Preview
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
CIVIL ACTION NO. UWY-CV22-6068477-S
:
AUDRA HYEK, :
Plaintiff, : SUPERIOR COURT
:
v. : J.D. OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY
:
HAYDON KERK MOTION SOLUTIONS, :
INC. :
Defendant :
: AUGUST 14, 2023
DEFENDANT HAYDON KERK MOTION SOLUTIONS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant, Haydon Kerk Motion Solutions, Inc. (“HKM”), pursuant to Connecticut
Practice Book §13-7 and §13-8, hereby objects to the First Set of Interrogatories of the Plaintiff,
Audra Hyek (“Plaintiff”) as follows:
I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS
HKM objects to Plaintiff’s interrogatories (each, an “Interrogatory” and, collectively, the
“Interrogatories”) on the following grounds. These objections are incorporated by reference into
HKM’s responses to each separate Interrogatory to the extent applicable:
1. HKM objects to any Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of privileged
information or material protected from discovery, including, but not limited to,
attorney-client privileged information or material, non-discoverable work product,
and material or documents which were prepared or created in anticipation of
litigation or for trial. Such information will not be produced.
2. HKM objects to any Interrogatory to the extent that is unduly burdensome, not
limited as to time or scope, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of relevant, admissible evidence. Such information will not be produced.
3. HKM objects to any Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is not
relevant to the subject matter of this action. Irrelevant information will not be
produced.
-1-
4. HKM objects to any Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of
information created after suit was commenced. Such information will not be
produced.
5. HKM objects to the Interrogatory insofar as the information requested is in the
possession, custody and/or control of an entity other than HKM. Such information
will not be produced.
6. HKM objects to the Interrogatory insofar as they impose a duty upon HKM beyond
what is required by the Connecticut Practice Book.
7. All objections are expressly reserved including, without limitation, as to
competence, relevance, materiality, admissibility and privilege.
II. ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Designate by name, title, position, and current address each individual responding to these
interrogatories and/or who was consulted in the preparation of any responses to these
interrogatories.
RESPONSE:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Please state each claim, charge, lawsuit, or notice of intent to sue (collectively “claims”),
alleging constructive discharge, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, sexual
harassment, aiding and abetting, and/or hostile work environment, based upon sex and gender
asserted against Defendant from January 1, 2018, through present and for each such claim please
state:
a. The nature of each claim;
-2-
b. The forum in which the claim was brought;
c. The name and department of the individual(s) who brought each claim;
d. A description of all actions taken by the Defendant to investigate each claim;
e. The finding of each claim;
f. The disposition of each claim.
g. Whether each claim resulted in any discipline for any employee and the nature of the
discipline. (i.e., termination, written warning, etc.)
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Please state the names and addresses of each of Plaintiff’s managers, supervisors, assistant
managers and superiors that were employed by Defendant from December 1, 2017 through the
date of the separation of employment of Plaintiff, and for each such person please state whether
the individual provided, communicated, and/or contributed information which led to the forced
resignation of the plaintiff, and if so, please provide the substance of said information.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the
extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
-3-
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Please provide a detailed description, inclusive of dates, of each and every one of the
following, and identify all witnesses present:
a. Dawn Hockley and Genna Mintz’s informing Plaintiff that a bachelor’s degree was
required for manager positions at Defendant company, as alleged in ¶9 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint;
b. Each and every time Paul McGrath berated and/or undermined Plaintiff in front of
employees and peers, as alleged in ¶15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
c. Each and every time McGrath violated safety policy, as alleged in ¶16 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint;
d. Plaintiff’s asking Defendant when she would be compensated for the additional
work or receive a promotion, as alleged in ¶17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
e. Hockley’s adding facilities manager to Plaintiff’s title, as alleged in ¶18 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint;
f. The conversation between Hockley and Plaintiff where Hockley stated that she had
to check with McGrath to see if he wanted the position first, as alleged in ¶ 19 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint;
g. McGrath’s directing unwelcome sexual gestures toward Plaintiff and other
employees, as alleged in ¶ 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
h. McGrath’s staring down female employees, as alleged in ¶ 25 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint;
-4-
i. McGrath’s stating how he would take one for the team and “F” Shannon, as alleged
in ¶ 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
j. McGrath’s holding a plumbing tube to his genital area at an employee wiffle ball
game, as alleged in ¶ 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
k. Plaintiff’s complaining to Hockley about McGrath’s disparate comments and
inappropriate behaviors, as alleged in ¶ 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
l. McGrath’s telling an employee to “get down on his knees where you belong,” as
alleged in ¶ 27 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
m. McGrath’s talking down to Plaintiff and downgrading safety concerns, as alleged
in ¶28 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
n. The conversation where Plaintiff went to Hockley’s office in tears to inform her of
McGrath’s harassing and bullying behaviors, as alleged in ¶29 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
o. Each and every instance that Hockley made Plaintiff feel that she was at fault, as
alleged in ¶30 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
p. Hockley’s becoming upset when Plaintiff said that she was going to report
McGrath’s bullying to HR, as alleged in ¶30 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
q. Plaintiff’s voicing concerns to Hockley regarding McGrath breaking the safety
policy, and Hockley’s response, as alleged in ¶31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
r. The January 29, 2020 conversation between Plaintiff and Hockley where Plaintiff
again discussed McGrath’s offensive conduct and Hockley talked Plaintiff out of informing
anyone else of her concerns, as alleged in ¶¶ 32-33 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
-5-
s. Defendant’s contacting Plaintiff on April 11, 2020, to help out at work, as alleged
in ¶34 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
t. Each and every time that Defendant male employees yelled at Plaintiff, as alleged
in ¶35 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
u. Plaintiff’s reporting the verbal abuse to Hockley and Genna Mintz, as alleged in
¶35 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
v. Hockley and Mintz’s telling Plaintiff and McGrath to “sit together” and both write
down five things on how to improve the relationship, as alleged in ¶38 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
w. McGrath’s inappropriately grabbing two women in the thigh area and making an
inappropriate comment, as alleged in ¶40 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
x. Hockley’s stating that some people have to stop being so “sensitive” in regards to
McGrath’s sexually inappropriate workplace misconduct, as alleged in ¶40 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint;
y. Repko’s threatening to lodge an official safety complaint against Plaintiff, as
alleged in ¶43 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
z. Plaintiff’s reporting Repko’s behaviors of bullying and intentional violations of
safety protocols to Hockley, Mintz, and Richard Walker, as alleged in ¶44 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint;
aa. The conversation between Plaintiff and Hockley where Plaintiff inquired the reason
for forcing upon her duties that were previously handled by Walker’s group, as alleged in
¶47 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
-6-
bb. Defendant’s repeated promises that it was going to create a higher position for
Plaintiff, as alleged in ¶48 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
cc. The conversation between Plaintiff and Hockley regarding Defendant’s plan to hire
a director-level EHS Manager, as alleged in ¶¶48-49 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint;
dd. The conversation between Plaintiff and Mintz prior to Plaintiff’s departure, as
alleged in ¶55 of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Please state whether Defendant has obtained any non-privileged written or oral
statement(s) from any person(s) concerning any of the allegations of the Complaint. If
affirmative, state:
a. the name and address of the person who gave the statement, and date the statement
was obtained;
b. if written, whether the statement was signed by this person;
c. if oral, the name and address of the person who obtained the statement and the date
the statement was obtained,
-7-
d. if oral, the substance of said statements;
e. the names and addresses of the persons presently having custody of such statements
or having heard such statements, and,
f. the date each statement was given.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Identify all claims or suits alleging misconduct ever threatened or filed against Defendant,
including the name of the court and parties involved, stating the date each claim was raised, stating
the date each suit or administrative action was commenced; the name and address of the court,
agency, or other forum in which it was commenced; the court or agency docket number of all such
actions, the names of attorneys representing each party, the substance of each such complaint; the
outcome or present status of each matter; whether or not there was an appeal and, if so, the result
thereof including the name and citation of each case reported, the amount of any settlement or
judgment obtained in each such case, and identify each and every document upon which you relied
in answering, or which in any way pertains to the information requested in this Interrogatory.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
-8-
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
Please state whether the Defendant had ever issued the Plaintiff a discipline, formal or
informal, written or oral, or demoted the Plaintiff at any time throughout the entire term of the
Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant. If so, please state the date of each discipline, the reason
for the discipline/demotion, the policy claimed Plaintiff violated, whether it was written or verbal,
the substance of said discipline, and whether Plaintiff was informed of said discipline, and if so,
the date she was informed, and the outcome/resolution of each discipline.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information within the possession,
custody, and control of Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Please identify the following with respect to the individual that took over Plaintiff’s job
duties for Defendant, or replaced Plaintiff’s job duties after Plaintiff separated employment.
a. The name initials and position of the individual;
b. The employee’s gender;
c. Whether the employee had complained of sexual harassment, disparate treatment,
workplace bullying, and workplace safety;
d. Whether the employee had been subjected to sexual harassment;
e. The date such individual(s) assumed Plaintiff’s job duties;
-9-
f. The job title given to such individual; and,
g. A job description for the job duties performed by the Employee.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information within the possession,
custody, and control of Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
Identify each and every similarly situated employee of Defendant by name, position, and
gender, that was separated from employment with Defendant, for any reason including through
separation of employment or lay off or acceptance of resignation, from January 1, 2018, to the
present.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
State whether Defendant, their agents, servants or employees conducted a formal or
informal investigation and / or interviewed any persons before or after the Plaintiff’s separation of
employment relating to the claims and allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint. If such investigation
and / or interviews were performed, please state the following:
-10-
a. the date of said investigation;
b. the reason for such investigation;
c. whether any record or report was made of the investigation;
d. the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization
conducting the investigation;
e. identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an
investigation; and,
f. state the person who has present possession of all the documents responsive to
this question.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in
evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11
Please identify the individual(s) who made the final decision to accept the Plaintiff’s
resignation, and identify all facts and information which said individual(s) relied upon in the
decision.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information
within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff.
-11-
INTERROGATORY NO. 12
List all employees discharged or demoted within the last three years by Defendant. For
each employee listed, include the employee’s name, position held, gender, whether the employee
had complained of sexual harassment, disparate treatment, workplace bullying, and/or workplace
safety, whether the employee had been subjected to sexual harassment, and reason(s) for and date
of discharge/demotion.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13
List all employees that resigned from Defendant within the last three years in Plaintiff’s
department. For each employee listed, include the employee’s name, position held, gender,
whether the employee had complained of sexual harassment, disparate treatment, workplace
bullying, and/or workplace safety, whether the employee had been subjected to sexual harassment,
and reason(s) for and date of resignation.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
-12-
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14
Please identify with specificity all individuals that supplied information to Defendant in
any format that Defendant considered in determining whether to accept the Plaintiff’s
resignation.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15
Please state whether anyone in Defendant’s employ had ever made any complaints against
McGrath, formal or informal, for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, harassment, and/or
bullying. If yes, please provide the following:
a. The date(s) of the complaint;
b. The name initials of the individual making the complaint;
c. The gender of the individual making the complaint; and,
d. The outcome of the complaint (i.e. warning, termination, etc.)
-13-
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request
assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16
Please state whether anyone in Defendant’s employ had ever made any complaints against
Luke Parker, Caroll Forbes, or Jeff Repko, formal or informal, for harassment and/or bullying. If
yes, please provide the following:
a. The date(s) of the complaint;
b. The name initials of the individual making the complaint;
c. The gender of the individual making the complaint; and,
d. The outcome of the complaint (i.e. warning, termination, etc.)
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request
assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17
Please list all of Plaintiff’s job responsibilities that were not in her job description, as
alleged in ¶ 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes
facts not in evidence.
-14-
INTERROGATORY NO. 18
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with
an increase in salary for the additional facilities manager role, as alleged in ¶ 18 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes
facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley had to check with McGrath first
to see if he wanted the position, as alleged in ¶ 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes
facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that McGrath received a manager position and
a salary higher than Plaintiff’s without having a Bachelor’s Degree, as alleged in ¶ 21 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
-15-
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes
facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Jimmy Fornito received a manager
position and a salary higher than Plaintiff’s without having a Bachelor’s Degree, as alleged in ¶ 22
of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes
facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that McGrath received a promotion despite
the complaints against him, as alleged in ¶ 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes
facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23
State whether Human Resources, or any other employee of Defendant or entity at the
direction of Defendant conducted any investigation(s) and/or review(s), formal or informal,
regarding all the complaints against McGrath, and state with particularity:
-16-
a. the date of said investigation;
b. identify whether any record or report was made of the investigation, including
any statements by witnesses, identifying the time, date and form of any such
statement and who procured any such statement;
c. whether any employee was disciplined; and if so, identify the employee by
initials and state the type of discipline issued (i.e., verbal, written, etc.);
d. whether any remedial action was taken against any employee; what that
remedial action was; and whether that was communicated to the Plaintiff,
detailing the time, date and manner of the communication to the Plaintiff and
restate in detail the contents of any such communication;
e. the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization
conducting the investigation;
f. identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an
investigation;
g. state the person who has present possession of all the documents responsive to
this question;
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
-17-
INTERROGATORY NO. 24
State whether Human Resources, or any other employee of Defendant or entity at the
direction of Defendant conducted any investigation(s) and/or review(s), formal or informal,
regarding Plaintiff’s complaints about McGrath’s disparate comments, inappropriate behaviors,
bullying behaviors, and violation of safety policy, as alleged in ¶¶ 26, 29, and 31 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint, and state with particularity:
a. the date of said investigation;
b. identify whether any record or report was made of the investigation, including
any statements by witnesses, identifying the time, date and form of any such
statement and who procured any such statement;
c. whether any employee was disciplined; and if so, identify the employee by
initials and state the type of discipline issued (i.e., verbal, written, etc.);
d. whether any remedial action was taken against any employee; what that
remedial action was; and whether that was communicated to the Plaintiff,
detailing the time, date and manner of the communication to the Plaintiff and
restate in detail the contents of any such communication;
e. the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization
conducting the investigation;
f. identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an
investigation;
g. state the person who has present possession of all the documents responsive to
this question;
-18-
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 25
State whether Human Resources, or any other employee of Defendant or entity at the
direction of Defendant conducted any investigation(s) and/or review(s), formal or informal,
regarding Plaintiff’s complaint about verbal abuse and bullying from male employees, as alleged
in ¶¶35, 44 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and state with particularity:
a. the date of said investigation;
b. identify whether any record or report was made of the investigation, including
any statements by witnesses, identifying the time, date and form of any such
statement and who procured any such statement;
c. whether any employee was disciplined; and if so, identify the employee by
initials and state the type of discipline issued (i.e., verbal, written, etc.);
d. whether any remedial action was taken against any employee; what that
remedial action was; and whether that was communicated to the Plaintiff,
detailing the time, date and manner of the communication to the Plaintiff and
restate in detail the contents of any such communication;
e. the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization
conducting the investigation;
-19-
f. identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an
investigation;
g. state the person who has present possession of all the documents responsive to
this question;
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in
anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this
request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 26
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley became upset when Plaintiff said
that she was going to report McGrath’s bullying to HR, as alleged in ¶ 30 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the
extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar
as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 27
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that when Plaintiff voiced concerns to Hockley
regarding McGrath breaking the safety policy, Hockley simply made excuses for McGrath, as
alleged in ¶ 31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
-20-
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the
extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar
as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 28
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley talked Plaintiff out of informing
anyone else of her concerns and became upset that Plaintiff planned on reporting McGrath, as
alleged in ¶33 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the
extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar
as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 29
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley stated that Stan Brown did not
need to know anything about what was going on in her plant, as alleged in ¶33 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
-21-
INTERROGATORY NO. 30
Please list all the employees that Defendant contacted during the pandemic furlough to help
out at work, and identify them by their name initials, position held, gender, and date(s) requested
to work.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome.
HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the
extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 31
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant failed to address the verbal
abuse reported by Plaintiff, as alleged in ¶35 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Mintz mocked Plaintiff about treating
with a therapist, as alleged in ¶37 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
-22-
INTERROGATORY NO. 33
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley and Mintz told Plaintiff and
McGrath to “sit together” and both write down five things on how to improve the relationship, as
alleged in ¶38 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the
extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 34
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant HR made excuses for McGrath
for an unapproved purchase and then giving away that product, as alleged in ¶39 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts
not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 35
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant took no action in regards to
Plaintiff’s complaint about Repko’s behaviors of bullying and intentional violations of safety
protocols, as alleged in ¶44 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
-23-
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 36
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Plaintiff instead of Walker’s group was
forced to take on additional tasks that were formerly handled by his group, as alleged in ¶47 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 37
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant failed to promote Plaintiff to a
Director level position or create a higher position for her, as alleged in ¶¶48-50 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 38
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant requested a portion of the
tuition back, as alleged in ¶54 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
-24-
INTERROGATORY NO. 39
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant never attempted to persuade
Plaintiff to remain at the company either by creating a position or offering her an increase in salary,
as alleged in ¶50 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 40
Please list all the employees that were offered a position or an increase in salary prior to
leaving Defendant company, and identify them by their name initials, position held, gender,
position offered, offered increase in salary, and date of separation.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome
and not limited in time and scope. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks
information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to
this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible
evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 41
Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant failed to pay for the expenses
that Plaintiff incurred on the travel credit card on behalf of Defendant, as alleged in ¶56 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
RESPONSE:
Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
-25-
As to Objections:
/s/ Trevin C. Schmidt
Trevin C. Schmidt (Juris No. 440531)
Gabriel T. Dym (Juris No. 439968)
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two International Place, 16th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
gdym@eckertseamans.com
tschmidt@eckertseamans.com
Phone: (617) 342-6800
Fax: (617) 342-6899
Attorneys for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trevin Schmidt, hereby certify that on August 14, 2023, I served the foregoing
document upon the following via electronic mail as follows:
Michael C. McMinn
THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, LLC
1000 Lafayette Blvd, Suite 1100
Bridgeport, CT 06604
michael@mcminnemploymentlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
/s/ Trevin C. Schmidt
Trevin C. Schmidt
-26-
Preview
STATE OF CONNECTICUT CIVIL ACTION NO. UWY-CV22-6068477-S : AUDRA HYEK, : Plaintiff, : SUPERIOR COURT : v. : J.D. OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY : HAYDON KERK MOTION SOLUTIONS, : INC. : Defendant : : AUGUST 14, 2023 DEFENDANT HAYDON KERK MOTION SOLUTIONS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant, Haydon Kerk Motion Solutions, Inc. (“HKM”), pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §13-7 and §13-8, hereby objects to the First Set of Interrogatories of the Plaintiff, Audra Hyek (“Plaintiff”) as follows: I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS HKM objects to Plaintiff’s interrogatories (each, an “Interrogatory” and, collectively, the “Interrogatories”) on the following grounds. These objections are incorporated by reference into HKM’s responses to each separate Interrogatory to the extent applicable: 1. HKM objects to any Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of privileged information or material protected from discovery, including, but not limited to, attorney-client privileged information or material, non-discoverable work product, and material or documents which were prepared or created in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Such information will not be produced. 2. HKM objects to any Interrogatory to the extent that is unduly burdensome, not limited as to time or scope, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. Such information will not be produced. 3. HKM objects to any Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this action. Irrelevant information will not be produced. -1- 4. HKM objects to any Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of information created after suit was commenced. Such information will not be produced. 5. HKM objects to the Interrogatory insofar as the information requested is in the possession, custody and/or control of an entity other than HKM. Such information will not be produced. 6. HKM objects to the Interrogatory insofar as they impose a duty upon HKM beyond what is required by the Connecticut Practice Book. 7. All objections are expressly reserved including, without limitation, as to competence, relevance, materiality, admissibility and privilege. II. ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 1 Designate by name, title, position, and current address each individual responding to these interrogatories and/or who was consulted in the preparation of any responses to these interrogatories. RESPONSE: INTERROGATORY NO. 2 Please state each claim, charge, lawsuit, or notice of intent to sue (collectively “claims”), alleging constructive discharge, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, sexual harassment, aiding and abetting, and/or hostile work environment, based upon sex and gender asserted against Defendant from January 1, 2018, through present and for each such claim please state: a. The nature of each claim; -2- b. The forum in which the claim was brought; c. The name and department of the individual(s) who brought each claim; d. A description of all actions taken by the Defendant to investigate each claim; e. The finding of each claim; f. The disposition of each claim. g. Whether each claim resulted in any discipline for any employee and the nature of the discipline. (i.e., termination, written warning, etc.) RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Please state the names and addresses of each of Plaintiff’s managers, supervisors, assistant managers and superiors that were employed by Defendant from December 1, 2017 through the date of the separation of employment of Plaintiff, and for each such person please state whether the individual provided, communicated, and/or contributed information which led to the forced resignation of the plaintiff, and if so, please provide the substance of said information. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. -3- INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Please provide a detailed description, inclusive of dates, of each and every one of the following, and identify all witnesses present: a. Dawn Hockley and Genna Mintz’s informing Plaintiff that a bachelor’s degree was required for manager positions at Defendant company, as alleged in ¶9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; b. Each and every time Paul McGrath berated and/or undermined Plaintiff in front of employees and peers, as alleged in ¶15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; c. Each and every time McGrath violated safety policy, as alleged in ¶16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; d. Plaintiff’s asking Defendant when she would be compensated for the additional work or receive a promotion, as alleged in ¶17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; e. Hockley’s adding facilities manager to Plaintiff’s title, as alleged in ¶18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; f. The conversation between Hockley and Plaintiff where Hockley stated that she had to check with McGrath to see if he wanted the position first, as alleged in ¶ 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; g. McGrath’s directing unwelcome sexual gestures toward Plaintiff and other employees, as alleged in ¶ 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; h. McGrath’s staring down female employees, as alleged in ¶ 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; -4- i. McGrath’s stating how he would take one for the team and “F” Shannon, as alleged in ¶ 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; j. McGrath’s holding a plumbing tube to his genital area at an employee wiffle ball game, as alleged in ¶ 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; k. Plaintiff’s complaining to Hockley about McGrath’s disparate comments and inappropriate behaviors, as alleged in ¶ 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; l. McGrath’s telling an employee to “get down on his knees where you belong,” as alleged in ¶ 27 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; m. McGrath’s talking down to Plaintiff and downgrading safety concerns, as alleged in ¶28 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; n. The conversation where Plaintiff went to Hockley’s office in tears to inform her of McGrath’s harassing and bullying behaviors, as alleged in ¶29 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; o. Each and every instance that Hockley made Plaintiff feel that she was at fault, as alleged in ¶30 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; p. Hockley’s becoming upset when Plaintiff said that she was going to report McGrath’s bullying to HR, as alleged in ¶30 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; q. Plaintiff’s voicing concerns to Hockley regarding McGrath breaking the safety policy, and Hockley’s response, as alleged in ¶31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; r. The January 29, 2020 conversation between Plaintiff and Hockley where Plaintiff again discussed McGrath’s offensive conduct and Hockley talked Plaintiff out of informing anyone else of her concerns, as alleged in ¶¶ 32-33 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; -5- s. Defendant’s contacting Plaintiff on April 11, 2020, to help out at work, as alleged in ¶34 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; t. Each and every time that Defendant male employees yelled at Plaintiff, as alleged in ¶35 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; u. Plaintiff’s reporting the verbal abuse to Hockley and Genna Mintz, as alleged in ¶35 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; v. Hockley and Mintz’s telling Plaintiff and McGrath to “sit together” and both write down five things on how to improve the relationship, as alleged in ¶38 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; w. McGrath’s inappropriately grabbing two women in the thigh area and making an inappropriate comment, as alleged in ¶40 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; x. Hockley’s stating that some people have to stop being so “sensitive” in regards to McGrath’s sexually inappropriate workplace misconduct, as alleged in ¶40 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; y. Repko’s threatening to lodge an official safety complaint against Plaintiff, as alleged in ¶43 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; z. Plaintiff’s reporting Repko’s behaviors of bullying and intentional violations of safety protocols to Hockley, Mintz, and Richard Walker, as alleged in ¶44 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; aa. The conversation between Plaintiff and Hockley where Plaintiff inquired the reason for forcing upon her duties that were previously handled by Walker’s group, as alleged in ¶47 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; -6- bb. Defendant’s repeated promises that it was going to create a higher position for Plaintiff, as alleged in ¶48 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; cc. The conversation between Plaintiff and Hockley regarding Defendant’s plan to hire a director-level EHS Manager, as alleged in ¶¶48-49 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint; dd. The conversation between Plaintiff and Mintz prior to Plaintiff’s departure, as alleged in ¶55 of Plaintiff’s Complaint; RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Please state whether Defendant has obtained any non-privileged written or oral statement(s) from any person(s) concerning any of the allegations of the Complaint. If affirmative, state: a. the name and address of the person who gave the statement, and date the statement was obtained; b. if written, whether the statement was signed by this person; c. if oral, the name and address of the person who obtained the statement and the date the statement was obtained, -7- d. if oral, the substance of said statements; e. the names and addresses of the persons presently having custody of such statements or having heard such statements, and, f. the date each statement was given. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 Identify all claims or suits alleging misconduct ever threatened or filed against Defendant, including the name of the court and parties involved, stating the date each claim was raised, stating the date each suit or administrative action was commenced; the name and address of the court, agency, or other forum in which it was commenced; the court or agency docket number of all such actions, the names of attorneys representing each party, the substance of each such complaint; the outcome or present status of each matter; whether or not there was an appeal and, if so, the result thereof including the name and citation of each case reported, the amount of any settlement or judgment obtained in each such case, and identify each and every document upon which you relied in answering, or which in any way pertains to the information requested in this Interrogatory. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in -8- anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 7 Please state whether the Defendant had ever issued the Plaintiff a discipline, formal or informal, written or oral, or demoted the Plaintiff at any time throughout the entire term of the Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant. If so, please state the date of each discipline, the reason for the discipline/demotion, the policy claimed Plaintiff violated, whether it was written or verbal, the substance of said discipline, and whether Plaintiff was informed of said discipline, and if so, the date she was informed, and the outcome/resolution of each discipline. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 Please identify the following with respect to the individual that took over Plaintiff’s job duties for Defendant, or replaced Plaintiff’s job duties after Plaintiff separated employment. a. The name initials and position of the individual; b. The employee’s gender; c. Whether the employee had complained of sexual harassment, disparate treatment, workplace bullying, and workplace safety; d. Whether the employee had been subjected to sexual harassment; e. The date such individual(s) assumed Plaintiff’s job duties; -9- f. The job title given to such individual; and, g. A job description for the job duties performed by the Employee. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 9 Identify each and every similarly situated employee of Defendant by name, position, and gender, that was separated from employment with Defendant, for any reason including through separation of employment or lay off or acceptance of resignation, from January 1, 2018, to the present. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 10 State whether Defendant, their agents, servants or employees conducted a formal or informal investigation and / or interviewed any persons before or after the Plaintiff’s separation of employment relating to the claims and allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint. If such investigation and / or interviews were performed, please state the following: -10- a. the date of said investigation; b. the reason for such investigation; c. whether any record or report was made of the investigation; d. the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization conducting the investigation; e. identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an investigation; and, f. state the person who has present possession of all the documents responsive to this question. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 Please identify the individual(s) who made the final decision to accept the Plaintiff’s resignation, and identify all facts and information which said individual(s) relied upon in the decision. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff. -11- INTERROGATORY NO. 12 List all employees discharged or demoted within the last three years by Defendant. For each employee listed, include the employee’s name, position held, gender, whether the employee had complained of sexual harassment, disparate treatment, workplace bullying, and/or workplace safety, whether the employee had been subjected to sexual harassment, and reason(s) for and date of discharge/demotion. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 List all employees that resigned from Defendant within the last three years in Plaintiff’s department. For each employee listed, include the employee’s name, position held, gender, whether the employee had complained of sexual harassment, disparate treatment, workplace bullying, and/or workplace safety, whether the employee had been subjected to sexual harassment, and reason(s) for and date of resignation. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to -12- lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 14 Please identify with specificity all individuals that supplied information to Defendant in any format that Defendant considered in determining whether to accept the Plaintiff’s resignation. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 15 Please state whether anyone in Defendant’s employ had ever made any complaints against McGrath, formal or informal, for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, harassment, and/or bullying. If yes, please provide the following: a. The date(s) of the complaint; b. The name initials of the individual making the complaint; c. The gender of the individual making the complaint; and, d. The outcome of the complaint (i.e. warning, termination, etc.) -13- RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 16 Please state whether anyone in Defendant’s employ had ever made any complaints against Luke Parker, Caroll Forbes, or Jeff Repko, formal or informal, for harassment and/or bullying. If yes, please provide the following: a. The date(s) of the complaint; b. The name initials of the individual making the complaint; c. The gender of the individual making the complaint; and, d. The outcome of the complaint (i.e. warning, termination, etc.) RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Please list all of Plaintiff’s job responsibilities that were not in her job description, as alleged in ¶ 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. -14- INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with an increase in salary for the additional facilities manager role, as alleged in ¶ 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 19 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley had to check with McGrath first to see if he wanted the position, as alleged in ¶ 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that McGrath received a manager position and a salary higher than Plaintiff’s without having a Bachelor’s Degree, as alleged in ¶ 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. -15- RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Jimmy Fornito received a manager position and a salary higher than Plaintiff’s without having a Bachelor’s Degree, as alleged in ¶ 22 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 22 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that McGrath received a promotion despite the complaints against him, as alleged in ¶ 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 23 State whether Human Resources, or any other employee of Defendant or entity at the direction of Defendant conducted any investigation(s) and/or review(s), formal or informal, regarding all the complaints against McGrath, and state with particularity: -16- a. the date of said investigation; b. identify whether any record or report was made of the investigation, including any statements by witnesses, identifying the time, date and form of any such statement and who procured any such statement; c. whether any employee was disciplined; and if so, identify the employee by initials and state the type of discipline issued (i.e., verbal, written, etc.); d. whether any remedial action was taken against any employee; what that remedial action was; and whether that was communicated to the Plaintiff, detailing the time, date and manner of the communication to the Plaintiff and restate in detail the contents of any such communication; e. the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization conducting the investigation; f. identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an investigation; g. state the person who has present possession of all the documents responsive to this question; RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. -17- INTERROGATORY NO. 24 State whether Human Resources, or any other employee of Defendant or entity at the direction of Defendant conducted any investigation(s) and/or review(s), formal or informal, regarding Plaintiff’s complaints about McGrath’s disparate comments, inappropriate behaviors, bullying behaviors, and violation of safety policy, as alleged in ¶¶ 26, 29, and 31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and state with particularity: a. the date of said investigation; b. identify whether any record or report was made of the investigation, including any statements by witnesses, identifying the time, date and form of any such statement and who procured any such statement; c. whether any employee was disciplined; and if so, identify the employee by initials and state the type of discipline issued (i.e., verbal, written, etc.); d. whether any remedial action was taken against any employee; what that remedial action was; and whether that was communicated to the Plaintiff, detailing the time, date and manner of the communication to the Plaintiff and restate in detail the contents of any such communication; e. the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization conducting the investigation; f. identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an investigation; g. state the person who has present possession of all the documents responsive to this question; -18- RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 25 State whether Human Resources, or any other employee of Defendant or entity at the direction of Defendant conducted any investigation(s) and/or review(s), formal or informal, regarding Plaintiff’s complaint about verbal abuse and bullying from male employees, as alleged in ¶¶35, 44 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and state with particularity: a. the date of said investigation; b. identify whether any record or report was made of the investigation, including any statements by witnesses, identifying the time, date and form of any such statement and who procured any such statement; c. whether any employee was disciplined; and if so, identify the employee by initials and state the type of discipline issued (i.e., verbal, written, etc.); d. whether any remedial action was taken against any employee; what that remedial action was; and whether that was communicated to the Plaintiff, detailing the time, date and manner of the communication to the Plaintiff and restate in detail the contents of any such communication; e. the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization conducting the investigation; -19- f. identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an investigation; g. state the person who has present possession of all the documents responsive to this question; RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or prepared in anticipation of litigation. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 26 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley became upset when Plaintiff said that she was going to report McGrath’s bullying to HR, as alleged in ¶ 30 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 27 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that when Plaintiff voiced concerns to Hockley regarding McGrath breaking the safety policy, Hockley simply made excuses for McGrath, as alleged in ¶ 31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. -20- RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 28 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley talked Plaintiff out of informing anyone else of her concerns and became upset that Plaintiff planned on reporting McGrath, as alleged in ¶33 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. HKM also objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information within the possession, custody, and control of Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 29 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley stated that Stan Brown did not need to know anything about what was going on in her plant, as alleged in ¶33 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. -21- INTERROGATORY NO. 30 Please list all the employees that Defendant contacted during the pandemic furlough to help out at work, and identify them by their name initials, position held, gender, and date(s) requested to work. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 31 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant failed to address the verbal abuse reported by Plaintiff, as alleged in ¶35 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 32 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Mintz mocked Plaintiff about treating with a therapist, as alleged in ¶37 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. -22- INTERROGATORY NO. 33 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Hockley and Mintz told Plaintiff and McGrath to “sit together” and both write down five things on how to improve the relationship, as alleged in ¶38 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 34 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant HR made excuses for McGrath for an unapproved purchase and then giving away that product, as alleged in ¶39 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 35 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant took no action in regards to Plaintiff’s complaint about Repko’s behaviors of bullying and intentional violations of safety protocols, as alleged in ¶44 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: -23- Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Plaintiff instead of Walker’s group was forced to take on additional tasks that were formerly handled by his group, as alleged in ¶47 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 37 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant failed to promote Plaintiff to a Director level position or create a higher position for her, as alleged in ¶¶48-50 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 38 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant requested a portion of the tuition back, as alleged in ¶54 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. -24- INTERROGATORY NO. 39 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant never attempted to persuade Plaintiff to remain at the company either by creating a position or offering her an increase in salary, as alleged in ¶50 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 40 Please list all the employees that were offered a position or an increase in salary prior to leaving Defendant company, and identify them by their name initials, position held, gender, position offered, offered increase in salary, and date of separation. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to this interrogatory as overly vague, broad, and unduly burdensome and not limited in time and scope. HKM further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this interrogatory as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. HKM further objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 41 Please state with specificity all the reason(s) that Defendant failed to pay for the expenses that Plaintiff incurred on the travel credit card on behalf of Defendant, as alleged in ¶56 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. RESPONSE: Objection. HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. -25- As to Objections: /s/ Trevin C. Schmidt Trevin C. Schmidt (Juris No. 440531) Gabriel T. Dym (Juris No. 439968) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two International Place, 16th Floor Boston, MA 02110 gdym@eckertseamans.com tschmidt@eckertseamans.com Phone: (617) 342-6800 Fax: (617) 342-6899 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Trevin Schmidt, hereby certify that on August 14, 2023, I served the foregoing document upon the following via electronic mail as follows: Michael C. McMinn THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, LLC 1000 Lafayette Blvd, Suite 1100 Bridgeport, CT 06604 michael@mcminnemploymentlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff /s/ Trevin C. Schmidt Trevin C. Schmidt -26-