Preview
DOCKET NO. UWY-CV22-6068477-S
AUDRA HYEK, : SUPERIOR COURT
:
Plaintiff, :
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
v. : WATERBURY AT
: WATERBURY
HKM MOTION :
SOLUTIONS, INC., :
:
Defendants. :
: NOVEMBER 12, 2023
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION,
DATED JUNE 15, 2023
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-6 and 13-9 et seq., Plaintiff
Audra Hyek (hereinafter “Hyek”) respectfully moves this honorable Court for an order
compelling the Defendant, HKM Motion Solutions, Inc. (“HKM”), to comply with the
Plaintiff’s First Set
of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, dated June 15, 2023. Specifically, Plaintiff
requests this Court for an order compelling the Defendant to respond to Interrogatory Nos.
2, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23, 30, and Request for Production Nos. 3-9, 14, 31, 32, 34, 44, 105,
106, 107, 108. Plaintiff is seeking compliance being made by HKM by a date certain. In
support hereof, the Plaintiff respectfully submits an accompanying memorandum of law.
THE PLAINTIFF,
AUDRA HYEK
By: ___________/s/______________
Michael C. McMinn (#423555)
THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT
LAW FIRM, LLC
1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 1100
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tel: (203) 683-6007
Fax: (203) 680-9881
michael@mcminnemploymentlaw.com
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
1
DOCKET NO. UWY-CV22-6068477-S
AUDRA HYEK, : SUPERIOR COURT
:
Plaintiff, :
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
v. : WATERBURY AT
: WATERBURY
HKM MOTION :
SOLUTIONS, INC., :
:
Defendants. :
: NOVEMBER 13, 2023
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-6 and 13-9 et seq., Plaintiff
Audra Hyek (hereinafter “Hyek”) respectfully moves this honorable Court for an order
compelling the Defendant, HKM Motion Solutions, Inc. (“HKM”), to comply with the
Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, dated June 15, 2023.
Specifically, Plaintiff requests this Court for an order compelling the Defendant to
respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23, 30, and Request for Production
Nos. 3-9, 14, 31, 32, 34, 44, 105, 106, 107, 108.
A. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. By way of Writ, Summons and Complaint, the Plaintiff brought a cause of action
sounding in discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, sexual harassment,
hostile work environment, aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation,
retaliation, retaliation for exercising her right to free speech, and constructive
discharge against the above-named Defendant with a return date of December 27,
2022.
2
2. On June 15, 2023, the Plaintiff propounded to the Defendant Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production.
3. On August 14, 2023, Defendant responded with Defendant’s Objections and
Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents.
4. Defendant objected to all but one interrogatory (DKT Entry No. 111.00).
5. Defendant objected to every single request for production (DKT Entry No. 112.00).
6. The Defendant's responses to the Plaintiff's requests for production are wholly
inadequate. For those responses to which the Defendant deigned to respond, it
merely stated, "Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive
documents, if any, will be produced." Two weeks later, on August 28, 2023, the
Defendant produced a 238-page PDF file of documents without identifying which
requests the documents correspond to.
7. Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with any way to figure out which
documents are responsive to which requests without purely guessing. Defendant’s
production amounted to a “document dump” with no further identification or
requests to documents. In the Superior Court case of Innis Arden Golf Club, Inc. v.
O'Brien & Gere Eng'rs, Inc., No. CV106006581, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2930,
at *5 (Super. Ct. Nov. 18, 2011), the Court found that the “the documents were not
organized or indexed in a manner that would be sequential based upon the content
but were simply given to the defendant to sort out. Even without considering the
electronic difficulties, this manner of discovery is not sufficient. This type of
discovery does not further the intent of discovery but only creates a stumbling block
for the opposing party who has all of these documents and nowhere to go. The
3
documents should be organized or labeled to correspond to the categories in the
request. It is obvious that this was not done and has left the defendants with a mass
of documents without a particular connection to the production requests”, as is the
case here.
8. To address this vast number of deficiencies and inadequate production, on October
13, 2023, the Plaintiff composed and electronically delivered to Defendant’s
Counsel a deficiency letter requesting that vague, boilerplate objections be
withdrawn, produced documents be identified, and supplemental responses to
certain interrogatories and requests for production be provided. (A copy of the
Plaintiff’s deficiency letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.)
9. In the Letter, Plaintiff requested that Defendant provide supplemental responses
by October 20, 2023.
10. On October 18, 2023, the parties met and conferred regarding the items outlined
in Plaintiff’s deficiency letter.
11. During the meet-and-confer session, the Defendant agreed to provide supplemental
documentation for any interrogatories or requests for production to which it would
not maintain its objection.
12. On November 1, 2023, Defendant provided supplemental responses to its Response
to Request for Production of Documents that merely identified responsive
documents for approximately half of the Requests and continued to state that
“responsive documents, if any, will be produced.”
13. Defendant failed to respond to any of the itemized deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Letter
and as such refuses to provide discoverable information related directly to
Plaintiff’s claims.
4
14. Since Defendant stated it was standing on its objection to any interrogatories or
requests for production not responded to in its supplemental response, this matter
is ripe for adjudication.
15. Written discovery in this matter closes on November 15, 2023, with depositions to
be completed by December 15, 2023.
16. Defendant’s failure to make a good-faith response to Plaintiff’s demands for
discovery substantially impairs Plaintiff’s ability obtain corroborating evidence
needed to prosecute her claims. Plaintiff’s ability to thoughtfully and thoroughly
depose witnesses is hampered by Defendant’s failure to respond and could
necessitate an extensive number of depositions to learn information that has been
deemed discoverable by courts and could easily be provided by Defendant.
17. Plaintiff has met her obligation to meet and confer with the Defendant on October
18, 2023, following a deficiency Letter on October 13, 2023, but Defendant’s
inadequate response has forced the Plaintiff into filing the instant motion. (See,
Affidavit of Michael C. McMinn, attached as Exhibit B.)
B. ARGUMENT
It is axiomatic that the purpose of disclosure and discovery is that each party be
apprised of the nature of the adverse party’s case, and thus better prepare for it, because a
litigation strategy that features surprise to the adversary is not tolerated. Baxter v.
Cardiology Associates of New Haven, P.C., 46 Conn. App. 377 (1997). “The discovery
rules are designed to facilitate trial proceedings and to make a ‘trial less a game of
blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the
fullest practical extent.’” Caccavale v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 14 Conn. App. 504, 507,
5
541 A.2d 893, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 812, 545 A.2d 1107 (1988); quoting United States
v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S. Ct. 983, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077 (1958).
“[‘]The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system
depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence . .
.[’] (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)” Tower v. Maturo, No.
CV065001979, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2871, at *3 (Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 2007) (quoting
Simpson v. University of Colorado, 220 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D.Colo. 2004). “Practice Book §
13-14 (a) provides in relevant part that a trial court [‘]may, on motion [to compel
production], make such order as the ends of justice require.[’]” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 Conn. 36, 51, 730 A.2d 51, 59 (1999) (quoting Standard Tallow Corp.
v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48, 57, 459 A.2d 503 (1983)).
“Upon a successful showing of relevant substantial noncompliance, a rebuttable
presumption would arise in favor of the movant that the unproduced information was
material to its case, including the movant's full and fair preparation therefore, in that there
is a reasonable possibility that had the unproduced material or information been provided,
the result of the trial could have been different. Thereafter, the noncompliant party would
have the burden of rebutting the aforementioned presumption. Specifically, if the
noncompliant party fails to demonstrate that the unproduced or undisclosed information
was immaterial to the movant's case (i.e., that there is no reasonable possibility that the
result of the trial could have been different), the motion for a new trial should be granted.”
Duart v. Dep't of Corr., 303 Conn. 479, 509-10, 34 A.3d 343, 360 (2012).
The Defendant has not provided the Plaintiff with their compliance either by written
discovery or documents produced. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks an order of compliance
with this Court. The disclosure sought will be of assistance in the prosecution of this action
6
and can be provided by said Defendant with substantially greater facility than could
otherwise be obtained.
Requiring the Defendant to comply by a date certain will permit the Plaintiff to
more fully evaluate the Defendant’s claimed defenses. Accordingly, the undersigned
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defendant be compelled to submit a complete
response to Plaintiff’s deficiency letter by a date certain.
C. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff, who has been prejudiced from the unnecessary delay caused by the
Defendant’s inexcusable neglect, and who continues to be prejudiced in the proper
preparation of her case, seeks an order for the following:
1) The entry of an Order precluding Defendant from offering at trial any and all
evidence relating to those matters upon which discovery was sought by
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production; and/or
2) An order compelling the Defendant to comply fully with each and every part of
compelling the Defendant to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21,
23, 30, and Request for Production Nos. 3-9, 14, 31, 32, 34, 44, 105, 106, 107,
108, on a date certain, which date shall be not later than seven days after entry
of such Order; and/or
3) Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
7
THE PLAINTIFF,
AUDRA HYEK
By: ___________/s/______________
Michael C. McMinn (#423555)
THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT
LAW FIRM, LLC
1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 1100
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tel: (203) 683-6007
Fax: (203) 680-9881
michael@mcminnemploymentlaw.com
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent this 12th day of
November, 2023 to the following counsel of record:
Gabriel T. Dym
gdym@eckertseamans.com
Trevin C. Schmidt
tschmidt@eckertseamans.com
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two International Place, 16th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
________/s/______________
Michael C. McMinn
8
EXHIBIT A
MICHAEL C. MCMINN
LITIGATION ATTORNEY
1000 Lafayette Blvd, Suite 1100
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Main (203) 683-6007
www.mcminnemploymentlaw.com
October 13, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Trevin C. Schmidt
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two International Place, 16th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
tschmidt@eckertseamans.com
RE: Audra Hyek v. Haydon Kerk Motion Solutions, Inc.
Trevin,
On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff received Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set
of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Plaintiff has reviewed Defendant’s answers and
responses and notes many deficiencies. Accordingly, Plaintiff writes to request that Defendant (1)
withdraw its improper boilerplate objections and (2) provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories and requests for production within one week from the date of this letter to allow
Plaintiff to adequately prepare for depositions and resolve any remaining discovery disputes in a
timely manner.
While Plaintiff has attached to this letter its detailed position on each interrogatory and request for
production that is currently in dispute, it bears highlighting at the outset that her chief complaint
concerns Defendant’s reliance upon impermissibly vague, boilerplate objections. Defendant’s
improper objections are even more problematic given its incomplete interrogatory answers and
Defendant’s failure to clarify in its responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production which documents
it has provided for a particular request and which documents, if any, it has withheld on the basis of its
objections. More specifically, in every instance in which Defendant did not stand on its objections to
Plaintiff’s requests for production, it merely informed Plaintiff generally that “responsive documents,
if any, will be produced” without specifically identifying the responsive documents. Taken together,
Defendant’s discovery responses constitute textbook examples of boilerplate objections and a
1
document dump, both of which are impermissible. Otherwise, the attorney’s obligation would be
satisfied by simply stating to every single request “see the documents produced,” which is not proper
procedure. As you know, this type of response is insufficient.
Defendant’s responsive documents need to be identified. In Innis Arden Golf Club, Inc. v. O'Brien &
Gere Eng'rs, Inc., No. CV106006581, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2930, at *5 (Super. Ct. Nov. 18,
2011), the Court found that the “the documents were not organized or indexed in a manner that would
be sequential based upon the content but were simply given to the defendant to sort out. Even without
considering the electronic difficulties, this manner of discovery is not sufficient. This type of
discovery does not further the intent of discovery but only creates a stumbling block for the opposing
party who has all of these documents and nowhere to go. The rules require that the documents are
organized or labeled to correspond to the categories in the request. It is obvious that this was not done
and has left the defendants with a mass of documents without a particular connection to the production
requests.” The same problem has occurred here with Defendant’s disclosure.
Given the severity of deficiencies, which are outlined in more detail below, Plaintiff will seek all costs
associated with this letter and associated proceedings it if is required to pursue a resolution to this
discovery dispute with the court.
Please provide me with dates that you are available to meet and confer next week.
Very truly yours,
Michael C. McMinn
MCM/
2
INTERROGATORIES
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;
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.)
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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states that
this is the only pending lawsuit against HKM. There was a prior lawsuit by employee
Kenneth Boucher (alleging discrimination based on age and disability) which was
withdrawn. HKM further responds that there are four (4) pending claims filed with the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against HKM brought by
former employees , HR Manager (alleging discrimination based on sex,
race, and age), , CNC Operator (alleging discrimination based on
race, color, national origin, disability, and retaliation), , Assembler (alleging
discrimination based on race and color) and , Cutter/Blaster (alleging
3
discrimination based on sex and retaliation). All four claims are currently pending and
have not reached final resolution.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 2
as it does not provide the forum in which the prior lawsuit was brought by
employee or his department. The Answer does not provide a
description of all actions taken by Defendant to investigate each claim or a finding
of each claim. The Answer does not provide whether each claim resulted in any
discipline for any employee and the nature of the discipline. (i.e., termination,
written warning, etc.). Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full
and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts.
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.
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 -12- 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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM refers
Plaintiff to HKM’s response to Interrogatory No. 2.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 6
4
as it does not provide the name of the court and parties involved, the date each
claim was raised, 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/or each
and every document upon which Defendant relied in answering, or which in any
way pertains to the information requested in this Interrogatory. Plaintiff,
therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its
interrogatory and its related subparts.
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.
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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states
that as of June 2023, James Fornito was the only employee demoted from Manager,
Production to Supervisor, Production effective October 17, 2022 with 7.4078% pay
decrease ($ ). HKM further refers Plaintiff to the list attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No.
12 as it does not provide whether the discharged or demoted employees 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. Plaintiff,
therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its
5
interrogatory and its related subparts.
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.
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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM refers
Plaintiff to the list attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No.
13 as it does not provide whether the employees who resigned 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. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant
provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts.
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.
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.
6
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states
there is no requirement for a bachelor’s degree for the manager position. HKM further
states that McGrath’s qualifications merited his salary.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No.
20 as it does not specify McGrath’s qualifications that merited his salary.
Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response
to its interrogatory and its related subparts.
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.
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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states
there is no requirement for a bachelor’s degree in the manager position. HKM further
states that Jimmy Fornito’s qualifications merited his salary.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No.
21 as it does not specify Fornito’s qualifications that merited his salary. Plaintiff,
therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its
interrogatory and its related subparts.
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:
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
7
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;
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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states the
following:
1) May 18, 2020 report made. Witness statements obtained verbally through
May 20, 2020 by Genna Mintz. Claim substantiated and Warning for Conduct
issued along with mandatory training. Plaintiff was aware of the allegation,
but not involved, and was informed it was addressed.
2) June 16, 2020 report made by Plaintiff about safety violation and lack of
professionalism by McGrath. Verbal witness statements taken by Mrs. Mintz
on June 17, 2020. Subsequently, similar complaint made by another employee
8
about lack of professionalism. Documented verbal discussion conducted by
Mintz addressing his behaviors including expectations on safety, with
mandatory training course “Communicating with Tact and Professionalism.”
3) September 14, 2020 Plaintiff complained of safety violation. Witnesses’
statements obtained verbally by Mrs. Mintz same day. Warning for safety
violation delivered on September 15, 2020. Plaintiff was verbally informed
actions had been taken.
HKM further refers Plaintiff to responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 15.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No.
23 as it does not specify any statements by witnesses, identifying the time, date
and form of any such statement and who procured any such statement; when a
employee was disciplined it does not identify the employee by initials; the name,
address, and telephone number of the person or organization conducting the
investigation; and/or identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a
result of such an investigation. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant
provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts.
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
9
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;
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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM refers
Plaintiff to responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 15 and 23.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No.
24 as it refers Plaintiff to Interrogatory No. 23 which is an incomplete
Interrogatory as stated above. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant
provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts.
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:
10
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;
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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM refers
Plaintiff to responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 15, 23, and 24.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No.
25 as it refers Plaintiff to Interrogatory Nos. 23 and 24 which are incomplete
11
Interrogatories as stated above. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant
provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts.
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.
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.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states it
has no reasons to report in response to Interrogatory No. 30.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is nonresponsive Answer to Interrogatory No.
30, which requested Defendant to 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. Defendant’s
response references “reasons to report” but that is not information that was
requested in Interrogatory No. 30. The Answer in no way provides information
that is responsive to the Interrogatory. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that
Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related
subparts.
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.
OBJECTION: HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence.
ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states
that the last expense report submitted by Plaintiff was paid out by the company.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No.
12
41 as it fails to provide reasons why Defendant failed to pay for any expenses that
Plaintiff incurred on the travel credit card on behalf of Defendant. The Answer
to the Interrogatory only addresses a last expense report submitted by Plaintiff
that was paid out by Defendant, but does not state whether any were not paid out
and the reasons for failing to pay Plaintiff for those expenses. Plaintiff, therefore,
demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory
and its related subparts.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST NO. 2
Produce Paul McGrath’s complete personnel file, (excluding personal tax information) including,
but not limited, to the following documents and whether or not Defendant consider the documents
to exist within or outside of said file:
a. performance evaluations;
b. wage, salary, and bonus history;
c. any written warning(s); and,
d. his entire discipline history.
OBJECTION: HKM objects because this request seeks information that is irrelevant
and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this request as not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: In response to this Request for Production,
Defendant provides nothing more than impermissibly vague, boilerplate
objections that must be stricken. Plaintiff is entitled to the personnel files of
alleged harassers, comparators, and supervisors. Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth
that Luke Parker bullied Plaintiff during her employment for Defendant. The
personnel files of other employees are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of disparate
treatment and a hostile work environment. See Ruran v. Beth El Temple of West
Hartford, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 165, 169 (D. Conn. 2005). Additionally, the disclosure
of personnel files falls under the second exception to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128f
where the disclosure is made in response to the "defense of personnel-related
complaints against the employer." See id.
Additional case law also supports disclosure of personnel files in this matter.
“The plaintiff's supervisor's personnel file is discoverable because it may contain
information about that person's actions toward the plaintiff employee, among
13
other things ….” Phillips v. Berlex Labs., Inc., No. 3:05CV81(CFD) (TPS), 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27389, at *8 (D. Conn. May 5, 2006) see, e.g., Lyoch v. Anheuser-
Busch Cos., 164 F.R.D. 62, 68-69 (E.D. Mo. 1995)(finding supervisor's personnel
file relevant in age discrimination case because "it may include evidence
regarding the manner in which he treated other employees, complaints about his
conduct, and actions taken by Defendant in response to such complaints"); Cason
v. Builders Firstsource-Southeast Group, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (W.D.N.C.
2001)(holding personnel files of two alleged harassers in racial discrimination
case discoverable "where the files sought are those of employees whose action or
inaction has [*9] a direct bearing on the Plaintiff's claims or Defendant's
affirmative defenses . . ."). As for comparators, comparators personnel files is
overly broad or irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence. Comparator information is generally an essential element of any claim
alleging discrimination. See Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201,
1226 (11th Cir. 2008) Shepard v. Ups, No. 5:08-CV-0906-SLB, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 157580, at *10 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2010) Plaintiff is entitled to
comparator’s personnel files in order to show disparate treatment in comparison
to other employees similarly situated to himself or herself. “The Court finds these
potential comparator factors establish sufficient relevance to discover [a co-
workers] personnel file.” Simmons v. Sejong Ala. LLC., No. 2:19-CV-629-RAH-
KFP, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261954, at *7 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 23, 2020).
Accordingly, Plaintiff demands Defendant withdraw its improper objections
and provide a specific response to this Request, identifying the responsive
documents by bates number and stipulating whether, in fact, any responsive
documents are actually being withheld on the basis of attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, or any objection.
REQUEST NO. 4
Produce Luke Parker’s complete personnel file, (excluding personal tax information) including, but
not limited, to the following documents and whether or not Defendant consider the documents to
exist within or outside of said file: performance evaluations;
a. performance evaluations;
b. wage, salary, and bonus history;
c. any written warning(s); and,
d. his entire discipline history.
OBJECTION: HKM objects because this request seeks information that is irrelevant
and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this request as not
14
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: In response to this Request for Production,
Defendant provides nothing more than impermissibly vague, boilerplate
objections that must be stricken. Plaintiff is entitled to the personnel files of
alleged harassers, comparators, and supervisors. Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth
that Luke Parker bullied Plaintiff during her employment for Defendant. The
personnel files of other employees are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of disparate
treatment and a hostile work environment. See Ruran v. Beth El Temple of West
Hartford, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 165, 169 (D. Conn. 2005). Additionally, the disclosure
of personnel files falls under the second exception to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128f
where the disclosure is made in response to the "defense of personnel-related
complaints against the employer." See id.
Additional case law also supports disclosure of personnel files in this matter.
“The plaintiff's supervisor's personnel file is discoverable because it may contain
information about that person's actions toward the plaintiff employee, among
other things ….” Phillips v. Berlex Labs., Inc., No. 3:05CV81(CFD) (TPS), 2006
U.S. Dist
Preview
DOCKET NO. UWY-CV22-6068477-S AUDRA HYEK, : SUPERIOR COURT : Plaintiff, : : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF v. : WATERBURY AT : WATERBURY HKM MOTION : SOLUTIONS, INC., : : Defendants. : : NOVEMBER 12, 2023 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, DATED JUNE 15, 2023 Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-6 and 13-9 et seq., Plaintiff Audra Hyek (hereinafter “Hyek”) respectfully moves this honorable Court for an order compelling the Defendant, HKM Motion Solutions, Inc. (“HKM”), to comply with the Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, dated June 15, 2023. Specifically, Plaintiff requests this Court for an order compelling the Defendant to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23, 30, and Request for Production Nos. 3-9, 14, 31, 32, 34, 44, 105, 106, 107, 108. Plaintiff is seeking compliance being made by HKM by a date certain. In support hereof, the Plaintiff respectfully submits an accompanying memorandum of law. THE PLAINTIFF, AUDRA HYEK By: ___________/s/______________ Michael C. McMinn (#423555) THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, LLC 1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 1100 Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 683-6007 Fax: (203) 680-9881 michael@mcminnemploymentlaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 1 DOCKET NO. UWY-CV22-6068477-S AUDRA HYEK, : SUPERIOR COURT : Plaintiff, : : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF v. : WATERBURY AT : WATERBURY HKM MOTION : SOLUTIONS, INC., : : Defendants. : : NOVEMBER 13, 2023 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-6 and 13-9 et seq., Plaintiff Audra Hyek (hereinafter “Hyek”) respectfully moves this honorable Court for an order compelling the Defendant, HKM Motion Solutions, Inc. (“HKM”), to comply with the Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, dated June 15, 2023. Specifically, Plaintiff requests this Court for an order compelling the Defendant to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23, 30, and Request for Production Nos. 3-9, 14, 31, 32, 34, 44, 105, 106, 107, 108. A. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. By way of Writ, Summons and Complaint, the Plaintiff brought a cause of action sounding in discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation, retaliation, retaliation for exercising her right to free speech, and constructive discharge against the above-named Defendant with a return date of December 27, 2022. 2 2. On June 15, 2023, the Plaintiff propounded to the Defendant Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. 3. On August 14, 2023, Defendant responded with Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 4. Defendant objected to all but one interrogatory (DKT Entry No. 111.00). 5. Defendant objected to every single request for production (DKT Entry No. 112.00). 6. The Defendant's responses to the Plaintiff's requests for production are wholly inadequate. For those responses to which the Defendant deigned to respond, it merely stated, "Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, responsive documents, if any, will be produced." Two weeks later, on August 28, 2023, the Defendant produced a 238-page PDF file of documents without identifying which requests the documents correspond to. 7. Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with any way to figure out which documents are responsive to which requests without purely guessing. Defendant’s production amounted to a “document dump” with no further identification or requests to documents. In the Superior Court case of Innis Arden Golf Club, Inc. v. O'Brien & Gere Eng'rs, Inc., No. CV106006581, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2930, at *5 (Super. Ct. Nov. 18, 2011), the Court found that the “the documents were not organized or indexed in a manner that would be sequential based upon the content but were simply given to the defendant to sort out. Even without considering the electronic difficulties, this manner of discovery is not sufficient. This type of discovery does not further the intent of discovery but only creates a stumbling block for the opposing party who has all of these documents and nowhere to go. The 3 documents should be organized or labeled to correspond to the categories in the request. It is obvious that this was not done and has left the defendants with a mass of documents without a particular connection to the production requests”, as is the case here. 8. To address this vast number of deficiencies and inadequate production, on October 13, 2023, the Plaintiff composed and electronically delivered to Defendant’s Counsel a deficiency letter requesting that vague, boilerplate objections be withdrawn, produced documents be identified, and supplemental responses to certain interrogatories and requests for production be provided. (A copy of the Plaintiff’s deficiency letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.) 9. In the Letter, Plaintiff requested that Defendant provide supplemental responses by October 20, 2023. 10. On October 18, 2023, the parties met and conferred regarding the items outlined in Plaintiff’s deficiency letter. 11. During the meet-and-confer session, the Defendant agreed to provide supplemental documentation for any interrogatories or requests for production to which it would not maintain its objection. 12. On November 1, 2023, Defendant provided supplemental responses to its Response to Request for Production of Documents that merely identified responsive documents for approximately half of the Requests and continued to state that “responsive documents, if any, will be produced.” 13. Defendant failed to respond to any of the itemized deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Letter and as such refuses to provide discoverable information related directly to Plaintiff’s claims. 4 14. Since Defendant stated it was standing on its objection to any interrogatories or requests for production not responded to in its supplemental response, this matter is ripe for adjudication. 15. Written discovery in this matter closes on November 15, 2023, with depositions to be completed by December 15, 2023. 16. Defendant’s failure to make a good-faith response to Plaintiff’s demands for discovery substantially impairs Plaintiff’s ability obtain corroborating evidence needed to prosecute her claims. Plaintiff’s ability to thoughtfully and thoroughly depose witnesses is hampered by Defendant’s failure to respond and could necessitate an extensive number of depositions to learn information that has been deemed discoverable by courts and could easily be provided by Defendant. 17. Plaintiff has met her obligation to meet and confer with the Defendant on October 18, 2023, following a deficiency Letter on October 13, 2023, but Defendant’s inadequate response has forced the Plaintiff into filing the instant motion. (See, Affidavit of Michael C. McMinn, attached as Exhibit B.) B. ARGUMENT It is axiomatic that the purpose of disclosure and discovery is that each party be apprised of the nature of the adverse party’s case, and thus better prepare for it, because a litigation strategy that features surprise to the adversary is not tolerated. Baxter v. Cardiology Associates of New Haven, P.C., 46 Conn. App. 377 (1997). “The discovery rules are designed to facilitate trial proceedings and to make a ‘trial less a game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practical extent.’” Caccavale v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 14 Conn. App. 504, 507, 5 541 A.2d 893, cert. denied, 208 Conn. 812, 545 A.2d 1107 (1988); quoting United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S. Ct. 983, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077 (1958). “[‘]The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence . . .[’] (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)” Tower v. Maturo, No. CV065001979, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2871, at *3 (Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 2007) (quoting Simpson v. University of Colorado, 220 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D.Colo. 2004). “Practice Book § 13-14 (a) provides in relevant part that a trial court [‘]may, on motion [to compel production], make such order as the ends of justice require.[’]” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 Conn. 36, 51, 730 A.2d 51, 59 (1999) (quoting Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48, 57, 459 A.2d 503 (1983)). “Upon a successful showing of relevant substantial noncompliance, a rebuttable presumption would arise in favor of the movant that the unproduced information was material to its case, including the movant's full and fair preparation therefore, in that there is a reasonable possibility that had the unproduced material or information been provided, the result of the trial could have been different. Thereafter, the noncompliant party would have the burden of rebutting the aforementioned presumption. Specifically, if the noncompliant party fails to demonstrate that the unproduced or undisclosed information was immaterial to the movant's case (i.e., that there is no reasonable possibility that the result of the trial could have been different), the motion for a new trial should be granted.” Duart v. Dep't of Corr., 303 Conn. 479, 509-10, 34 A.3d 343, 360 (2012). The Defendant has not provided the Plaintiff with their compliance either by written discovery or documents produced. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks an order of compliance with this Court. The disclosure sought will be of assistance in the prosecution of this action 6 and can be provided by said Defendant with substantially greater facility than could otherwise be obtained. Requiring the Defendant to comply by a date certain will permit the Plaintiff to more fully evaluate the Defendant’s claimed defenses. Accordingly, the undersigned Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defendant be compelled to submit a complete response to Plaintiff’s deficiency letter by a date certain. C. CONCLUSION Plaintiff, who has been prejudiced from the unnecessary delay caused by the Defendant’s inexcusable neglect, and who continues to be prejudiced in the proper preparation of her case, seeks an order for the following: 1) The entry of an Order precluding Defendant from offering at trial any and all evidence relating to those matters upon which discovery was sought by Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production; and/or 2) An order compelling the Defendant to comply fully with each and every part of compelling the Defendant to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23, 30, and Request for Production Nos. 3-9, 14, 31, 32, 34, 44, 105, 106, 107, 108, on a date certain, which date shall be not later than seven days after entry of such Order; and/or 3) Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 7 THE PLAINTIFF, AUDRA HYEK By: ___________/s/______________ Michael C. McMinn (#423555) THE MCMINN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, LLC 1000 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 1100 Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 683-6007 Fax: (203) 680-9881 michael@mcminnemploymentlaw.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent this 12th day of November, 2023 to the following counsel of record: Gabriel T. Dym gdym@eckertseamans.com Trevin C. Schmidt tschmidt@eckertseamans.com Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two International Place, 16th Floor Boston, MA 02110 ________/s/______________ Michael C. McMinn 8 EXHIBIT A MICHAEL C. MCMINN LITIGATION ATTORNEY 1000 Lafayette Blvd, Suite 1100 Bridgeport, CT 06604 Main (203) 683-6007 www.mcminnemploymentlaw.com October 13, 2023 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Trevin C. Schmidt Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two International Place, 16th Floor Boston, MA 02110 tschmidt@eckertseamans.com RE: Audra Hyek v. Haydon Kerk Motion Solutions, Inc. Trevin, On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff received Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Plaintiff has reviewed Defendant’s answers and responses and notes many deficiencies. Accordingly, Plaintiff writes to request that Defendant (1) withdraw its improper boilerplate objections and (2) provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production within one week from the date of this letter to allow Plaintiff to adequately prepare for depositions and resolve any remaining discovery disputes in a timely manner. While Plaintiff has attached to this letter its detailed position on each interrogatory and request for production that is currently in dispute, it bears highlighting at the outset that her chief complaint concerns Defendant’s reliance upon impermissibly vague, boilerplate objections. Defendant’s improper objections are even more problematic given its incomplete interrogatory answers and Defendant’s failure to clarify in its responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production which documents it has provided for a particular request and which documents, if any, it has withheld on the basis of its objections. More specifically, in every instance in which Defendant did not stand on its objections to Plaintiff’s requests for production, it merely informed Plaintiff generally that “responsive documents, if any, will be produced” without specifically identifying the responsive documents. Taken together, Defendant’s discovery responses constitute textbook examples of boilerplate objections and a 1 document dump, both of which are impermissible. Otherwise, the attorney’s obligation would be satisfied by simply stating to every single request “see the documents produced,” which is not proper procedure. As you know, this type of response is insufficient. Defendant’s responsive documents need to be identified. In Innis Arden Golf Club, Inc. v. O'Brien & Gere Eng'rs, Inc., No. CV106006581, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2930, at *5 (Super. Ct. Nov. 18, 2011), the Court found that the “the documents were not organized or indexed in a manner that would be sequential based upon the content but were simply given to the defendant to sort out. Even without considering the electronic difficulties, this manner of discovery is not sufficient. This type of discovery does not further the intent of discovery but only creates a stumbling block for the opposing party who has all of these documents and nowhere to go. The rules require that the documents are organized or labeled to correspond to the categories in the request. It is obvious that this was not done and has left the defendants with a mass of documents without a particular connection to the production requests.” The same problem has occurred here with Defendant’s disclosure. Given the severity of deficiencies, which are outlined in more detail below, Plaintiff will seek all costs associated with this letter and associated proceedings it if is required to pursue a resolution to this discovery dispute with the court. Please provide me with dates that you are available to meet and confer next week. Very truly yours, Michael C. McMinn MCM/ 2 INTERROGATORIES 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; 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.) 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states that this is the only pending lawsuit against HKM. There was a prior lawsuit by employee Kenneth Boucher (alleging discrimination based on age and disability) which was withdrawn. HKM further responds that there are four (4) pending claims filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against HKM brought by former employees , HR Manager (alleging discrimination based on sex, race, and age), , CNC Operator (alleging discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability, and retaliation), , Assembler (alleging discrimination based on race and color) and , Cutter/Blaster (alleging 3 discrimination based on sex and retaliation). All four claims are currently pending and have not reached final resolution. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 2 as it does not provide the forum in which the prior lawsuit was brought by employee or his department. The Answer does not provide a description of all actions taken by Defendant to investigate each claim or a finding of each claim. The Answer does not provide whether each claim resulted in any discipline for any employee and the nature of the discipline. (i.e., termination, written warning, etc.). Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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. 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 -12- 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM refers Plaintiff to HKM’s response to Interrogatory No. 2. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 4 as it does not provide the name of the court and parties involved, the date each claim was raised, 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/or each and every document upon which Defendant relied in answering, or which in any way pertains to the information requested in this Interrogatory. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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. 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states that as of June 2023, James Fornito was the only employee demoted from Manager, Production to Supervisor, Production effective October 17, 2022 with 7.4078% pay decrease ($ ). HKM further refers Plaintiff to the list attached hereto as Exhibit A. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 12 as it does not provide whether the discharged or demoted employees 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. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its 5 interrogatory and its related subparts. 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. 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM refers Plaintiff to the list attached hereto as Exhibit A. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 13 as it does not provide whether the employees who resigned 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. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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. 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. 6 ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states there is no requirement for a bachelor’s degree for the manager position. HKM further states that McGrath’s qualifications merited his salary. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 20 as it does not specify McGrath’s qualifications that merited his salary. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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. 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states there is no requirement for a bachelor’s degree in the manager position. HKM further states that Jimmy Fornito’s qualifications merited his salary. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 21 as it does not specify Fornito’s qualifications that merited his salary. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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: 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 7 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; 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states the following: 1) May 18, 2020 report made. Witness statements obtained verbally through May 20, 2020 by Genna Mintz. Claim substantiated and Warning for Conduct issued along with mandatory training. Plaintiff was aware of the allegation, but not involved, and was informed it was addressed. 2) June 16, 2020 report made by Plaintiff about safety violation and lack of professionalism by McGrath. Verbal witness statements taken by Mrs. Mintz on June 17, 2020. Subsequently, similar complaint made by another employee 8 about lack of professionalism. Documented verbal discussion conducted by Mintz addressing his behaviors including expectations on safety, with mandatory training course “Communicating with Tact and Professionalism.” 3) September 14, 2020 Plaintiff complained of safety violation. Witnesses’ statements obtained verbally by Mrs. Mintz same day. Warning for safety violation delivered on September 15, 2020. Plaintiff was verbally informed actions had been taken. HKM further refers Plaintiff to responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 15. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 23 as it does not specify any statements by witnesses, identifying the time, date and form of any such statement and who procured any such statement; when a employee was disciplined it does not identify the employee by initials; the name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization conducting the investigation; and/or identify any and all documents concerning or obtained as a result of such an investigation. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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 9 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; 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM refers Plaintiff to responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 15 and 23. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 24 as it refers Plaintiff to Interrogatory No. 23 which is an incomplete Interrogatory as stated above. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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: 10 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; 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM refers Plaintiff to responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 15, 23, and 24. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 25 as it refers Plaintiff to Interrogatory Nos. 23 and 24 which are incomplete 11 Interrogatories as stated above. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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. 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. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states it has no reasons to report in response to Interrogatory No. 30. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is nonresponsive Answer to Interrogatory No. 30, which requested Defendant to 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. Defendant’s response references “reasons to report” but that is not information that was requested in Interrogatory No. 30. The Answer in no way provides information that is responsive to the Interrogatory. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. 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. OBJECTION: HKM objects to the extent this request assumes facts not in evidence. ANSWER: Notwithstanding and without waiving pending objections, HKM states that the last expense report submitted by Plaintiff was paid out by the company. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: This is an incomplete Answer to Interrogatory No. 12 41 as it fails to provide reasons why Defendant failed to pay for any expenses that Plaintiff incurred on the travel credit card on behalf of Defendant. The Answer to the Interrogatory only addresses a last expense report submitted by Plaintiff that was paid out by Defendant, but does not state whether any were not paid out and the reasons for failing to pay Plaintiff for those expenses. Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant provide a full and complete response to its interrogatory and its related subparts. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 2 Produce Paul McGrath’s complete personnel file, (excluding personal tax information) including, but not limited, to the following documents and whether or not Defendant consider the documents to exist within or outside of said file: a. performance evaluations; b. wage, salary, and bonus history; c. any written warning(s); and, d. his entire discipline history. OBJECTION: HKM objects because this request seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this request as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: In response to this Request for Production, Defendant provides nothing more than impermissibly vague, boilerplate objections that must be stricken. Plaintiff is entitled to the personnel files of alleged harassers, comparators, and supervisors. Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth that Luke Parker bullied Plaintiff during her employment for Defendant. The personnel files of other employees are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of disparate treatment and a hostile work environment. See Ruran v. Beth El Temple of West Hartford, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 165, 169 (D. Conn. 2005). Additionally, the disclosure of personnel files falls under the second exception to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128f where the disclosure is made in response to the "defense of personnel-related complaints against the employer." See id. Additional case law also supports disclosure of personnel files in this matter. “The plaintiff's supervisor's personnel file is discoverable because it may contain information about that person's actions toward the plaintiff employee, among 13 other things ….” Phillips v. Berlex Labs., Inc., No. 3:05CV81(CFD) (TPS), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27389, at *8 (D. Conn. May 5, 2006) see, e.g., Lyoch v. Anheuser- Busch Cos., 164 F.R.D. 62, 68-69 (E.D. Mo. 1995)(finding supervisor's personnel file relevant in age discrimination case because "it may include evidence regarding the manner in which he treated other employees, complaints about his conduct, and actions taken by Defendant in response to such complaints"); Cason v. Builders Firstsource-Southeast Group, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (W.D.N.C. 2001)(holding personnel files of two alleged harassers in racial discrimination case discoverable "where the files sought are those of employees whose action or inaction has [*9] a direct bearing on the Plaintiff's claims or Defendant's affirmative defenses . . ."). As for comparators, comparators personnel files is overly broad or irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Comparator information is generally an essential element of any claim alleging discrimination. See Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201, 1226 (11th Cir. 2008) Shepard v. Ups, No. 5:08-CV-0906-SLB, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157580, at *10 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2010) Plaintiff is entitled to comparator’s personnel files in order to show disparate treatment in comparison to other employees similarly situated to himself or herself. “The Court finds these potential comparator factors establish sufficient relevance to discover [a co- workers] personnel file.” Simmons v. Sejong Ala. LLC., No. 2:19-CV-629-RAH- KFP, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261954, at *7 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 23, 2020). Accordingly, Plaintiff demands Defendant withdraw its improper objections and provide a specific response to this Request, identifying the responsive documents by bates number and stipulating whether, in fact, any responsive documents are actually being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any objection. REQUEST NO. 4 Produce Luke Parker’s complete personnel file, (excluding personal tax information) including, but not limited, to the following documents and whether or not Defendant consider the documents to exist within or outside of said file: performance evaluations; a. performance evaluations; b. wage, salary, and bonus history; c. any written warning(s); and, d. his entire discipline history. OBJECTION: HKM objects because this request seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. HKM also objects to this request as not 14 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION: In response to this Request for Production, Defendant provides nothing more than impermissibly vague, boilerplate objections that must be stricken. Plaintiff is entitled to the personnel files of alleged harassers, comparators, and supervisors. Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth that Luke Parker bullied Plaintiff during her employment for Defendant. The personnel files of other employees are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of disparate treatment and a hostile work environment. See Ruran v. Beth El Temple of West Hartford, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 165, 169 (D. Conn. 2005). Additionally, the disclosure of personnel files falls under the second exception to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128f where the disclosure is made in response to the "defense of personnel-related complaints against the employer." See id. Additional case law also supports disclosure of personnel files in this matter. “The plaintiff's supervisor's personnel file is discoverable because it may contain information about that person's actions toward the plaintiff employee, among other things ….” Phillips v. Berlex Labs., Inc., No. 3:05CV81(CFD) (TPS), 2006 U.S. Dist