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

Case 1 :06-cv—OOO27-SLR Document 42-3 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page1 0f4

Case 1 :06-cv—OOO27-SLR Document 42-3 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page 2 of 4
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP ·
2100 One Cleveland Center • 1375 East Ninth Street • Cleveland. 01110 4411+-1724 • '1e1epl·1one(216) 479-6100 • Facs1mIle(216)4-7G-6060
x1111111 1 11-11-. 1:111.1‘;111s1‘1; \|'.\Nl|IN(i'!`()N cztxtitxx.-x‘11 .u.15X.\ND1t1.·. .\bGllu?¢
1:1$.1»-111.:,; .1.:15.1~.111.1y>·1 111211 1. 5tn·1·1 M\ S11i11· .1111111. .\1ri11111 lh.- 277 :+1111tIi h'.v~l1i11;;1¤111 :-11 1111.!···»111l1 A|,111t—.n11r1
11·\\r)‘ I~. Ha111·1‘ 1-11 uns 111:1n |it··v··m11 1*111111 ::1 ti. I‘111»r1I1$1. s11i1•·.¢111 :¤1111·~ 111111 ·
1H1iT-||J1t5 u1l1u111J11·¤.1111+;:;:11.-••11v»< '\\'1¤~I1.iu5111v11.t1. .\\1;[tL~iILI.¤ ‘1L S1·y11u1111‘ tZi1u‘i1»11t111. 1111 ·I52t1l-HIJJI1.
IHTLI-111211 *11-t 111+.-111-1.11.11x1
titlxmrtl L. |’t‘;1s;. Fax 151-Lili-».t1L|§1r ’1i·l 111;:..1117 11:111:1 'I1·1 .1lll.72ft.-ttrtsit ‘n·| 711I1.•£tT.|1!111!1 `1i·l 31;t1:.21m. 1111111
lHT£·It124 ::1:1111- 111¤1x1.t1111 Fam .·11.1..s1;7.1u¤1111 11.1x n1Zt.7z:1.»11111s Fax T11i1..1+1:.—1-111: 1·'.1x .1.11 1.21111. 1111 11
D¤Vld A. Campbtll
Direct Dial t21 GI 470-6158
FHL§i1’T1ilc |216) 937-3779
E-Mall · [email protected]
January 26, 2007
QA Fég;§IM 1 1 ji g2Q1;—;1§-;ZQ71 1
Jason Ehrenberg, Esq. 0
Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC
1155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. I
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20036 _
Re: Paula Pagonakis v. Express, LLC.
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Case No. 06-027
Dear Jason:
We write in response to your email of January 24, 2007. We have two issues with your 0 .
letter. First, your letter implies that Defendant Express, LLC ("Defendant") is somehow dilatory - V
in providing you with discovery infomation. Because of obligations facing both parties, the
parties sought and obtained an extension of the discovery deadline. Prior to obtaining the
extension, the parties had engaged in several lengthy discussions to resolve the discovery issues. .
It was our understanding that you would contact us after the holidays to continue our discussions 1
so that we could reach an agreement. Your email is the first we heard from you. Second, your
email fails to recognize the agreements we did reach during our several weeks of discussion on E
these issues.
Below, please find our response to each of your discovery requests: E
Document Reguest Nos. 2, 3 and 29; and lnterrogatories Nos. 3 and 5 Q
You agreed to narrow the scope of these discovery requests, but have not yet done so, As Q V
the authority you cited confirms, nationwide discovery requests are not proper. As such, e
Defendant maintains its objections to these discovery requests. f {
EXHIBIT
i 2 1


Case 1 :06-cv—OOO27-SLR Document 42-3 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page 3 of 4
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP `
Jason Ehrenberg, Esq. V
Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC .
January 26, 2007
Page 2
In fact, in cases such as this which involve highly individualized claims of discriminatory
treatment, courts restrict discovery to the practices at issues and to the individuals involved.
Finch v. Hercules Inc., 149 F.R.D. 60 (D. Del. 1993) (restricting discovery to the employing
unit); Hardrick v. Legal Serv. Corp., 96 F.R.D. 617, 619 (D.C. D.C. 1983) (finding that
discovery "should be reasonably related to the circumstances involved in the alleged
discrimination and to a time frame involving the alleged discriminatory conduct and the
individuals who are allegedly involved in that conduct."). Along those lines, we agreed to
review the personnel files of Tara Kessler, Elise O’Neill, Ana Klancic and Kristyn Bosley and Q
inform you whether any complaints of disability or Family Medical Leave Act violations were
lodged against any of them. We reviewed the personnel tiles of Ms. Kessler, Ms. O’Nei1l and
Ms. Bosley. No such complaints were made against them. We have not yet reviewed the `
personnel tile of Ms. Klancic. Once we have reviewed her file, we will supplement our ` _
response. p
Document Re uest Nos. 8 and 9
Defendant produced to Plaintiff a copy of The Guide. The Guide sets forth the benefits
available to Express associates. Further, Plaintiff was not owed any income, payroll and/or
fringe benefits at the time of her termination.
Document Re uest No. 10
As we have stated before, Defendant has produced all responsive, non-privileged
documents located to date concerning the events underlying the Complaint. _ ·
Document Re uest N0. 16
Enclosed please find documents bates labeled Express- Pag 000177-180. _ l
Document Re nest Nos. 22 and 38
You agreed to narrow the scope of Document Requests N0. 22 and 38 to information
concerning Tara Kessler, Elise O’Neill, Kristyn Bosley and Ana Klancic. You further agreed ;
that rather than us producing their personnel files, we could produce to you a list ofthe ·
disciplinary actions taken against the aforementioned individuals. Pursuant to our agreement,
Defendant provides the following information: ‘ _ (_
Kristyn Bosely has not received any disciplinary actions. Elise O’Neill was placed on a I
performance improvement plan in January 2005 for exceeding targeted payroll hours. Tara g i
Kessler was placed on a performance improvement plan in October, 2003 for lack of follow i -. ,1
i

Case 1 :06-cv—OOO27-SLR Document 42-3 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page 4 of 4
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
Jason Ehrenberg, Esq.
Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC -
January 26, 2007 ·
Page 3
through and client service, such as failing to promptly return associate calls. We will supplement J
this response and provide you the same information with respect to Ms. Klancic. _
Document Reguest N0. 31
You agreed to narrow Document Request No. 31 to the HR Direct organization. We
explained to you that we would check to see if such a document exists. No such document
exists.
Document Reguest Nos. 34 and 35
As we have stated from the on-set of this litigation, we would continue to search for i
employment records concerning Plaintiff. Enclosed are documents bates labeled Express- l
Pag 0001 81-206, which supplement our previous responses. ‘ I
With respect to depositions, we will contact you shortly with the wimesses’ (corporate
designee and Elise O’Neill) availability. It is our understanding that these depositions will be
conducted telephonically. l
Very truly yours,
David A. Campgell
LLF/pf
cc: Lori L. Fauvie, Esq, P
Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esq. A
l
D‘!I25l20D7 - Cleveland - 1111736 .