Minke v. Page County, Virginia, No. 5:2018cv00082 - Document 68 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 7/29/2019. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U . S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTM CT COURT JUL 2 S 2219 FO R TH E W E STE RN D IST RICT O F VIR GIN IA H ARRISON BU RG D IW SION JUL uv: UDLEX LERK é yy a LY N D A L.M IN K E, Plaintiff, CivilAcdon N o.5:18-cv-82 PA GE COU N TY ,VIR GIN IA , D efendant. By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistdctJudge M EM O RAN D U M OPIN ION Thismattercomesbeforethecourton DefendantPageCounty,Virginiartountf) and CountyAdnninisttatozAr1aityMoler's(ft ' M olèr')variousobjecéons,ECF No.61,to and pardalappealofUnited StatesMagistrateJudge,JoelC.Hoppe'sorder,ECF No.59,ofJune 7,2019,btoughtpkusuantto Rule 72 ofthe FederalRulesofCivilProcedure.Thiscase arises from theHiminudoninsupervisorydutiesitl2016andlatertermination inlune2017 ofLynda L.M inke as the solid w aste m anaget and landfilldirector for Page County,Virginia.M inke allegesthatherterm inaéon w asim perm issibly based on genderdisctim inaéon and retaliadon. TheCountyassertsthatM inkew asapoor supervisorand m anagerw ho mistreated num etous subordinates,causing them to walk offthe job ozotherwise quit.On June 7,2019,Judge Minke v. Page County, Virginia Hoppe ruled on three discovery modons:(1)Third PattyAnnity M oler and Defendant's Doc. 68 Moéon to Quash Subpoena,ECF No.37;(2)Plaindff'sModon to CompelProducdon of Certain PersonnelRecords,ECF No.46;and (3)Plainéff'sMotion to CompelIntezzogatory ResponsestoTlueelnterrogatories,ECF No.47.TheCountyand Molerjointlyobjectto poréonsofJudgeHoppe'srulingswif .h respectto the (1)Moéon to Quash Subpoena,ECF 1 Dockets.Justia.com No.37,and the County objectsto apordon ofthe nzling on the (2)Modon to Compel Ptoducéon ofCertain PersonnelRecords,ECF N o.46. 1. Rule72(a)oftheFederalRulesofCivilPtocedurepernnitsapartytosubnlitobjecéons toamagistratejudge'srulingonnondisposiévematters,suchasdiscoveryorders.Fed.R.Civ. P 72(a);see28U.S.C.j636(b)(1)(A).Asanon-disposiévemattet,theteview ofamagisttate ' Judge'sdiscovery orderisgoverned by the Trclearly erzoneous''orffconttary to law''standard ofreview.Id.Only ifamagisttatejudge'sdecision isçfclearly erroneousorcontrary to law'' mayadisttictcouztjudgemoclifyorsetasideanypordonofthedecision.Id.A cotztt'sTffincling isfclearly erroneous'w hen although theteisevidenceto supportit,theyeviewing courton the entire evidence is left wif. h the definite and f5t.m conviction that a nlistake has been committed.''United Statesv.United StatesG sum Co.,333U.S.364,395 (1948)9seealso Harmanv.Levin,772F.2d1150,1152(4t. hCir.1985).<<Inlightofthebroaddiscreéongiven to amagistratejudgein theresoluéon ofnondisposidvediscoverydisputes,thecotzrtshould onlyoverrtzleamagistratejudge'sdetermination ifthiscliscredon isabused.''Shoo v.Hott, 2010WL 5067567,*2(N.D.W .Va.Dec.6,2010)(citingDetecdonS s.Inc.v.Pittwa Co ., 96F.R.D.152,154 (W.D.N.Y.1982)). A. ThezearethreemajozobjecdonstoludgeHoppe'srulings,each ofwhich thecotutwill addressin tuzn.Theflzstmajorobjection isrelated toJudgeHoppe'srulingsonTopics5and 6,aswellasTopics7and 8oftheCountyandM olez'sM oton toQuashjECF No.37,M inke's subpoena,see ECF N o.39-1,at1-4.In Topics 5 and 6 ofM inke's subpoena,she requested alldocum entsand com m unicadons,including electtonically stored inform adon,created since January1,2016,relatedtoMinke,heremploymentbytheCounty,herworkperformance,her lawsuitagainst the County,and the ftelim inaéon ofposiéons.''ECF N o.59,at 2-3.W ith respect to Topics 7 and 8, M inke requested ffcom m unicaéons between M olet and six individualsreladng tow ozk,work perform ance,orm anagem entissuesatthelandfllls''created . sincelanuary1,2016.J-dz.at4.ludgeHoppeheld thatMinke'sdiscoveryrequestsastoTopics 5-8wereftsomewhatoverbroad''itathattheydid notspecifyan end date.Ldxat3.To correct forthisdefkiency,JudgeHoppe held thatTfto be relevant,documentsorcommunicaéons mustrelateto acéonsthatocctzrred on orbeforeMinke'stet-mination onJune21,2017.':J-I .L at3.M inke'srequestsw ere nattowed tem porally to thisextent. Moreimpoztantly,JudgeHopperejectedtheCounty'sobjecdonastothezelevancyof Minke'srequestjinTopics5-8,holdingthatthef<subjectmatterofMinke'srequestsEasto Topics5-8)is,forthemostpatt,tailored to obtain relevantinformaéon.''ld.JudgeHoppe noted thatrflaqsamanagerofthelandfllls,Minke'sindividualperformancewouldhave some cortelation totheoveralloperationalperformanceofthelandfllls.''Ldxat4.ludgeHoppeheld thatasto Topics5 and 6,M oletm ustproducealldoctmaentsand com m unicadonszelating to Minke'semploymentbytheCounty and hèrjob performance,theperformandeoflandftll operadons,and theelinnination ofMinke'sposition from January1,2016,toJune21,2017. Li ludgeHoppenoted,however,that: galthoughlgdlocumentsaboutMinke,herjob performance,and theelirnination ofherposidonareplninlyrelevant...gnqotevery docpm entorcom m unication aboutthe operadon ofthe landftll, . . . isrelevant.Thatsubjectmustbe limited to documentsor com m unicadonsrelated to the m anagem entofthe landfllls and overallperformance ofoperationsatthe landfzls,1,4.,whether - therewereproblem sorwhetherthingsatthelando sweregoing well. Id.at4.JudgeHoppeheld thatsuch documentsrelAted to significantissuesin thecase,and theirim portancetoM inkeoutweighs'theburden placed on M olerand theCountyin producing them given that searching electtonically stored inform adon is ffcom m on in litigation.''Id. JudgeHoppealsoindicated thatffM olermust...producedocumentsaboutthelawsuit,but m aywithhold privileged com m unicàtionsidentified in aprivilegelop''1d.1 TheCountyandMolezobjecttoJudgeHoppe'smlingsastoTopics5-8to theextent they require M oler to search her Personal cell phonez and futnish aE text naessages or doctzmentsinapplicadonsonherphonefrom lanuat'y1,2016toJune21,2017,wllichtelate ffin any way''to M inke oz the perform ance oflandfllloperaéons.ECF N o.61,at1.Their argtzment,distitted to itsessence,is thatthisinformadon isitrelevantbecause neithet the County norM olerffhaveevertaken theposidon thatM inkedid notoperatethelanéflllwell, from a technicalstandpoint.''ld.at1.Instead,M inke's terrninaéon wasdue to herfdlack of interpersonalskills,''i.e.,herrfpoorabilityto supervise andw orkwith em ployeesand othetsy'' rather than techlcalnlismanagementofthe landftlls.J-I . L at2.Thus,because inform adon related to the overallperfo= anceofthelandfillsisnotgerm aneto thiscase,requiting M oler to çfsearch and produce every com m unicaéon for a period of eighteen m onths thathave anything at all to do with operadon of the lando far exceeds what is teasonable or propordonalto theneedsofthiscase.''LdsTheCountyalso contendsthatcompliancewit.h 1JudgeHoppeconcludedthatthescopeforTopics5and6,assetforthabove,isalsoappropriateforTopics7and8, and assuch,any sipzihcantwork pezform ance issuesforthe six individualsin quesdon thatrelate to M inke should be disclosed. 2Itisundisputed thatM oller conducted Cotm ty businesson and com mlxnicated aboutthe operadon ofthelando and em ploym entissuesatthelandhllon herpersonalcellphone. JudgeHoppe'sorderTfwould also potendallyresultin disclosureofproprietaryorsensiéve inform adon aboutthe operations of the landfilland relationshipswith outside contractors, none ofwhich beatson thiscaseto any degree.''1d. To becleat,although theCountyand MolerTftakeissue''wit.h otherpordonsofJudge H oppe'snllingsvis-à-visTopics5-8which requiteM oletto search herpersonalcellphoneand releaseinformadon pertainingtoMinke'sjob petfotmance,elimination ofherposidon,and thislaw suit,they neverthelessindicated theitintentto com plywith theorderasto theseissues. Thecoreoftheobjecéonconcernsctiscoveryfrom Moler'scellphoneofinformationrelated to theovezallperformanceand ftoperadon ofthelandfc ''J-1. L TheCountyand M olerassert that the order is erroneous because it zequires M oler to produce comm unicaéons having Ctapything atallto do wit.h operadon ofthelandflll.''Ld.a Initsthoroughreview ofludgeHoppe'srulingsastoTopics5-8,thecourtagreeswith M inke thatthe County and M olerappear to have naisunderstood the scope ofthese rulings. TheCountyandM olerzepeatedlystatethattheyobjecttoJudgeHoppe'sordertotheextent itcom pelsM olerto search herpersonalcellphone and ftltnish com m unicationswhich relate ffin anyway'?orhavef'anythingata1P?to dowith theoperation ofthelandftll.ld.atl-z.ludge Hpppeforthtightlyexplained thatdiscoveryconcezning thesubjectoftheoperation ofthe landfz m ustbelim ited to docum entsor comm unicationsrelated to the ffm anagem entofthe landfûlsand the overallperform pnce ofoperationsofthe landfllls,i.e.,whether there were problem s or whether things atthe landfillsw ere going wei'' ECF N o.59,at 1.Further, because itis undisputed thatM oler used hez personalcellphone for work-zelated m atters, Judge Hoppe's order correctly extended discovery to covezrelevantcommunicaéons and documentsfound on thedevicein quesdon.In short,JudgeHoppe expressly tailoted his discoveryordertobelimitedin timeand subjectmatterrelevanttoMinke'semploymentand termination:Thecolzrtisunpersuaded thatJudgeHoppe'sruling asto Topics5-8sweepsas broadly asthe County and M olercontend. Furtherm ore,asto thecontention thatinform aéon abouttheoperadon ofthelandfzls isizrelevant,ludgeHoppeexplained thatsuch informationconcerns<tsignificantissuesin the casey''afinding with which thecotzrtagreesgiven anum berofassertionsm adein theCounty's answer,ECF No.5,toMinke'scomplaint.See e..,ECFNo.6,at1(denyingthatMinkehad been afftopperformer''andstatingthatfçgiln fact,pbinéffhad been disciplinedandcounseled on numerousoccasions...');id -aat2 (denyingMinke'sclnim thatherpromotionsweredue toherTfgoodperformance');idaat4(denyingthatMinke,asstatedinthecomplaint,ECFN,o. 1,at5,ffperformed herdutiesin acompetentand saésfactorymanner');idaat6 (stadngthat ffplaintiffhasfcherry-picked'som eparysofhetperform anceevaluaéon to m akeitappeatthat herevaluaéon wasbettezthanitacmallywasin acmalitf);id.aat7 (statingthatMinkewas term ination due to her dfpooz m anagém ent style and issues which she had with accurately conducdnghezwork');id.aat8(statingtheMinkewasremovedfrom superdsingothersffsince shewasnotskilled atdoing so'').Itispellucidly clearthatdespiteclairning thatMinkewas flted due to a TTlack ofinter-petsonalskills''rather than her lnism anagem entof the landfz from a fftechzlical standpoint,''inform aéon regarding the latter is relevant to, intet alia, assessing the legitim acy ofthe County'sclnim regarding the form er. Itisclear130th thatM inke intendsto asserther perfo= ance asevidence ofunlawful discriminaéon and retaliadon, and that the County appears poised to dispute M inke's perform ance-related claim s.Underthesecitcum stances,itsim plycannotbesaid thatdiscovery concetning the perform ance of the ffm anagem ent ....and overallperform ance'' of the landflllsshe supervised isitrelevant.lndeed,infot-m adon pertaining to the ffm anagem ent''and ffovetallperform ance''ofthelandfi sin question directly beatson clqim sand defensesrelated to M inke's ow n perform ance as supervisor. This inform ation likely speaks to M inke's m anagerialeffecton the landftlland whether shew asm eeting the operadon'sm etrics,goals, and stapdards.Judge Hoppe'sorderacknowledgesasmuch,expressly stating thatffv nke's' individualperform ance would have som e correladon to the overalloperaéonalperform ance of the landfllls.7'ECF N o.59,at4.M oreover,the court agrees thatinsofat as the County intends to callwitnesses to testify aboutM inke'sperform ance and alleged shortcomingsasa supervisor,discoveryrelated to such issuesisappropriate.SeeE CF N o.63,at5.3 In shozt,because M inke'sperfotm ance aslandftllsupervisoris cleatly atissue in this case,inform adon related to theperform anceofthelandfz itselfisnecessadly interrelated and inextticable ftom the çlsim s,defenses,and theoriesofthis case.Therefore,M inlte is endtled to develqp information related to the perforpance ofthe landftllpetthe terms ofJudge Hoppe'sorderthrough discovery.Lastly,asto theallegation theJudgeHoppe'sorderwould potentially restzltin disclosure ofTçproprietary orsensidve inform adon''aboutthe operations ofthelandfllland itsrelationslzipswith outsideconttactors,the courtfindsthatsuch concerns ateoverblown and,in any event,sufficiently rrlitigated by the protective ozdezin placein tllis case to handle clisclosures thata pazty contends ate confidendal.There is nothing ffclearly 3M inkenotesthatthe Cotm ty hasindicated in itsinitialdisclosttresthatm any ofitswitnessesareidendhed as finowledgeableaboutpbiniff'sperformanceandperformanceissues,clissadsfacdonwithregardto themanneritz whichplqindffperformedhe:joby''etc.SeeECFNo.63,at5. erroneous''orffcontrary to law''inJudgeHoppe'sruling asto Topics5-8.TheCountyand Moler'sobjecéonsareOVERRULED. B. ThesecondmajorobjectiontoJudgeHoppe'sJune7,2019orderrelatestoTopic9,in which M inkerequested allcom m unicadonsand electronically stored inform adon from M arch 1,2017,tolune30,2017,betweenMolerandPamelaEmmonsrfEmmons')reladngtoMinke, ' hetjob performance,theelimination ofMinke'sposidon,and Tfwork atthe...landfllls.''See ECF No.59,ats.ludgeHoppe'sordeznotesthatEmmonswasan outsideconttactorforthe Countyinvolved in supervising theconstruction ofanew cellatoneofthelandfzsduring the periodfrom Match toJune2017.LdxludgeHoppealso noted thatdudng thattime,Emmons expressed concern'saboutM inke'sconductand thaton atleastoneoccasion,Em m onstexted . M olerrelaying such concerns.J. dz.Judge Hoppeheld thatto the extentEmmon'sconcerns mayhavecontributed to thedecision to elimitnateM inke'sposition,ffgcqommunicaéon ofany such information to Molermay berelevant....''ld.;seeidaat3 (notingthatM olerand the CountyconcedethatMolercommunicatedwithEmmonsviatextmessageaboutMinke'sjob performance and mattets at the landûll).Judge Hoppe noted that because ffEmmon's professed concernsaboutMinke Fkely) developed over some t1 'me,7'Minke's zequest foz com m unicationsduring a four-m onth period isa Tfteasonable approxim ation''ofeventsthat perhapsgaveziseto those concerns.Id. The County doesnotobjectto the dmeframeprovided in JudgeHoppe'sruling on Topic9,butobjectsto theextenttheorderreqllit'esV olertorelease.alltextsordocumentsit' l applicaéonson hercellphone which relate ffin anyw ay''to M inke orperform ance oflandflll operadons.The County also notesthatitalready provided atextm essage exchange between M olerand Em m onsrelaéng to am eedng requestto discussissueswit .h M inke'sperfoM ance in2017.TheCountyotherwiseffincomorategdjall...objecdonsnotedtoTopics5through 8?' clnim ing that the order to release additional text m essages and docum ents is overly buidensomeand seeksinformation irrelevantto thiscase.Here,onceagain,JudgeHoppe's rulingon Topic9isnarrowerthan theCountfsobjection suggests.JudgeHoppeexpressly held thataswith Topics-s-8,Tfthe scope ofthe wozk atthe landftlls should be narrowed to overallperfotm ance ofoperadonsatthelando s.''ECF N o.59,at5.The disénction between JudgeHoppe'sorderandtheCountfsintemretationofitisthattheordercallsforproducdon oftextm essages,etc.,related to f'overall''Perform anceratherthan textm essagesffin any way'' related to theperformanceofthelando s.In otherwords,theassertion thatludgeHoppe's ordçrbroadly and unreasonably zequiresM oler to produce com m unicaéons related ffitlany way''to M inke orthe landfz is sim ply inaccurate.M oreover,itisplainly the casethatinsofar astheCountyintendstorelyonEmmons'alleged complaintsaboutMinkein juséfyingher term ination,M inke is entitled to conduct discovery as to M oler's G owledge of events occutting atthe lando ,including,M inke's alleged Ttefforts to keep the conttactors on task dudngwhatgsheallegesqwasacm cialphasein theconstruction ofanew cellatthelandfc '' ECF N o.63,at11.. The cotutfurtheragreeswit.h M inke andJudge HoppethatwhatM olerknew about M inke's conduct and the com plaints she received from Em m ons clearly implicate several aspectsoftheexpected clnims,defenses,andtheoriesin thiscase.Thecourthndsthatludge H oppe affirm advely recognized the County's concqrns about overbtoad discovery and circl'm scribed the scope of the language contained in M inke's subpoena as to Topic 9 accozdingly. Fot the foregoing reasons, the court finds nothing ffclearly erroneous'' or ffcontrarytolaw''inludgeHoppe'stnllingastoTopic9.TheobjectiontoTopic9istherefore OVE RRU LE D . C. The third major objection concerns the production of health-zelated informadon containedin MelissaHigginbotham'spersonnelflle from 2010 to 2014.JudgeHoppenoted thatI'Iigginbotham ,am ong others,was idendûed by the County as a form er em ployee and potendal witness at tzial who zeported concerns about M inke's allegedly problem aéc workplace conductin 2014.See ECF No.59,at5 (citing ECF No.46-1,at1-8).More speciûcally,Iligginbotham reportedly filed a grievance againstM inke alleging m istteatm ent and thatherhealthwasadverselyaffected byherinteracéonswit.h Minke.JudgeHoppecites a'bevy of cases suppordng l'lis ruling that M inke m ay obtain certain inform adon in I-ligginbotham'spersonnelflle.ld.at6.Judge Hoppe noted:ffgclonsidering the clnims and defenses in this case,inform ation in a non-party's em ploym ent file m ay be relevantif itis telatedtoM inke'sworkperform ancerjhersuperdsion ofothers,incluclingdisciplinaryacdon sheinidated orhad someitwolvementing,)and informadon thatan employm entlefthisor hetem ploym ent...,voluntarily otby tetnaination,ordiscussed doing so because ofM inke, during theperiodofJanuary1,2016,toJune21,2017.77Id.at7. JudgeHoppefurthernoted thatKfgijnfozm ation aboutM inke'sconductortheeffectof herconducton othersthatoccurredbefore2016mayalsoberelevantifgthe)Countyintends tointroduceevidenceaboutit.''Id.JudgeHoppeheld thattheinfotvnation atissue,inclucling the existence and extentofHigginbotham 'shealth issues,isffpotentially relevantto M inke's job performanceandherco-workers'abilidestoworkwithher,wllich arecenttalissuesinthis case.''LdaJudgeHoppeheld thatthefffullscopeofH gginbotham'scomplaintsaboutMinke are thus atissue in this case,':and although f'm eclicalinform aéon is pardcularly sensidve,'' insofar as the County appatently intends to defend against M inke's clcim s by relying on Higginbotham 's contentions thatM inke's workplace conductharm ed her health,M inke is entitled to a1lrelevant infotm adon to oppose such contendons.J1L Judge Hoppe's order -. zequires the County to pzoduce allinform ation from Higginbotham 'spersonnelftle relating to M inke and Higginbotham 's grievance against her, as well as Iligginbotham 's Tfm edical inform adon from 2010 to 2014.77Id. The County objects to producing healtlwrelated informadon in Higginbotham's personnelflle,originally clnim ing thattherequestwasoverbroad and invadesH igginbotham 's privacyinterests.TheCountyflrstnotesthatffgwlhileitistnzethatMs.I'ligginbotham fileda grievance clairning thatM inke'sbehaviotcaused her health problem s,''itwill,asditected by Judge Hoppe,ptovide a copy of thatgtievance and telated documents detailing Minke's behaviorand itsdeletetiouseffecton Lligginbothnm 'shealth.ECF N o.61,at2.H ow ever,the County assertsthatforJudge Hoppe to have gone fronestep further and opened up Ms. ' LIigginbotham 's personalm edicalrecords to sclaztiny by M inke''is dTcleatly erroneous.''Id. The Countycontends: The factofthe m atteristhatitm akesno differencew hathealth condition M s.Lligginbotham suffered from or how itchanged ovet tim e.The only thing perdnentto this case is whether M s. I-ligginbothnm m adetlaeallegation thatM inkenegatively affected he: health.That infozm ation can be found in the gdevance relatedmaterialsW thoutsubjectingM s.Higginbotham to having herm edicalrecordsdisclo. sed to M inke.Itisclearly erroneousfor JudgeHoppeto haveruled otherwise. Ldaat3.M inkeassertsthatbecausetheCountyffiscontendingthatO gginbotham'sstatem ent gregarding theadversehealth connected to Minke'streatm entofherjhad merit,themedical iecords are relevant and necessars''as the fftim ing and nature of H igginbotham 'svarious condidons...willbearon thesincerity ofgdjefendant'scurrentreliance''on hergrievance againstM inke.ECF N o.63,at13. The colzttconcurssvithJudgeHoppe'sruling thatthemeical-related infotmadon in Iligginbotham 's personnelflle is squarely atissue in this case and,as such,is discoverable. M inkeiscorrectthatto the extentthe County intends to rely on H gginbotham 'sgrievance, and to the extent that grievance alleges that M inke's conduct resulted it' l adverse health consequences,M inke is entitled to discovery on this issue.M inke is also correctthat the sincerity of M oler's reliance on Higginbotham 's grievance and concoH tant allegaéon of adverse health consequencesasa resultofM inke's conductdependsto som e extenton the contextin which said grievance and allegadon arose and are fram ed.Further,and notably, M inke does notseek com plete m edicalrecords fzom Higginbotham 's health care providers, but instead seeks only health-telated inform adon contained in het personnel ftle in the possession of the County:In short,the court is unpersuaded that H igginbotham 's healthrelated infozm aéop in herpersonnelfllesdoesnotcom ewithin thebzoad scopeofrelevance asde:ned byRule26q$(1)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureorisofsuch marginal relevance that the potendal harm occasioped by discovery wotzld outweigh the orclinary pm sum ption in favor ofbroad disclosute.The col't'tfndsthe inform adon atissue contained in the County's personnelfllesrelevantto M inke's clnim thatthe reasons proffered for het terminationwereptetextual.4TheCounty'sobjectionisOVERRULED. An appzopriate O RD ER willbe entered. E nt ered: y yv a J/..J.o/) .. . t .. . . 1 . , .. * . 't . . . 1. . . Michael . rba Chi - ï . ,,s.4 k s. :v. zjf c pr .,e ' ' ''' 2. '' ' ..; ''' ' ' nited StatesDistticiJudje 4ludgeHoppenotedthattlleneedforpotendallysensidveinformadoninthepersonnelftlesofthosewhocomplained aboutM inke outweighsthenon-party em ployees'privac'y concem sso long asthe inforrrmdon isproduced tmderthe protecéveorderenteredinthiscase.ECFNo,59,at7(cidngArmitaev.Bio en Inc.,No.1:17cv1133,2019W. L 79037,at*5(M.D.N.C.Jan.2,2019)). 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
