III.
Discussion
A change of venue is appropriate where a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the
county where the action is pending due to the undue influence of the adverse party, prejudice
existing in the public mind, or for some other sufficient cause. MISS. CODE ANN. 11-11-51.
That standard is met where, as here, substantial local media coverage surrounds the underlying
facts of a lawsuit and the plaintiffs are prominent members of the community.
Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So. 2d 31, 49-53 (Miss. 2004). In fact, even one of those two
factors can be sufficient to support a venue transfer. Substantial media coverage of a wrongful
death case, regardless of whether the plaintiffs are independently well known in the community,
can by itself support a trial courts transferring venue. Hayes v. Entergy Miss., Inc., 871 So. 2d
743, 748 (Miss. 2004); see also River Oaks Health System v. Steptoe-Finely, 2004 WL 3115061,
No. 2004-IA-01309-SCT (Miss. July 13, 2004).
In this action, both factors are present: (1) Plaintiff and Decedent are both well-known
and respected local public figures, and (2) the underlying facts were and continue to be subject to
extensive media coverage. The purpose of a transfer based on extensive media coverage and/or
the notoriety of plaintiff is, of course, to ensure an unbiased jury pool. See, e.g., Janssen, 878
So. 2d at 53. This factor is so important that when faced with a case which has been heavily
reported in the news media, our trial courts must be prepared to readily grant a change of venue.
Johnson v. State, 476 So. 2d 1195, 1215 (Miss. 1985). The Johnson Court further noted that a
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 5 of 9
jury pool may be tainted where the aggrieved parties are members of prominent, influential
families or public officials. Id. Here, all these factors are present. As set forth above, this
case and the circumstances underlying it have been subject to intense media reporting. Both
Plaintiff and Decedent are members of a prominent and influential family, and Decedent was the
highest-ranking public official in the City of Jackson at the time of his deaththe event which
forms the basis for this action. Accordingly, this is a textbook situation where a change of venue
should be readily grant[ed].
In many similar cases after Johnson, both civil and criminal, the Supreme Court has
determined venue transfer to be appropriate.1 The same year Johnson was decided, the Court
noted that where a trial court is presented with evidence that heavy media coverage has affected
the attitudes of the local community, the trial court should assume the venire will reflect the
biases and prejudices of that community and accordingly transfer should be granted. Fisher v.
State, 481 So. 2d 203, 215 (Miss. 1985). The Court in Fisher noted where there is sufficient
evidence of saturation media publicityincluding the content of that publicity, it creates a
rebuttable presumption of a reasonable likelihood that the defendant cannot get a fair trial in the
local community. Id. at 223.
Applying these rules to civil cases, the Supreme Court in 2004 upheld the trial courts
decision to transfer venue for the retrial of a wrongful death case based on substantial media
attention during the first trial. Hayes, 871 So. 2d at 748. Similarly, in Janssen it was clear to
the court that the substantial local media coverage and the fact that many plaintiffs were
prominent members of the local community were sufficient reason to transfer venue. 878 So. 2d
at 49-53. Plaintiffs in Janssen included such prominent people as the sitting Mayor of Fayette
1
While the decisions on change of venue deal primarily and predominantly with criminal cases, a person is
also entitled to a fair and impartial trial in a civil case. Janssen, 878 So. 2d at 50, quoting King v. Kelly, 137
So.2d 808, 813 (1962).
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 6 of 9
and the 29-year assistant principal at Jefferson County High School. Id. at 51. In terms of media
coverage, attorneys for the plaintiffs bombarded Jefferson County with advertisements,
meetings, and plaintiff-propelled gossip regarding the defendants alleged bad faith and
liability. Id.
Quoting Johnson, 476 So. 2d at 1214-15, the Janssen Court acknowledged the
pervasiveness of the news media in modern society and the fact that [n]ewspapers and news
broadcasts shape every communitys understanding of itself. Public opinions and attitudes are
reflected and affected concurrently. Janssen, 878 So. 2d at 52. As a practical matter, trial
courts must also look to other circumstances which would include suits against members of
prominent, influential families [and] suits against public officials . . . Where these circumstances
are present and egregious, the likelihood of extensive media coverage is great. Id. at 52-53.
The factors that led the Supreme Court to approve a venue transfer in Janssen are
reflected in the present action. Plaintiff is a prominent public figure seeking damages for the
alleged negligent care provided to Decedent, who was the sitting Mayor of Jackson, under
circumstances which received and will receive inordinate media attention as shown conclusively
by the Exhibits attached hereto. Such a scenario gives rise to the presumption that Dr. Shekoni
cannot expect a fair trial anywhere whose primary local media are based in the Jackson
metropolitan area, pursuant to Fisher and Janssen.
Moreover, transfer would be appropriate here even if Plaintiff and Decedent were not
extremely prominent members of the local community. In Hayes and River Oaks, both decided
in 2004, the Supreme Court concluded transfer of venue was appropriate based only on heavy
media coverage of the case itselfregardless of whether plaintiffs were well-known. Indeed, the
River Oaks case was transferred based on a single news story appearing in the Jackson Clarion
Ledger. 2004 WL 3115061 at *1. The story focused entirely on the alleged negligence of the
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 7 of 9
defendant and the emotionally devastating injuries suffered by the plaintiffs minor child. Id.
The article also contained quotes from one of the plaintiffs attorneys, stating what in the
attorneys view the defendants should have done differently. Id. at *2. Based on the tenor of
the article and plaintiffs counsels participation in shaping the article, the Court found should
this case proceed to trial in Hinds County, there exists a substantial likelihood of material
prejudice against the defendants. The Court went on to order that the case should be transferred
to a county located a substantial distance from Hinds County, where the Clarion
Ledger is not the primary daily newspaper. Such counties could include those
bordering the Coast, within the circulation of the New Orleans and Gulfport daily
newspapers, and those which border Tennessee, within the primary circulation
area for Memphis and other daily papers.
Id. at *3.
In this action, Plaintiff himself has lent credence to rumors of untoward reasons for
Mayor Lumumbas passing by promising to explore all possible causes of his death. (Exhibit
2, Tab D.) This lawsuit itself has already received extensive local media coverage, including
several articles repeating the allegations of the complaint. (See, e.g., composite Exhibit 3.) As
laid out above, the Supreme Court in River Oaks ordered a transfer of venue based on the
potential for jury prejudice due to a single article in the primary local daily newspaper. 2014 WL
3115061 at *3. It is even more likely that potential jurors in the Jackson area will have read
news articles stating Plaintiffs version of the facts in this case. Accordingly, both because
Plaintiff and Decedent have very prominent names in the local community and because this case
itself has been subject to extensive local media coverage, a transfer of venue is appropriate under
Mississippi law.
The Supreme Court in River Oaks ensured venue should be transferred far enough from
Hinds County that local media would not influence the jury pool, specifically suggesting the
Gulf Coast or Memphis areas. The same two areas would be appropriate for transfer of the
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 8 of 9
present action, as they are sufficiently far from Hinds County that not only the Clarion-Ledger,
but also the local Jackson television stations are not the primary media entities. See id.; see also
FCC station area maps, attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
Therefore, Dr. Shekoni respectfully
requests that this action be transferred either to a Gulf county or to a county bordering
Tennessee.
IV.
Conclusion
Due to the local prominence of both Plaintiff and Decedent, and the extensive media
coverage that has been focused on these individuals and on the allegations and facts underlying
this case, Dr. Shekoni cannot expect a fair or impartial jury in Hinds Countyor, for that matter,
any county where the Jackson-area media is prevalent. Accordingly, Dr. Shekoni asks this Court
to transfer venue in this action either to the Gulf Coast or the counties bordering Tennessee.
Respectfully submitted, this 15th day of July, 2016.
NURUDEEN A. SHEKONI AND NORTH
JACKSON MEDICAL CLINIC, PLLC
By:

Walter T. Johnson, MSB # 8712
Susan L. Steffey, MSB # 9038
W. Abram Orlansky, MSB # 104172
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC
400 E Capitol Street (39201)
Post Office Box 650
Telephone: (601) 965-1900
Facsimile: (601) 965-1901
E-Mail: wjohnson@watkinseager.com
ssteffey@watkinseager.com
Document #: 20
Filed: 07/15/2016
Page 9 of 9
I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing pleading or other
paper with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification of such filing to
all counsel of record.
This the 15th day of July, 2016.

Walter T. Johnson
Case: 25CI1:16-cv-00115-WLK
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 1 of 14
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DI~<if

I
r-
i! E D
FEB 16 2016
ZACK WALLACE, CIRCUIT CLERK

VS.
BL--------t
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.
ST. DOMINIC' S HOSPITAL; ST. DOMINIC ' S

ICo .. Ill
DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
(Plaintiffs Demand Trial by Jury)
Plaintiff, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, individually and on behalf of the all wrongful death
beneficiaries of Chokwe Lumumba, deceased, ("Plaintiff') and files this Complaint against
Defendants St. Dominic' s Hospital, St. Dominic' s Hospital Services, Inc., Dr. Nurudeen A.
Shekoni, North Jackson Medical Clinic, P.L.L.C., and Dr. Heather Evans. In support thereof,
Plaintiff states as follows:
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff Chokwe Antar Lumumba is a resident of Hinds County, Mississippi.
Chokwe Lumumba is the son of Chokwe Lumumba, deceased.

2.
Defendant St. Dominic' s Hospital is a non-profit corporation as a hospital and
provider of healthcare services.
St. Dominic' s Hospital may be served with process by
delivering summons to its registered agent, Mary Dorothea Sondgeroth, at 969 Lakeland Drive
Jackson, Mississippi 39216.
3.
Defendant St. Dominic' s Health Services, Inc. , is a non-profit corporation as an
emergency hospital and provider of healthcare services - and is associated with St. Dominic' s
1
Hospital.
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 2 of 14
St. Dominic' s Health Services, Inc., may be served with process by delivering
summons to St. Dominic' s registered agent, Claude W. Harbarger, at 969 Lakeland Drive
4.
Defendant Nurudeen A. Shekoni, M.D. is an employee ofNorth Jackson Medical
Clinic P.L.L.C., and may be served with process at his usual place of business at 5160 Galaxie
Dr. Jackson, MS 39206.
5.
Defendant North Jackson Medical Clinic P.L.L.C., is a Limited Liability
Company and provider of healthcare services. North Jackson Medical Clinic P.L.L.C. may be
served thru their registered agent Nurundeen A. Shekoni, M.D. at 5160 Galaxie Dr. Jackson, MS
39206.
6.
Defendant Heather Evans, M.D. is an employee and/or agent of St. Dominic's
Hospital and may be served with process at his usual place of business at 969 Lakeland Drive
7.
Defendant John Does 1-5 are the LPN' S, RN' S, health care providers and
employees of St. Dominic' s Hospital who were responsible for the care and treatment of
Chokwe Lumumba.
8.
Defendants John Does 6-10 are those persons and/or entities whose identities are
currently unknown to Plaintiffs and who were responsible for the medical care of Chokwe
Lumumba. These persons and/or entities include but are not limited to the nursing staff, treating
physicians, assistants, technicians, and other medical personnel whose responsibilities included
treating, monitoring, and/or providing medical care to Chokwe Lumumba.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.
The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and venue is proper in
Hinds County, Mississippi pursuant to 11-46-13 of the Mississippi Code.

2
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 3 of 14
FACTS
10.
On or about February 25, 2014 at 9:00am Chokwe Lumumba checked into St.
Dominic' s Emergency Room - which is owned and operated by Defendants St. Dominic' s
Hospital and St. Dominic' s Health Services, Inc. (Collectively St. Dominic' s).
11.
Chokwe Lumumba expressed to St. Dominic' s staff, employees, and physicians
that he was suffering from chest pains.
More specifically, Mr. Lumumba expressed to St.
Dominic' s, St. Dominic' s employees, and the Doctors he believed he was having a heart attack.
12.
At the time Chokwe Lumumba checked into St. Dominic' s. St. Dominic' s was
aware of Mr. Lumumba' s medical history because he had previously been a patient at St.
Dominic' s. At the time Chokwe Lumumba checked into the Hospital, St. Dominic' s knew or
should have known because of prior medical treatment, he was a high risk candidate for a heart
attack.
13.
Chokwe Lumumba was in St. Dominic' s care from around 9:00 a.m. until he
passed away around 5:00 p.m. that afternoon.
While Mr. Lumumba was in St. Dominic' s
custody, its employees, the Hospital 's staff and physicians, failed and/or refused to conduct any
test(s) to diagnose a heart attack or treat a heart attack. Mr. Lumumba ultimately died as a result
of St. Dominic' s and others failures to properly diagnose and test.
14.
The cardiologist advised Mr. Lumumba he needed a blood transfusion.
The
cardiologist did not do any test or diagnosis to determine if Mr. Lumumba was suffering from a
heart attack. The cardiologist did not treat Mr. Lumumba for a heart attack.
15.
St. Dominic' s staff and employees, as well as Dr. Evans and Dr. Shekoni
(physician Defendants) amongst other things- failed to review Mr. Lumumba' s medical records
from his previous visits at St. Dominic' s Hospital, failed to check for an aortic aneurism, and
failed to conduct any test to diagnose a heart attack. These Defendants did nothing to diagnose
3
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 4 of 14
or treat a cardiac issue. Further, upon information and belief, Mr. Lumumba was not provided
any medical attention hours until hours after he initially arrived at St. Dominic' s at 9:00am that
morning. Mr. Lumumba received medical treatment that was below the standard of care for a
hospital or doctor.
16.
As a result of St. Dominic' s and the treating physician' s failure to properly
diagnose and treat Mr. Lumumba, Mr. Lumumba died of a heart attack. The act(s) and/or
omission(s) of the above-referenced physicians as well as the above referenced employees and
staff of St. Dominic and other employees and staff of St. Dominic caused and/or exacerbated the
condition and untimely death of Chokwe Lumumba. Based upon information and belief that
Mr. Lumumba' s death was directly and proximately caused by the act(s) and/or omission(s) of
these defendants, Plaintiff is prepared to show by the appropriate standard of proof that these
defendants breached the standard of care owed to Chokwe Lumumba, deceased. As a result of
the act(s) and/or omission(s), Mr. Lumumba sustained conscience pain and suffering, loss of
enjoyment of life, economic as well as other non-economic damages. The extent of the injury
includes the aforementioned elements as well as death.
As a proximate cause of the breach of
this standard of care, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, Rukia Lumumba, as well as the heirs and
beneficiaries of Chokwe Lumumba, deceased, seek damages for sustained physical pain, severe
emotional distress, psychological distress, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, conscience
pain and suffering, wrongful death, economic damages (of all kinds), non-economic damages
(of all kinds), funeral expenses, medical expenses and other damages as a result ofthis incident.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Negligence
17.
Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by referencing the allegations in each
preceding paragraph.
4
18.
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 5 of 14
The acts and omissions of employees, agents, and physicians of St. Dominic's
Hospital, Nurudeen A. Shekoni, M.D. and Heather Evans, M.D. are attributable to the
aforementioned Defendants.
19.
Defendants were imposed with non-delegable duties related to the care,
treatment, and provision of medical care to Chokwe Lumumba, including but not limited to, to
provide minimally competent healthcare treatment, diagnoses, and prognosis with regard to his
health and physical wellbeing.
20.
Physician Defendants owed to Mr. Lumumba a duty to exercise that standard of
care required of a minimally qualified physician practicing in a hospital with the same or
substantially the same medical resources as were available at St. Dominic' s Hospital. Physician
21.
St. Dominic' s Hospital, through its employees, agents, doctors, nurses, and/or
medical staff, breached the standard of care by failing to check for an aortic aneurism, failing to
conduct any test for a heart attack, failing to adequately review Mr. Lumumba's previous
medical records, failing to provide adequate medical treatment, failing to make proper medical
diagnosis, failing to provide timely medical care, failing to provide
appropriate medical
facilities, and other actions or inactions. Additionally, St. Dominic' s Hospital, their employees,
agents and consultants, includes, but is not limited to, one or more of the following acts and
omissions:
a)
The failure to provide a requisite number of staff necessary to assist the patients
with their needs;
b)
The failure to provide sufficient numbers of qualified personnel, including nurses,

Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 6 of 14
nursing staff (hereinafter "nursing personnel") to meet the total needs of Mr.
Lumumba.
c)
The failure to provide nursing personnel sufficient in number to ensure that Mr.
Lumumba attained and maintained his highest level of physical, mental and
psychosocial well-being;
d)
The failure to adequately assess, evaluate and supervise nursing personnel so as

to ensure that Mr. Lumumba received appropriate nursing care, in accordance
with Defendants' policy and procedures manual , and the statutorily mandated
regulations implemented by the Mississippi Department of Health and its agents,
including the Division of Health Facilities Licensure and Certification;
e)
The failure to provide a nursing staff that was properly staffed, qualified, and
trained; and
t)
Other acts to be shown at trial.
22.
Dr. Heather Evans and Dr. Nurudeen A. Shekoni breached the standard of care by
failing to check for an aortic aneurism, failing to conduct any test for a heart attack, failing to
adequately review Mr. Lumumba 's previous medical records, failing to provide adequate
medical treatment, failing to make proper medical diagnosis, failing to treat Mr. Lumumba's
heart attack and other actions or inactions.
Gross Negligence
23 .
24.
Defendants herein acted in a reckless and/or willful and wanton manner, in gross
disregard for the rights and safety of Mr. Lumumba, and this gross misconduct constituted a
reckless indifference to the consequences of said acts so as to give rise to an assessment of
6
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 7 of 14
punitive damages. The longevity, scope and severity of Defendants' failures and actions as
heretofore described constitute gross negligence. Specifically, such conduct was undertaken by
Defendants without regard to the health and safety consequences to those patients, such as Mr.
Lumumba, entrusted to their care. Moreover, such conduct evidences such little regard for their
duties of care, good faith, and fidelity owed to Mr. Lumumba.
25.
As a direct and proximate result of the above cited malice, gross negligence
which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, Mr. Lumumba
suffered injuries which lead to his death.
She also suffered extreme pain, suffering, mental
anguish, embarrassment, and fright, all of which required hospitalization and medical treatment,
and all of which required Mr. Lumumba to incur significant hospital and medical expenses and
resulted in his death.
26.
Wherefore, based on such conduct of Defendants as set out above, Plaintiff
asserts a claim for judgment for all compensatory damages and punitive damages against
Defendants including, but not limited to, medical expenses, physical pain, suffering, mental
anguish, disability, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, fright and disfigurement in an amount
to be determined by the jury, plus costs and all other relief to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled
bylaw.
Medical Malpractice
27.
28.
Defendant St. Dominic's Hospital owed a duty to patients, including Chokwe
Lumumba, to hire, train, and supervise employees so that such employees delivered care and
services to patients in a safe and beneficial manner.
29.
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 8 of 14
Defendants' employees owed a duty to patients, including Chokwe Lumumba, to
render care and services as a reasonably prudent and similarly situated employee would render,
including, but not limited to, rendering care and services in a safe and beneficial manner.
30.
Defendants owed a duty to assist all patients, including Mr. Lumumba, m
attaining and maintaining the highest level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
31.
Defendants' conduct in breaching the duties owed to Mr. Lumumba was
negligent, grossly negligent, willful, wanton, malicious and reckless.

32.
As a direct and proximate result of such negligent, grossly negligent, reckless,
wanton, and malicious conduct, Mr. Lumumba suffered injuries which lead to his death.
33.
Dr. Heather Evans and Dr. Nurudeen A. Shekoni breached the standard of care by
failing to check for an aortic aneurism , failing to conduct any test for a heart attack, failing to
adequately review Mr. Lumumba' s previous medical records, failing to provide adequate
medical treatment, failing to make proper medical diagnosis, failing to treat Mr. Lumumba's
heart attack and other actions or inactions.
34.
Wherefore, based on such conduct of Defendants as set forth above, Plaintiff
anguish, disability, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, and fright in an amount
to be determined by the jury, plus costs and all other relief to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled
by law.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

35 .
36.
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 9 of 14
As a patient of the Defendants' facility, Mr. Lumumba was particularly
dependent for his daily care and well-being upon the Defendants, their employees and agents.
Because of the nature of this dependency and the representations of the Defendants that they
could and would provide necessary care, Mr. Lumumba and his family held in the Defendants a
special confidence and trust which the Defendants accepted by admitting Mr. Lumumba to their
facility, and by determining the level of care to be provided to Mr. Lumumba .
37.
Mr. Lumumba and his family relied upon the alleged superior knowledge, skill,
and abilities of the Defendants, which the Defendants held themselves out to have. Also, Mr.
Lumumba and his family relied on the Defendants to provide care for Mr. Lumumba who was
not able to care for himself at the time. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty and duty of
good faith and fair dealing to Mr. Lumumba by failing to provide the appropriate level of care
and services to which Mr. Lumumba was entitled, by accepting payment for services and care
not provided to Mr. Lumumba.
38.
As a proximate cause of the foregoing breaches of duty by the Defendants, Mr.
Lumumba suffered injuries as set forth above.

39.
anguish, disability, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, fright and disfigurement in an amount
to be determined by the jury, plus costs and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled by law.
Plaintiff also seeks the imposition of a constructive trust on all wrongful profits and proceeds
arising out of Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty to Mr. Lumumba.
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 10 of 14
Reckless Disregard for Human Life
40.
41.
The act(s) and/or omission(s) of these Defendants and Officer constitute a
reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the Plaintiff herein. Further, these act(s) and/or
omission(s) were perpetrated with such callousness that a reasonable person can certainly
conclude that these act(s) and/or omission(s) were carried out without any regard as to their
effects. Therefore, the act(s) and/or omission(s) constitute a reckless disregard for the rights and
safety of the Plaintiff as defined under Mississippi law
42.
The act(s) and/or omission(s) of these Defendants were a proximate cause as to
the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.

Statutory Survival Claim
43 .
44.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, malice, gross negligence
which evidences a willful , wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of Mr. Lumumba, Mr.
Lumumba suffered injuries. These injuries required hospitalization and medical treatment. The
hospitalization required Mr. Lumumba to incur significant hospital and medical expenses.
Ultimately, these conditions resulted in Mr. Lumumba' s death.
45.
As a direct, natural and proximate result of the negligence, malice, gross
negligence which evidences a willful , wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, Mr.
Lumumba died, thereby incurring funeral , burial and other related expenses.
46.
asserts a claim for judgment for all compensatory damages and punitive damages for Mr.
10
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 11 of 14
Lumumba ' s death arising out of said conduct including, but not limited to hospital, medical ,
funeral , burial, costs of administration of Mr. Lumumba ' s Estate, and other related expenses
incurred by or for Mr. Lumumba' s as a result of the wrongful acts and omissions of Defendants,
heretofore described, all in an amount to be determined by the jury, plus costs and all other relief
to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled by law.
Statutory Wrongful Death Claim
47.
48 .
As a direct, natural and proximate result of the negligence, malpractice, malice,
gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others,
and any other claim for relief - Mr. Lumumba died thereby incurring funeral, burial and other
related expenses.
49.
As a result of the death of Mr. Lumumba, the wrongful death beneficiaries
suffered loss of consortium, attention, guidance, care, protection, training, companionship,

compassion, affection, and love.
50.
Defendants including but not limited to Mr. Lumumba' s physical pain, suffering, mental anguish,
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, and fright in an amount to be determined by
the jury, plus costs and all other relief to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled by Jaw. Additionally,
based on such conduct, Plaintiff asserts a claim for judgment for all compensatory damages and
punitive damages against Defendants based on the damages sustained by the wrongful death
beneficiaries as a result of the loss of a personal relationship with Mr. Lumumba , including but
not limited to loss of support, companionship, consortium, attention, guidance, care, protection,
11
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 12 of 14
training, compassion, affection, and love, in an amount to be determined by the jury, plus costs
and all other relief to which Plaintiff asserts are entitled by law.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and

requests judgment against all defendants: St. Dominic' s Hospital , St. Dominic' s Health Care
Services Inc., Dr. Nurudeen A. Shekoni, and Dr. Heather Evans and John Does 1-10, jointly
and/or severally, and for compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages, including but
not limited to damages for the pain and suffering of Mr. Lumumba caused by his misdiagnosis
and failure to receive appropriate treatment, as well as his pain and suffering incurred as a result
of inadequate medical treatment that ultimately resulted in his death, any loss of income, any
medical expenses due to the misdiagnosis and subsequent mistreatment, funeral expenses, loss
of enjoyment of life, loss of love, society, and companionship, mental anguish, and hedonic
damages. Plaintiff requests that the court assess all costs and expenses against defendants and
award plaintiff such other relief as the court deems just.
OF COUNSEL:
Dennis C. Sweet, III (MSB#81 05)
Dennis C. Sweet, IV(MSB#1 03009)
SWEET & ASSOCIATES
Jackson, MS 39201
Ph. 601.965.8700
Fx. 601.965.8719
12
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 13 of 14


vs.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.
ST. DOMINIC'S HOSPITAL; ST. DOMINIC'S

DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
COMES NOW the undersigned Plaintiffs attorney, and certifies, according to Miss.
Code. Ann. 11-1-58, that the attorneys in this matter have reviewed the facts of this case and
has consulted with an expert who is qualified pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, and who is qualified to give expert testimony
as to the standard of care or negligence, medical malpractice, and is knowledgeable in the
relevant issues involved in this matter.
Therefore, on the basis of such consultation and review, the undersigned attorney has
concluded that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of this action against these
named Defendants.
This Certificate is attached as Exhibit "A" to the Complaint filed in this matter.
So Certified and submitted this the ~ day of February, 2016.
~~~~
Dennis C. Sweet, III
Of Counsel:
SWEET & ASSOCIATES
Dennis C. Sweet, IV
Dennis C. Sweet, III
Terris Harris
Phone: (601) 965-8700
Document #: 2
Filed: 02/16/2016
Page 14 of 14

Lumumba V ST D Complete File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lumumba V ST D Complete File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 25CI1:16-cv-00115-JAW

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

CHOKWE ANTAR LUMUMBA, INDIVIDUALLY AND

CIVIL ACTION NO.

ST. DOMINICS HOSPITAL; ST. DOMINICS

PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTIONFOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Miss.R.Civ.Pro 26 (d) states upon motion by a party or by the person from

Plaintiffs contend that justice requires an order to protect certain information as

said order would protect Plaintiffs.

In particular, justice requires a protective order be entered because deposition

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-115

ST. DOMINICS HOSPITAL; ST. DOMINICS

NURUDEEN A. SHEKONI, M.D. AND NORTH JACKSON MEDICAL

Defendants admit that Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provide a mechanism

relationships and involvement with the Plaintiffs and the decedent.

discovery for the purposes of annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or

Again these assertions merely support

Defendants motion to transfer venue in this matter.

Plaintiffs baldly allege that unspecified discovery requests and deposition

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants respectfully request this Court

/s/ Walter T. Johnson

/s/ Walter T. Johnson

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

ST. DOMINICS HOSPITAL; ST. DOMINICS

Plaintiffs Motion for Emergency Protective Order to transfer venue is incorporated

embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense. However, Defendants state in their

There has been substantial media

may prejudice Plaintiffs.

Defendants served Plaintiffs the following Interrogatory:

Plaintiffs object to interrogatory No. 18, on the grounds

Again, interrogatory responses and deposition testimony

(Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue is incorporated by

Transferring venue will have absolutely no effect on the hardship Plaintiffs

BY: /s/ Dennis C. Sweet, IV

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-115

ST. DOMINICS HOSPITAL; ST. DOMINICS

By:/s/Dennis C. Sweet, III

/s/ Dennis C. Sweet, IV

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

RUKIA LUMUMBA, INDIVIDUALLY AND

CIVIL ACTION NO.

ST. DOMINICS HOSPITAL; ST. DOMINICS

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT NURUDEEN A. SHEKONIS MOTION

Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed on an extension to answer

issues raised in Defendants Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs sent correspondence to Defendant

(Please See Exhibit A.

At this point, Plaintiffs have fully answered all propounded request.

all of the facts on which each allegation is based;

describe in detail how Dr. Shekoni allegedly breached the applicable

if you contend treatment was inappropriate, state specifically what

interrogatory No. 1, on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, vague,

At the time Chokwe Lumumba checked into St. Dominics. St.

failed to treat a dissecting aneurysm. Mr. Lumumba ultimately died as a result of

At some point St. Dominics cardiologist advised Mr. Lumumba

As a proximate cause of the breach of this standard of

St. Dominics Hospital, through its

medical records, failing to provide adequate medical treatment, failing to make

Defendants herein acted in a reckless and/or willful and wanton

gross misconduct constituted a

reckless indifference to the consequences of said

acts so as to give rise to an assessment of punitive damages. The longevity, scope