Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cv—OOO27-SLR Document 42-4 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page1 0f3

Case 1 :06-cv—OOO27-SLR Document 42-4 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
Vo I')/S , SHTGI', S€ylTlOL1l' 6lI"1Cl Pease LLP
2100 One Cleveland Center • 1375 East Ninth Strcct • Cleveland. Ohio 44-114-1724 • 'lelephone (216) -1-796100 · Facsimile (216) 479-6060
/\1|llL¤| I. Vtu')’5 COLUMBUS \YASIiIN(i'I`()N CINCINNATI 1-\1..EK.1\NDR1A AKRUN
1856-1+123 $2 East tiny 5-51. hurl 1. Sm-vt Nw Stun: 2000, r\llI111t1`l‘Wu 277 South mashiitgulii 51 mo:<1n11111\1.1•ii—,i1.—1·1 .
LUWIV F, Srllul 14) Hux 1008 Ekiucnlh 1'Iuur 22l E. Fourth $1. $uI1i;31U Suiiv 1100
I867-1933 Cf)luI1\I)11S. OII 4;+211+1003 \\'iL*»hl11gEUl\. u tx 2¢x:;srs·$10tn PO Box 0236 Alexandria, vn 2z;11.• .\1 /\u)1§11Sl\.1,$ I Stiylilbllf Llitncinntati, OH 452UI<)23li
1873- 1921% Tct u14.41M.es·ux1
léllwdfd L, PURSE Fatt ul-; -415+ 6330 TCI. 2U2.4(i’I·`.1·I8UO Tcl. ?•l£i,72i§ 4000 TCI TU1J.H.iT.Ut)$J1} 'I'1·I im :1 1:1 me u1
1573-IH24 Ljauic ionvsinui Fax 202 467 8900 Fax 51].723.4056 Fax 7G3,S4SI 4492 Flux :+:10.201-; Ions
David A. Campbell I
Direct Dial (2 I6) 479-6158
Facsimile 1216) 937-3779
E-Mail - [email protected]
January 30, 2007
Q gggg-;1§-QQ;) [
Jason Ehrenberg, Esq.
Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC
1 155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 1
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Paula Pagonakis v. Express, LLC. J
United States District Cotut for the District of Delaware
Case No. 06-027
Dear Jason:
We write in response to your email of January 26, 2007. As we stated in our email of q _
yesterday, we believe there is some confusion as to our position on the issues you raised in our
email of January 24, 2007. ,
First, with respect to Document Request Nos. 2, 3 and 29, and Interrogatories Nos. 3 and ? ’
5, we are not refusing to provide you with any information. We request claiiiication as to the i p
scope of these discovery requests. Our position has been that we will not provide you with .
company-wide information, but we are willing to discuss a proper limitation. Your email of
January 24, 2007, to which our January 26* letter responds, does not indicate any willingness to ‘
narrow the scope of these discovery requests. Your January 26* email however implies that you
are agreeing to limit the scope of these discovery requests, specifically to Plaintiff' s employing
tuiit (Express’ Coastland Mall store). If our interpretation of your email is correct and you are l
agreeing to limit the scope of these discovery requests to Express’ Coastland Mall store, we can ;
agree to provide you with a response. Please advise us of your position.
Further, so that that record is clear, it is inaccurate to state that we provided you with no
information in response to these discovery requests. As set forth in our January 26* letter, we
provided you information concerning the individuals involved in the allegations underlying ;
Plaintiff s Complaint. I
EXHIBIT ,
g 3 E 1

Case 1 :06-cv—OOO27-SLR Document 42-4 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page 3 of 3
vorys. Sater, Seymour and Pease Lu-
~ Jason Ehrenberg, Esq.
January 30, 2007
Page 2
With respect to Document No. 10, we are not withholding any documents on the basis of
privilege. Our response was merely meant to be consistent with your request, seeking "all non-
attomey-client privileged documents . . ."
With respect to Document Request Nos. 22 and 28, we discussed at length the production
of the personnel tiles of Ms. Kessler, Ms. Klancic, Ms. Bosley and Ms. O’Neill. We explained
that the entire contents of their personnel files is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending
action. Our position is supported by the case law. g Chiaradonna v. Rosemont College, Civil
Action No. 06-1015, 2006 WL 3742777, * 2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2006) (refusing to require
disclosure of the entire personnel files, finding that a synopsis of prior complaints made about
and any prior disciplines was sufficient); Kanaji v. Philadelphia Child Guidance Ctr. Of -
Children’s Hosp., No. Civ. A. 00-937, 2001 WL 7088989 (E.D. Pa. June 20, 2001) (finding that
only the information concerning the decision to terminate plaintiff’ s employment was
discoverable); Kresetky v. Panasonic Comm. and Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 66 (D.N.J. 1996)
(discovery of personnel tiles must be limited to the allegations in Plaintiffs complaint). e
Consistent with the case law and our prior agreement, we provided a synopsis of the
disciplinary actions, where applicable, issued to Ms. Kessler, Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Bosley. We
will provide you the same information for Ms. Klancic once we have reviewed her personnel
file.
Finally, again, so that the record is clear, while you are correct that Ms. Klancic’s
employment was terminated, Ms. Klancic was not terminated based upon complaints of alleged
disability or FMLA discrimination.
We believe this should resolve all your outstanding discovery issues. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
David A. Campbell
LLF/pf .
cc: Lori L. Fauvie, Esq. .
Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esq. Y
i.
01/30/2007 - Cleveland 1111908 ·
l .
.1 l