Preview
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Vincent Antoniello, ID # 031522000
RESNICK LAW GROUP, PC
A Professional Corporation
5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
(973) 781-1204
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff, BERGEN COUNTY
LAW DIVISION
Vv
DOCKET NO. BER-L-1646-20
LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.;
DOMINICK BULLARO, Individually and as CIVIL ACTION
Agent of Liberty Contracting Corp.; XYZ
CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN and JANE NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH
DOES (1-5), DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENAS AND FOR
A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants.
TO Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq.
Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group
34 South Broadway, Suite 210
White Plains, New York 10601
COUNSEL:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 8" day of July at 9:00 a.m. in the forenoon or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned, attorneys for Plaintiff, Peter Puma, will move
before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, 10 Main St, Hackensack,
NJ 07601, for an order quashing Defendants’ subpoenas pursuant to R.1:9-2A and for a protective
order pursuant to R.4:10-3. Plaintiff shall rely on the annexed Certification of Vincent A.
Antoniello, Esq., and the relevant subpoenas are attached thereto at Exhibits B and E. A proposed
form of Order is also enclosed.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
RESNICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Vincent A. Antoniello
By
VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO
Dated: June 22, 2022
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the within original Notice of Motion, supporting Certification, and
proposed form of Order have been sent via e-courts online filing system on the date indicated below
to our adversary Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. of Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group. 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 wilfully false, I may be subject to punishment.
RESNICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Vincent A. Antoniello
By:
VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO
Dated: June 22, 2022
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pglof1 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Vincent Antoniello, ID # 031522000
RESNICK LAW GROUP, PC
A Professional Corporation
5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
(973) 781-1204
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff, BERGEN COUNTY
LAW DIVISION
v
DOCKET NO. BER-L-1646-20
LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.;
DOMINICK BULLARO, Individually and as CIVIL ACTION
:
Agent of Liberty Contracting Corp.; XYZ
:
CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN and JANE ORDER QUASHING DEFENDANTS’
DOES (1-5), SUBPOENAS AND GRANTING A
: PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants.
THIS MATTER having been opened to the court by the law firm of Resnick Law
Group, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff on a motion to quash Defendants’ subpoenas pursuant to
R.1:9-2A and for a protective order pursuant to R.4:10-3, and the Court having reviewed the
papers submitted, and good cause having been shown;
IT IS ON THIS day of , 2022,
ORDERED that both Subpoenas, dated June 8, 2022 and June 13, 2022, served upon
Plaintiff's prior employer Waldorf Demolition, located at 50 East Palisade Avenue, Englewood,
NJ 07631, be and hereby are quashed; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a protective order is hereby entered barring
Defendants from issuing subpoenas to any of Plaintiff's prior employers without leave of court.
TSC.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg1lof88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Vincent Antoniello, ID # 031522000
RESNICK LAW GROUP, PC
A Professional Corporation
5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
(973) 781-1204
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff, BERGEN COUNTY
LAW DIVISION
v
DOCKET NO. BER-L-1646-20
LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.;
DOMINICK BULLARO, Individually and as CIVIL ACTION
Agent of Liberty Contracting Corp.; XYZ
CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN and JANE CERTIFICATION OF VINCENT A.
DOES (1-5), ANTONIELLO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’
Defendants. SUBPOENAS
I, VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO, ESQ., of full age hereby certifies as follows:
1 1am an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey and a Member of the Firm with
the Resnick Law Group. We represent the Plaintiff Peter Puma in the above referenced matter.
2 I make this Certification in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Defendants’
Subpoenas.
3 On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action alleging wrongful
termination in violation of Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, ef. seq.
(“CEPA”) and Pierce vs Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 NJ 58 (1980). Plaintiff's claims assert
that he was terminated from his employment with Defendant Liberty Contracting Corp. in
retaliation for complaints he made regarding workplace safety, both internally and to the
-1-
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 2of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).
4 The stated (and we argue, pretextual) reason for Plaintiff's termination, according
to Defendants, was set forth in an October 15, 2019 Termination Notice, as follows:
On Tuesday October 15", 2019 Peter was instructed to do a pick-up of mini
containers at 44 Wall Street for a customer of Liberty contracting. Pete was
unable to perform the stop stating he required a flag man. Pete was sent back at a
later time and was still requesting a flag man and was unable to do the stop.
Another driver was sent to the same stop and had no issue and the stop was
performed safely and to the best of the drivers’ capabilities.
Peter was given three (3) separate opportunities to perform the stop and each time
chose not to perform his duties. Management feels this is insubordinate behavior.
(See Exhibit A.)
5 Plaintiff has not yet been deposed.
6 On June 8, 2022, without any advance notice to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s attorneys,
counsel for Defendants sent a Subpoena Duces Tecum to one of Plaintiffs former employers,
Waldorf Demolition, located at 50 East Palisade Avenue, Englewood, NJ 07631.
7 Plaintiff's counsel received a copy of the Subpoena Duces Tecum on June 8,
2022. (See Exhibit B.) The subpoena requested broad and nearly unlimited discovery of all
records related to Plaintiff's employment with this former employer, including the following:
e The complete personnel file for Peter Puma and any additional documents
relating to his employment and termination, if applicable.
8 Nevertheless, on that same date, Plaintiffs counsel promptly sent a written
request to Plaintiffs former employer to hold all employment records until this motion had been
filed and the Court had made a determination with regard to same. Counsel for Defendants were
copied on this correspondence. (See Exhibit C.)
9. Plaintiff's counsel also notified counsel for the Defendants that the Subpoena was
2.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg3of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
inappropriate and that it did not comply with the requirements of R. 1:9-2 and R. 4:14-7(c). (See
Exhibit D.)
10. In response, Defendants sent the June 13, 2022 Subpoena Ad Testificandum and
Duces Tecum to Plaintiff's former employer, Waldorf Demolition, requiring testimony and the
production of the following:
° Any personnel files or other documents relating to Peter Puma’s employment with
Waldorf Demolition, including, but not limited to, any records relating to written
warnings, disciplinary actions, citations, misconduct allegations, failure to wear
protective gear, failure to listen to a superior, and/or write-ups issued by Waldorf
Demolition or its officers, directors, managers, supervisors, dispatch, or
employees concerning or relating to Peter Puma, and all records relating to Peter
Puma’s termination from Waldorf Demolition, if applicable.
(See Exhibit E.)
11. Plaintiff's counsel received a copy of the Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Duces
Tecum on June 15, 2022, two days after the date that appears on it. On that same date, Plaintiff's
counsel promptly sent a written request to Plaintiffs former employer to hold all employment
records until this motion had been filed and the Court had made a determination with regard to
same. Counsel for Defendants were copied on this correspondence. (See Exhibit F.)
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Zeller v. S. Cent. Emergency Med. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-2584, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68940
(M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014).
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Byrne v. Monmouth Cty. Dep’t of Health Care Facilities, Civil Action No. 06-5184 (JAP),
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1513 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2008).
14, Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Fishel v. Rosen, No. A-2895-17T4, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2118 (App. Div. Sep. 25,
3.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg4of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
2018).
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Township of Gloucester v. Lakeview Realty Inv. Assocs., 2018 N.J. Tax Unpub. LEXIS 57
(Tax Ct. September 11, 2019),
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Hashem v. Hunterdon Cty., Civil Action No. 15-8585 (FLW) (DEA), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
76249 (D.N.J. May 18, 2017).
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Woods v. Fresenius Medical Care Grp. of North America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3756, 2008
WL 151836, at *2 (S.D. Ind. 2008).
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the unpublished
opinion in Perry v. Best Lock Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23601 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 21, 1999).
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Jones v. St. John’s Health System, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63274 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 27, 2007).
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Chamberlain v. Farmington Savings Bank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70376 (D. Conn. Sept. 25,
2007).
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Creel v. Armstrong Cty., Civil Action No. 15-601, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45334 (W.D. Pa.
Apr. 4, 2016).
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in EEOC v. Rexnord Indus., LLC, No. 11-CV-777, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91006 (E.D. Wis.
June 29, 2012).
-4-
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg5of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
23. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Conrod v. Bank of New York, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11634 (S.D.N.Y July 28, 1998).
24. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion
in Richardson v. BBB Grp., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1014-M, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60298 (N.D. Tex.
Apr. 30, 2014).
Thereby 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 may be subject to punishment.
/s/ Vincent Antoniello
VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO, ESQ.
Dated: June v7 5 2022
5.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg6of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
EXHIBIT A
BER-L- 001646- 20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg7of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
——. a
LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORPORATION
Interior Demolition & Recycling
25-31 94™ Street TEL: 201-868-7500
North Bergen, NJ 07047 FAX: 201-868-7501
TERMINATION NOTICE
Date: October 15%, 2019
Name of Employee: Peter Puma
Position/Title: Truck Driver
RE: Termination Letter
On Tuesday October 15%, 2019 Peter was instructed to do a pick-up of mini containers at 44 Wall Street for a
customer of Liberty contracting. Pete was unable to perform the stop stating he required a flag man. Pete was sent
back at a later time and was still requesting a flag man and was unable to do the stop. Another driver was sent to
gthe same stop and had no issue and the stop was performed safely and to the best of the drivers’ capabilities. s
Peter was given three (3) separate opportunities to perform the stop and each time chose not to perform his duties
Management feels this is insubordinate behavior.
Signature of Employee
LE
<_-Signanure
eLE
of Siipervisor,
Lo LLL
Date Date
CC: LOCAL 813, Business Agent,
William Grater, Shop Steward
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
C2y
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 8 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
EXHIBIT B
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg9of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq.
STEINVURZEL & Levy Law GRouP
34 South Broadway, Suite 210
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 288-0102
Attorneys for Defendant
Attomey ID: 031221999
PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION —- BERGEN COUNTY
- against - Docket No.: BER-L-1646-20
LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.; Civil Action
DOMINICK BULLARO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS AGENT OF LIBERTY Subpoena Duces Tecum
CONTRACTING CORP; XYZ
CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN AND JANE
DOES (1-5),
Defendant.
To: HR Manager
Waldorf Demolition
50 East Palisade Avenue
Englewood, NJ 07631
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce to the office of Steinvurzel & Levy Law
Group, 34 South Broadway, Suite 210, White Plains, New York 10601 no later than twenty (20)
days after service of this subpoena, true and accurate copies of the following documents:
1 The complete personnel file for Peter Puma and any additional documents relating
to his employment and termination, if applicable.
Provided that if you are notified that a motion to quash the subpoena has been filed, the
subpoenaed evidence shall not be produced or released until ordered to do so by the court or the
release is consented to by all parties to this action.
Failure to appear or comply with the command of this Subpoena will subject you to the
penalties provided by law.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 10 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Dated: June 8, 2022
Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq.
STEINVURZEL & LEvy Law GRouP
34 South Broadway, Suite 210
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 288-0102
Attorneys for Defendant
By: /S/ Michelle M. Smith
Ronald Steinvurzel Michelle M. Smith
Clerk of the Superior Court
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg1lof88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
EXHIBIT C
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 12 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
5 BECKER FARM ROAD
& ~ GERALD JAY RESNICK!
SUITE 410 CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
a
RE SNICK =
ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY 07668 gresnick@resnicklg.com
TELEPHONE: (973) 781-1204 VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO?
AW FAX: (973) 781-1205 vantoniello@resnicklg.com
RO "MEMBER OF THE NJ, NY, & DC BAR
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7MEMBER OF THE NJ BAR
www.resnicklg.com PLEASE RESPOND TO ROSELAND OFFICE
June 9, 2022
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Human Resources Manager
Waldorf Demolition
50 East Palisade Avenue
Englewood, NJ 07631
Re: Puma v. Liberty Contracting, et al
Docket No. BER-L-1646-20
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please be advised that this Firm represents the plaintiff, Peter Puma, in the above entitled
action. We are aware that your office was recently served with a subpoena for the production of
records pertaining to our client, returnable “no later than twenty (20) days after service of this
subpoena.”
This is to advise you that our firm intends to file a motion to quash the subpoena. Therefore,
you are directed not to produce any records or information until you receive an order from the Court
to do so.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact the undersigned.
Thanking you, I am,
Very trul ours,
(CENT ANTONI
VAAIsa
ce: Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. (via email)
NYC OFFICE: 535 FIFTH AVENUE, 16TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10017
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 13 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
EXHIBIT D
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 14 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Vincent Antoniello
ss
From: Vincent Antoniello
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:55 AM
To: Alexander Levy
Cc: Margo Ramos; Ronald Steinvurzel
Subject: RE: Puma v. Liberty
Lex,
Indeed, we will file our motion and let the Court decide.
In the meantime, you should know that your Subpoena does not comply with the requirements of R. 1:9-2 and R. 4:14-
7{(c).
Lastly, there is absolutely nothing improper about notifying a Subpoenaed witness that a motion to quash will be filed
and not to make a production until the Court decides that motion. Again, you may want to review R. 4:14-7(c).
Have a nice weekend,
Vincent
From: Alexander Levy
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 2:33 PM
To: Vincent Antoniello
Cc: Margo Ramos ; Ronald Steinvurzel
Subject: Re: Puma v. Liberty
Dear Vincent:
This is Mr. Puma’s prior employer. We are entitled to see his previous employee file as it relates to, inter alia, his
conduct and failure to follow direction or being disciplined.
Moreover, from our understanding, Mr. Puma sued this employer for an alleged accident. We are entitled to know what
that accident related to and if Mr. Puma was following required procedures and company protocols at the time of the
alleged accident.
Further, Mr. Puma may have given sworn testimony in that matter and we are entitled to see any such sworn
testimony.
If anything, | would think you would have provided this information to us already.
1 am available to speak on this further. Please note, however, itis improper for you to unilaterally tell the third party
not to produce records - that is for the Court to determine.
Very truly yours,
Alexander M. Levy, Esq.
Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group
34 south broadway, suite 210
white plains, new york 10601
914) 288-0102 EXT. 303
facsimile: (914) 288-0103
e-mail: alevy@steinlevy.com
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 15 of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Notice: This message, and any attached file, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message. Thank you.
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to inform you that any U.S. tax advice in this
communication cannot be used by you (i) to avoid tax penalties or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another
arty any transaction or matter addressed herein.
He
ease consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
On Jun 9, 2022, at 2:23 PM, Vincent Antoniello wrote:
Happy to chat. I’d have the same question for you, what’s the basis for the subpoena? That’s the
starting point. Fishing expeditions are not permitted, and we’ve been repeatedly successful in quashing
them.
Vincent Antoniello
RESNICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410
Roseland, NJ 07068
(973) 781-1204 (office)
(973) 781-1205 (fax)
On Jun 9, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Alexander Levy wrote:
Vincent - want to discuss the basis of your motion to quash? Perhaps we can streamline things. Please
let me know.
Thank you,
Alexander M. Levy, Esq.
Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group
34 south broadway, suite 210
white plains, new york 10601
914) 288-0102 EXT. 303
facsimile: (914) 288-0103
e-mail: alevy@steinlevy.com
Notice: This message, and any attached file, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If the readerof this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-
mail and delete all copies of the original message. Thank you.
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to inform you that any U.S. tax
advice in this communication cannot be used by you (i) to avoid tax penalties or (ii) to promote, market
or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 16of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
On Jun 9, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Vincent Antoniello wrote:
Please see the attached.
Vincent A. Antoniello, Esq.
Member of the Firm
Resnick Law Group, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
Tel: 973-781-1204 ext.103 | Fax: 973-781-1205
antoniello@resnicklg.com
Subscribe to our free Employment Law Newslette!
Follow our firm on:
View my LinkedIn profile:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains information that may be privileged, confidential,
and/or subject to other legal restrictions regarding its unauthorized disclosure or use. if you are not the
have received
intended recipient, you may not copy, distribute, or otherwise use this information. If you
from
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and delete all copies of this e-mail
your system
From: Margo Ramos
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Vincent Antoniello
Ce: Alexander Levy
Subject: Puma v. Liberty
Mr. Antoniello,
Please see the attached.
Thank you,
MaRGO RAMOS
PARALEGAL
STEINVURZEL & LEvY LAW GROUP
34 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 210
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601
(914) 288-0102 EXT. 4
FACSIMILE: (914) 288-0103
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg17 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
E-MAIL: MRAMOS@STEINLEVY.CO:
Notice: This message, and any attached file, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. Ifthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message. Thank you.
USS. Treasury Circular 230 Notice U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to inform you that any U.S. tax advice in this
communication cannot be used by you (i) to avoid tax penalties or (i) to promote, market or recommend to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 18of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
EXHIBIT E
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 19 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq.
STEINVURZEL & Levy LAw GRouP
34 South Broadway, Suite 210
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 288-0102
Attorneys for Defendant
Attorney ID: 031221999
PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION —- BERGEN COUNTY
- against - Docket No.: BER-L-1646-20
LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.; Civil Action
DOMINICK BULLARO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS AGENT OF LIBERTY Subpoena Ad Testificandum & Duces Tecum
CONTRACTING CORP.; XYZ
CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN AND JANE }
DOES (1-5),
Defendant.
To: HR Manager
Waldorf Demolition
50 East Palisade Avenue
Englewood, NJ 07631
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear in person at STEINVURZEL & LEVY
LAW GROUP located at c/o Castronovo & McKinney, LLC at 71 Maple Avenue, Morristown,
New Jersey 07960 on June 30, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and there to testify as a witness in the above-
captioned matter.
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you and to produce at that time the
following described books, papers, documents and other tangible things:
1 Any personnel files or other documents relating to Peter Puma’s employment with
Waldorf Demolition, including, but not limited to, any records relating to written warnings,
disciplinary actions, citations, misconduct allegations, failure to wear protective gear, failure to
listen to a superior, and/or write-ups issued by Waldorf Demolition or its officers, directors,
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 20 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
managers, supervisors, dispatch, or employees concerning or relating to Peter Puma, and all
records relating to Peter Puma’s termination from Waldorf Demolition, if applicable.
Provided that if you are notified that a motion to quash the subpoena has been filed, the
subpoenaed evidence shall not be produced or released until ordered to do so by the court or the
release is consented to by all parties to this action.
Failure to appear or comply with the command of this Subpoena will subject you to the
penalties provided by law.
Dated: June 13, 2022
Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq.
STEINVURZEL & Levy Law Group
34 South Broadway, Suite 210
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 288-0102
Attorneys for Defendant
By /S/ Michelle M. Smith
Ronald Steinvurzel Michelle M. Smith
Clerk of the Superior Court
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 21 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
EXHIBIT F
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 22 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
(OR
2%,
5 BECKER FARM ROAD
SUITE 410
GERALD JAY RESNICK!
CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
ee
RESNI ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY 07068
TELEPHONE: (973) 781-1204
gresnick@resnicklg.com
Law & & FAX: (973) 781-1205
VINCENTA. ANTONIELLO?
vantoniello@resnicklg.com.
RO 4g
'MEMBER OF THE NJ, NY, & DC BAR
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2MEMBER OF THE NJ BAR
worw.resnickdg.com PLEASE RESPOND TO ROSELAND OFFICE
June 15, 2022
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Human Resources Manager
Waldorf Demolition
50 East Palisade Avenue
Englewood, NJ 07631
Re: Puma v. Liberty Contracting, et al
Docket No. BER-L-1646-20
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please be advised that this Firm represents the plaintiff, Peter Puma, in the above entitled
action. We are aware that your office was recently served with a a second Subpoena dated June 13,
2022 and returnable June 30, 2022. The Subpoena calls for the production of “Any personnel files
or other documents relating to Peter Puma’s employment with Waldorf Demolition...”
This is to advise you that our Firm intends to file a motion to quash the Subpoena. Therefore,
you are directed not to produce any records or information until you receive an order from the Court
to do so.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact the undersigned.
Thanking you, I am,
Very truly yours,
Cpe ee
VINCENT ANTONIELLO
VAA/sa
cc: Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. (via email)
NYC OFFICE: 535 FIFTH AVENUE, 16TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10017
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 23 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
EXHIBIT G
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 24 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Zeller v. South Cent. Emergency Med. Servs.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
May 20, 2014, Decided; May 20, 2014, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-2584
Reporter
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68940 *
prospective employers, and the second regarding the
allocation of costs and “first review" of e-discovery
RICHARD F. ZELLER, Plaintiff v. SOUTH CENTRAL
sought by the Defendants.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants |. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant South Central
Emergency Medical Services, Inc. from approximately
Counsel: [*1] For Richard F. Zeller, Plaintiff: Solomon March of 1998 until April 12, 2012. (Doc. 1). [*2] He
Z. Krevsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, Clark & Krevsky, LLC, was out of work under the FMLA from December 1,
Lemoyne, PA. 2011 through early January 2012. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff
alleges that upon his return to work in January 2012,
Defendants did not restore him to his previous position,
For South Central Emergency Medical Services, Inc., and retaliated against him for his use of FMLA leave,
Jason Campbell, Defendants: Jeffrey L. Oster, Maureen culminating in his discharge on April 12, 2012. (Doc. 1).
E. Daley, Rawle & Henderson, LLP, Philadelphia, PA. Defendants deny these allegations and submit that
Plaintiff was fired due to excessive absenteeism.
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 17, 2013.
Judges: KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, United States The parties have engaged in discovery. Plaintiffs
Magistrate Judge. KANE, J. answers to Defendants' Interrogatories have revealed
that Plaintiff communicated with a number of doctors
and witnesses via email, and also applied for a number
of jobs online following his separation from Defendants.
Opinion by: KAROLINE MEHALCHICK As such, the parties have endeavored to begin the
process of e-discovery to recover those emails. Though
several issues related to the e-discovery have been
resolved by the parties without court intervention, they
Opinion are still at odds over the allocation of costs of the e-
discovery and the question of which party is entitled to
“first review" of the documents procured through e-
discovery.
MEMORANDUM
Additionally, Defendants have served Plaintiff with a
Notice [*3] of Intent to Subpoena potential employers
This action was filed by Plaintiff, Richard F. Zeller,
with whom Plaintiff sought employment, as well as
against his former employer, Defendants South Central
Plaintiffs current employer. Plaintiff objects to the
Emergency Medical Services, Inc. and Jason Campbell,
issuance of these subpoenas, and has moved for a
in which Plaintiff alleges claims arising under the Family
protective order precluding the issuance of these
and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601. et seg., and
subpoenas.?
which relate to Plaintiffs employment with Defendant
and his allegedly unlawful and retaliatory discharge. The
parties have requested that the Court resolve two
discovery disputes — the first with respect to the ‘No formal motion was filed, but Plaintiff indicated that a
issuance of subpoenas to Plaintiffs current and protective order was the relief being sought during the Court's
teleconference regarding the discovery issues in this case.
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 25 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859
Page 2 of 9
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68940, *3
Il. Discussion (E.D.Pa.1996). "[C]ourts have construed this tule
liberally, creating a broad vista for discovery." E.E.0.C.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and Pearson v.
y. Princeton Healthcare Sys., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir.2000), parties may obtain
65115, 2012 WL 1623870, supra; citing Takacs v. Union
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS__87632, 2009 WL
relevant to any party's claim or defense" and "the court 3048471, at *1 (D.N.J.2009) (citing Tele—Radio Sys.
may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
Ltd. v. De Forest Elecs. Inc.. 92 F.R.D. 371, 375
subject matter involved in the action", although "relevant (D.N.J.1981)); see also Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. _v.
information need not be admissible at trial if the
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
253 (1978); Evans v. Employee Benefit Plan. 2006 U.S.
discovery of admissible evidence". Pursuant to Sempier
v. Johnson. 45 F.3d 724, 734 (3d Cir.1995); Farmers &
Dist. LEXIS 95782, 2006 WL 1644818. at “4
{D.N.J.2006); Jones _v. Derosa, 238 F.R.D. 157. 163
Merchants Nat. Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group
(D.N.J.2006); Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154,
Securities, Inc.. 174 F.R.D. 572. 585 (D.N.J.1997), and 159 (D.N.J.2000); Lesal Interiors, Inc. v. Resolution
In re Wilson, 451 F.3d _161, 164 (3d Cir.2006), district
Trust Corp., 153 F.R.D, 552, 560 (D.N.J.1994); Glenz v.
courts have broad discretion to manage [*4] discovery. Sharp Electronic Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69332,
2010 WL 2758729 (D.N.J.2010). "Review of all relevant
Importantly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), the
evidence provides each party with a fair opportunity to
court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
present an effective case at trial." Jones, 238 F.R.D. at
otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it
163; [*6] see also Caver, 192 F.R.D. at 159: Nestle
determines that:
Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101,
i. the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative
104 (D.N.J.1990). "Mutual knowledge of all the relevant
or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other
facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper
source that is more convenient, less burdensome,
litigation ... [and] either party may compel the other to
or less expensive;
disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.”
ii. the party seeking discovery has had ample
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in
L.Ed. 451 (1947); see also Unicasa Marketing Group,
the action; or
LLC v. Spinelli, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16628. 2007 WL
ili. the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
757909 (D.N.J.2007); Kopacz v. Delaware River and
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs
Bay Authority, 225 F.R.D. 494, 497 (D.N.J.2004).
of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’
resources, the importance of the issues at stake in A. SUBPOENAS TO PLAINTIFE'S CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE
the action, and the importance of the discovery in EMPLOYERS
resolving the issues.
Plaintiff is seeking damages including back pay and
Further, "the Court has a responsibility to protect privacy benefits and front pay and benefits. Further, whether
and confidentiality interests" and “has authority to Plaintiff mitigated his damages by seeking employment
fashion a set of limitations that allow as much relevant following his termination from Defendant is at issue in
material to be discovered as_ possible while this case. Defendants have served Plaintiff with a Notice
preventing unnecessary intrusions into legitimate of Intent to
Preview
BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Vincent Antoniello, ID # 031522000 RESNICK LAW GROUP, PC A Professional Corporation 5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410 Roseland, New Jersey 07068 (973) 781-1204 Attorneys for Plaintiff PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, BERGEN COUNTY LAW DIVISION Vv DOCKET NO. BER-L-1646-20 LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.; DOMINICK BULLARO, Individually and as CIVIL ACTION Agent of Liberty Contracting Corp.; XYZ CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN and JANE NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH DOES (1-5), DEFENDANTS’ SUBPOENAS AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants. TO Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group 34 South Broadway, Suite 210 White Plains, New York 10601 COUNSEL: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 8" day of July at 9:00 a.m. in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned, attorneys for Plaintiff, Peter Puma, will move before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, 10 Main St, Hackensack, NJ 07601, for an order quashing Defendants’ subpoenas pursuant to R.1:9-2A and for a protective order pursuant to R.4:10-3. Plaintiff shall rely on the annexed Certification of Vincent A. Antoniello, Esq., and the relevant subpoenas are attached thereto at Exhibits B and E. A proposed form of Order is also enclosed. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 RESNICK LAW GROUP, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ Vincent A. Antoniello By VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO Dated: June 22, 2022 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the within original Notice of Motion, supporting Certification, and proposed form of Order have been sent via e-courts online filing system on the date indicated below to our adversary Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. of Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group. 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 wilfully false, I may be subject to punishment. RESNICK LAW GROUP, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ Vincent A. Antoniello By: VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO Dated: June 22, 2022 BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pglof1 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Vincent Antoniello, ID # 031522000 RESNICK LAW GROUP, PC A Professional Corporation 5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410 Roseland, New Jersey 07068 (973) 781-1204 Attorneys for Plaintiff PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, BERGEN COUNTY LAW DIVISION v DOCKET NO. BER-L-1646-20 LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.; DOMINICK BULLARO, Individually and as CIVIL ACTION : Agent of Liberty Contracting Corp.; XYZ : CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN and JANE ORDER QUASHING DEFENDANTS’ DOES (1-5), SUBPOENAS AND GRANTING A : PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants. THIS MATTER having been opened to the court by the law firm of Resnick Law Group, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff on a motion to quash Defendants’ subpoenas pursuant to R.1:9-2A and for a protective order pursuant to R.4:10-3, and the Court having reviewed the papers submitted, and good cause having been shown; IT IS ON THIS day of , 2022, ORDERED that both Subpoenas, dated June 8, 2022 and June 13, 2022, served upon Plaintiff's prior employer Waldorf Demolition, located at 50 East Palisade Avenue, Englewood, NJ 07631, be and hereby are quashed; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a protective order is hereby entered barring Defendants from issuing subpoenas to any of Plaintiff's prior employers without leave of court. TSC. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg1lof88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Vincent Antoniello, ID # 031522000 RESNICK LAW GROUP, PC A Professional Corporation 5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410 Roseland, New Jersey 07068 (973) 781-1204 Attorneys for Plaintiff PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, BERGEN COUNTY LAW DIVISION v DOCKET NO. BER-L-1646-20 LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.; DOMINICK BULLARO, Individually and as CIVIL ACTION Agent of Liberty Contracting Corp.; XYZ CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN and JANE CERTIFICATION OF VINCENT A. DOES (1-5), ANTONIELLO, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’ Defendants. SUBPOENAS I, VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO, ESQ., of full age hereby certifies as follows: 1 1am an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey and a Member of the Firm with the Resnick Law Group. We represent the Plaintiff Peter Puma in the above referenced matter. 2 I make this Certification in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas. 3 On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action alleging wrongful termination in violation of Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, ef. seq. (“CEPA”) and Pierce vs Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 NJ 58 (1980). Plaintiff's claims assert that he was terminated from his employment with Defendant Liberty Contracting Corp. in retaliation for complaints he made regarding workplace safety, both internally and to the -1- BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 2of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). 4 The stated (and we argue, pretextual) reason for Plaintiff's termination, according to Defendants, was set forth in an October 15, 2019 Termination Notice, as follows: On Tuesday October 15", 2019 Peter was instructed to do a pick-up of mini containers at 44 Wall Street for a customer of Liberty contracting. Pete was unable to perform the stop stating he required a flag man. Pete was sent back at a later time and was still requesting a flag man and was unable to do the stop. Another driver was sent to the same stop and had no issue and the stop was performed safely and to the best of the drivers’ capabilities. Peter was given three (3) separate opportunities to perform the stop and each time chose not to perform his duties. Management feels this is insubordinate behavior. (See Exhibit A.) 5 Plaintiff has not yet been deposed. 6 On June 8, 2022, without any advance notice to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s attorneys, counsel for Defendants sent a Subpoena Duces Tecum to one of Plaintiffs former employers, Waldorf Demolition, located at 50 East Palisade Avenue, Englewood, NJ 07631. 7 Plaintiff's counsel received a copy of the Subpoena Duces Tecum on June 8, 2022. (See Exhibit B.) The subpoena requested broad and nearly unlimited discovery of all records related to Plaintiff's employment with this former employer, including the following: e The complete personnel file for Peter Puma and any additional documents relating to his employment and termination, if applicable. 8 Nevertheless, on that same date, Plaintiffs counsel promptly sent a written request to Plaintiffs former employer to hold all employment records until this motion had been filed and the Court had made a determination with regard to same. Counsel for Defendants were copied on this correspondence. (See Exhibit C.) 9. Plaintiff's counsel also notified counsel for the Defendants that the Subpoena was 2. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg3of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 inappropriate and that it did not comply with the requirements of R. 1:9-2 and R. 4:14-7(c). (See Exhibit D.) 10. In response, Defendants sent the June 13, 2022 Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum to Plaintiff's former employer, Waldorf Demolition, requiring testimony and the production of the following: ° Any personnel files or other documents relating to Peter Puma’s employment with Waldorf Demolition, including, but not limited to, any records relating to written warnings, disciplinary actions, citations, misconduct allegations, failure to wear protective gear, failure to listen to a superior, and/or write-ups issued by Waldorf Demolition or its officers, directors, managers, supervisors, dispatch, or employees concerning or relating to Peter Puma, and all records relating to Peter Puma’s termination from Waldorf Demolition, if applicable. (See Exhibit E.) 11. Plaintiff's counsel received a copy of the Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum on June 15, 2022, two days after the date that appears on it. On that same date, Plaintiff's counsel promptly sent a written request to Plaintiffs former employer to hold all employment records until this motion had been filed and the Court had made a determination with regard to same. Counsel for Defendants were copied on this correspondence. (See Exhibit F.) 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Zeller v. S. Cent. Emergency Med. Servs., No. 1:13-CV-2584, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68940 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014). 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Byrne v. Monmouth Cty. Dep’t of Health Care Facilities, Civil Action No. 06-5184 (JAP), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1513 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2008). 14, Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Fishel v. Rosen, No. A-2895-17T4, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2118 (App. Div. Sep. 25, 3. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg4of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 2018). 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Township of Gloucester v. Lakeview Realty Inv. Assocs., 2018 N.J. Tax Unpub. LEXIS 57 (Tax Ct. September 11, 2019), 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Hashem v. Hunterdon Cty., Civil Action No. 15-8585 (FLW) (DEA), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76249 (D.N.J. May 18, 2017). 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Woods v. Fresenius Medical Care Grp. of North America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3756, 2008 WL 151836, at *2 (S.D. Ind. 2008). 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Perry v. Best Lock Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23601 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 21, 1999). 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Jones v. St. John’s Health System, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63274 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 27, 2007). 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Chamberlain v. Farmington Savings Bank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70376 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2007). 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Creel v. Armstrong Cty., Civil Action No. 15-601, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45334 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2016). 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in EEOC v. Rexnord Indus., LLC, No. 11-CV-777, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91006 (E.D. Wis. June 29, 2012). -4- BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg5of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Conrod v. Bank of New York, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11634 (S.D.N.Y July 28, 1998). 24. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in Richardson v. BBB Grp., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1014-M, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60298 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2014). Thereby 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 may be subject to punishment. /s/ Vincent Antoniello VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO, ESQ. Dated: June v7 5 2022 5. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg6of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 EXHIBIT A BER-L- 001646- 20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg7of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 ——. a LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORPORATION Interior Demolition & Recycling 25-31 94™ Street TEL: 201-868-7500 North Bergen, NJ 07047 FAX: 201-868-7501 TERMINATION NOTICE Date: October 15%, 2019 Name of Employee: Peter Puma Position/Title: Truck Driver RE: Termination Letter On Tuesday October 15%, 2019 Peter was instructed to do a pick-up of mini containers at 44 Wall Street for a customer of Liberty contracting. Pete was unable to perform the stop stating he required a flag man. Pete was sent back at a later time and was still requesting a flag man and was unable to do the stop. Another driver was sent to gthe same stop and had no issue and the stop was performed safely and to the best of the drivers’ capabilities. s Peter was given three (3) separate opportunities to perform the stop and each time chose not to perform his duties Management feels this is insubordinate behavior. Signature of Employee LE <_-Signanure eLE of Siipervisor, Lo LLL Date Date CC: LOCAL 813, Business Agent, William Grater, Shop Steward PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT C2y BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 8 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 EXHIBIT B BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg9of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. STEINVURZEL & Levy Law GRouP 34 South Broadway, Suite 210 White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 288-0102 Attorneys for Defendant Attomey ID: 031221999 PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION —- BERGEN COUNTY - against - Docket No.: BER-L-1646-20 LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.; Civil Action DOMINICK BULLARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT OF LIBERTY Subpoena Duces Tecum CONTRACTING CORP; XYZ CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN AND JANE DOES (1-5), Defendant. To: HR Manager Waldorf Demolition 50 East Palisade Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce to the office of Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group, 34 South Broadway, Suite 210, White Plains, New York 10601 no later than twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, true and accurate copies of the following documents: 1 The complete personnel file for Peter Puma and any additional documents relating to his employment and termination, if applicable. Provided that if you are notified that a motion to quash the subpoena has been filed, the subpoenaed evidence shall not be produced or released until ordered to do so by the court or the release is consented to by all parties to this action. Failure to appear or comply with the command of this Subpoena will subject you to the penalties provided by law. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 10 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Dated: June 8, 2022 Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. STEINVURZEL & LEvy Law GRouP 34 South Broadway, Suite 210 White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 288-0102 Attorneys for Defendant By: /S/ Michelle M. Smith Ronald Steinvurzel Michelle M. Smith Clerk of the Superior Court BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg1lof88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 EXHIBIT C BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 12 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 5 BECKER FARM ROAD & ~ GERALD JAY RESNICK! SUITE 410 CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY a RE SNICK = ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY 07668 gresnick@resnicklg.com TELEPHONE: (973) 781-1204 VINCENT A. ANTONIELLO? AW FAX: (973) 781-1205 vantoniello@resnicklg.com RO "MEMBER OF THE NJ, NY, & DC BAR A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7MEMBER OF THE NJ BAR www.resnicklg.com PLEASE RESPOND TO ROSELAND OFFICE June 9, 2022 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Human Resources Manager Waldorf Demolition 50 East Palisade Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 Re: Puma v. Liberty Contracting, et al Docket No. BER-L-1646-20 Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that this Firm represents the plaintiff, Peter Puma, in the above entitled action. We are aware that your office was recently served with a subpoena for the production of records pertaining to our client, returnable “no later than twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena.” This is to advise you that our firm intends to file a motion to quash the subpoena. Therefore, you are directed not to produce any records or information until you receive an order from the Court to do so. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Thanking you, I am, Very trul ours, (CENT ANTONI VAAIsa ce: Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. (via email) NYC OFFICE: 535 FIFTH AVENUE, 16TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10017 BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 13 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 EXHIBIT D BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 14 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Vincent Antoniello ss From: Vincent Antoniello Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:55 AM To: Alexander Levy Cc: Margo Ramos; Ronald Steinvurzel Subject: RE: Puma v. Liberty Lex, Indeed, we will file our motion and let the Court decide. In the meantime, you should know that your Subpoena does not comply with the requirements of R. 1:9-2 and R. 4:14- 7{(c). Lastly, there is absolutely nothing improper about notifying a Subpoenaed witness that a motion to quash will be filed and not to make a production until the Court decides that motion. Again, you may want to review R. 4:14-7(c). Have a nice weekend, Vincent From: Alexander Levy Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 2:33 PM To: Vincent Antoniello Cc: Margo Ramos ; Ronald Steinvurzel Subject: Re: Puma v. Liberty Dear Vincent: This is Mr. Puma’s prior employer. We are entitled to see his previous employee file as it relates to, inter alia, his conduct and failure to follow direction or being disciplined. Moreover, from our understanding, Mr. Puma sued this employer for an alleged accident. We are entitled to know what that accident related to and if Mr. Puma was following required procedures and company protocols at the time of the alleged accident. Further, Mr. Puma may have given sworn testimony in that matter and we are entitled to see any such sworn testimony. If anything, | would think you would have provided this information to us already. 1 am available to speak on this further. Please note, however, itis improper for you to unilaterally tell the third party not to produce records - that is for the Court to determine. Very truly yours, Alexander M. Levy, Esq. Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group 34 south broadway, suite 210 white plains, new york 10601 914) 288-0102 EXT. 303 facsimile: (914) 288-0103 e-mail: alevy@steinlevy.com BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 15 of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Notice: This message, and any attached file, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message. Thank you. U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to inform you that any U.S. tax advice in this communication cannot be used by you (i) to avoid tax penalties or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another arty any transaction or matter addressed herein. He ease consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Jun 9, 2022, at 2:23 PM, Vincent Antoniello wrote: Happy to chat. I’d have the same question for you, what’s the basis for the subpoena? That’s the starting point. Fishing expeditions are not permitted, and we’ve been repeatedly successful in quashing them. Vincent Antoniello RESNICK LAW GROUP, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410 Roseland, NJ 07068 (973) 781-1204 (office) (973) 781-1205 (fax) On Jun 9, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Alexander Levy wrote: Vincent - want to discuss the basis of your motion to quash? Perhaps we can streamline things. Please let me know. Thank you, Alexander M. Levy, Esq. Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group 34 south broadway, suite 210 white plains, new york 10601 914) 288-0102 EXT. 303 facsimile: (914) 288-0103 e-mail: alevy@steinlevy.com Notice: This message, and any attached file, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the readerof this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e- mail and delete all copies of the original message. Thank you. U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to inform you that any U.S. tax advice in this communication cannot be used by you (i) to avoid tax penalties or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 16of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Jun 9, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Vincent Antoniello wrote: Please see the attached. Vincent A. Antoniello, Esq. Member of the Firm Resnick Law Group, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road, Suite 410 Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Tel: 973-781-1204 ext.103 | Fax: 973-781-1205 antoniello@resnicklg.com Subscribe to our free Employment Law Newslette! Follow our firm on: View my LinkedIn profile: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains information that may be privileged, confidential, and/or subject to other legal restrictions regarding its unauthorized disclosure or use. if you are not the have received intended recipient, you may not copy, distribute, or otherwise use this information. If you from this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and delete all copies of this e-mail your system From: Margo Ramos Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 1:55 PM To: Vincent Antoniello Ce: Alexander Levy Subject: Puma v. Liberty Mr. Antoniello, Please see the attached. Thank you, MaRGO RAMOS PARALEGAL STEINVURZEL & LEvY LAW GROUP 34 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 210 WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601 (914) 288-0102 EXT. 4 FACSIMILE: (914) 288-0103 BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg17 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 E-MAIL: MRAMOS@STEINLEVY.CO: Notice: This message, and any attached file, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Ifthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message. Thank you. USS. Treasury Circular 230 Notice U.S. Treasury Regulations require us to inform you that any U.S. tax advice in this communication cannot be used by you (i) to avoid tax penalties or (i) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 18of88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 EXHIBIT E BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 19 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. STEINVURZEL & Levy LAw GRouP 34 South Broadway, Suite 210 White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 288-0102 Attorneys for Defendant Attorney ID: 031221999 PETER PUMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, LAW DIVISION —- BERGEN COUNTY - against - Docket No.: BER-L-1646-20 LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP.; Civil Action DOMINICK BULLARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT OF LIBERTY Subpoena Ad Testificandum & Duces Tecum CONTRACTING CORP.; XYZ CORPORATIONS (1-5); JOHN AND JANE } DOES (1-5), Defendant. To: HR Manager Waldorf Demolition 50 East Palisade Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear in person at STEINVURZEL & LEVY LAW GROUP located at c/o Castronovo & McKinney, LLC at 71 Maple Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey 07960 on June 30, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and there to testify as a witness in the above- captioned matter. YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you and to produce at that time the following described books, papers, documents and other tangible things: 1 Any personnel files or other documents relating to Peter Puma’s employment with Waldorf Demolition, including, but not limited to, any records relating to written warnings, disciplinary actions, citations, misconduct allegations, failure to wear protective gear, failure to listen to a superior, and/or write-ups issued by Waldorf Demolition or its officers, directors, BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 20 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 managers, supervisors, dispatch, or employees concerning or relating to Peter Puma, and all records relating to Peter Puma’s termination from Waldorf Demolition, if applicable. Provided that if you are notified that a motion to quash the subpoena has been filed, the subpoenaed evidence shall not be produced or released until ordered to do so by the court or the release is consented to by all parties to this action. Failure to appear or comply with the command of this Subpoena will subject you to the penalties provided by law. Dated: June 13, 2022 Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. STEINVURZEL & Levy Law Group 34 South Broadway, Suite 210 White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 288-0102 Attorneys for Defendant By /S/ Michelle M. Smith Ronald Steinvurzel Michelle M. Smith Clerk of the Superior Court BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 21 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 EXHIBIT F BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 22 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 (OR 2%, 5 BECKER FARM ROAD SUITE 410 GERALD JAY RESNICK! CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY ee RESNI ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY 07068 TELEPHONE: (973) 781-1204 gresnick@resnicklg.com Law & & FAX: (973) 781-1205 VINCENTA. ANTONIELLO? vantoniello@resnicklg.com. RO 4g 'MEMBER OF THE NJ, NY, & DC BAR A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2MEMBER OF THE NJ BAR worw.resnickdg.com PLEASE RESPOND TO ROSELAND OFFICE June 15, 2022 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Human Resources Manager Waldorf Demolition 50 East Palisade Avenue Englewood, NJ 07631 Re: Puma v. Liberty Contracting, et al Docket No. BER-L-1646-20 Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that this Firm represents the plaintiff, Peter Puma, in the above entitled action. We are aware that your office was recently served with a a second Subpoena dated June 13, 2022 and returnable June 30, 2022. The Subpoena calls for the production of “Any personnel files or other documents relating to Peter Puma’s employment with Waldorf Demolition...” This is to advise you that our Firm intends to file a motion to quash the Subpoena. Therefore, you are directed not to produce any records or information until you receive an order from the Court to do so. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Thanking you, I am, Very truly yours, Cpe ee VINCENT ANTONIELLO VAA/sa cc: Ronald Steinvurzel, Esq. (via email) NYC OFFICE: 535 FIFTH AVENUE, 16TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10017 BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 23 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 EXHIBIT G BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 24 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Zeller v. South Cent. Emergency Med. Servs. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania May 20, 2014, Decided; May 20, 2014, Filed CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-2584 Reporter 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68940 * prospective employers, and the second regarding the allocation of costs and “first review" of e-discovery RICHARD F. ZELLER, Plaintiff v. SOUTH CENTRAL sought by the Defendants. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants |. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff was employed by Defendant South Central Emergency Medical Services, Inc. from approximately Counsel: [*1] For Richard F. Zeller, Plaintiff: Solomon March of 1998 until April 12, 2012. (Doc. 1). [*2] He Z. Krevsky, LEAD ATTORNEY, Clark & Krevsky, LLC, was out of work under the FMLA from December 1, Lemoyne, PA. 2011 through early January 2012. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that upon his return to work in January 2012, Defendants did not restore him to his previous position, For South Central Emergency Medical Services, Inc., and retaliated against him for his use of FMLA leave, Jason Campbell, Defendants: Jeffrey L. Oster, Maureen culminating in his discharge on April 12, 2012. (Doc. 1). E. Daley, Rawle & Henderson, LLP, Philadelphia, PA. Defendants deny these allegations and submit that Plaintiff was fired due to excessive absenteeism. Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 17, 2013. Judges: KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, United States The parties have engaged in discovery. Plaintiffs Magistrate Judge. KANE, J. answers to Defendants' Interrogatories have revealed that Plaintiff communicated with a number of doctors and witnesses via email, and also applied for a number of jobs online following his separation from Defendants. Opinion by: KAROLINE MEHALCHICK As such, the parties have endeavored to begin the process of e-discovery to recover those emails. Though several issues related to the e-discovery have been resolved by the parties without court intervention, they Opinion are still at odds over the allocation of costs of the e- discovery and the question of which party is entitled to “first review" of the documents procured through e- discovery. MEMORANDUM Additionally, Defendants have served Plaintiff with a Notice [*3] of Intent to Subpoena potential employers This action was filed by Plaintiff, Richard F. Zeller, with whom Plaintiff sought employment, as well as against his former employer, Defendants South Central Plaintiffs current employer. Plaintiff objects to the Emergency Medical Services, Inc. and Jason Campbell, issuance of these subpoenas, and has moved for a in which Plaintiff alleges claims arising under the Family protective order precluding the issuance of these and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601. et seg., and subpoenas.? which relate to Plaintiffs employment with Defendant and his allegedly unlawful and retaliatory discharge. The parties have requested that the Court resolve two discovery disputes — the first with respect to the ‘No formal motion was filed, but Plaintiff indicated that a issuance of subpoenas to Plaintiffs current and protective order was the relief being sought during the Court's teleconference regarding the discovery issues in this case. BER-L-001646-20 06/22/2022 10:57:40 AM Pg 25 of 88 Trans ID: LCV20222329859 Page 2 of 9 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68940, *3 Il. Discussion (E.D.Pa.1996). "[C]ourts have construed this tule liberally, creating a broad vista for discovery." E.E.0.C. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and Pearson v. y. Princeton Healthcare Sys., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir.2000), parties may obtain 65115, 2012 WL 1623870, supra; citing Takacs v. Union discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS__87632, 2009 WL relevant to any party's claim or defense" and "the court 3048471, at *1 (D.N.J.2009) (citing Tele—Radio Sys. may order discovery of any matter relevant to the Ltd. v. De Forest Elecs. Inc.. 92 F.R.D. 371, 375 subject matter involved in the action", although "relevant (D.N.J.1981)); see also Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. _v. information need not be admissible at trial if the Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 253 (1978); Evans v. Employee Benefit Plan. 2006 U.S. discovery of admissible evidence". Pursuant to Sempier v. Johnson. 45 F.3d 724, 734 (3d Cir.1995); Farmers & Dist. LEXIS 95782, 2006 WL 1644818. at “4 {D.N.J.2006); Jones _v. Derosa, 238 F.R.D. 157. 163 Merchants Nat. Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group (D.N.J.2006); Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154, Securities, Inc.. 174 F.R.D. 572. 585 (D.N.J.1997), and 159 (D.N.J.2000); Lesal Interiors, Inc. v. Resolution In re Wilson, 451 F.3d _161, 164 (3d Cir.2006), district Trust Corp., 153 F.R.D, 552, 560 (D.N.J.1994); Glenz v. courts have broad discretion to manage [*4] discovery. Sharp Electronic Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69332, 2010 WL 2758729 (D.N.J.2010). "Review of all relevant Importantly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), the evidence provides each party with a fair opportunity to court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery present an effective case at trial." Jones, 238 F.R.D. at otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it 163; [*6] see also Caver, 192 F.R.D. at 159: Nestle determines that: Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, i. the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative 104 (D.N.J.1990). "Mutual knowledge of all the relevant or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper source that is more convenient, less burdensome, litigation ... [and] either party may compel the other to or less expensive; disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.” ii. the party seeking discovery has had ample Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in L.Ed. 451 (1947); see also Unicasa Marketing Group, the action; or LLC v. Spinelli, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16628. 2007 WL ili. the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 757909 (D.N.J.2007); Kopacz v. Delaware River and outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs Bay Authority, 225 F.R.D. 494, 497 (D.N.J.2004). of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in A. SUBPOENAS TO PLAINTIFE'S CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE the action, and the importance of the discovery in EMPLOYERS resolving the issues. Plaintiff is seeking damages including back pay and Further, "the Court has a responsibility to protect privacy benefits and front pay and benefits. Further, whether and confidentiality interests" and “has authority to Plaintiff mitigated his damages by seeking employment fashion a set of limitations that allow as much relevant following his termination from Defendant is at issue in material to be discovered as_ possible while this case. Defendants have served Plaintiff with a Notice preventing unnecessary intrusions into legitimate of Intent to