Whether the district court erred in denying the petitioner's motion to compel discovery

No question identified. : (1) HE THeg THE DUTY LooRT ERP 1b ALL. 2b Lindl DEPOR ANTS Cols. To FILE CMO TO S7py DiscovEeey belo s(t — WRMEOSEY fice A orion (OR SUMP EY (2) biKETHER Tits DISTRICT COURT CL RORED WARM Yp CLATER THEIR Onis (3) WHETHER THE DITRACT Lover lope é LCPERETDOD Pr lt7/ORMUS mTERPRETEP (HE POITIERS beagiys pals PACES AS IT LOSE SITING Type PEARLS. CLA WAS AM ERP A CUA, USTEOAD) OF RECO G/M LZbky THAT THE POMAUSTRATIVE ULES pt SE PRET Ie pag TEE POI EP SURAT GP Met Hig REIONE “TB THE MOTO) foe SOLMkL+ OR k ety PRT City Platz pee Loma ies [HAT HE D6FE Mpg fBKE UAGIL® OFFER "WAS REE yg Zp PRE UES Pal SUBMIT | FAINT MEDICAL BEI LS THROUGH Pe PAY Meus of tevieul _ OO Whey. THe PUTRICT CVLTE OLDE J ALC THES Aare beams HAT HE Pid A1oy beg, (AB PiApl 770 _ APPELL Dg tT SRO Sb 10hé P&COVERY 4s 7 CHMETION Lor nyEp eri I PET ae ay CRPECT og. MBIGCLS OR. perl OTR BAT A COUT 8 Tite. WTED STATUS S Resa COULTS FREUD Gites of C&L OTE LOST, VAATCETT, 495 tg 517 ar 423 (966)? . ae . a a ao