to a motion under Rule 56. Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted two responses essentially reiterating his prior allegations and attached copies of his previously submitted FOIA and Privacy Act requests and a copy of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendant filed a response indicating that it did not wish to submit any additional information. Therefore, this Court will examine the plaintiffs claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 56. (1) Rule 12(b)(1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) requires that the plaintiff bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has jurisdiction to entertain his claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13 (D.D.C.2001) (<HOLDING>); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. United States Postal
holding that although trial court has broad discretion to define scope of discovery it can abuse its discretion by acting unreasonably holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct  holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority holding that as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority a court should not vacate his decision holding that for immunity an official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred 