Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020
EXHIBIT E
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
LANGE CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of Index No.: 160513/2018
all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFF LANGE CAMPBELL’S
-against-
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SET OF
NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER INTERROGATORIES
and DONALD BERGER,
Defendants.
Pursuant to Article 31 of the CPLR, Plaintiff LANGE CAMPBELL, (“Plaintiff”)
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, (collectively “Plaintiffs” or
“Class”), by and through their attorneys Virginia & Ambinder LLP, hereby respond under oath to
Defendant NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER and DONALD BERGER,
(collectively “Defendants”) First Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”). Plaintiff reserves the
right to supplement or amend these responses, and also reserve the right to object to the
admissibility as evidence of the answers or the subject matter thereof in any subsequent proceeding
herein or the trial of this or any other action.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories insofar and to the extent they seek
disclosure of documents not within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff, and to the
extent they seek documents or information that are available to, or in the possession, custody, or
control of the Defendants.
2. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for the
production of documents that in whole or in part seek legal conclusions.
3. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories insofar and to the extent they seek
the disclosure of information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
work product doctrine, or other privileges based upon statute or recognized at common law.
1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020
4. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
and documents more properly suited for disclosure through depositions.
5. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories insofar as the parties are engaged
in pre-class certification discovery which is generally limited to the elements of class certification,
and not the underlying merits of the lass claims, including those of the Plaintiff. In light of this
limited discovery, Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or modify these responses after a class
certification decision is rendered by the court.
6. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories on the ground that they do not
identify the item or category of items sought with reasonable particularity.
7. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
identification of documents that are not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this
action.
8. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague,
ambiguous and/or unclear.
9. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are overly
broad, burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, limitations on the party’s resources, and the importance of issues at stake in the
litigation.
10. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
11. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
documents that contain information that is recognized as confidential by law and/or would be
deemed an unwarranted invasion of the Plaintiffs’ privacy or the privacy of third parties.
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020
12. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they assume facts
not yet proven.
13. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement these responses up to and including the
time of trial.
14. Plaintiff reserves the right to make additional objections at any time and to move
for an appropriate protective order.
15. By providing the information below, Plaintiffs do not in any way waive or intend
to waive but rather intend to preserve and is preserving: (a) all objections to competency, relevance,
materiality and admissibility of the responses or the subject matter thereof; (b) all objections as to
vagueness, ambiguity, or undue burden; (c) all rights to object on any ground to the use of any of
said responses or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceedings, including the trial of
this or any other actions; (d) all rights to object on any ground to any request for further responses
to these or any other discovery Interrogatories involving or relating to the subject matter of these
Interrogatories; and (e) all rights to object as to privilege including, but not limited to, attorney
work product and/or attorney-client.
16. Plaintiffs’ responses are based upon information and documents presently known
to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs reserve the right to present at trial additional information discovered
subsequently.
17. These General Objections apply to and form a part of the response to each and every
specific Interrogatory set forth below. The response to an individual Interrogatory is not a waiver
of these General Objections.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all putative class members known to Plaintiff.
Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020
grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion.
Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Plaintiff identifies the following individuals
who worked on New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) projects for New York Boiler:
John Bins, Paul, Marcus, Newell, Harris, Charles, Cummings, Omar Rodney, Vivian Clarke,
Jerome, John, Griffin. Plaintiff Campbell recalls that there were 15 to 20 individuals working for
New York Boiler each day but does not recall their names. In addition, Plaintiff Campbell was
employed between May 2017 or after July 2018, he does not know the names of individuals
employed before he started and after he left the company.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify the Named Plaintiff’s basis for the belief that “[t]he size
of the putative class is believed to be in excess of 40 individuals” as alleged in paragraph 9 of the
Complaint.
Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion.
Response: In addition to his response to Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiff Campbell states that other
former employees of the company have advised him that many other individuals worked for New
York Boiler before May 2017 and after July 2018.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify the “questions of law” that are common to the putative
class as alleged in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it requires
knowledge of a legal conclusion.
Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff Campbell
states that this is a legal question that he is not qualified to answer.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify the “questions of fact” that are common to the putative
class as alleged in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it requires
knowledge of a legal conclusion.
Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections and to the extent that a
legal conclusion is not required Plaintiff Campbell states that the other New York Boiler workers
performed the same or similar work that he performed in the repair and construction of boilers.
Mr. Campbell believes that all workers were treated the same way. Specifically they performed
work on New York City Housing Authority project sites, the performed the same or similar boiler
work, they were paid the same way (by check), they generally worked the same days and hours,
they reported to the same supervisors, and they used the same tools.
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State the basis for the allegation in paragraph 12 of the Complaint
that “Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the putative class.”
Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it requires
knowledge of a legal conclusion.
Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections Plaintiff Lange
Campbell states that he wishes to represent the other New York Boiler workers who worked on
the NYCHA projects because he believes they should have been paid at a higher prevailing wage
rate for Boiler Maker or Steam Fitter.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State the basis for the allegation in paragraph 13 of the Complaint
that “a class action is superior to other available methods” of adjudicating this controversy.
Specific Objection: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it requires a legal
conclusion.
Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections Plaintiff cannot and will
not respond to this Interrogatory because it calls for a legal conclusion.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: For each known putative class member, identify the dates such
person worked for NY Boiler.
Specific Objection: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information
already in the possession of the Defendants.
Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing specific and general objections Lange Campbell states
that he worked from May 2017 to July 2018. Omar Rodney worked from 2013-2018, with a break
from September 2017 to June 2018. Vivian Clarke worked for approximately 8 months. Plaintiff
Campbell does not know the dates of employment for other Class members.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify the trade work that the Named Plaintiff and each putative
class member allegedly performed for NY Boiler, a description of the work performed, and the
location where such member performed each trade as alleged in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
Specific Objection: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information
already in the possession of the Defendants.
Response: Plaintiff Campbell and the other Class members performed boiler repair and
construction. The work performed included retubing, firebrick installation, welding, replacing
boiler sections, replace endhole and manhole, piping, burning and cast iron boiler section
construction or replacement. Plaintiff Campbell recalls working at Cypress Houses, Red Hook
Houses, LaGuardia Houses, Glenwood Houses, 45 Allen Street (Manhattan), Brighton Houses,
Coney Island Houses, Pink Houses, Howard Houses, Dykeman Houses, Van Dyke Houses.
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020
Plaintiff Campbell states that there may be other sites, but he does not recall them at this time.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify the job classification of the Named Plaintiff and of each
putative class member and the period the Named Plaintiff and each putative class member held
that job classification.
Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion.
Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff Campbell was
classified as a “Boiler Service Person”, “Mechanic” “Welder” or “Helper”.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the damages of the Named Plaintiff and each putative
class member and the method of calculating such damages.
Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
that addresses the merits of Plaintiff Campbell’s claim and is not a proper inquiry during the pre-
class certification phase of this lawsuit.
Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff Campbell
states that his attorneys have not yet identified “the damages of the Named Plaintiff and each
putative class member”. With respect to calculating such damages, Plaintiff’s counsel shall engage
the services of a forensic CPA to perform a damage analysis. Damages will be generally calculated
by multiplying the correct prevailing wage and benefit rate for the appropriate classification (such
as Steam Fitter or Boiler Maker) for all hours worked on the NYCHA projects and subtracting the
total wages and benefits paid or provided to each Class member by New York Boiler.
Dated: New York, New York
August 13, 2019
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
/s/ Lloyd Ambinder __
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, New York 1004
Tel. (212) 943-9080
lambinder@vandallp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
TO: LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS
& MOYLE LLP
David E. Potter, Esq.
747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Tel.: (212) 758-9300
Attorneys for Defendants
6
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020 EXHIBIT E FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LANGE CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of Index No.: 160513/2018 all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF LANGE CAMPBELL’S -against- RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER INTERROGATORIES and DONALD BERGER, Defendants. Pursuant to Article 31 of the CPLR, Plaintiff LANGE CAMPBELL, (“Plaintiff”) individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Class”), by and through their attorneys Virginia & Ambinder LLP, hereby respond under oath to Defendant NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER and DONALD BERGER, (collectively “Defendants”) First Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”). Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses, and also reserve the right to object to the admissibility as evidence of the answers or the subject matter thereof in any subsequent proceeding herein or the trial of this or any other action. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories insofar and to the extent they seek disclosure of documents not within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff, and to the extent they seek documents or information that are available to, or in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. 2. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for the production of documents that in whole or in part seek legal conclusions. 3. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories insofar and to the extent they seek the disclosure of information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or other privileges based upon statute or recognized at common law. 1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020 4. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information and documents more properly suited for disclosure through depositions. 5. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories insofar as the parties are engaged in pre-class certification discovery which is generally limited to the elements of class certification, and not the underlying merits of the lass claims, including those of the Plaintiff. In light of this limited discovery, Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or modify these responses after a class certification decision is rendered by the court. 6. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories on the ground that they do not identify the item or category of items sought with reasonable particularity. 7. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek identification of documents that are not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. 8. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous and/or unclear. 9. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are overly broad, burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the party’s resources, and the importance of issues at stake in the litigation. 10. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. 11. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek documents that contain information that is recognized as confidential by law and/or would be deemed an unwarranted invasion of the Plaintiffs’ privacy or the privacy of third parties. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020 12. Plaintiff objects to each of these Interrogatories to the extent that they assume facts not yet proven. 13. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement these responses up to and including the time of trial. 14. Plaintiff reserves the right to make additional objections at any time and to move for an appropriate protective order. 15. By providing the information below, Plaintiffs do not in any way waive or intend to waive but rather intend to preserve and is preserving: (a) all objections to competency, relevance, materiality and admissibility of the responses or the subject matter thereof; (b) all objections as to vagueness, ambiguity, or undue burden; (c) all rights to object on any ground to the use of any of said responses or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceedings, including the trial of this or any other actions; (d) all rights to object on any ground to any request for further responses to these or any other discovery Interrogatories involving or relating to the subject matter of these Interrogatories; and (e) all rights to object as to privilege including, but not limited to, attorney work product and/or attorney-client. 16. Plaintiffs’ responses are based upon information and documents presently known to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs reserve the right to present at trial additional information discovered subsequently. 17. These General Objections apply to and form a part of the response to each and every specific Interrogatory set forth below. The response to an individual Interrogatory is not a waiver of these General Objections. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all putative class members known to Plaintiff. Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020 grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion. Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Plaintiff identifies the following individuals who worked on New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) projects for New York Boiler: John Bins, Paul, Marcus, Newell, Harris, Charles, Cummings, Omar Rodney, Vivian Clarke, Jerome, John, Griffin. Plaintiff Campbell recalls that there were 15 to 20 individuals working for New York Boiler each day but does not recall their names. In addition, Plaintiff Campbell was employed between May 2017 or after July 2018, he does not know the names of individuals employed before he started and after he left the company. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify the Named Plaintiff’s basis for the belief that “[t]he size of the putative class is believed to be in excess of 40 individuals” as alleged in paragraph 9 of the Complaint. Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion. Response: In addition to his response to Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiff Campbell states that other former employees of the company have advised him that many other individuals worked for New York Boiler before May 2017 and after July 2018. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify the “questions of law” that are common to the putative class as alleged in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion. Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff Campbell states that this is a legal question that he is not qualified to answer. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify the “questions of fact” that are common to the putative class as alleged in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion. Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections and to the extent that a legal conclusion is not required Plaintiff Campbell states that the other New York Boiler workers performed the same or similar work that he performed in the repair and construction of boilers. Mr. Campbell believes that all workers were treated the same way. Specifically they performed work on New York City Housing Authority project sites, the performed the same or similar boiler work, they were paid the same way (by check), they generally worked the same days and hours, they reported to the same supervisors, and they used the same tools. 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State the basis for the allegation in paragraph 12 of the Complaint that “Named Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the putative class.” Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion. Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections Plaintiff Lange Campbell states that he wishes to represent the other New York Boiler workers who worked on the NYCHA projects because he believes they should have been paid at a higher prevailing wage rate for Boiler Maker or Steam Fitter. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State the basis for the allegation in paragraph 13 of the Complaint that “a class action is superior to other available methods” of adjudicating this controversy. Specific Objection: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it requires a legal conclusion. Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections Plaintiff cannot and will not respond to this Interrogatory because it calls for a legal conclusion. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: For each known putative class member, identify the dates such person worked for NY Boiler. Specific Objection: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information already in the possession of the Defendants. Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing specific and general objections Lange Campbell states that he worked from May 2017 to July 2018. Omar Rodney worked from 2013-2018, with a break from September 2017 to June 2018. Vivian Clarke worked for approximately 8 months. Plaintiff Campbell does not know the dates of employment for other Class members. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify the trade work that the Named Plaintiff and each putative class member allegedly performed for NY Boiler, a description of the work performed, and the location where such member performed each trade as alleged in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. Specific Objection: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information already in the possession of the Defendants. Response: Plaintiff Campbell and the other Class members performed boiler repair and construction. The work performed included retubing, firebrick installation, welding, replacing boiler sections, replace endhole and manhole, piping, burning and cast iron boiler section construction or replacement. Plaintiff Campbell recalls working at Cypress Houses, Red Hook Houses, LaGuardia Houses, Glenwood Houses, 45 Allen Street (Manhattan), Brighton Houses, Coney Island Houses, Pink Houses, Howard Houses, Dykeman Houses, Van Dyke Houses. 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/29/2020 06:30 PM INDEX NO. 160513/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/29/2020 Plaintiff Campbell states that there may be other sites, but he does not recall them at this time. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify the job classification of the Named Plaintiff and of each putative class member and the period the Named Plaintiff and each putative class member held that job classification. Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it requires knowledge of a legal conclusion. Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff Campbell was classified as a “Boiler Service Person”, “Mechanic” “Welder” or “Helper”. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the damages of the Named Plaintiff and each putative class member and the method of calculating such damages. Specific Objections: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that addresses the merits of Plaintiff Campbell’s claim and is not a proper inquiry during the pre- class certification phase of this lawsuit. Response: Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff Campbell states that his attorneys have not yet identified “the damages of the Named Plaintiff and each putative class member”. With respect to calculating such damages, Plaintiff’s counsel shall engage the services of a forensic CPA to perform a damage analysis. Damages will be generally calculated by multiplying the correct prevailing wage and benefit rate for the appropriate classification (such as Steam Fitter or Boiler Maker) for all hours worked on the NYCHA projects and subtracting the total wages and benefits paid or provided to each Class member by New York Boiler. Dated: New York, New York August 13, 2019 VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP /s/ Lloyd Ambinder __ 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, New York 1004 Tel. (212) 943-9080 lambinder@vandallp.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class TO: LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP David E. Potter, Esq. 747 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, New York 10017 Tel.: (212) 758-9300 Attorneys for Defendants 6