Preview
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
November 24, 2023 Dana B Parker
dana.parker@klgates.com
T +1 973 848 4091
F +1 973 848 4001
Via eCourts
The Honorable Gregg A. Padovano, J.S.C.
The Superior Court of New Jersey
Bergen County Courthouse
10 Main Street, Room 331
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
Re: Corinne Pandelo v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. et al., BER-
L-005508-21
Dear Judge Padovano,
This Firm represents Defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
and the East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named as Hackensack
Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses) (“East Hackensack”) (together, “Defendants”) in the above-
captioned matter. Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a moral formal brief in opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Discovery (the “Motion”). The Court should
deny Plaintiff’s Motion because of its failure to meet and confer in good faith prior to bringing
forth its Motion. Indeed, having had the opportunity to meet and confer, Defendants were able to
resolve Part I of Plaintiff’s Motion relating to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for the Production of
Documents Nos. 4 and 5.
As it relates to Part II of the Motion, Plaintiff concedes that it filed a motion seeking to
compel the production of certain redaction logs even though Defendants indicated that they were
K&L GATES LLP
ONE NEWARK CENTER TENTH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102
T +1 973 848 4000 F +1 973 848 4001 klgates.com
Anthony P. La Rocco, Managing Partner, New Jersey
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
in the process of producing them. The record is clear that Defendants did not object to this request
and indeed produced the records soon after Plaintiff filed the Motion. Regrettably, Plaintiff has
indicated that it does not intend to withdraw Part II of the Motion and is now raising additional
objections. As more fully set forth below, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s belated attempt to amend the Motion on reply.
I. Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the Motion on reply.
The parties executed a stipulated Consent Order on March 9, 2023, Transaction ID
LCV2023856021 (the “Consent Order”). In accordance with the Consent Order, “the identities of
any other minor or adult victims of sexual abuse/misconduct or who have alleged sexual
abuse/misconduct, apart from the Plaintiff in this case, should generally be considered
‘CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’” Id., ¶ 18. The Consent Order further provides that “the
disclosure of their identities should be protected.” Id. The Consent Order further provides for the
parties’ ability to protect the identity of these individuals through the use of redactions. Id.
On November 8, 2023, Defendants provided a revised production with redactions bearing
the initials of the individuals whose identity Defendants sought to protect. Certification of Dana
B. Parker, dated November 24, 2023 (“Parker Cert.”), ¶ 3, Exhibit 1; Parker Cert., ¶ 4, Exhibit 2.
In addition, Defendants provided Plaintiff with detailed redaction logs. 1 This should have marked
1
Given the sensitive nature of the information contained in the redaction logs, Defendants are not
filing them with this Court. Nonetheless, Defendants are ready to provide the Court with copies
filed under seal if the Court deems it necessary.
2
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 3 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
the end of the Motion. Unfortunately, in a letter dated November 13, 2023, Plaintiff raised
additional objections to the production. Parker Cert., ¶ 5, Exhibit 3. 2
In her letter, Plaintiff noted that it had additional objections to the production. Plaintiff
indicated that it was providing “specific deficiencies that remain” and that it would “clarify the
scope of the remaining issues” directly with the Court. More specifically, Plaintiff stated that it
intended to amend the Motion “in her Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel.” Id. This is
improper.
It is well established that a party cannot use a reply brief to amend a motion. See, e.g., In
re Bell Atl.-New Jersey, Inc., 342 N.J. Super. 439, 442 (App. Div. 2001) (“It is improper to
introduce new issues in a reply brief.”); Borough of Berlin v. Remington & Vernick Engineers, 337
N.J. Super. 590, 596 (App. Div. 2001) (“Raising an issue for the first time in a reply brief is
improper.”). Had Plaintiff engaged in the required meet and confer process, Defendants would
have had the proper opportunity to brief their opposition to a filed motion. As proposed by
Plaintiff, Defendants will now be left in the unfortunate position of opposing a motion that has not
yet been filed or risk waiving the argument. Plaintiff should not be allowed to benefit from this
2
Defendants are filing a redacted copy of Plaintiff’s letter to preserve the identity of certain
individuals as further described below. Defendants are also submitting an unredacted courtesy
copy to the Court.
3
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
conduct by surprising Defendants with an amended motion to compel on reply. The Court should
deny the Motion that Plaintiff did file because it was resolved by the parties.
II. Defendants’ redactions comply with the March 9, 2023 Stipulated Consent Order.
To the extent the Court is inclined to entertain Plaintiff’s belated amendment to the Motion,
Defendants reaffirm that their redactions comply with the Consent Order’s maxim that the identity
of alleged victims of sexual abuse is CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Consent Order, ¶ 18.
As Defendants indicated to Plaintiff during their meet and confer, Defendants redacted the
identity of individuals in parts where their name would readily identify the alleged victim. For
example, Plaintiff objects to the redaction of “BC” and “B-1.” The identity of BC has been
redacted because the documents identify BC’s wife, JC, as an alleged victim of Clement Pandelo.
Parker Cert., ¶ 4, Exhibit 2, EAST000080, EAST000067-68. BC and JC are listed together in
numerous parts of Defendants’ production. By unredacting BC’s name, JC’s name becomes easily
recognizable and no longer afforded the protection of the Consent Order. Similarly, B-1 is
identified as JC’s brother in the documents. Parker Cert., ¶ 4, Exhibit 2, EAST000079.
Unredacting B-1’s name would also mean unredacting JC’s name.
For these same reasons, Defendants redacted the identities of individuals whose name is
unknown but whose relations to known individuals is stated. For example, East Hackensack
redacted the identity of several relatives of Plaintiff’s mother, Olga. Plaintiff objects to these
redactions and states that only the “names of other victims” may be redacted. Parker Cert., ¶ 5,
Exhibit 3. The Consent Order, however, makes no such distinction. To the contrary, the Consent
Order provides that the “disclosure of [alleged victim’s] identities should be protected” and that
“the victim or alleged victim under these circumstances shall be identified using traceable
anonymous names or initials . . . .” Consent Order, ¶ 18. This is precisely what East Hackensack
4
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 5 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
did. It protected the identity of alleged victims of sexual abuse, who are related to Olga, and
provided anonymous initials with a redaction log disclosing the information known to East
Hackensack.
To be clear, Plaintiff does not contend that Defendants’ redaction logs were improper.
Plaintiff also does not contend that Defendants failed to disclose any information concerning the
redactions or that Plaintiff requires any additional information from Defendants. Plaintiff’s only
complaint is that it does not agree that, despite having all of the unredacted information at its hands,
Defendants should be permitted to protect the identities of alleged victims of sexual abuse by
redacting the names of their relatives.
For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dana B. Parker
Dana B. Parker
5
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
Anthony P. La Rocco (Attorney ID 023491982)
Dana B. Parker (Attorney ID 041682003)
Reymond E. Yammine (Attorney ID 306962019)
K&L GATES LLP
One Newark Center, 10th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
P: (973) 848-4000
F: (973) 848-4001
Attorneys for Defendant Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and
East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses (improperly named as Hackensack
Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses)
Corinne Pandelo, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO: BER-L-5508-21
v.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oral Argument is Requested
Fairlawn Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New CERTIFICATION OF DANA B. PARKER
York, Inc., Hackensack Congregation of IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and John and Jane Does OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
1-100, whose identities are presently unknown
to Plaintiff, in their official and individual
capacities,
Defendant.
I, Dana B. Parker, hereby certify as follows:
1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and counsel at K&L Gates LLP,
attorneys for Defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (“Watchtower”)
and the East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named Hackensack
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) (the “East Hackensack Congregation”) (together,
1
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
“Defendants”). I make this certification in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Letter to
Plaintiff dated November 8, 2023.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct excerpted copy of East
Hackensack’s production to Plaintiff.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct redacted copy of Plaintiff’s Letter
to Defendants dated November 13, 2023.
I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any
of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
Dated: November 24, 2023 /s/ Dana B. Parker
Dana B. Parker
K&L GATES LLP
One Newark Center, 10th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
P: (973) 848-4000
F: (973) 848-4001
Attorneys for Defendant Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and
East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses (improperly named as Hackensack
Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses)
2
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
EXHIBIT 1
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
November 8, 2023 Dana B. Parker
Counsel
Dana.Parker@klgates.com
Via Email Only T +1 973 848 4019
F +1 973 848 4001
Alex S. Zalkin, Esq.
The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C.
1441 Broadway, Suite 3147
New York, NY 10018
Re: Corinne Pandelo v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. et al.,
BER-L-005508-21
Counsel:
I am writing on behalf of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (“WTNY”)
and the East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named Hackensack
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) (the “East Hackensack Congregation”) (together,
“Defendants”) in response to Plaintiff’s letter dated November 3, 2023 and its Motion to Compel
filed on November 7, 2023.
Defendants’ Responses to Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 4 and 5 and
Redacted Records
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeks to compel Defendants to produce the redacted versions
of the documents that Defendants produced bearing the corresponding initials of the redacted
names, with an accompanying redaction log. Similarly, Plaintiff also seeks that Defendants
confirm that they have produced all records in their possession, custody, and control responsive
to Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 4 and 5.
Please find enclosed to this letter Defendants’ updated redactions, redaction logs, and
WTNY’s supplemental privilege log. Defendants further confirm that they have produced all
records in their possession, custody, and control responsive to Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 4 and 5.
I trust that this resolves Plaintiff’s Motion as to Defendants. Kindly confirm that you will
withdraw the relevant portion of the Motion as it relates to Defendants.
Defendants’ Objections to Form “C” Interrogatories
K&L GATES LLP
ONE NEWARK CENTER TENTH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102
T +1 973 848 4000 F +1 973 848 4001 klgates.com
Anthony P. La Rocco, Managing Partner, New Jersey
316987917.1
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 3 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
Defendants reiterate their objections detailed in their responses to Plaintiff’s Uniform
Interrogatories. Rule 4:17-1(b)(3) states “[p]rivileged information need not be disclosed provided
the claim of privilege is made pursuant to R. 4:10-2(e). Nor does information need to be disclosed
if it is the subject of an identified protective order issued pursuant to R. 4:10-3.” The rule merely
permits objections based on privilege; it does not restrict other objections. Plaintiff has cited to
no other authority for its assertion that Defendants cannot object to form interrogatories on this
basis.
Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatory 3
As you know, Interrogatory No. 3 only relates to whether the party “intend to set up or
plead or have set up or pleaded negligence or any other separate defense as to the plaintiff or if
you have or intend to set up a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party action.” At this time,
Defendants do not intend to set up a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party action. However,
Defendants reserve their rights to assert such claims.
As it relates to Defendants’ affirmative defenses, Defendants have described at length the
factual bases supporting its defenses in its many briefings to the Court and to the New Jersey
Appellate Division. Defendants’ affirmative defenses are further predicated upon Plaintiffs’
production of Ms. Pandelo’s records including records of the 1994 Litigation and its medical
records.
Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatories 4, 5, and 6
Defendants reassert their responses to Interrogatories 4, 5, and 6. Defendants are
unaware of parties, aside from those identified by Plaintiff, or individuals identified in the
documents produced by Defendants, who are responsive to these Interrogatories.
As you know, Rule 4:17-4(d) permits a party to refer the business records that it produced
when “the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party
serving the interrogatory as for the party served.” The records only need to be identified “in
sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the
party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.” Defendants respectfully
refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ production of records. Plaintiff offers nothing for the proposition that
the Rules require Defendants to provide an even higher level detail to Plaintiff.
Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatory 7
Defendants have described at length the factual bases supporting its defenses in its many
briefings to the Court and to the New Jersey Appellate Division. Defendants reassert that
Plaintiff’s alleged damages were caused or contributed to by the negligence of Olga Pandelo,
Carl Pandelo, and Barbara Pandelo. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in 1996 (“1996
Complaint”) naming her parents, Carl and Barbara, and her grandmother, Olga, as defendants.
See Second Amended Complaint. In Plaintiff’s 1996 Complaint, she asserted “[t]he defendants
2
316987917.1
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 4 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
[Carl Pandelo], [Barbara Pandelo], and [Olga Pandelo] jointly, severely or in the alternative acted
in a negligent, careless and reckless manner towards the plaintiff while she was under their care
and knew or should have known that their acts or omissions would cause the plaintiff to suffer
physical injury to the plaintiff, both metal and physical.” 1996 Complaint, Second Count, ¶ 2.
Plaintiff also alleged “the defendants, OP [Olga Pandelo], CP-2 [Carl Pandelo] and BP [Barbara
Pandelo] on August 12, 1988 and on other dates prior thereto, between August 1979 and August
12, 1988, carelessly and negligently failed to act for the protection of the infant plaintiff.” Id.,
Fourth Count, ¶ 4. Plaintiff further asserted “[t]he failure of defendants, OP [Olga Pandelo], CP-
2 [Carl Pandelo] and BP [Barbara Pandelo] to take measures to protect the infant plaintiff from
the actions of defendants, CP-3 [Carl Pandelo], when she knew or should have known of his
propensity to so conduct himself constituted an intentional, egregious or reckless disregard for
the welfare of the infant plaintiff. Id., Sixth Count, ¶ 2. She alleged “[t]he defendant OP [Olga
Pandelo] knew or should have known that defendant CP-3 [Carl Pandelo] would assault and
batter the plaintiff. Id., Eighth Count, ¶ 4.
Privilege Log and Depositions
Plaintiff has not yet responded to Defendants’ demand that they produce the two cover
letters identified by Plaintiff as CP000984 and CP001008. Similarly, although Plaintiff indicated
that Ms. Pandelo had identified additional records relating to the 1994 Litigation, Plaintiff has not
yet produced those records. Kindly produce these records or an explanation for Plaintiff’s
decision to not produce them by November 14, 2023. Otherwise, Defendants will seek to compel
the records.
Given Plaintiff’s delay providing substantive records, Defendants disagree with Plaintiff’s
assertions regarding the deposition of WTNY on November 9, 2023. Similarly, please note that
Plaintiff’s many last-minute requests for documents, including a number of request appended to
the notice of deposition which are due after November 9, 2023, are creating the unnecessary risk
that Plaintiff will seek to depose WTNY twice. Additionally, Defendants and counsel are not
available on that date, so we kindly request that we can meet and confer so that the parties may
agree on a new date. We also remind you that Defendants have accommodated Plaintiff’s
requests for extensions numerous times.
Yours sincerely,
/s/ Dana B. Parker
Dana B. Parker
CC: Rayna E. Kessler
3
316987917.1
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
Anthony P. La Rocco
Dana B. Parker
Reymond E. Yammine
K&L GATES LLP
One Newark Center, 10th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
P: (973) 848-4000
F: (973) 848-4001
Attorneys for Defendant Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and
East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses (improperly named as Hackensack
Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses)
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Corinne Pandelo, LAW DIVISION
BERGEN COUNTY
Plaintiff, DOCKET NO.: BER-L-5508-21
v. Civil Action
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
Fairlawn Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of New York, Inc., Hackensack
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and
John and Jane Does 1-100, whose identities
are presently unknown to Plaintiff, in their
official and individual capacities,
Defendants.
I, Reymond E. Yammine hereby certify as follows:
1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and an associate with K&L Gates
LLP, attorneys for Defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and the
East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named Hackensack
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) (the “East Hackensack Congregation”) (together,
“Defendants”).
1
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
2. On November 24, 2023, I caused to be served on all counsel of record copies of the
following via electronic filing through NJ eCourts: (1) Defendants’ Letter Brief Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel; (2) the Certification of Dana B. Parker in support thereof, with
exhibits; and (3) this Certification of Service.
I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any
of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
Dated: November 24, 2023 /s/ Reymond E. Yammine
Reymond E. Yammine
2
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
EXHIBIT 2
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
CONFIDENTIAL
BC and JC
BC and JC
BC and JC
BC and JC
EAST000067
CONFIDENTIAL
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 3 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
CONFIDENTIAL
JC
BC and JC
EAST000068
CONFIDENTIAL
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 4 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
CONFIDENTIAL
AD
AD AJ D-1 TS
TS N-1
EAST000077
CONFIDENTIAL
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 5 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
CONFIDENTIAL
B-1's
DC AJ
BC
B-1's
EAST000079
CONFIDENTIAL
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 6 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
CONFIDENTIAL
AD
AD
BC
EAST000080
CONFIDENTIAL
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
EXHIBIT 3
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
10590 W Ocean Air Drive . Suite 125 . San Diego . CA 92130 . tel 858-259-3011 fax 858-259-3015
10 Times Square.1441 Broadway. Suite 3147. New York City, NY 10018
______________________________________________________________________________
Irwin M. Zalkin, Esq. Licensed in CA, NY and DC www.zalkin.com
Devin M. Storey, Esq. Licensed in CA and NY
Alexander S. Zalkin, Esq. Licensed in CA and TX
______________
Ryan M. Cohen, Esq. Licensed in CA Tallis M. Radwick, Esq., Licensed in CA
Sheila P. Haddock, Esq., Licensed in TX Alfredo Villegas Esq., Licensed in CA
Kristian Roggendorf, Esq., Licensed in CO and OR Edmond Menchavez, Esq., Licensed in CA
Daniel Varon, Esq., Licensed in CA Elizabeth Hiller, Esq., Licensed in NY and CA
Elizabeth A. Cate, Esq., Licensed in NY
Of Counsel
Lyndsey Gallagher, Esq., Licensed in CA
Michael Carroll, Esq., Licensed in CA
November 13, 2023
Via Email:
Dana B. Parker, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
One Newark Center, 10th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
dana.parker@klgates.com
RE: Corinne Pandelo v. The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al.
BER-L-005508-21
Dear Ms. Parker:
I am writing on behalf of Plaintiff Corinne Pandelo in response to Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of New York’s (“Watchtower”) and East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ (“East Hackensack”) letters dated November 1, 2023, and November 8, 2023. This
letter is in addition to my letter dated November 3, 2023, in which I addressed several issues raised
in your November 1, 2023, letter.
Defendants’ Complaints About Plaintiff’s Privilege Log
Your November 1, 2023, letter complains about Plaintiff's privilege log produced on
September 15, 2023.
As to your challenges raised regarding the documents listed in Plaintiff’s privilege log,
Plaintiff produced CP000464-CP000476 on November 7, 2023.
Plaintiff will agree to produce CP000984 as it is a communication from her attorneys to
her father after she reached the age of majority.
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 3 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
Cate to Parker
November 13, 2023
Page 2
As to CP001008, this document was inadvertently provided to us by Carl Pandelo. Mr.
Pandelo has, since the date we produced the privilege log, clawed back the document as
inadvertently produced and we have destroyed it in compliance with N.J.R.E. 530(c)(2).
Consequently, we are unable to produce the document.
Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents,
Nos. 4-5
On November 8, 2023, Defendants East Hackensack and Watchtower produced revised
privilege logs, redaction logs, and re-production of documents with revised redactions. You also
assured Plaintiff that Defendants have not withheld any documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First
Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Numbers 4 and 5. Plaintiff appreciates these efforts.
In light of Defendants’ representation, Plaintiff agrees to withdraw Section I of her Motion
to Compel pending before the Court.
After reviewing the redactions in the re-produced documents, Plaintiff declines to
withdraw the portion of her Motion to Compel seeking proper redactions. The documents are still
not redacted properly according to the terms of Paragraph 18 of the Consent Order. Specific
deficiencies that remain are listed below. Plaintiff will clarify the scope of the remaining issues
before the Court in her Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel.
East Hackensack and Watchtower have inconsistently redacted the names of BC
and B-1 in several documents. For example, BC and B-1 ’s names
are not redacted in the third paragraph of EAST000079 but are redacted in the following paragraph
of the same page. Further, BC and B-1 ’s names are included in Defendants’
redaction logs. Do East Hackensack and Watchtower contend that BC and B-1
are victims of Clement Pandelo? If so, why are some, but not other, instances of their names
redacted? Furthermore, from the context of the redactions, it does not appear that the documents
indicate that BC andB-1 were victims. Rather, the documents appear to convey
that BC and B-1 were merely aware of Clement’s abuse. Awareness of abuse
is not a proper basis to redact names of witnesses from documents under the Consent Order.
East Hackensack’s redaction log indicates that the phrases “Olga’s TS ” and “Olga’s
N-1 ” were redacted from certain documents. Paragraph 18 of the Consent Order does not permit
these redactions. Rather, only the names of other victims of Clement Pandelo may be redacted
under the Consent Order. The redactions as they currently exist do not permit Plaintiff to use these
documents in depositions to ascertain who these descriptive phrases (not proper names) refer to
and hamper Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute her case.
Defendants’ Objections to Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff stands by her position articulated in my November 3, 2023, letter. It is black-letter
law in New Jersey that Form Interrogatories must be answered and that the only permissible
objection on which to withhold responsive information is privilege. “The Uniform interrogatories
were approved by the New Jersey Supreme Court and are required to be answered. The only proper
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
Cate to Parker
November 13, 2023
Page 3
objection would be a claim of privilege and, in that instance, the objecting party must state with
specificity the nature of the privilege.” § 5:33, Answering Uniform Interrogatories, 56 N.J. Prac.,
Personal Injury Law § 5:33 (2023-2024 ed.).
Whether or not objections other than privilege may be asserted in response to Form
Interrogatories, Rule 4:17-1(b)(4) makes it clear that responsive information may not be withheld
on the basis of any objection other than privilege. All Form Interrogatories must be answered.
Consequently, as I previously stated, Plaintiff will assume that Defendants have not
withheld any responsive information on any objection other than privilege. As to any information
withheld on the ground of privilege, please provide a privilege log documenting the information
withheld from Defendants’ responses to the Form Interrogatories.
Defendants’ Responses to Form Interrogatory Number 3
Your response to the issues Plaintiff raised regarding Defendants’ responses to Form
Interrogatory Number 3 does not cure the issues with Defendants’ responses.
Interrogatory Number 3 requires Defendants to state the facts on which it intends to
predicate these “separate defense[s]” and identify a copy of every document relating to such facts.
Referring to unspecified facts stated in the parties’ briefings and referring to every document
produced in discovery do not satisfy Defendants’ obligations to respond to this interrogatory.
Defendants are required to provide full and complete responses to the Form Interrogatories. See
Oliviero v. Porter Hayden Co., 241 N.J. Super. 381, 387 (App. Div. 1990) (“The discovery rules
were designed to eliminate, as far as possible, concealment and surprise in the trial of law suits[
.]”). See also Lyons v. Mohr, No. A-3985-12T3, 2013 WL 6182447, at ** 5, 12 (App. Div. Nov.
27, 2013) (finding interrogatory responses insufficient where they “simply referred plaintiff to [ ]
medical records and to other documents or discovery items that might exist); Kyung Chan Choi v.
River Terrace Gardens Assocs., LLC, No. A-3692-08T3, 2010 WL 135120, at *4 (App. Div. Jan.
15, 2010) (“In response to Interrogatory 15, plaintiffs again maintained that all requested
documents had been provided, although the response provided no detail and did not identify any
of the documents produced…As a result, their contention that they provided fully responsive
answers by the return date is simply false…”).
If Defendants intend to stand on their responses to this interrogatory, Plaintiff will seek
relief from the Court. Please let me know Defendants’ position by November 20, 2023.
Defendants’ Responses to Form Interrogatories Numbers 4, 5, 6, and 7
Your letter does not address the issues that Plaintiff raised with regard to Defendants’
Responses to Form Interrogatory Numbers 4, 5, 6, and 7. Defendants’ responses are insufficient
because they do not provide the information demanded in these requests. Referring to unidentified
pleadings and documents does not satisfy Defendants’ obligations to respond to the Form C
Interrogatories. Nor does quoting from Plaintiff’s 1994 Complaint satisfy Defendants’ obligations
to respond to Form Interrogatory Number 7. See Rule 4:17-4(a), (d) (“A specification shall be in
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 5 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212
Cate to Parker
November 13, 2023
Page 4
sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the
party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.”)
If Defendants intend to stand on their responses to these interrogatories, Plaintiff will seek
relief from the Court. Please let me know Defendants’ position by November 20, 2023.
Defendants’ Claims regarding Plaintiff’s Outstanding Documents
Plaintiff will produce the remaining documents within her possession, custody, and control,
including any outstanding documents relating to her 1994 action, a supplemental privilege log, and
revised redaction log by December 5, 2023.
I trust this resolves all remaining document discovery issues. If you would like to discuss
any of the issues raised herein, please feel free to contact me to set up a time to discuss.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Elizabeth A. Cate, Esq.
THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
Elizabeth@zalkin.com
(646) 776-4634 (direct)
Cc via Email: Margaret Korgul, Esq.
MarKorLaw, LLC
Preview
BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 November 24, 2023 Dana B Parker dana.parker@klgates.com T +1 973 848 4091 F +1 973 848 4001 Via eCourts The Honorable Gregg A. Padovano, J.S.C. The Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County Courthouse 10 Main Street, Room 331 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 Re: Corinne Pandelo v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. et al., BER- L-005508-21 Dear Judge Padovano, This Firm represents Defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and the East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named as Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses) (“East Hackensack”) (together, “Defendants”) in the above- captioned matter. Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a moral formal brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Discovery (the “Motion”). The Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion because of its failure to meet and confer in good faith prior to bringing forth its Motion. Indeed, having had the opportunity to meet and confer, Defendants were able to resolve Part I of Plaintiff’s Motion relating to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 4 and 5. As it relates to Part II of the Motion, Plaintiff concedes that it filed a motion seeking to compel the production of certain redaction logs even though Defendants indicated that they were K&L GATES LLP ONE NEWARK CENTER TENTH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102 T +1 973 848 4000 F +1 973 848 4001 klgates.com Anthony P. La Rocco, Managing Partner, New Jersey BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 in the process of producing them. The record is clear that Defendants did not object to this request and indeed produced the records soon after Plaintiff filed the Motion. Regrettably, Plaintiff has indicated that it does not intend to withdraw Part II of the Motion and is now raising additional objections. As more fully set forth below, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s belated attempt to amend the Motion on reply. I. Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the Motion on reply. The parties executed a stipulated Consent Order on March 9, 2023, Transaction ID LCV2023856021 (the “Consent Order”). In accordance with the Consent Order, “the identities of any other minor or adult victims of sexual abuse/misconduct or who have alleged sexual abuse/misconduct, apart from the Plaintiff in this case, should generally be considered ‘CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’” Id., ¶ 18. The Consent Order further provides that “the disclosure of their identities should be protected.” Id. The Consent Order further provides for the parties’ ability to protect the identity of these individuals through the use of redactions. Id. On November 8, 2023, Defendants provided a revised production with redactions bearing the initials of the individuals whose identity Defendants sought to protect. Certification of Dana B. Parker, dated November 24, 2023 (“Parker Cert.”), ¶ 3, Exhibit 1; Parker Cert., ¶ 4, Exhibit 2. In addition, Defendants provided Plaintiff with detailed redaction logs. 1 This should have marked 1 Given the sensitive nature of the information contained in the redaction logs, Defendants are not filing them with this Court. Nonetheless, Defendants are ready to provide the Court with copies filed under seal if the Court deems it necessary. 2 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 3 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 the end of the Motion. Unfortunately, in a letter dated November 13, 2023, Plaintiff raised additional objections to the production. Parker Cert., ¶ 5, Exhibit 3. 2 In her letter, Plaintiff noted that it had additional objections to the production. Plaintiff indicated that it was providing “specific deficiencies that remain” and that it would “clarify the scope of the remaining issues” directly with the Court. More specifically, Plaintiff stated that it intended to amend the Motion “in her Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel.” Id. This is improper. It is well established that a party cannot use a reply brief to amend a motion. See, e.g., In re Bell Atl.-New Jersey, Inc., 342 N.J. Super. 439, 442 (App. Div. 2001) (“It is improper to introduce new issues in a reply brief.”); Borough of Berlin v. Remington & Vernick Engineers, 337 N.J. Super. 590, 596 (App. Div. 2001) (“Raising an issue for the first time in a reply brief is improper.”). Had Plaintiff engaged in the required meet and confer process, Defendants would have had the proper opportunity to brief their opposition to a filed motion. As proposed by Plaintiff, Defendants will now be left in the unfortunate position of opposing a motion that has not yet been filed or risk waiving the argument. Plaintiff should not be allowed to benefit from this 2 Defendants are filing a redacted copy of Plaintiff’s letter to preserve the identity of certain individuals as further described below. Defendants are also submitting an unredacted courtesy copy to the Court. 3 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 conduct by surprising Defendants with an amended motion to compel on reply. The Court should deny the Motion that Plaintiff did file because it was resolved by the parties. II. Defendants’ redactions comply with the March 9, 2023 Stipulated Consent Order. To the extent the Court is inclined to entertain Plaintiff’s belated amendment to the Motion, Defendants reaffirm that their redactions comply with the Consent Order’s maxim that the identity of alleged victims of sexual abuse is CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Consent Order, ¶ 18. As Defendants indicated to Plaintiff during their meet and confer, Defendants redacted the identity of individuals in parts where their name would readily identify the alleged victim. For example, Plaintiff objects to the redaction of “BC” and “B-1.” The identity of BC has been redacted because the documents identify BC’s wife, JC, as an alleged victim of Clement Pandelo. Parker Cert., ¶ 4, Exhibit 2, EAST000080, EAST000067-68. BC and JC are listed together in numerous parts of Defendants’ production. By unredacting BC’s name, JC’s name becomes easily recognizable and no longer afforded the protection of the Consent Order. Similarly, B-1 is identified as JC’s brother in the documents. Parker Cert., ¶ 4, Exhibit 2, EAST000079. Unredacting B-1’s name would also mean unredacting JC’s name. For these same reasons, Defendants redacted the identities of individuals whose name is unknown but whose relations to known individuals is stated. For example, East Hackensack redacted the identity of several relatives of Plaintiff’s mother, Olga. Plaintiff objects to these redactions and states that only the “names of other victims” may be redacted. Parker Cert., ¶ 5, Exhibit 3. The Consent Order, however, makes no such distinction. To the contrary, the Consent Order provides that the “disclosure of [alleged victim’s] identities should be protected” and that “the victim or alleged victim under these circumstances shall be identified using traceable anonymous names or initials . . . .” Consent Order, ¶ 18. This is precisely what East Hackensack 4 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 5 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 did. It protected the identity of alleged victims of sexual abuse, who are related to Olga, and provided anonymous initials with a redaction log disclosing the information known to East Hackensack. To be clear, Plaintiff does not contend that Defendants’ redaction logs were improper. Plaintiff also does not contend that Defendants failed to disclose any information concerning the redactions or that Plaintiff requires any additional information from Defendants. Plaintiff’s only complaint is that it does not agree that, despite having all of the unredacted information at its hands, Defendants should be permitted to protect the identities of alleged victims of sexual abuse by redacting the names of their relatives. For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the Motion. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Dana B. Parker Dana B. Parker 5 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 Anthony P. La Rocco (Attorney ID 023491982) Dana B. Parker (Attorney ID 041682003) Reymond E. Yammine (Attorney ID 306962019) K&L GATES LLP One Newark Center, 10th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 P: (973) 848-4000 F: (973) 848-4001 Attorneys for Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named as Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses) Corinne Pandelo, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY Plaintiff, DOCKET NO: BER-L-5508-21 v. The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oral Argument is Requested Fairlawn Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New CERTIFICATION OF DANA B. PARKER York, Inc., Hackensack Congregation of IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ Jehovah’s Witnesses, and John and Jane Does OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL 1-100, whose identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff, in their official and individual capacities, Defendant. I, Dana B. Parker, hereby certify as follows: 1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and counsel at K&L Gates LLP, attorneys for Defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (“Watchtower”) and the East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) (the “East Hackensack Congregation”) (together, 1 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 “Defendants”). I make this certification in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Letter to Plaintiff dated November 8, 2023. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct excerpted copy of East Hackensack’s production to Plaintiff. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct redacted copy of Plaintiff’s Letter to Defendants dated November 13, 2023. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. Dated: November 24, 2023 /s/ Dana B. Parker Dana B. Parker K&L GATES LLP One Newark Center, 10th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 P: (973) 848-4000 F: (973) 848-4001 Attorneys for Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named as Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses) 2 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 EXHIBIT 1 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 November 8, 2023 Dana B. Parker Counsel Dana.Parker@klgates.com Via Email Only T +1 973 848 4019 F +1 973 848 4001 Alex S. Zalkin, Esq. The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C. 1441 Broadway, Suite 3147 New York, NY 10018 Re: Corinne Pandelo v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. et al., BER-L-005508-21 Counsel: I am writing on behalf of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (“WTNY”) and the East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) (the “East Hackensack Congregation”) (together, “Defendants”) in response to Plaintiff’s letter dated November 3, 2023 and its Motion to Compel filed on November 7, 2023. Defendants’ Responses to Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 4 and 5 and Redacted Records Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeks to compel Defendants to produce the redacted versions of the documents that Defendants produced bearing the corresponding initials of the redacted names, with an accompanying redaction log. Similarly, Plaintiff also seeks that Defendants confirm that they have produced all records in their possession, custody, and control responsive to Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 4 and 5. Please find enclosed to this letter Defendants’ updated redactions, redaction logs, and WTNY’s supplemental privilege log. Defendants further confirm that they have produced all records in their possession, custody, and control responsive to Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 4 and 5. I trust that this resolves Plaintiff’s Motion as to Defendants. Kindly confirm that you will withdraw the relevant portion of the Motion as it relates to Defendants. Defendants’ Objections to Form “C” Interrogatories K&L GATES LLP ONE NEWARK CENTER TENTH FLOOR NEWARK NJ 07102 T +1 973 848 4000 F +1 973 848 4001 klgates.com Anthony P. La Rocco, Managing Partner, New Jersey 316987917.1 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 3 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 Defendants reiterate their objections detailed in their responses to Plaintiff’s Uniform Interrogatories. Rule 4:17-1(b)(3) states “[p]rivileged information need not be disclosed provided the claim of privilege is made pursuant to R. 4:10-2(e). Nor does information need to be disclosed if it is the subject of an identified protective order issued pursuant to R. 4:10-3.” The rule merely permits objections based on privilege; it does not restrict other objections. Plaintiff has cited to no other authority for its assertion that Defendants cannot object to form interrogatories on this basis. Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatory 3 As you know, Interrogatory No. 3 only relates to whether the party “intend to set up or plead or have set up or pleaded negligence or any other separate defense as to the plaintiff or if you have or intend to set up a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party action.” At this time, Defendants do not intend to set up a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party action. However, Defendants reserve their rights to assert such claims. As it relates to Defendants’ affirmative defenses, Defendants have described at length the factual bases supporting its defenses in its many briefings to the Court and to the New Jersey Appellate Division. Defendants’ affirmative defenses are further predicated upon Plaintiffs’ production of Ms. Pandelo’s records including records of the 1994 Litigation and its medical records. Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatories 4, 5, and 6 Defendants reassert their responses to Interrogatories 4, 5, and 6. Defendants are unaware of parties, aside from those identified by Plaintiff, or individuals identified in the documents produced by Defendants, who are responsive to these Interrogatories. As you know, Rule 4:17-4(d) permits a party to refer the business records that it produced when “the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served.” The records only need to be identified “in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.” Defendants respectfully refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ production of records. Plaintiff offers nothing for the proposition that the Rules require Defendants to provide an even higher level detail to Plaintiff. Defendants’ Responses to Interrogatory 7 Defendants have described at length the factual bases supporting its defenses in its many briefings to the Court and to the New Jersey Appellate Division. Defendants reassert that Plaintiff’s alleged damages were caused or contributed to by the negligence of Olga Pandelo, Carl Pandelo, and Barbara Pandelo. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in 1996 (“1996 Complaint”) naming her parents, Carl and Barbara, and her grandmother, Olga, as defendants. See Second Amended Complaint. In Plaintiff’s 1996 Complaint, she asserted “[t]he defendants 2 316987917.1 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 4 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 [Carl Pandelo], [Barbara Pandelo], and [Olga Pandelo] jointly, severely or in the alternative acted in a negligent, careless and reckless manner towards the plaintiff while she was under their care and knew or should have known that their acts or omissions would cause the plaintiff to suffer physical injury to the plaintiff, both metal and physical.” 1996 Complaint, Second Count, ¶ 2. Plaintiff also alleged “the defendants, OP [Olga Pandelo], CP-2 [Carl Pandelo] and BP [Barbara Pandelo] on August 12, 1988 and on other dates prior thereto, between August 1979 and August 12, 1988, carelessly and negligently failed to act for the protection of the infant plaintiff.” Id., Fourth Count, ¶ 4. Plaintiff further asserted “[t]he failure of defendants, OP [Olga Pandelo], CP- 2 [Carl Pandelo] and BP [Barbara Pandelo] to take measures to protect the infant plaintiff from the actions of defendants, CP-3 [Carl Pandelo], when she knew or should have known of his propensity to so conduct himself constituted an intentional, egregious or reckless disregard for the welfare of the infant plaintiff. Id., Sixth Count, ¶ 2. She alleged “[t]he defendant OP [Olga Pandelo] knew or should have known that defendant CP-3 [Carl Pandelo] would assault and batter the plaintiff. Id., Eighth Count, ¶ 4. Privilege Log and Depositions Plaintiff has not yet responded to Defendants’ demand that they produce the two cover letters identified by Plaintiff as CP000984 and CP001008. Similarly, although Plaintiff indicated that Ms. Pandelo had identified additional records relating to the 1994 Litigation, Plaintiff has not yet produced those records. Kindly produce these records or an explanation for Plaintiff’s decision to not produce them by November 14, 2023. Otherwise, Defendants will seek to compel the records. Given Plaintiff’s delay providing substantive records, Defendants disagree with Plaintiff’s assertions regarding the deposition of WTNY on November 9, 2023. Similarly, please note that Plaintiff’s many last-minute requests for documents, including a number of request appended to the notice of deposition which are due after November 9, 2023, are creating the unnecessary risk that Plaintiff will seek to depose WTNY twice. Additionally, Defendants and counsel are not available on that date, so we kindly request that we can meet and confer so that the parties may agree on a new date. We also remind you that Defendants have accommodated Plaintiff’s requests for extensions numerous times. Yours sincerely, /s/ Dana B. Parker Dana B. Parker CC: Rayna E. Kessler 3 316987917.1 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 Anthony P. La Rocco Dana B. Parker Reymond E. Yammine K&L GATES LLP One Newark Center, 10th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 P: (973) 848-4000 F: (973) 848-4001 Attorneys for Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named as Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses) SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Corinne Pandelo, LAW DIVISION BERGEN COUNTY Plaintiff, DOCKET NO.: BER-L-5508-21 v. Civil Action The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE Fairlawn Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and John and Jane Does 1-100, whose identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants. I, Reymond E. Yammine hereby certify as follows: 1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and an associate with K&L Gates LLP, attorneys for Defendants Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and the East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (improperly named Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses) (the “East Hackensack Congregation”) (together, “Defendants”). 1 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 2. On November 24, 2023, I caused to be served on all counsel of record copies of the following via electronic filing through NJ eCourts: (1) Defendants’ Letter Brief Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel; (2) the Certification of Dana B. Parker in support thereof, with exhibits; and (3) this Certification of Service. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. Dated: November 24, 2023 /s/ Reymond E. Yammine Reymond E. Yammine 2 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 EXHIBIT 2 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 CONFIDENTIAL BC and JC BC and JC BC and JC BC and JC EAST000067 CONFIDENTIAL BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 3 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 CONFIDENTIAL JC BC and JC EAST000068 CONFIDENTIAL BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 4 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 CONFIDENTIAL AD AD AJ D-1 TS TS N-1 EAST000077 CONFIDENTIAL BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 5 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 CONFIDENTIAL B-1's DC AJ BC B-1's EAST000079 CONFIDENTIAL BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 6 of 6 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 CONFIDENTIAL AD AD BC EAST000080 CONFIDENTIAL BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 EXHIBIT 3 BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 2 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 10590 W Ocean Air Drive . Suite 125 . San Diego . CA 92130 . tel 858-259-3011 fax 858-259-3015 10 Times Square.1441 Broadway. Suite 3147. New York City, NY 10018 ______________________________________________________________________________ Irwin M. Zalkin, Esq. Licensed in CA, NY and DC www.zalkin.com Devin M. Storey, Esq. Licensed in CA and NY Alexander S. Zalkin, Esq. Licensed in CA and TX ______________ Ryan M. Cohen, Esq. Licensed in CA Tallis M. Radwick, Esq., Licensed in CA Sheila P. Haddock, Esq., Licensed in TX Alfredo Villegas Esq., Licensed in CA Kristian Roggendorf, Esq., Licensed in CO and OR Edmond Menchavez, Esq., Licensed in CA Daniel Varon, Esq., Licensed in CA Elizabeth Hiller, Esq., Licensed in NY and CA Elizabeth A. Cate, Esq., Licensed in NY Of Counsel Lyndsey Gallagher, Esq., Licensed in CA Michael Carroll, Esq., Licensed in CA November 13, 2023 Via Email: Dana B. Parker, Esq. K&L GATES LLP One Newark Center, 10th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 dana.parker@klgates.com RE: Corinne Pandelo v. The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al. BER-L-005508-21 Dear Ms. Parker: I am writing on behalf of Plaintiff Corinne Pandelo in response to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York’s (“Watchtower”) and East Hackensack Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (“East Hackensack”) letters dated November 1, 2023, and November 8, 2023. This letter is in addition to my letter dated November 3, 2023, in which I addressed several issues raised in your November 1, 2023, letter. Defendants’ Complaints About Plaintiff’s Privilege Log Your November 1, 2023, letter complains about Plaintiff's privilege log produced on September 15, 2023. As to your challenges raised regarding the documents listed in Plaintiff’s privilege log, Plaintiff produced CP000464-CP000476 on November 7, 2023. Plaintiff will agree to produce CP000984 as it is a communication from her attorneys to her father after she reached the age of majority. BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 3 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 Cate to Parker November 13, 2023 Page 2 As to CP001008, this document was inadvertently provided to us by Carl Pandelo. Mr. Pandelo has, since the date we produced the privilege log, clawed back the document as inadvertently produced and we have destroyed it in compliance with N.J.R.E. 530(c)(2). Consequently, we are unable to produce the document. Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Nos. 4-5 On November 8, 2023, Defendants East Hackensack and Watchtower produced revised privilege logs, redaction logs, and re-production of documents with revised redactions. You also assured Plaintiff that Defendants have not withheld any documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Numbers 4 and 5. Plaintiff appreciates these efforts. In light of Defendants’ representation, Plaintiff agrees to withdraw Section I of her Motion to Compel pending before the Court. After reviewing the redactions in the re-produced documents, Plaintiff declines to withdraw the portion of her Motion to Compel seeking proper redactions. The documents are still not redacted properly according to the terms of Paragraph 18 of the Consent Order. Specific deficiencies that remain are listed below. Plaintiff will clarify the scope of the remaining issues before the Court in her Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel. East Hackensack and Watchtower have inconsistently redacted the names of BC and B-1 in several documents. For example, BC and B-1 ’s names are not redacted in the third paragraph of EAST000079 but are redacted in the following paragraph of the same page. Further, BC and B-1 ’s names are included in Defendants’ redaction logs. Do East Hackensack and Watchtower contend that BC and B-1 are victims of Clement Pandelo? If so, why are some, but not other, instances of their names redacted? Furthermore, from the context of the redactions, it does not appear that the documents indicate that BC andB-1 were victims. Rather, the documents appear to convey that BC and B-1 were merely aware of Clement’s abuse. Awareness of abuse is not a proper basis to redact names of witnesses from documents under the Consent Order. East Hackensack’s redaction log indicates that the phrases “Olga’s TS ” and “Olga’s N-1 ” were redacted from certain documents. Paragraph 18 of the Consent Order does not permit these redactions. Rather, only the names of other victims of Clement Pandelo may be redacted under the Consent Order. The redactions as they currently exist do not permit Plaintiff to use these documents in depositions to ascertain who these descriptive phrases (not proper names) refer to and hamper Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute her case. Defendants’ Objections to Form Interrogatories Plaintiff stands by her position articulated in my November 3, 2023, letter. It is black-letter law in New Jersey that Form Interrogatories must be answered and that the only permissible objection on which to withhold responsive information is privilege. “The Uniform interrogatories were approved by the New Jersey Supreme Court and are required to be answered. The only proper BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 Cate to Parker November 13, 2023 Page 3 objection would be a claim of privilege and, in that instance, the objecting party must state with specificity the nature of the privilege.” § 5:33, Answering Uniform Interrogatories, 56 N.J. Prac., Personal Injury Law § 5:33 (2023-2024 ed.). Whether or not objections other than privilege may be asserted in response to Form Interrogatories, Rule 4:17-1(b)(4) makes it clear that responsive information may not be withheld on the basis of any objection other than privilege. All Form Interrogatories must be answered. Consequently, as I previously stated, Plaintiff will assume that Defendants have not withheld any responsive information on any objection other than privilege. As to any information withheld on the ground of privilege, please provide a privilege log documenting the information withheld from Defendants’ responses to the Form Interrogatories. Defendants’ Responses to Form Interrogatory Number 3 Your response to the issues Plaintiff raised regarding Defendants’ responses to Form Interrogatory Number 3 does not cure the issues with Defendants’ responses. Interrogatory Number 3 requires Defendants to state the facts on which it intends to predicate these “separate defense[s]” and identify a copy of every document relating to such facts. Referring to unspecified facts stated in the parties’ briefings and referring to every document produced in discovery do not satisfy Defendants’ obligations to respond to this interrogatory. Defendants are required to provide full and complete responses to the Form Interrogatories. See Oliviero v. Porter Hayden Co., 241 N.J. Super. 381, 387 (App. Div. 1990) (“The discovery rules were designed to eliminate, as far as possible, concealment and surprise in the trial of law suits[ .]”). See also Lyons v. Mohr, No. A-3985-12T3, 2013 WL 6182447, at ** 5, 12 (App. Div. Nov. 27, 2013) (finding interrogatory responses insufficient where they “simply referred plaintiff to [ ] medical records and to other documents or discovery items that might exist); Kyung Chan Choi v. River Terrace Gardens Assocs., LLC, No. A-3692-08T3, 2010 WL 135120, at *4 (App. Div. Jan. 15, 2010) (“In response to Interrogatory 15, plaintiffs again maintained that all requested documents had been provided, although the response provided no detail and did not identify any of the documents produced…As a result, their contention that they provided fully responsive answers by the return date is simply false…”). If Defendants intend to stand on their responses to this interrogatory, Plaintiff will seek relief from the Court. Please let me know Defendants’ position by November 20, 2023. Defendants’ Responses to Form Interrogatories Numbers 4, 5, 6, and 7 Your letter does not address the issues that Plaintiff raised with regard to Defendants’ Responses to Form Interrogatory Numbers 4, 5, 6, and 7. Defendants’ responses are insufficient because they do not provide the information demanded in these requests. Referring to unidentified pleadings and documents does not satisfy Defendants’ obligations to respond to the Form C Interrogatories. Nor does quoting from Plaintiff’s 1994 Complaint satisfy Defendants’ obligations to respond to Form Interrogatory Number 7. See Rule 4:17-4(a), (d) (“A specification shall be in BER-L-005508-21 11/24/2023 10:48:17 AM Pg 5 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20233455212 Cate to Parker November 13, 2023 Page 4 sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.”) If Defendants intend to stand on their responses to these interrogatories, Plaintiff will seek relief from the Court. Please let me know Defendants’ position by November 20, 2023. Defendants’ Claims regarding Plaintiff’s Outstanding Documents Plaintiff will produce the remaining documents within her possession, custody, and control, including any outstanding documents relating to her 1994 action, a supplemental privilege log, and revised redaction log by December 5, 2023. I trust this resolves all remaining document discovery issues. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised herein, please feel free to contact me to set up a time to discuss. Sincerely, ____________________________ Elizabeth A. Cate, Esq. THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C. Elizabeth@zalkin.com (646) 776-4634 (direct) Cc via Email: Margaret Korgul, Esq. MarKorLaw, LLC