Preview
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374 10 RECEIVED
6/5/2023
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 2831CV00374
ADRIANA SRINIVASAN
Plaintiff
Vv.
CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE, :
Defendant
PLAINTIFF ADRIANA SRINIVASAN’S EMERGENCY! MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF MORE THAN TWENTY PAGES
Plaintiff (“Srinivasan”) moves pursuant to Sup. Ct. Rule 9A(6) for leave to file a
Memorandum in support of a motion for relief pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 37 far in excess of 20
pages. In support she says she seeks relief in regard to most of the 37 requests for documents she
made, to two thirds of which Cambridge Health Alliance (“CHA”) objected and then responded
CHA “decline/s]” to produce any documents. CHA’s response contained approximately 180
separately-stated objections and 37 other responsive statements; it was is 37 pages long and is
attached as Exhibit A hereto. Were Srinivasan to file a Memorandum in support of a motion for
relief under Rule 37 in compliance with Rule 9C’s mandate that her Memorandum set forth
separately and in the following order (1) the text of the ... requests, (2) the opponent's response
and (3) an argument, she would be unable to present any argument at all, much less one that
responds to the approximately 181 objections and 37 other responsive statements.”
Understanding that fact, the need for her to seek leave to file a much longer Memorandum is
relatively self-explanatory.>
Respectfully submitted,
’ She files this as an Emergency Motion because CHA has already had an extra month and a half to respond, and
then responded largely with objections, and by Exhibit B attached hereto suggests the motion should not be filed
until CHA has completed its very late and extremely limited production of documents, which CHA indicated in the
9C Conference on this matter might be several months down the road, if not later than that. This is precisely the
reason Srinivasan requested in opposition to CHA’s requests for extensions that it be ordered to disclose its
objections at an earlier date. FW
? Indeed, she would not even be able to list more than half of the requests and the responses to them.
3 If her argument with regard to each objection/statement in the response was limited to a third of a page each, that
along would require approximately 70 pages beyond the 37 pages of information required by parts 1 and 2 of the
Rule. She could make it shorter, but for the convenience of the Court, when she responds to an objection CHA has
made on multiple occasions, she intends to present her response to each following the objection, and not
inconvenience the Court by making innumerable references back to arguments she made to objections to earlier
responses. This will require that the Memorandum be of considerable length.
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
ADRIANA SRINIVASAN, Plaintiff,
By her attorneys,
ss: // Mark D. Stern //
Mark D. Stern
BBO #479500.
34 Liberty Avenue
Somerville, MA 02144
Phone: 617-776-4020
Fax: 617 776 9250
Email: attorneymarkdstern@comcast.net
Web: www.attorneymarkdstern.com
ss: // Alan Jay Rom //
Alan Jay Rom
BBO# 425960
Rom Law P.C.
P.O. Box 585
Chelmsford, MA 01824
617/776-0575-Tel.
978/455-9589-Tel.
617/209-7714-Fax
Email: alan@romlawoffice.com
Web: www.romlawoffice.com
Dated: June 5, 2023
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9A.
Counsel for Srinivasan says that he has served this Motion on Counsel for the CHA Asha A. Santos and
Alexa Esposito on the above date by email in accordance with Rule 9A. She seeks to file it as an emergency motion
for the reasons stated in footnote 1 above.
Signed,
Hss:markdstern//
Mark D. Stern
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9C
Counsel for Srinivasan says see Exhibit B hereto.
Signed,
Hss:markdstern//
Mark D. Stern
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Mark Stern swear that I served the above document on Asha A. Santos at asantos@littler.com and Alexa
Esposito aesposito@littler.com on the above date by email.
Signed,
Hss:markdstern//
Mark D. Stern
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
EXHIBIT A
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS Superior Court
Civil Action No. 2831CV00374
ADRIANA SRINIVASAN,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and Superior Court Rule
30A, Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance, (“CHA” or “Defendant”), by and through their
attorneys, hereby respond to Plaintiff Adriana Srinivasan’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Srinivasan”) First,
Second, and Third Requests for Production of Documents as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following General Objections apply to every paragraph of Plaintiffs First Request for
Production of Documents to Defendant:
1 Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that calls for any
privileged information, including, without limitation, attorney-client communications. Defendant
reserves the right to amend these responses to assert privileges as it becomes aware of specific
documents or the application of any privilege to such documents.
2. Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that calls for
information or documents protected by the work product doctrine, including, but without
limitation, any information containing or reflecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
and/or legal theories of any attorney for Defendant. Defendant reserves the right to amend these
responses to assert privileges as it becomes aware of specific documents or the application of any
privilege to such documents.
3 Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that seeks
information or documents regarding any non-party, the unlimited disclosure of which could be an
unnecessary invasion of privacy for such individuals or could lead to improper contact with such
individuals, without entry of an appropriate consent protective order.
4 Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, duplicative, or that requests information and/or documents
already in the possession of Plaintiff or already produced to Plaintiff in this action.
5 Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that seeks
documents or information not within its custody or control. To the extent that Defendant responds,
provides information, or produces documents subject to and without waiver of objections, such
response, provision of information, or production of documents shall not be construed as an
agreement to produce documents or to provide information not within Defendant’s custody or
control.
6 Defendant objects to each Request for Production of Documents to the extent that
it attempts to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those permitted by the Massachusetts Rules
of Civil Procedure.
To the extent that Defendant responds or produces documents subject to and without
waiver of objections, such response or production of documents shall not be deemed to waive any
objections. Further, Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement its responses or to
produce additional documents as appropriate under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.
-2-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUE: Ss
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing General Objections, Defendant responds
as follows to the specific Requests!:
REQUEST NO. 1:
Each document recording the dates and number of hours on each date from August 20, 2021,
Srinivasan, all other interpreters, or a dispatcher worked (a) based in Cambridge at the Macht
Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises, (b) based at Whidden Hospital in Everett, and/or (c)
based at the Malden call center.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrase “Malden Call Center” is vague and ambiguous.
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome,
as it seeks each document that reflects the dates and hours that Plaintiff and “all” interpreters or
dispatchers worked without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the
subject matter of this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct
a time-consuming and expensive search for all times that every interpreter or dispatcher worked
from August 20, 2021 onward which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this
Request to the extent it calls for it to search and/or retrieve data electronically stored in inaccessible
media and/or formats, which would be prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, and burdensome
to access, find, and/or produce. Defendant also objects that this request seeks information that is
neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
| Plaintiff begins her Requests by asking for “All documents” including Requests | through 35. Plaintiff's request for
“All documents” vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant
to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks categorically seeks “all” documents without any limit in time or scope, and as such,
includes documents that have no bearing on her claims. Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, CHA
will search for and produce documentation responsive to RFPDs 1-35 to the extent such documents exist and subject
to all general and specific objections.
-3-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
discovery of admissible evidence, as the dates and number of hours worked by Plaintiff and all
interpreters and dispatchers have no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this lawsuit.
Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning
individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy
interests of such individuals. Defendant also objects that this request does not “describe each item
and category with reasonable particularity, as required by Rule 34. Subject to and without waiving
the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents that reflect
Plaintiffs work hours.
REQ NO. 2:
Each document recording the dates and number of times on each date from August 20, 2021 to
the present, a CHA dispatcher directed Srinivasan, any other interpreters, or a dispatcher:
a. based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises to work
“face-to- face’ 99 663L n-person” with a patient,
b. based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital to work “face-to- face” or “in-person” with a
patient,
c. based in Malden at the call center to work “face-to-face” or “in-person” with a patient,
c. For a, b and c, the percentage of
(i) total dispatches and
(ii) total of time worked represented on each such date by “face-to-face” “ine
person” interpretations with each patient.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.
Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrases “directed to,” and “percentage of total
dispatches,” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds
-4-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as it seeks documents that record every single date
and time, and the number of times that Plaintiff, interpreters or dispatchers were “directed to
perform” in-person work with “each” patient since August 20, 2021, and the percentage of “total
dispatches” and percentage of “total of time worked” represented on each date since August 20,
2021 that represents in-person work without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or
limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request
seeks information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as every single instance in which every
interpreter or dispatcher at CHA across various locations was “directed to” perform in-person work
has no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would
require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search for all times that every
interpreter or dispatcher received a direction to perform in-person work, and to provide a granular
statistical analysis of the work performed by all interpreters and dispatchers which is on its face
unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for CHA to search
and/or retrieve data electronically stored in inaccessible media and/or formats, which would be
prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, and burdensome to access, find, and/or produce.
Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning
individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy
interests of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant
states that it does not maintain information responsive to subsection c. of this request. Defendant
declines to produce documentation responsive to the remaining subsections of this request, except
to the extent that responsive documents are being produced in response to other, appropriately
tailored requests.
-5-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
REQUEST NO. 3:
Each document recording the dates and number of hours on each date from the inception of the
VRI system to the commencement of “off-site” work due to the COVID epidemic Srinivasan and
each other interpreter, or a dispatcher worked (a) based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on
CHA’s Cambridge premises, (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital, and/or (c) based in
Malden at the call center.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:
Defendant objects that the meaning of phrases “inception of the VRI system, 66 ‘commencement of
‘off-site work,’” “based in,” and “call center” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects
to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it seeks all
documents that reflect every single date and time from the “inception” of the VRI system to the
“commencement of off-site work due to the COVID-19 pandemic” on which every interpreter or
dispatcher worked “based in” various CHA locations without any appropriate limitation in time
and scope, and limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. The literal terms of this
request would require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search for every
single instance that Plaintiff and “each other interpreter, or a dispatcher” worked “based in” three
different CHA locations from the “inception” that the VRI system was first implemented by CHA
in 2012, approximately a decade prior to the events that Plaintiff outlines in her Complaint which
is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is
neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, as it seeks documentation about every single time Plaintiff and
interpreters or dispatchers worked “based in” a CHA location since VRI was implemented by CHA
in 2012 which has no bearing on Plaintiff's specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant further
-6-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who
are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of
such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant declines to
produce documentation responsive to this request, except to the extent that responsive documents
are being produced in response to other, appropriately tailored requests.
REQU NO. 4:
Each document recording the dates and number of times on each date from the inception of the
VRI system to the commencement of “off-site” work due to the COVID epidemic, a CHA
dispatcher directed Srinivasan, any other interpreters, or a dispatcher:
a. based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises to work
“face-to-face” or “in-person” with a patient,
(b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital to work “face-to- face” or “in-person” with
a patient, and/or
(c) based in Malden at the call center to work “face-to- face” “in-person” with a
patient, and
For a, b and c, the percentage of
(i) total dispatches and time and
(ii) total of dispatches and time worked on each such date by “face-to- face” or “in-
person” interpretations with a patient.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4:
Defendant objects that the meaning of phrases “inception of the VRI system, «6 ‘commencement of
‘off-site work,’” “directed to, me ‘percentage of total dispatches,” and “call center” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and
-7-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
unduly burdensome, as it seeks all documents that reflect every single date and time from the
“inception” of the VRI system to the “commencement of off-site work due to the COVID-19
pandemic” on which Plaintiff and every interpreter or dispatcher was “directed” to work “based
various CHA locations, and the percentage of “total dispatches” and percentage of “total of
time worked” that represented “in-person work” on each date since the inception of the VRI system
without any appropriate limitation in time and scope, and limitation tailored to the subject matter
of this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time-
consuming and expensive search for every single instance that Plaintiff and “each other
interpreter” worked in-person from the “inception” of the VRI system in 2012, and to provide a
granular statistical analysis of the work performed by Plaintiff and all interpreters which is on its
face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential
information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could
infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, Defendant declines to produce documentation responsive to this request,
except to the extent that responsive documents are being produced in response to other,
appropriately tailored requests.
REQ’ 0.5:
Each document regarding any time CHA, and/or, in particular, Defendant John Burns, granted or
denied a request by an interpreter or a dispatcher not to do any particular type of work, including,
but not limited to, “face-to-face” “in-person” with a patient for any non-medical reason,
including, but not limited to, religious objections, the name and work location of the interpreter,
and the dates covered by each grant or allowance.
-8-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5:
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it improperly names “John Burns”
“Defendant,” when CHA is the only Defendant in this Action. Defendant CHA further objects
that the meaning of the phrases “request . . . not to do any particular type of work” and any “non-
medical reason” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects that this request is overly broad
and unduly burdensome, as it seeks information about the requests of other interpreters or
dispatchers without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject
matter of this litigation. Defendant also objects that this request seeks information that is neither
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as the
“requests” of other interpreters and dispatchers, the reasons for these requests, and the outcome of
such requests have no bearing on the Plaintiffs specific claims in this matter. Defendant also
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who
are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of
such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant declines to
produce documentation responsive to this request.
REQ NO. 6:
Each document describing the job responsibilities over the past ten years of interpreters including,
but not limited to, Srinivasan (a) based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge
premises, (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital, and/or (c) based at the Malden call center,
including, but not limited to, job descriptions, job postings, job advertisements and performance
evaluations (from the last of which names may be redacted and identified generically).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
Defendant objects that the phrase “Malden Call Center” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant
-9-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, as it seeks each
documents that describes the “job responsibilities” of interpreters over the “past ten years”
including all job postings and individual interpreters’ performance evaluations, among other
things, without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject
matter of this litigation. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither
relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, as documents that describe the “job responsibilities” of interpreters over the
past ten years across three different CHA locations have no bearing on the specific claims and
defenses in this matter. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a
time-consuming and expensive search for documents “including” every single interpreter job
description, job posting, and “advertising” among other things, and every single performance
review of every interpreter over the past ten years which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant
further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals
who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests
of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will
produce non-privileged responsive documents related to Plaintiff's job responsibilities and
performance evaluations within its custody, possession and control.
RE
Each document describing the job responsibilities over the past ten years of dispatchers
including, but not limited to, Srinivasan (a) based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s
Cambridge premises and/or (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital, and/or (c) based at the
Malden call center, including, but not limited to, job descriptions, job postings, job advertisements
and performance evaluations (from the last of which names may be redacted and identified
-10-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
generically).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:
Defendant objects that the phrase “Malden Call Center” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant
objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, as it seeks each
documents that describes the “job responsibilities” of dispatchers over the “past ten years”
including all job postings and individual dispatchers’ performance evaluations, among other
things, without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject
matter of this litigation. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither
relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, as documents that describe the “job responsibilities” of dispatchers over the
past ten years across three different CHA locations have no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims
in this matter because Plaintiff did not hold a dispatcher role during the times relevant to this
lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming
and expensive search for documents “including” every single dispatcher job description, job
posting, and “advertising” among other things, and every single performance review of every
dispatcher over the past ten years which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to
this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not
parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such
individuals. Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant declines to
produce documentation responsive to this request.
NO.
Each document describing the job responsibilities over the past ten years of any person doing
translation of documents including, but not limited to, Srinivasan (a) based in Cambridge at the
-ll-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises, (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital
and/or (c) based at the Malden call center, including, but not limited to, job descriptions, job
postings, job advertisements and performance evaluations (from the last of which names may be
redacted and identified generically).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:
Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrases “doing translation of documents” and “Malden
Call Center” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is
overly broad, unduly burdensome, as it seeks each documents that describes the “job
responsibilities” of “any person” that does the “translation of documents” over the “past ten years”
including all job postings and individual dispatchers’ performance evaluations, among other
things, without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject
matter of this litigation. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither
relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, as documents that describe the “job responsibilities” of those “doing the
translation of documents” over the past ten years across three different CHA locations have no
bearing on Plaintiff's specific claims in this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require
Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search to first determine who “do[es] the
translation of documents,” determine the roles that perform such tasks, and then search for every
document that describes these individuals’ job responsibilities over the past ten years which is on
its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential
information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could
infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Defendant also objects that this request
does not “describe each item and category with reasonable particularity, as required by Rule 34.
-12-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant declines to produce
documentation responsive to this request.
REQ NO. 9:
All documents describing the Virtual Remote Interpretation (“VRI”’) system for remote
interpretation, including, but not limited to, instruction manuals, and directives to interpreters
regarding how, when, or otherwise to utilize the VRI system.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9:
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome
as it seeks “all documents describing” the VRI system, that instruct “how, when, or otherwise” to
use VRI system without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored ot the
subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is
neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it
seeks “all documents describing” the VRI system, that instruct “how, when, or otherwise” to use
VRI system have no bearing on the Plaintiff’s specific claims in this lawsuit. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive
documents within its custody, possession and control.
REQ’ O. 10:
Each document in CHA’s possession concerning the physical or mental health, conditions, needs
and/or limitations of Adriana Srinivasan including, but not limited to, any permanent and/or
temporary, mental and/or physical, medical impairments from which she suffered, and/or
accommodations she requested.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10:
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the meaning of the phrases “conditions,
-13-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
needs, and/or limitations” and “permanent and/or temporary, mental and/or physical, medical
impairments,” “from which she suffered,” and “accommodations” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendant also objects that this Request is overly broad, and unduly burdensome in that it seeks
“each” document about “any” of Plaintiff's physical and/or mental conditions and/or requested
accommodations without any appropriate limitation in time or scope, or limitation tailored to the
subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is
neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it
seeks information about any of Plaintiff's medical conditions at any point in time, which has no
bearing on Plaintiff's specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant further objects to this Request to
the extent it seeks documents already in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant also objects that this
request seeks information shielded from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege and/or work
product doctrine. Defendant also objects that this request does not “describe each item and
category with reasonable particularity, as required by Rule 34.” Subject to and without waiving
the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents within its
custody, possession and control.
REQU NO. 11:
Each document evidencing Srinivasan’s requests for accommodations she made or anyone else on
her behalf made, the actions taken by CHA and/or Burns on each request, and the justifications,
reasons, qualifications or other responses asserted for the grant or denial, in whole or in part, of
each such request, including, but not limited to, any notes or recordings of any conversations or
other interactions CHA and/or Burns asserts constituted any part of having engaged in an
interactive process with Srinivasan or anyone acting on her behalf.
-14-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11:
Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrases “requests for accommodations she made or
anyone else on her behalf made,” “CHA and/or Burns asserts constituted any part of having
engaged in an interactive process,” and “anyone acting on her behalf” are vague and ambiguous.
Defendant also objects that this Request is overly broad, and unduly burdensome, as it seeks “each
document evidencing” “requests for accommodations” and “any” documents of “any”
conversations that had “any” part of the “interactive process,” without any appropriate limitation
in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further
objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it seeks documentation about any of Plaintiff's requests
for accommodation at any point in time and any documents part of the interactive process at any
point in time, which has no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant also
objects to this Request to the extent it requires CHA to draw a legal conclusion and to the extent
it seeks information shielded from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege and/or work product
doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents already in
Plaintiff's possession. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will
produce non-privileged responsive documents within its custody, possession and control related
to Plaintiff's requests for accommodation.
REQ! NO. 12:
Each document evidencing any leaves of absences applied for, taken, or suggested to be taken, by
Srinivasan, including, but not limited to, each communications and/conversations regarding said
subject between Srinivasan and CHA and/or Burns, and the justifications, reasons, qualifications
or other responses asserted for the suggestions and/or requests, including, but not limited to, any
-15-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
notes or recordings of any conversations or other interactions CHA and/or Burns asserts
constituted any part of having engaged in an interactive process with Srinivasan and/or anyone
acting on her behalf.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12:
Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrases “suggested to be taken, 26, ‘said subject,”
“suggestions and/or requests,” and “constituted any part of having engaged in an interactive
process” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects that this Request is overly broad and
unduly burdensome, as it seeks “each document evidencing any leaves of absences” including
those “regarding” the “said subject,” and “any” notes or recordings of “any” conversations that
had “any” part in the interactive process without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or
limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request
seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, as it seeks documentation about any of Plaintiff's requests for leaves of
absence at any point in time and any documents part of the interactive process at any point in time,
which has no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this
Request to the extent it requires CHA to draw a legal conclusion and/or seeks documents shielded
from discovery by the attorney/client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents already in Plaintiff's possession. Subject
to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged
responsive documents within its custody, possession and control related to Plaintiffs leaves of
absence.
REQ O. 13:
Each document and/or recording, evidencing or otherwise describing any submissions made to the
-16-
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM
Superior Court - Middlesex
Docket Number 2381CV00374
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) regarding Srinivasan’s allegations
of Discrimination against CHA and/or Burns related to their failure to accord her requested
accommodation.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
Defendant objects that the phrases “submissions made” and “failure to accord” are vague and
ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents
that may be protected from disclosure as privileged settlement communications, attorney-client
communications, and/or attorney work product. Further, Defendant objects to this Request to the
extent that it assumes facts not in evidence and requires CHA to draw legal conclusions, as it
improperly asks for documents or evidence about defendant’s “failure to accord her requested
accommodation” Plaintiff, which is Plaintiff's burden to prove by the preponderance of the
evidence in this case, and is an allegation that Defendant denies. Subject to and without waiving
the foregoing obj
Preview
Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 10 RECEIVED 6/5/2023 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT NO. 2831CV00374 ADRIANA SRINIVASAN Plaintiff Vv. CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE, : Defendant PLAINTIFF ADRIANA SRINIVASAN’S EMERGENCY! MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF MORE THAN TWENTY PAGES Plaintiff (“Srinivasan”) moves pursuant to Sup. Ct. Rule 9A(6) for leave to file a Memorandum in support of a motion for relief pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 37 far in excess of 20 pages. In support she says she seeks relief in regard to most of the 37 requests for documents she made, to two thirds of which Cambridge Health Alliance (“CHA”) objected and then responded CHA “decline/s]” to produce any documents. CHA’s response contained approximately 180 separately-stated objections and 37 other responsive statements; it was is 37 pages long and is attached as Exhibit A hereto. Were Srinivasan to file a Memorandum in support of a motion for relief under Rule 37 in compliance with Rule 9C’s mandate that her Memorandum set forth separately and in the following order (1) the text of the ... requests, (2) the opponent's response and (3) an argument, she would be unable to present any argument at all, much less one that responds to the approximately 181 objections and 37 other responsive statements.” Understanding that fact, the need for her to seek leave to file a much longer Memorandum is relatively self-explanatory.> Respectfully submitted, ’ She files this as an Emergency Motion because CHA has already had an extra month and a half to respond, and then responded largely with objections, and by Exhibit B attached hereto suggests the motion should not be filed until CHA has completed its very late and extremely limited production of documents, which CHA indicated in the 9C Conference on this matter might be several months down the road, if not later than that. This is precisely the reason Srinivasan requested in opposition to CHA’s requests for extensions that it be ordered to disclose its objections at an earlier date. FW ? Indeed, she would not even be able to list more than half of the requests and the responses to them. 3 If her argument with regard to each objection/statement in the response was limited to a third of a page each, that along would require approximately 70 pages beyond the 37 pages of information required by parts 1 and 2 of the Rule. She could make it shorter, but for the convenience of the Court, when she responds to an objection CHA has made on multiple occasions, she intends to present her response to each following the objection, and not inconvenience the Court by making innumerable references back to arguments she made to objections to earlier responses. This will require that the Memorandum be of considerable length. Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 ADRIANA SRINIVASAN, Plaintiff, By her attorneys, ss: // Mark D. Stern // Mark D. Stern BBO #479500. 34 Liberty Avenue Somerville, MA 02144 Phone: 617-776-4020 Fax: 617 776 9250 Email: attorneymarkdstern@comcast.net Web: www.attorneymarkdstern.com ss: // Alan Jay Rom // Alan Jay Rom BBO# 425960 Rom Law P.C. P.O. Box 585 Chelmsford, MA 01824 617/776-0575-Tel. 978/455-9589-Tel. 617/209-7714-Fax Email: alan@romlawoffice.com Web: www.romlawoffice.com Dated: June 5, 2023 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9A. Counsel for Srinivasan says that he has served this Motion on Counsel for the CHA Asha A. Santos and Alexa Esposito on the above date by email in accordance with Rule 9A. She seeks to file it as an emergency motion for the reasons stated in footnote 1 above. Signed, Hss:markdstern// Mark D. Stern CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9C Counsel for Srinivasan says see Exhibit B hereto. Signed, Hss:markdstern// Mark D. Stern CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Mark Stern swear that I served the above document on Asha A. Santos at asantos@littler.com and Alexa Esposito aesposito@littler.com on the above date by email. Signed, Hss:markdstern// Mark D. Stern Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 EXHIBIT A Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, SS Superior Court Civil Action No. 2831CV00374 ADRIANA SRINIVASAN, Plaintiff, Vv. CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE, Defendant. DEFENDANT CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure and Superior Court Rule 30A, Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance, (“CHA” or “Defendant”), by and through their attorneys, hereby respond to Plaintiff Adriana Srinivasan’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Srinivasan”) First, Second, and Third Requests for Production of Documents as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following General Objections apply to every paragraph of Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant: 1 Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that calls for any privileged information, including, without limitation, attorney-client communications. Defendant reserves the right to amend these responses to assert privileges as it becomes aware of specific documents or the application of any privilege to such documents. 2. Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that calls for information or documents protected by the work product doctrine, including, but without limitation, any information containing or reflecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 and/or legal theories of any attorney for Defendant. Defendant reserves the right to amend these responses to assert privileges as it becomes aware of specific documents or the application of any privilege to such documents. 3 Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that seeks information or documents regarding any non-party, the unlimited disclosure of which could be an unnecessary invasion of privacy for such individuals or could lead to improper contact with such individuals, without entry of an appropriate consent protective order. 4 Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, duplicative, or that requests information and/or documents already in the possession of Plaintiff or already produced to Plaintiff in this action. 5 Defendant objects to every Request for Production of Documents that seeks documents or information not within its custody or control. To the extent that Defendant responds, provides information, or produces documents subject to and without waiver of objections, such response, provision of information, or production of documents shall not be construed as an agreement to produce documents or to provide information not within Defendant’s custody or control. 6 Defendant objects to each Request for Production of Documents to the extent that it attempts to impose obligations on Defendant beyond those permitted by the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that Defendant responds or produces documents subject to and without waiver of objections, such response or production of documents shall not be deemed to waive any objections. Further, Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement its responses or to produce additional documents as appropriate under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. -2- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUE: Ss Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing General Objections, Defendant responds as follows to the specific Requests!: REQUEST NO. 1: Each document recording the dates and number of hours on each date from August 20, 2021, Srinivasan, all other interpreters, or a dispatcher worked (a) based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises, (b) based at Whidden Hospital in Everett, and/or (c) based at the Malden call center. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrase “Malden Call Center” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it seeks each document that reflects the dates and hours that Plaintiff and “all” interpreters or dispatchers worked without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search for all times that every interpreter or dispatcher worked from August 20, 2021 onward which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for it to search and/or retrieve data electronically stored in inaccessible media and/or formats, which would be prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, and burdensome to access, find, and/or produce. Defendant also objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the | Plaintiff begins her Requests by asking for “All documents” including Requests | through 35. Plaintiff's request for “All documents” vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks categorically seeks “all” documents without any limit in time or scope, and as such, includes documents that have no bearing on her claims. Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, CHA will search for and produce documentation responsive to RFPDs 1-35 to the extent such documents exist and subject to all general and specific objections. -3- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 discovery of admissible evidence, as the dates and number of hours worked by Plaintiff and all interpreters and dispatchers have no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Defendant also objects that this request does not “describe each item and category with reasonable particularity, as required by Rule 34. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents that reflect Plaintiffs work hours. REQ NO. 2: Each document recording the dates and number of times on each date from August 20, 2021 to the present, a CHA dispatcher directed Srinivasan, any other interpreters, or a dispatcher: a. based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises to work “face-to- face’ 99 663L n-person” with a patient, b. based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital to work “face-to- face” or “in-person” with a patient, c. based in Malden at the call center to work “face-to-face” or “in-person” with a patient, c. For a, b and c, the percentage of (i) total dispatches and (ii) total of time worked represented on each such date by “face-to-face” “ine person” interpretations with each patient. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrases “directed to,” and “percentage of total dispatches,” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this request on the grounds -4- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as it seeks documents that record every single date and time, and the number of times that Plaintiff, interpreters or dispatchers were “directed to perform” in-person work with “each” patient since August 20, 2021, and the percentage of “total dispatches” and percentage of “total of time worked” represented on each date since August 20, 2021 that represents in-person work without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as every single instance in which every interpreter or dispatcher at CHA across various locations was “directed to” perform in-person work has no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search for all times that every interpreter or dispatcher received a direction to perform in-person work, and to provide a granular statistical analysis of the work performed by all interpreters and dispatchers which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for CHA to search and/or retrieve data electronically stored in inaccessible media and/or formats, which would be prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, and burdensome to access, find, and/or produce. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant states that it does not maintain information responsive to subsection c. of this request. Defendant declines to produce documentation responsive to the remaining subsections of this request, except to the extent that responsive documents are being produced in response to other, appropriately tailored requests. -5- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 REQUEST NO. 3: Each document recording the dates and number of hours on each date from the inception of the VRI system to the commencement of “off-site” work due to the COVID epidemic Srinivasan and each other interpreter, or a dispatcher worked (a) based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises, (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital, and/or (c) based in Malden at the call center. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: Defendant objects that the meaning of phrases “inception of the VRI system, 66 ‘commencement of ‘off-site work,’” “based in,” and “call center” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it seeks all documents that reflect every single date and time from the “inception” of the VRI system to the “commencement of off-site work due to the COVID-19 pandemic” on which every interpreter or dispatcher worked “based in” various CHA locations without any appropriate limitation in time and scope, and limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search for every single instance that Plaintiff and “each other interpreter, or a dispatcher” worked “based in” three different CHA locations from the “inception” that the VRI system was first implemented by CHA in 2012, approximately a decade prior to the events that Plaintiff outlines in her Complaint which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it seeks documentation about every single time Plaintiff and interpreters or dispatchers worked “based in” a CHA location since VRI was implemented by CHA in 2012 which has no bearing on Plaintiff's specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant further -6- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant declines to produce documentation responsive to this request, except to the extent that responsive documents are being produced in response to other, appropriately tailored requests. REQU NO. 4: Each document recording the dates and number of times on each date from the inception of the VRI system to the commencement of “off-site” work due to the COVID epidemic, a CHA dispatcher directed Srinivasan, any other interpreters, or a dispatcher: a. based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises to work “face-to-face” or “in-person” with a patient, (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital to work “face-to- face” or “in-person” with a patient, and/or (c) based in Malden at the call center to work “face-to- face” “in-person” with a patient, and For a, b and c, the percentage of (i) total dispatches and time and (ii) total of dispatches and time worked on each such date by “face-to- face” or “in- person” interpretations with a patient. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: Defendant objects that the meaning of phrases “inception of the VRI system, «6 ‘commencement of ‘off-site work,’” “directed to, me ‘percentage of total dispatches,” and “call center” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and -7- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 unduly burdensome, as it seeks all documents that reflect every single date and time from the “inception” of the VRI system to the “commencement of off-site work due to the COVID-19 pandemic” on which Plaintiff and every interpreter or dispatcher was “directed” to work “based various CHA locations, and the percentage of “total dispatches” and percentage of “total of time worked” that represented “in-person work” on each date since the inception of the VRI system without any appropriate limitation in time and scope, and limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time- consuming and expensive search for every single instance that Plaintiff and “each other interpreter” worked in-person from the “inception” of the VRI system in 2012, and to provide a granular statistical analysis of the work performed by Plaintiff and all interpreters which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant declines to produce documentation responsive to this request, except to the extent that responsive documents are being produced in response to other, appropriately tailored requests. REQ’ 0.5: Each document regarding any time CHA, and/or, in particular, Defendant John Burns, granted or denied a request by an interpreter or a dispatcher not to do any particular type of work, including, but not limited to, “face-to-face” “in-person” with a patient for any non-medical reason, including, but not limited to, religious objections, the name and work location of the interpreter, and the dates covered by each grant or allowance. -8- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it improperly names “John Burns” “Defendant,” when CHA is the only Defendant in this Action. Defendant CHA further objects that the meaning of the phrases “request . . . not to do any particular type of work” and any “non- medical reason” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects that this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it seeks information about the requests of other interpreters or dispatchers without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this litigation. Defendant also objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as the “requests” of other interpreters and dispatchers, the reasons for these requests, and the outcome of such requests have no bearing on the Plaintiffs specific claims in this matter. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant declines to produce documentation responsive to this request. REQ NO. 6: Each document describing the job responsibilities over the past ten years of interpreters including, but not limited to, Srinivasan (a) based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises, (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital, and/or (c) based at the Malden call center, including, but not limited to, job descriptions, job postings, job advertisements and performance evaluations (from the last of which names may be redacted and identified generically). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: Defendant objects that the phrase “Malden Call Center” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant -9- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, as it seeks each documents that describes the “job responsibilities” of interpreters over the “past ten years” including all job postings and individual interpreters’ performance evaluations, among other things, without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this litigation. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as documents that describe the “job responsibilities” of interpreters over the past ten years across three different CHA locations have no bearing on the specific claims and defenses in this matter. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search for documents “including” every single interpreter job description, job posting, and “advertising” among other things, and every single performance review of every interpreter over the past ten years which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents related to Plaintiff's job responsibilities and performance evaluations within its custody, possession and control. RE Each document describing the job responsibilities over the past ten years of dispatchers including, but not limited to, Srinivasan (a) based in Cambridge at the Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises and/or (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital, and/or (c) based at the Malden call center, including, but not limited to, job descriptions, job postings, job advertisements and performance evaluations (from the last of which names may be redacted and identified -10- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 generically). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: Defendant objects that the phrase “Malden Call Center” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, as it seeks each documents that describes the “job responsibilities” of dispatchers over the “past ten years” including all job postings and individual dispatchers’ performance evaluations, among other things, without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this litigation. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as documents that describe the “job responsibilities” of dispatchers over the past ten years across three different CHA locations have no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this matter because Plaintiff did not hold a dispatcher role during the times relevant to this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search for documents “including” every single dispatcher job description, job posting, and “advertising” among other things, and every single performance review of every dispatcher over the past ten years which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Defendant declines to produce documentation responsive to this request. NO. Each document describing the job responsibilities over the past ten years of any person doing translation of documents including, but not limited to, Srinivasan (a) based in Cambridge at the -ll- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 Macht Building on CHA’s Cambridge premises, (b) based in Everett at the Whidden Hospital and/or (c) based at the Malden call center, including, but not limited to, job descriptions, job postings, job advertisements and performance evaluations (from the last of which names may be redacted and identified generically). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrases “doing translation of documents” and “Malden Call Center” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, as it seeks each documents that describes the “job responsibilities” of “any person” that does the “translation of documents” over the “past ten years” including all job postings and individual dispatchers’ performance evaluations, among other things, without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this litigation. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as documents that describe the “job responsibilities” of those “doing the translation of documents” over the past ten years across three different CHA locations have no bearing on Plaintiff's specific claims in this lawsuit. The literal terms of this request would require Defendant to conduct a time-consuming and expensive search to first determine who “do[es] the translation of documents,” determine the roles that perform such tasks, and then search for every document that describes these individuals’ job responsibilities over the past ten years which is on its face unreasonable. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential information concerning individuals who are not parties to this case, the disclosure of which could infringe upon the privacy interests of such individuals. Defendant also objects that this request does not “describe each item and category with reasonable particularity, as required by Rule 34. -12- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant declines to produce documentation responsive to this request. REQ NO. 9: All documents describing the Virtual Remote Interpretation (“VRI”’) system for remote interpretation, including, but not limited to, instruction manuals, and directives to interpreters regarding how, when, or otherwise to utilize the VRI system. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as it seeks “all documents describing” the VRI system, that instruct “how, when, or otherwise” to use VRI system without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored ot the subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it seeks “all documents describing” the VRI system, that instruct “how, when, or otherwise” to use VRI system have no bearing on the Plaintiff’s specific claims in this lawsuit. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents within its custody, possession and control. REQ’ O. 10: Each document in CHA’s possession concerning the physical or mental health, conditions, needs and/or limitations of Adriana Srinivasan including, but not limited to, any permanent and/or temporary, mental and/or physical, medical impairments from which she suffered, and/or accommodations she requested. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that the meaning of the phrases “conditions, -13- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 needs, and/or limitations” and “permanent and/or temporary, mental and/or physical, medical impairments,” “from which she suffered,” and “accommodations” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects that this Request is overly broad, and unduly burdensome in that it seeks “each” document about “any” of Plaintiff's physical and/or mental conditions and/or requested accommodations without any appropriate limitation in time or scope, or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it seeks information about any of Plaintiff's medical conditions at any point in time, which has no bearing on Plaintiff's specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents already in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant also objects that this request seeks information shielded from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant also objects that this request does not “describe each item and category with reasonable particularity, as required by Rule 34.” Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents within its custody, possession and control. REQU NO. 11: Each document evidencing Srinivasan’s requests for accommodations she made or anyone else on her behalf made, the actions taken by CHA and/or Burns on each request, and the justifications, reasons, qualifications or other responses asserted for the grant or denial, in whole or in part, of each such request, including, but not limited to, any notes or recordings of any conversations or other interactions CHA and/or Burns asserts constituted any part of having engaged in an interactive process with Srinivasan or anyone acting on her behalf. -14- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrases “requests for accommodations she made or anyone else on her behalf made,” “CHA and/or Burns asserts constituted any part of having engaged in an interactive process,” and “anyone acting on her behalf” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects that this Request is overly broad, and unduly burdensome, as it seeks “each document evidencing” “requests for accommodations” and “any” documents of “any” conversations that had “any” part of the “interactive process,” without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it seeks documentation about any of Plaintiff's requests for accommodation at any point in time and any documents part of the interactive process at any point in time, which has no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it requires CHA to draw a legal conclusion and to the extent it seeks information shielded from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents already in Plaintiff's possession. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents within its custody, possession and control related to Plaintiff's requests for accommodation. REQ! NO. 12: Each document evidencing any leaves of absences applied for, taken, or suggested to be taken, by Srinivasan, including, but not limited to, each communications and/conversations regarding said subject between Srinivasan and CHA and/or Burns, and the justifications, reasons, qualifications or other responses asserted for the suggestions and/or requests, including, but not limited to, any -15- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 notes or recordings of any conversations or other interactions CHA and/or Burns asserts constituted any part of having engaged in an interactive process with Srinivasan and/or anyone acting on her behalf. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Defendant objects that the meaning of the phrases “suggested to be taken, 26, ‘said subject,” “suggestions and/or requests,” and “constituted any part of having engaged in an interactive process” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects that this Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it seeks “each document evidencing any leaves of absences” including those “regarding” the “said subject,” and “any” notes or recordings of “any” conversations that had “any” part in the interactive process without any appropriate limitation in time or scope or limitation tailored to the subject matter of this lawsuit. Defendant further objects that this request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it seeks documentation about any of Plaintiff's requests for leaves of absence at any point in time and any documents part of the interactive process at any point in time, which has no bearing on Plaintiffs specific claims in this lawsuit. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it requires CHA to draw a legal conclusion and/or seeks documents shielded from discovery by the attorney/client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents already in Plaintiff's possession. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged responsive documents within its custody, possession and control related to Plaintiffs leaves of absence. REQ O. 13: Each document and/or recording, evidencing or otherwise describing any submissions made to the -16- Date Filed 6/5/2023 10:55 AM Superior Court - Middlesex Docket Number 2381CV00374 Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) regarding Srinivasan’s allegations of Discrimination against CHA and/or Burns related to their failure to accord her requested accommodation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: Defendant objects that the phrases “submissions made” and “failure to accord” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents that may be protected from disclosure as privileged settlement communications, attorney-client communications, and/or attorney work product. Further, Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it assumes facts not in evidence and requires CHA to draw legal conclusions, as it improperly asks for documents or evidence about defendant’s “failure to accord her requested accommodation” Plaintiff, which is Plaintiff's burden to prove by the preponderance of the evidence in this case, and is an allegation that Defendant denies. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing obj