Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00027-SLR Document 24 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 3
Fox ROll“lSCl“lllCl LLP .
Arronm ms AT LAW
Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1300
919 North Market Street
PD. Box 2323
Wilmington, DE 19899-2323
Tel 3026547444 Fax 302.6%.8920
www.loxrothsclirld.corn
Sheldon K. Rennie
Direct Dial: (302) 622-4202
Email Address: srennie@foxrothschildcom
October 31, 2006
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware
844 N. King Street
Lockbox 19
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Pugamzkis v. Express LLC
Case N0. 06-027 (GMS)
Dear Judge Sleet:
In anticipation of the discovery conference scheduled tor November 2, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. in the above-
captioned matter, Defendant Express LLC ("Defendant") submits the following response to Plaintiffs
letter of October 31, 2006 (Plaintiff simply submitted her own letter without first sending a copy to
Defendant for review).
Initially, Defendant is surprised by Plaintiffs decision to involve the Court in these matters. On
Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 5:00 p.m., counsel for the parties spoke over the phone regarding the
issues addressed in Plaintiffs letter. At that time, Plaintiffs counsel advised Defendanfs counsel that
they had already initiated contact with the Court. Although Defendant’s counsel expressed displeasure
over the fact that Plaintiffs counsel had failed to meet and confer before Court involvement, the parties
nonetheless partook in extensive discussions regarding the discovery issues set forth in Plaintiffs letter
of October 31, 2006. All issues were resolved, except for one legal issue relating to Plaintiffs request
for employee complaints, charges, and lawsuits alleging harassment and disability discrimination
(Intcrrogatories 3 and 5). Accordingly, Defendanfs counsel understood that the conference with the
Court would be cancelled.
WMIA 88145Vl 10/31/06 »¤.3e·1rsy·|.-ariiaLrrwer:l.a:1ltv“ar
:jIa‘·t·;:rr·ia — Florida Nevada Newlersey New York Pennsylvania

Case 1:06-cv-00027-SLR Document 24 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 2 of 3
Fox Rothschild LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
October 31, 2006
Page 2
The next contact with Plaintiffs counsel was notice that the conference with the Court had not been
cancelled and that this letter needed to be submitted today. Needless to say, Defendant does not believe
that Plaintiff has properly met and conferred on these issues and Defendant believes that Court
involvement is unnecessary at this time. Each of the issues set forth in Plaintiffs letter will be
addressed,
1. Dates for Depositions.
The parties extensively discussed the deposition schedule during the conference call on October
26, 2006 and these issues were resolved. Counsel agreed to take Plaintiffs deposition first and then
follow-up with the depositions of Defendant’s current and former employees. Plaintiffs counsel was
advised that Defendant’s counsel would contact the former employees and seek to make them available
for deposition on a mutually agreeable date and time. Plaintiffs counsel did not object to this process
and Plaintiffs counsel did not mention subpoenas.
Defendant’s counsel is contacting the requested deponents pursuant to the parties’ agreement
and available deposition dates will be provided this week. Any time requirements as to subpoenas will
be waived by Defendant.
2. Document Reguests.
This issue was also thoroughly discussed amongst counsel. Defendant’s counsel made clear that
all documents in possession of counsel, except for privileged documents, have been produced.
Defendant also informed Plaintiffs counsel that the only additional documents are a job description and
Plaintiffs personnel tile which were being gathered by the client. Defendant’s counsel represented that
these documents would be produced immediately once located by the client. As of the date of the
conference call, Defendant’s counsel understood that issues relating to document requests were
remedied and there was no need for Court involvement.
3. Interrogatorv Reg uests.
Plaintiff does concede that the mcct and confer phone conference resolved all interrogatory
issues except for interrogatory numbers 3 and 5. As to these interrogatories, Plaintiff refused to provide
legal authorities for her broad requests. In fact, even in the letter to this Court, Plaintiff has yet to
produce any legal authorities.
Defendant’s research has found the following. First, no court decision in the Third Circuit has
required the production of information relating to complaints involving non-parties that did not evolve
into charges or lawsuits. Second, no court decision has required the production of information relating
WMM ssmsvr I0/31/06

Case 1:06-cv-00027-SLR Document 24 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 3 of 3
Fox Rothschild up
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
October 31, 2006
Page 3
to legal claims not asserted by a Plaintiff. Accordingly, Interrogatory Number 3 is clearly inappropriate
and Defendant stands by its objection.
As to lnterrogatory Number 5, Express is a large, nationwide company and the request is seeking
charges and lawsuits filed over the past five years on a nationwide basis. In addition, Plaintiff is not
alleging harassment, but rather disability discrimination and FMLA retaliation. Next, those employees
similarly situated to Plaintiff would be other managers employed in Plaintiffs former store located in
Delaware. Accordingly, based on Defendant’s research, the request as crafted is clearly overbroad and
inappropriate. Nonetheless, Defendant is interested in resolving this matter without the need for
briefing. Plaintiff alluded to a proposed, modified request in correspondence sent on Monday, October
30, 2006 and Defendant has requested the same, but it has not yet been provided. Once it has been
provided, Defendant’s counsel will review and respond to Plaintiffs counsel.
In sum, Defendant does not believe that Court involvement in this matter is necessary. Counsel
met, conferred and agreed on a discovery plan. Accordingly, Defendant requests that the conference call
scheduled for Thursday be cancelled and Plaintiffs counsel directed to comply with the agreements
reached with Defendant.
Respectfully,
/s/ Sheldon K Rennie (#3772)
Sheldon K. Rennie
SKR/mlr
cc: Gary W. Aber, Esquire
David A. Campbell, Esquire
Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esquire