Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 371

Filed 03/15/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO CASE NO. 03-cv-02485 MSK-PAC Camille Melonakis-Kurz, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Heartland Home Finance, Inc., Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY _________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendant served them with discovery requests. However, the parties had an agreement that Plaintiffs would produce "core" documents (ie., documents relating to Plaintiffs' overtime claims), and the parties would conduct 100 depositions in lieu of Plaintiffs answering close to 1000 sets of interrogatories.1 That belief was further confirmed on October 10, 2005 when Plaintiffs asked Defendant for production of personnel files2 and Defendant's counsel retorted that he could ask for interrogatory answers, but did not.3 After we reached our agreement relating to discovery, it was not

until February 13, 2006 that Defendant demanded that Plaintiffs provide interrogatory answers.4 In response to Defendant's request, we re-stated our understanding relating to

Exs. 1 and 3. Defendant still has not produced hundreds of personnel files it promised, but Plaintiffs have agreed to let Defendant wait until after the mediation scheduled for April 11-12, 2006. 3 See Ex. L to Defendant's Motion to Compel. 4 This was just ten days prior to the discovery deadline, and only after we asked Defendant to produce outstanding personnel files. See Ex. 2.
2

1

Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 371

Filed 03/15/2006

Page 2 of 3

depositions in lieu of written interrogatories.5 However, in the spirit of cooperation, we asked Defendant to let us know what information it believed it still needed from the interrogatories.6 Plaintiffs made this request because they have already been producing to Defendant all documents Plaintiffs have in their possession relating to their employment with Defendant, the parties have already taken close to 60 depositions in this case, and Plaintiffs have already produced their overtime estimate through their expert's damage calculations.7 Defendant, rather than discuss which interrogatory responses it believed it still needed answered filed this motion. Even so, Plaintiffs have now responded to Defendant's discovery requests as shown in Plaintiff Camille Melonakis Kurz' Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories To Similarly Situated Employees (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs),8 and Plaintiffs' Answers to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents to Similarly Situated Employees (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs).9 We are also in the process of producing to Defendant Declarations from Plaintiffs. In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel already asked all Plaintiffs to produce any and all documents in their possession relating to their employment with Defendant and that information has been produced. As such, Plaintiffs believe Defendant has the information it needs in this case and its motion should be denied.10

Ex. 3. Id. 7 Fisher Aff. at ¶ 2. 8 Exs. 4 and 6. 9 Ex. 5. 10 The only Interrogatory Defendant points to in its motion with a specific reason why it needs a response is Interrogatory No. 3, which specifically requests:
6

5

2

Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 371

Filed 03/15/2006

Page 3 of 3

Dated: 03.15.06

NICHOLS KASTER & ANDERSON, PLLP s/Michele R. Fisher Donald H. Nichols, MN Bar No. 78918 Paul J. Lukas, MN Bar No. 22084X Michele R. Fisher, MN Bar No. 303069 Jill M. Novak, MN Bar No. 343456 4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone (612) 256-3200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

If you have ever been a party in another lawsuit, legal action, or administrative proceeding, whether criminal or civil in nature, for each suit, action or proceeding, state: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) The names of the parties and a summary of the allegations contained in the complaint or charge and any amendment thereof; The state, city, and court or agency in which each suit, action or proceeding was filed or in which a conviction or judgment was rendered; The date of filing; The identity of the attorneys or other representatives for each party; and The amount of any settlement or judgment, if any, and, if the action was criminal, whether the conviction was by plea of guilty or by verdict after trial.

See Ex. A to Defendant's Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs object to this request because it is burdensome and seeks information irrelevant to this overtime case. It is also harassing. Whether or not, for example, a Plaintiff has ever been divorced, was involved in a personal injury action, or was convicted, has no effect on whether or not they are entitled to make an overtime claim in this case. If a person filed for bankruptcy, we as Plaintiffs attorneys handle routing any proceeds they receive to the bankruptcy trustee. Furthermore, contrary to Defendant's assertion, Exhibit K to its Motion does not show the parties discussing the relevancy of this sort of request. It simply shows Defendant asking for the information. Plaintiffs have not agreed in that case to give that information either, in fact that case no longer exists.

3