Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
EXHIBIT J
{00818362.DOCX.1}
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
VINCENT SETTECASSI, on behalf of himself )
and others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Index No. 152791/2018
- against-
)
)
GOTHAM HALL; GOTHAM HALL )
OPERATING ENTITY, LLC; CORE ZIEGFELD, )
LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALROOM; SIMON )
AUERBACHER; BRUCE A. KURTZ; and any )
other related entities, )
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS'
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST PRE-CLASS CERTIFICATION
INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Article 31 of the CPLR, Plaintiff Vincent Settecassi hereby responds to
Defendants'
First Set of Interrogatories ("Interrogatories") and First Request for Production of
Documents. Plaintiffs reserve 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.
NON-WAIVER AND RESERVATION OF OBJECTIONS
These responses and objections are made without, in any way, waiving or intending to
waive, but on the contrary reserving and intending to reserve the following:
1. Any and all questions as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege and
admissibility as evidence for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding in or the trial of this
action, of any of the materials or information provided herein or their subject matter;
1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
2. The right to object to the use of any of the materials or information, or their subject
matter, in any subsequent proceeding in or the trial of this action, on any and all proper
grounds;
3. The right to object on any and all proper grounds at any time to a demand for further
productions or responses or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject
matter of the interrogatories herein responded or objected to;
4. The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, modify, supplement or clarify any
of the responses and objections propounded herein; and
5. The right to interpose additional responses and objections and to move for an
appropriate protective order.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiffs object to these requests that are duplicative and/or designed to harass
Plaintiffs, and discourage participation by other individuals in this Action.
2. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests insofar and to the extent they Seek
disclosure of documents not within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiffs, and to the
extent they Seek documents or information that are available to, or in the possession, custody, or
control of the Defendants.
3. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they call for the
production of documents that in whole or in part seek legal conclusions.
4. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests insofar and to the extent they seek the
disclosure of information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product
doctrine, or other privileges based upon statute or recognized at common law.
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
5. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent they Seek information and
documents more properly suited for disclosure through depositions.
6. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests insofar as there has been limited
Defendants'
discovery and review of payroll records. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or
modify these estimates upon the completion of party and non-party discovery.
7. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests on the ground that they do not identify
the item or category of items sought with reasonable particularity.
8. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they Seek documents
that are not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action.
9. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they are vague,
ambiguous and/or unclear.
10. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they are overly broad,
burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
and limitations on the party's resources, and the importance of issues at stake in the litigation.
11. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they are unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative.
12. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests 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 Plaintiff's privacy or the privacy of third parties.
13. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they assume facts not
yet proven.
14. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these responses up to and including the
time of trial.
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
15. Plaintiffs reserve the right to make additional objections at any time and to move
for an appropriate protective order.
These General Objections apply to and form a part of the response to each and every
specific request for the production of documents set forth below. The response to an individual
request for the production of documents is not a waiver of these General Objections.
INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1: Describe with particularity any tips/gratuities Plaintiff has received as a
Defendants'
result of performing services at venues including but not limited to Gotham Hall
and/or Ziegfeld Theater, and identify from whom those tips were given, the amount of tips, and
identify any documents which relates to the information requested in this Interrogatory.
Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
unreasonably expansive to the extent that the information and documents requested are in
the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff states that
Defendants'
he did not receive tips/gratuities as a result of performing services at venues.
See e.g. Complaint, ¶¶ 2-6, 24-39.
Interrogatory No. 2: Identify each person whom Plaintiff believes has knowledge of any facts
relating to Plaintiff's claims in this action and provide a detailed description of the knowledge
believed by Plaintiff to be possessed by each such individual. Additionally, provide a description
of documents relating to the claims or defenses in this matter that Plaintiff believes are in each
such person's possession.
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that the information
requested is protected by privilege, including attorney-client, work product, and joint
prosecution. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the
Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably expansive to the
extent that the information requested is in the possession, custody, or control of the
Defendants. Plaintiff further objects to this request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff
Settecassi to testify to the knowledge that other individuals may or may not possess.
Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory because of the in terrorem effect, aimed at
discouraging participation in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as
discovery is still ongoing. As such, Plaintiffs explicitly reserve the right to supplement this
response up to and including trial.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states that the following
individuals may have knowledge relevant to his claims: his co-worker "Michael", the
manager/supervisor from Gotham, "Maureen", who supervised and directed him and his
coworkers at events, along with Maureen's niece, "Paige", who also supervised and
directed Plaintiff and the other workers, and other individuals whose names he cannot
recall at this time.
Plaintiffs further state that all other putative class members would have knowledge
of the claims in this lawsuit. These workers would have knowledge regarding such topics
as the service at events, gratuities or service charges received and retained, the work
performed, the hours worked, and the day-to-day responsibilities of Defendant's wait staff,
tipping procedures, etc.
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
Additionally, all supervisors, managers, sales managers, operations workers, and
Defendants'
other individuals who performed work with employees and putative class
members would have knowledge regarding the claims in this lawsuit, for instance,
regarding the amount of gratuities or service charges retained, communications with
customers, tipping procedures, the hours worked, the daily responsibilities of servers, etc.
Defendants' Defendants'
Further, customers would have knowledge regarding
tip/gratuity policies.
Interrogatory No. 3: State with particularity and detail, the nature, basis and manner of
computation of all monetary and/or other relief Plaintiff seeks, individually, and on behalf of the
putative class, upon each claim and identify each and every document which relates to the
information requested in this Interrogatory.
Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
the information and documents requested are in the possession, custody, or control of the
Defendants. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as discovery is still ongoing. As
such, Plaintiffs explicitly reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including
trial.
Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiffs state that
they cannot provide a response at this time because information regarding the gratuities
retained is exclusively in the custody and control of Defendants.
Interrogatory No. 4: State separately, on a week-by-week basis, the date(s) Plaintiff worked at
Defendants'
venues including but not limited to Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Theater, as either
6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
waitstaff, a captain, busser, bartender, food runner, maître'd, or in another related customarily
tipped trade, from March 29, 2012 up to and including the present, and indicate:
a. The specific banquet/event he was working, if any;
b. the number of hours he worked on each specific date;
c. his position/title on each specific work day;
d. his rate of pay for such work;
e. the entity/company who compensated him for such work;
f. the location/venue plaintiff performed those services; and
g. the entity/company he was working for on each specific workday.
Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Plaintiffs further object on the basis that the information and documents requested are in
the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. Plaintiffs further object on the basis
that this information is more suitable to disclosure through deposition. In regard to
Plaintiffs'
employment with entities or individuals other than the named Defendants in this
instant action, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant
to the subject-matter of the current litigation and will not lead to any admissible discovery.
Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Named Plaintiff
states that while he cannot recall the exact dates of each and every event, he performed
Defendants'
work at events during several periods from 2012 through the present. Plaintiff
further states that his hours varied significantly depending on the event. For instance, he
would generally be required to arrive for an event anywhere from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
and would leave an event anywhere from 9:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. in the morning. Plaintiff
Defendants'
refers to their document production, and documents Bates-stamped P01-032.
Interrogatory No. 5: State separately, on a week-by-week basis, the date(s) Plaintiff worked
elsewhere (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Theatre), as either waitstaff, a captain, busser, bartender,
food runner, maître'd, or in any other related customarily tipped trade, from March 29, 2012 up to
and including the present, and indicate:
a. the location where such work was performed;
b. the number of hours he worked on each specific date;
c. his position/title on each specific work day;
d. his rate of pay for such work;
e. the entity/company who compensated him for such work;
f. the entity/company he was working for on each specific workday.
Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
Plaintiffs'
unreasonably expansive. In regard to employment with entities or individuals
other than the named Defendants in this instant action, Plaintiffs further object to this
Request on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject-matter of the current litigation
and will not lead to any admissible discovery.
Interrogatory No. 6: State separately, on a week-by-week basis, the date(s) Plaintiff worked
elsewhere (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Theatre), and not in a non-customarily tipped trade (i.e., all
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
work performed during the relevant time period not covered in the previous interrogatory), from March
29, 2012 up to and including the present, and indicate:
a. the location where such work was performed;
b. the number of hours he worked on each specific date;
c. his position/title on each specific work day;
d. his rate of pay for such work;
e. the entity/company who compensated him for such work;
f. the entity/company he was working for on each specific workday.
Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
Plaintiffs'
unreasonably expansive. In regard to employment with entities or individuals
other than the named Defendants in this instant action. Plaintiffs further object to this
Request on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject-matter of the current litigation
and will not lead to any admissible discovery.
Interrogatory No. 7: Identify each and every person whom Plaintiff believes has knowledge
relating to any of Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint concerning his shift days, times, the
number of hours he worked each week during the relevant time period, and his employer's and/or
venue(s)'
the he was working, that person or entity's policy on tips and/or administrative charges
assessed to plaintiff's employer's and/or the venue's clients/customers, for each individual, specify
the allegation(s) about which he or she has knowledge and the context of such knowledge. Please
also identify each and every document relating to such information.
9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020
Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that the information requested
is protected by privilege, including attorney-client, work product, and joint prosecution.
Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably expansive to the extent that the information
requested is in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. Plaintiffs further
Defendants'
object to this Request on the grounds that Request is both duplicative and
interposed to harass, to cause unnecessary and needless increase of the cost of litigation to
Plaintiffs or their counsel, and to not lead to any admissible discovery.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs state that other putative class
members would have knowledge of the claims in this lawsuit. These workers would have
knowledge regarding such topics as the service at events, gratuities or service charges
received and retained, the work performed, the hours worked, and the day-to-day
responsibilities of Defendant's wait staff, tipping procedures, etc.
Additionally, all supervisors, managers, sales managers, operations workers, and
Defendants'
other individuals who performed work with employees and putative class
members would have knowledge regarding the claims in this lawsuit, for instance,
regarding the amount of gratuities or service charges retained, communications with
customers, tipping procedures, the hours worked, the daily responsibilities of servers, etc.
Defendants' Defendants'
Further, customers would have knowledge regarding
tip/gratuity policies.
Plaintiff states that the following individuals may have knowledge relevant to the
Defendants' co-
hours worked at venues and the tip/gratuity policies of Defendants: his
10
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 EXHIBIT J {00818362.DOCX.1} FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK VINCENT SETTECASSI, on behalf of himself ) and others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Index No. 152791/2018 - against- ) ) GOTHAM HALL; GOTHAM HALL ) OPERATING ENTITY, LLC; CORE ZIEGFELD, ) LLC d/b/a ZIEGFELD BALROOM; SIMON ) AUERBACHER; BRUCE A. KURTZ; and any ) other related entities, ) ) Defendants. ) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST PRE-CLASS CERTIFICATION INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Article 31 of the CPLR, Plaintiff Vincent Settecassi hereby responds to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories ("Interrogatories") and First Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiffs reserve 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. NON-WAIVER AND RESERVATION OF OBJECTIONS These responses and objections are made without, in any way, waiving or intending to waive, but on the contrary reserving and intending to reserve the following: 1. Any and all questions as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege and admissibility as evidence for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding in or the trial of this action, of any of the materials or information provided herein or their subject matter; 1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 2. The right to object to the use of any of the materials or information, or their subject matter, in any subsequent proceeding in or the trial of this action, on any and all proper grounds; 3. The right to object on any and all proper grounds at any time to a demand for further productions or responses or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the interrogatories herein responded or objected to; 4. The right at any time to revise, correct, add to, modify, supplement or clarify any of the responses and objections propounded herein; and 5. The right to interpose additional responses and objections and to move for an appropriate protective order. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiffs object to these requests that are duplicative and/or designed to harass Plaintiffs, and discourage participation by other individuals in this Action. 2. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests insofar and to the extent they Seek disclosure of documents not within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiffs, and to the extent they Seek documents or information that are available to, or in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. 3. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they call for the production of documents that in whole or in part seek legal conclusions. 4. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests insofar and to the extent they seek the disclosure of information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or other privileges based upon statute or recognized at common law. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 5. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent they Seek information and documents more properly suited for disclosure through depositions. 6. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests insofar as there has been limited Defendants' discovery and review of payroll records. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or modify these estimates upon the completion of party and non-party discovery. 7. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests on the ground that they do not identify the item or category of items sought with reasonable particularity. 8. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they Seek documents that are not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. 9. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous and/or unclear. 10. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they are overly broad, burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and limitations on the party's resources, and the importance of issues at stake in the litigation. 11. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. 12. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests 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 Plaintiff's privacy or the privacy of third parties. 13. Plaintiffs object to each of these Requests to the extent that they assume facts not yet proven. 14. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement these responses up to and including the time of trial. 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 15. Plaintiffs reserve the right to make additional objections at any time and to move for an appropriate protective order. These General Objections apply to and form a part of the response to each and every specific request for the production of documents set forth below. The response to an individual request for the production of documents is not a waiver of these General Objections. INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1: Describe with particularity any tips/gratuities Plaintiff has received as a Defendants' result of performing services at venues including but not limited to Gotham Hall and/or Ziegfeld Theater, and identify from whom those tips were given, the amount of tips, and identify any documents which relates to the information requested in this Interrogatory. Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably expansive to the extent that the information and documents requested are in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff states that Defendants' he did not receive tips/gratuities as a result of performing services at venues. See e.g. Complaint, ¶¶ 2-6, 24-39. Interrogatory No. 2: Identify each person whom Plaintiff believes has knowledge of any facts relating to Plaintiff's claims in this action and provide a detailed description of the knowledge believed by Plaintiff to be possessed by each such individual. Additionally, provide a description of documents relating to the claims or defenses in this matter that Plaintiff believes are in each such person's possession. 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that the information requested is protected by privilege, including attorney-client, work product, and joint prosecution. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably expansive to the extent that the information requested is in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. Plaintiff further objects to this request to the extent that it requires Plaintiff Settecassi to testify to the knowledge that other individuals may or may not possess. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory because of the in terrorem effect, aimed at discouraging participation in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as discovery is still ongoing. As such, Plaintiffs explicitly reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including trial. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states that the following individuals may have knowledge relevant to his claims: his co-worker "Michael", the manager/supervisor from Gotham, "Maureen", who supervised and directed him and his coworkers at events, along with Maureen's niece, "Paige", who also supervised and directed Plaintiff and the other workers, and other individuals whose names he cannot recall at this time. Plaintiffs further state that all other putative class members would have knowledge of the claims in this lawsuit. These workers would have knowledge regarding such topics as the service at events, gratuities or service charges received and retained, the work performed, the hours worked, and the day-to-day responsibilities of Defendant's wait staff, tipping procedures, etc. 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 Additionally, all supervisors, managers, sales managers, operations workers, and Defendants' other individuals who performed work with employees and putative class members would have knowledge regarding the claims in this lawsuit, for instance, regarding the amount of gratuities or service charges retained, communications with customers, tipping procedures, the hours worked, the daily responsibilities of servers, etc. Defendants' Defendants' Further, customers would have knowledge regarding tip/gratuity policies. Interrogatory No. 3: State with particularity and detail, the nature, basis and manner of computation of all monetary and/or other relief Plaintiff seeks, individually, and on behalf of the putative class, upon each claim and identify each and every document which relates to the information requested in this Interrogatory. Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and the information and documents requested are in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory as discovery is still ongoing. As such, Plaintiffs explicitly reserve the right to supplement this response up to and including trial. Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiffs state that they cannot provide a response at this time because information regarding the gratuities retained is exclusively in the custody and control of Defendants. Interrogatory No. 4: State separately, on a week-by-week basis, the date(s) Plaintiff worked at Defendants' venues including but not limited to Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Theater, as either 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 waitstaff, a captain, busser, bartender, food runner, maître'd, or in another related customarily tipped trade, from March 29, 2012 up to and including the present, and indicate: a. The specific banquet/event he was working, if any; b. the number of hours he worked on each specific date; c. his position/title on each specific work day; d. his rate of pay for such work; e. the entity/company who compensated him for such work; f. the location/venue plaintiff performed those services; and g. the entity/company he was working for on each specific workday. Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs further object on the basis that the information and documents requested are in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. Plaintiffs further object on the basis that this information is more suitable to disclosure through deposition. In regard to Plaintiffs' employment with entities or individuals other than the named Defendants in this instant action, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject-matter of the current litigation and will not lead to any admissible discovery. Notwithstanding the foregoing general and specific objections, Named Plaintiff states that while he cannot recall the exact dates of each and every event, he performed Defendants' work at events during several periods from 2012 through the present. Plaintiff further states that his hours varied significantly depending on the event. For instance, he would generally be required to arrive for an event anywhere from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 and would leave an event anywhere from 9:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. in the morning. Plaintiff Defendants' refers to their document production, and documents Bates-stamped P01-032. Interrogatory No. 5: State separately, on a week-by-week basis, the date(s) Plaintiff worked elsewhere (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Theatre), as either waitstaff, a captain, busser, bartender, food runner, maître'd, or in any other related customarily tipped trade, from March 29, 2012 up to and including the present, and indicate: a. the location where such work was performed; b. the number of hours he worked on each specific date; c. his position/title on each specific work day; d. his rate of pay for such work; e. the entity/company who compensated him for such work; f. the entity/company he was working for on each specific workday. Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and Plaintiffs' unreasonably expansive. In regard to employment with entities or individuals other than the named Defendants in this instant action, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject-matter of the current litigation and will not lead to any admissible discovery. Interrogatory No. 6: State separately, on a week-by-week basis, the date(s) Plaintiff worked elsewhere (not Gotham Hall or Ziegfeld Theatre), and not in a non-customarily tipped trade (i.e., all 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 work performed during the relevant time period not covered in the previous interrogatory), from March 29, 2012 up to and including the present, and indicate: a. the location where such work was performed; b. the number of hours he worked on each specific date; c. his position/title on each specific work day; d. his rate of pay for such work; e. the entity/company who compensated him for such work; f. the entity/company he was working for on each specific workday. Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and Plaintiffs' unreasonably expansive. In regard to employment with entities or individuals other than the named Defendants in this instant action. Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is not relevant to the subject-matter of the current litigation and will not lead to any admissible discovery. Interrogatory No. 7: Identify each and every person whom Plaintiff believes has knowledge relating to any of Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint concerning his shift days, times, the number of hours he worked each week during the relevant time period, and his employer's and/or venue(s)' the he was working, that person or entity's policy on tips and/or administrative charges assessed to plaintiff's employer's and/or the venue's clients/customers, for each individual, specify the allegation(s) about which he or she has knowledge and the context of such knowledge. Please also identify each and every document relating to such information. 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/30/2020 Response: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that the information requested is protected by privilege, including attorney-client, work product, and joint prosecution. Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the Interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably expansive to the extent that the information requested is in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendants. Plaintiffs further Defendants' object to this Request on the grounds that Request is both duplicative and interposed to harass, to cause unnecessary and needless increase of the cost of litigation to Plaintiffs or their counsel, and to not lead to any admissible discovery. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Plaintiffs state that other putative class members would have knowledge of the claims in this lawsuit. These workers would have knowledge regarding such topics as the service at events, gratuities or service charges received and retained, the work performed, the hours worked, and the day-to-day responsibilities of Defendant's wait staff, tipping procedures, etc. Additionally, all supervisors, managers, sales managers, operations workers, and Defendants' other individuals who performed work with employees and putative class members would have knowledge regarding the claims in this lawsuit, for instance, regarding the amount of gratuities or service charges retained, communications with customers, tipping procedures, the hours worked, the daily responsibilities of servers, etc. Defendants' Defendants' Further, customers would have knowledge regarding tip/gratuity policies. Plaintiff states that the following individuals may have knowledge relevant to the Defendants' co- hours worked at venues and the tip/gratuity policies of Defendants: his 10 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/30/2020 08:15 PM INDEX NO. 152791/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED