Preview
2.2
\ x \ al A g
»»
Nn
we ave ont
oe cot
OF
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION No.: 2282CV00920
GLORIA SHALDERS
PLAINTIFF
Vv.
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC,
DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO,
JESSICA HARDGROVE,
LISA AKINS and MICHELLE STRAIT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANTS? OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANTS
NOW COME the Defendants, High Point Treatment Center, Inc. (“High Point”),
Daniel S. Mumbauer, CEO (“Mr. Mumbauer”), Jessica Hargrove (“Ms. Hargrove”), Lisa
Akins (“Ms Akins”), and Michelle Strait (“Ms. Strait”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) and
hereby move that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses from the Defendants (“Motion to Compel”). In support thereof Defendants state as
follows:
1. Defendants have appropriately responded to Plaintiffs “Resubmission” of the Second
Set of Request for Production of Documents (“Second Request for Production of
Documents”), Exhibit 1 — Defendants Response to Second Request for Production of
Documents.
Most of the requests contained in Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of
Documents are objectionable, as they either do not request documents, or are
duplicative of document requests in Plaintiff's First Request for Production of
Documents, which have already been answered (see Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2— Responses
to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents; Exhibit 3 — Supplemental
Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents).
Where appropriate and not objectionable, Defendants have responded with additional
requested documentation. Exhibit 1.
WHEREFORE, Defendants hereby move this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants.
DEFENDANTS,
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER, INC.,
DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO, JESSICA
HARGROVE, LISA AKINS, AND
MICHELLE STRAIT,
By their attorneys,
4s/ John P. Coakley
John P. Coakley, BBO#558685
Jameson W. Toner, BBO# 669285
MURPHY & RILEY, P.C.
100 Franklin Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02110
617-423-3700
jcoakley@murphyriley.cow
kgarrison@murphyriley.com
Date: March 12, 2024
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John P. Coakley, hereby certify that on this day a true copy of the within document was
served upon the Plaintiff by mail and email as follows:
Gloria Shalders
55 David Terrace, Apt. 19
Norwood, MA 02062
GloriaShalders@RegisteredNurses.com
/s/ John P. Coakley
DATED: March 12, 2024
EXHIBIT
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss, SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION No.: 2282CV00920
GLORIA SHALDERS
PLAINTIFF
Vv.
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC,
DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO,
JESSICA HARDGROVE,
LISA AKINS and MICHELLE STRAIT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S “RESUBMISSION” OF THE
SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendants High Point Treatment Center, Inc. (“High Point”), Daniel S$. Mumbauer,
CEO (“Mr. Mumbauer”), Jessica Hargrove (“Ms. Hargrove”), Lisa Akins (“Ms. Akins”), and
Michelle Strait (“Ms. Strait”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) respond to Plaintiff's
“Resubmission”! of the Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“Second
Request for Production of Documents”) as follows.
The definitions and/or instructions prefacing or contained within this request for
production of documents are objected to because they are overly broad, vague, unduly
burdensome and beyond the scope of Mass. R. Civ. P, 26(b) and 34(a). This response will be
in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34.
DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
REQUEST NO. 1
Please provide copies of cell phone records, text messages, and email correspondence between
Plaintiff and Defendants Jessica Tavares (Hiring Manager) and Michelle Strait.
RESPONSE NO. 1
' Defendants object to Plaintiff's characterization of this Second Request for Production of Documents as a
“Resubmission” of otherwise unanswered requests. Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production of Documents
mailed on July 13, 2023 is largely duplicative of her First Request for Production of Documents, which was
answered on July 10, 2023, and which Defendants further responded on July 14, 2023 with Supplemental
Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents.
Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 1 from Plaintiff's
First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered with responsive
documents. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and
burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible
as written and seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product
doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
Without waiving such objections, see documents produced as part of Defendants’ responses to
Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents.
REQUEST NO. 2
Please provide all communication from the Plaintiffs’ work cell phone (857)218-2134,
detailing the interaction between Plaintiff and other employees and how she interacted with
her subordinates. Also, provide copies of the call logs.
RESPONSE NO. 2
Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 13 from Plaintiff's
First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered. Defendants further
object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope,
is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents
not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this interrogatory because it seeks
information from third parties and information not within its possession, custody, control, or
personal knowledge. Defendants object to this interrogatory to the extent information sought
is known by the requesting party or available to both parties equally.
REQUEST NO. 3
Please provide any and all Photographs or audio-video recordings concerning the alleged
Narcotic Mismanagement alleged against Plaintiff.
RESPONSE NO. 3
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time
and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations with respect to “audio-video
recordings” and “concerning the alleged Narcotic Mismanagement”, is unintelligible as written
and seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or
Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, see the responsive
documents already produced in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of
Documents. There are no other responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or
control.
REQUEST NO. 4
Please provide any documents concerning the Plaintiff's wages and salary, not limited to Direct
deposits and paystubs. Defendant uses the Kronos time-keeping tool to record Plaintiff's work
schedule accurately and has all Plaintiffs Punch on KRONOS in its possession.
RESPONSE NO, 4
Defendants object to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 4 from
Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered with
responsive documents, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-
broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations,
unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants
object to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this
request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable
particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34. Defendants object to this request to the
extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product
doctrine and/or Mass, R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, see Exhibit A
attached hereto, which contains the “Kronos Punches” for Plaintiff from 4/25/21 to 10/13/21,
Prior to 4/25/21 Defendant High Point utilized a different software with no available history.
Further answering, see the responsive documents already produced in response to Request
No. 4 from Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents
RE UEST NO. 5
Please provide documents showing onc hundred and eighty bottles of Methadone miscount,
which was alleged grounds for Plaintiff's termination on October 15, 2021.
RESPONSE NO. 5
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time
and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, see the responsive
documents already produced in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of
Documents,
REQUEST NO. 6
Please provide Copies of all documents related to Plaintiff's retirement accounts showing the
account balance at the time the Plaintiff was employed by HPTC and upon termination.
RESPONSE NO. 6
Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 19 from Plaintiffs
First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered. Defendants further
object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope,
is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents
not relevant to the pending action.
REQUEST NO. 7
Please provide defendants’ policies for creating job descriptions for Nurse Managers.
RESPONSE NO. 7
Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants
to describe their policies for creating Nurse manager job descriptions. Defendants further
object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request Nos. 22 and 17 from Plaintiff's First
Request for Production of Documents, which have been answered. Defendants further object
to this request as overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, vague and subject to varying
interpretations, unintelligible as written, and seeking documents not relevant to the pending
action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it demand they create a document not
otherwise in existence,
REQUEST NO. 8
Please explain why it is documented that Plaintiff is not eligible for rehire.
RESPONSE NO. 8
Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants
to explain why Plaintiff is not eligible for rehire. Defendants object to this request as overly
broad in time and scope, unduly vague and burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence in this action and, therefore, beyond the scope of Mass.
R. Civ. P. 26 and 34. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe
each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34.
Defendant objects to this request as it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this
request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-
product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Defendants object to this request to the
extent it demand they create a document not otherwise in existence.
REQUEST NO. 9
Please provide list of all Nurse Managers who were Terminated by HPTC five years before
Plaintiffs employment and five years after the Plaintiffs termination via Phone call notification
and their belongings boxed for them to pick up.
RESPONSE NO. 9
Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking
Defendants to list all Nurse Managers fired over a ten year period who were notified by
phone and had their belongings packed up. Defendants object to this request to the extent it
demand they create a document not otherwise in existence. Defendants object to this request
on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and
subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant
to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in
evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item
or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34. Defendants
object to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client
privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning
an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with
regard to the release of an individual's employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int’l Business
Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that
“there is a high expectation of privacy" in a personnel file and that the release of information
from a personnel file is a "substantial interference with the right to privacy". Skelley v.
Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414,418
(November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep, 283 (Worcester
Super. Ct. 2002), The SIC has stated that "[i]n evaluating whether the information sought
from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we
stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees' effectiveness in
their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees!
privacy.” Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cmi v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308
(1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory
privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L.c.214, sec, 1 B.
REQUEST NO. 10
Please Provide the qualifications of all Nurse Managers and years of experience in the nursing
field.
RESPONSE NO. 10
Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants
to describe the qualifications of all Nurse Managers and their years of experience in the nursing
field. Defendants object to this request as overly broad in time and scope, unduly vague and
burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this
action and, therefore, beyond the scope of Mass. R. Civ, P. 26 and 34. Defendants object to
this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable
particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P, 34. Defendant objects to this request as it
assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent it demand they
create a document not otherwise in existence.
Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning
an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with
regard to the release of an individual's employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int’! Business
Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that
"there is a high expectation of privacy" in a personnel file and that the release of information
from a personnel file is a "substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v.
Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass, Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr, 414,418
(November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester
Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that "[i]n evaluating whether the information sought
from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we
stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in
their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’
privacy." Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cmi v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308
(1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory
privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L.c.214, see. 1 B.
REQUEST NO. 11
Please provide copies of Plaintiff's three months and one-year evaluations.
RESPONSE NO. 11
Defendants object to this request as overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, vague
and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written, and seeking documents not
relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request as it is assumes facts not in
evidence.
Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, see the responsive
documents already produced in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of
Documents. There are no other responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or
control.
REQUEST NO. 12
Please provide Video footage for the two weeks that Plaintiff was left alone to work in the
dosing room from 4 am to 5 pm; April 13-20 of 2021; and the first or second week of July
2021,
RESPONSE NO. 12
Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 3 from Plaintiff's
First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered. Defendants object to
this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is
vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents
not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it assumes
facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe
each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34.
Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, Defendants state as
follows: there are no responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST NO. 13
Please explain the fluctuation in pay rate from June 2021 to July 2021.
RESPONSE NO. 13
Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking
Defendants explain an alleged pay fluctuation. Defendants object to this request to the extent
it demand they create a document not otherwise in existence. Defendants object to this
request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague
and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not
relevant to the pending action. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it assumes facts
not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each
item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34.
Defendants object to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the
attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
REQUEST NO. 14
Please provide Proof of postage of the unemployment brochure allegedly mailed to Plaintiff
upon termination by the Defendants.
RESPONSE NO. 14
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time
and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action.
Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, Defendants state as
follows: there are no responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST NO. 15
The documents show that On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff received an email from Lisa allegedly
stating Plaintiff requested a schedule change. Plaintiff wants Lisa Akins to provide such an
email from me requesting a schedule change.
RESPONSE NO. 15
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time
and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent
it assumes facts not in evidence,
Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, Defendants state as
follows: there are no responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
REQUEST NO. 16
Defendants alleged. Plaintiff submitted false documentation of dosing provided to a patient.
Please provide documentation of this allegation and video footage of such conduct.
RESPONSE NO. 16
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time
and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
Without waiving such objections, see documents produced as part of Defendants’ responses to
Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents.
REQUEST NO. 17
Please provide Patient census from April 2021 to July 2021.
RESPONSE NO. 17
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time
and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action.
REQUEST NO. 18
Defendants alleged Plaintiff did not sign Controlled Substance Records. Please provide Proof
of all such documents not signed by Plaintiff.
RESPONSE NO. 18
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in
time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations and unintelligible as written.
Without waiving such objections, see documents produced as part of Defendants’ responses
to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents.
REQUEST NO. 19
Please indicate on Plaintiffs job description where it states Plaintiff will be working as a
dosing nurse.
RESPONSE NO. 19
Defendants objects to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking
Defendants to review Plaintiff's job description and identify details. Defendants object to
this request to the extent it demands they create a document not otherwise in existence.
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in
time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and
seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the
extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it
does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with
Mass. R., Civ. P. 34.
REQUEST NO. 20
Please provide the role and responsibilities of Lisa Akins, Michelle Strait, Daniel Mumbauer,
and Jessica Hargrove.
RESPONSE NO. 20
Defendants objects to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking
Defendants to describe the role and responsibilities of various persons. Defendants object to
this request to the extent it demands they create a document not otherwise in existence.
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in
time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and
seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the
extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it
does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with
Mass. R. Civ. P. 34.
REQUEST NO. 21
Please provide copies of the Job description and payroll records for Daniel Mumbauer, Jessica
Hargrove, Lisa Akins, and Michelle Strait.
RESPONSE NO. 21
Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 23 from Plaintiff's
First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered. Defendants further
object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope,
is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents
not relevant to the pending action.
Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning
an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with
regard to the release of an individual's employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int’] Business
Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that
there is a high expectation of privacy" in a personnel file and that the release of information
from a personnel file is a "substantial interference with the right to privacy". Skelley v.
Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414,418
(November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester
Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that "[i]n evaluating whether the information sought
from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we
stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in
their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’
privacy.” Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cmi y. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308
(1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory
privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L.c.214, sec. 1 B.
DEFENDANTS,
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER, INC.,
DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO, JESSICA
HARGROVE, LISA AKINS, AND
MICHELLE STRAIT,
By their attorneys,
sf John P. Coakley
John P, Coakley, BBO#558685
Jameson W. Toner, BBO# 669285
MURPHY & RILEY, P.C.
100 Franklin Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02110
617-423-3700
jcoakley@murphyriley.com
kgarrison@murphyril com
Date: March 12, 2024
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John P. Coakley, hereby certify that on this day a true copy of the within document was
served upon the Plaintiff by mail and email as follows:
Gloria Shalders
55 David Terrace, Apt. 19
Norwood, MA 02062
GloriaShalders@RegisteredNurses.com
ts/ John P. Coakley
DATED: March 12, 2024
11
EXHIBIT 2
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION No.: 2282CV00920
GLORIA SHALDERS
PLAINTIFF
Vv.
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC,
DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO,
JESSICA HARDGROVE,
LISA AKINS and MICHELLE STRAIT
DEFENDANT
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REQUEST NO. 1
Please provide Copies of all cell phone records, text messages, emails, and any form of
communication between Plaintiff and the Defendants: Michelle Strait, Lisa Akins, Jessica
Hargrove, Jessica Tavares, Susan, and all people in management.
RESPONSE NO. 1
Defendant High Point Treatment Center, Inc. (“HPTC”) objects to this request on the grounds
that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying
interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action.
HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the
attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without
waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 2
A copy of the Plaintiffs’ annual evaluation.
RESPONSE NO. 2
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and subject to varying
interpretations. Without waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO.
Provide Video footage for the two weeks that Plaintiff was left alone to work in the dosing
room: April 13 to 20 of 2021; and the first or second week in July 2021.
RESPONSE NO. 3
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action.
REQUEST NO. 4
Copies of all Paystubs for Plaintiff; explain the fluctuation in pay rate from June to July of
2021.
RESPONSE NO. 4
HPTC objects to this request on the grourids that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, HPTC will
produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REQUEST NO. 5
Please provide the Plaintiffs pay stubs and provide the Plaintiffs pay rate from August 10,
2020, to July 31, 2021, and the Pay rate from August 1, 2021, to October 15, 2021.
RESPONSE NO. 5
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, HPTC will
produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REQUEST NO. 6
Provide all Dosing room Policies, including all Policies on Narcotic counts: how many
people are supposed to count narcotics and stock narcotics.
RESPONSE NO. 6
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent
that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or
2
Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 7
List of Employees who received severance pay, benefits, and other compensation upon
Termination in the past three years.
RESPONSE NO.7
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to scope and time. HPTC
further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to
the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized
a privilege with regard to the release of an individual’s employment personnel file. See Bratt v.
Int'l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass, 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that
“there is a high expectation of privacy” in a personnel file and that the release of information
from a personnel file is a “substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees
of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414, 418 (November
10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002).
The SJC has stated that “[i]n evaluating whether the information sought from employees could
amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's
legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced
against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy.” Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520,
citing Cort v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this
request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without
limitation, M.G.L. c. 214, sec. 1B.
REQUEST NO. 8
List of all employees written up based on Camera review in the past three (3)-years by Lisa
Akins.
RESPONSE NO. 8
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to scope and time. HPTC
further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to
the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized
a privilege with regard to the release of an individual’s employment personnel file. See Bratt v.
Int'l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that
“there is a high expectation of privacy” in a personnel file and that the release of information
from a personnel file is a “substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees
of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414, 418 (November
3
10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002).
The SJC has stated that “[iJn evaluating whether the information sought from employees could
amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's
legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced
against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy." Bratt, 392 Mass, at 520,
citing Cort v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this
request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without
limitation, M.G.L. ¢. 214, sec. 1B.
REQUEST NO. 9
Provide Copies of the Pay grid for al! Nurse managers, directors, and administrators.
RESPONSE NO. 9
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent
that it seeks confidential and/or private information concerning HPTC employees other than the
plaintiff without such employee’s consent. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that
jt demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence. Without waiving such
objections, see documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 1!
Pay rates for all nurse managers at high point treatment centers, qualification, and the years of
experience of the Nurse managers.
RESPONSE NO. 16
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it
is overly broad as to scope and time. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it
seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. HPTC further objects to
this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning an employee that is private. The
Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with regard to the release of an individual’s
employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518,
(1984). Massachusetts courts have held that “there is a high expectation of privacy” in a
personnel file and that the release of information from a personnel file is a “substantial
interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass.
Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414, 418 (November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v.
Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that “[i]n
evaluating whether the information sought from employees could amount to an unreasonable
interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's legitimate interest in
4
determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness
of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy." Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cort v. Bristol-Myers,
Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common
law and statutory privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L. c. 214, sec. 1B.
HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it demands that HPTC create a document
not otherwise in existence. Without waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 11
Please provide a written employment contract or any other form of agreement that
contributed to the Plaintiff's terminations.
RESPONSE NO. 11
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent
that it seeks confidential and/or private information concerning HPTC employees other than the
plaintiff without such employee’s consent. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that
it demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence. HPTC further objects to
this request on the grounds that it assumes the truth of an allegation disputed by HPTC.
RE UEST NO. 12
Please calculate/provide all hours owed in pay, overtime hours, leave hours, as well as short and
long-term disability contributions and all unauthorized deductions.
RESPONSE NO. 12
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent
that it seeks confidential and/or private information concerning HPTC employees other than the
plaintiff without such employee’s consent. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that
it demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence. HPTC further objects to
this request on the grounds that it assumes the truth of an allegation disputed by HPTC.
REQUEST NO. 1
Please provide all communication from Plaintiffs work cell phone, 857-218-2134, detailing
communication between Plaintiff
and other employees.
RESPONSE NO. 13
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action
REQUEST NO. 14 ‘
Copies of all documents showing all persons who have participated in the development of
Defendant's seniority or merit system and describe each person's role.
RESPONSE NO. 14
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent
that it seeks confidential and/or private information concerning HPTC employees other than the
plaintiff without such employee’s consent. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that
it demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence.
REQUEST NO. 15
Copies of any policy of insurance which provides coverage for any potential judgment.
RESPONSE NO. 15
See documents produced herewith.
RE UEST NO. 16
Copies of all policies that Defendant has in place, as it relates to lunch breaks, bathroom breaks,
and overtime payments.
RESPONSE NO, 16
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, Defendant will
produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
REQUEST NO. 1
Copies of the job description that Defendant has in place for a Nurse Manager and a Charge
Nurse.
RESPONSE NO. 17
Please see documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 18
Copies of all policies, memoranda, handbooks, manuals, memos, handouts, rules, personne]
forms, applications, and terms and conditions of employment related to Plaintiff's employment
with the Defendant.
RESPONSE NO. 18
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, please see
documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 19
Copies of all documents related to Plaintiffs retirement account, showing what the balance of the
account was at the time that Plaintiff's employment terminated.
RESPONSE NO. 19
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action.
REQUEST NO. 20
Copies of any internal documents, policies, rules and/or handbooks showing if any employees of
Defendant received diversity training, safety training, or COVID-19 training,
RESPONSE NO. 20
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, please see
documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 21
Copies of any documents showing the Policy, if any, in place for Defendant's safety
policies and practices.
RESPONSE NO. 21
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, please see
documents produced herewith.
RE UEST NO. 2:
Provide all Defendants’ policies for creating internal Job descriptions for all staff.
RESPONSE NO, 22
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and secks
documents not relevant to the pending action.
REQUEST NO. 23
Copies of any documents showing the Payroll Records and Personnel File for DANJELS.
MUMBAUER, JESSICA HARGROVE, LISA AKINS, AND MICHELLE STRAIT.
RESPONSE NO. 23
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to scope and time. HPTC
further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to
the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized
a privilege with regard to the release ofan individual's employment personnel file. See Bratt v.
Int'l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that
“there is a high expectation ofprivacy” in a personnel file and that the release of information
from a personnel file is a “substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees
of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414, 418 (November
10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002).
The SJC has stated that “[iJn evaluating whether the information sought from employees could
amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's
legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced
against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees' privacy." Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520,
citing Cort v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this
request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without
limitation, M.G.L. c. 214, sec. 1B.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANT
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER, INC.
By its attorneys,
¢s/ John P. Coakley
John P, Coakley, BBO#558685
MURPHY & RILEY, P.C
100 Franklin Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02110
617-423-3700
icoakley@murphyriley.com
kgarrison@murphyriley.com
Date: July 10, 2023
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
! Hereby Certify That On This Day
A True Copy Of The Within Document
Was Served Upon The. Atom of
Ot a
Record For Each Party By Mall/Hand:—
Dated: yee3 ©. oS
EAHIBIT 3
COMMONWEAL TH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION No.: 2282CV00920
GLORIA SHALDERS
PLAINTIFF
Vv.
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC,
DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO,
JESSICA HARDGROVE,
LISA AKINS and MICHELLE STRAIT
DEFENDANT
HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REQUEST NO. 4
Copies of all Paystubs for Plaintiff; explain the fluctuation in pay rate from June to July of
2021.
RESPONSE NO. 4
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, HPTC will
produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 4
Without waiving such objections, please see documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 5 :
Please provide the Plaintiffs pay stubs and provide the Plaintiffs pay rate from August 10,
2020, to July 31, 2021, and the Pay rate from August 1, 2021, to October 15, 2021.
RESPONSE NO. 5
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
4
scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks
documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, HPTC will
produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 5
Without waiving such objections, please see documents produced herewith.
REQUEST NO. 6
Provide all Dosing room Policies, including all Policies on Narcotic counts: how many
people are supposed to count narcotics and stock narcotics,
RESPONSE NO. 6
HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and
scope, is vagu
Preview
2.2 \ x \ al A g »» Nn we ave ont oe cot OF COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION No.: 2282CV00920 GLORIA SHALDERS PLAINTIFF Vv. HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC, DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO, JESSICA HARDGROVE, LISA AKINS and MICHELLE STRAIT DEFENDANT DEFENDANTS? OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANTS NOW COME the Defendants, High Point Treatment Center, Inc. (“High Point”), Daniel S. Mumbauer, CEO (“Mr. Mumbauer”), Jessica Hargrove (“Ms. Hargrove”), Lisa Akins (“Ms Akins”), and Michelle Strait (“Ms. Strait”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) and hereby move that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from the Defendants (“Motion to Compel”). In support thereof Defendants state as follows: 1. Defendants have appropriately responded to Plaintiffs “Resubmission” of the Second Set of Request for Production of Documents (“Second Request for Production of Documents”), Exhibit 1 — Defendants Response to Second Request for Production of Documents. Most of the requests contained in Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents are objectionable, as they either do not request documents, or are duplicative of document requests in Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, which have already been answered (see Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2— Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents; Exhibit 3 — Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents). Where appropriate and not objectionable, Defendants have responded with additional requested documentation. Exhibit 1. WHEREFORE, Defendants hereby move this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants. DEFENDANTS, HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER, INC., DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO, JESSICA HARGROVE, LISA AKINS, AND MICHELLE STRAIT, By their attorneys, 4s/ John P. Coakley John P. Coakley, BBO#558685 Jameson W. Toner, BBO# 669285 MURPHY & RILEY, P.C. 100 Franklin Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02110 617-423-3700 jcoakley@murphyriley.cow kgarrison@murphyriley.com Date: March 12, 2024 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John P. Coakley, hereby certify that on this day a true copy of the within document was served upon the Plaintiff by mail and email as follows: Gloria Shalders 55 David Terrace, Apt. 19 Norwood, MA 02062 GloriaShalders@RegisteredNurses.com /s/ John P. Coakley DATED: March 12, 2024 EXHIBIT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss, SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION No.: 2282CV00920 GLORIA SHALDERS PLAINTIFF Vv. HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC, DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO, JESSICA HARDGROVE, LISA AKINS and MICHELLE STRAIT DEFENDANT DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S “RESUBMISSION” OF THE SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants High Point Treatment Center, Inc. (“High Point”), Daniel S$. Mumbauer, CEO (“Mr. Mumbauer”), Jessica Hargrove (“Ms. Hargrove”), Lisa Akins (“Ms. Akins”), and Michelle Strait (“Ms. Strait”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) respond to Plaintiff's “Resubmission”! of the Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“Second Request for Production of Documents”) as follows. The definitions and/or instructions prefacing or contained within this request for production of documents are objected to because they are overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and beyond the scope of Mass. R. Civ. P, 26(b) and 34(a). This response will be in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED REQUEST NO. 1 Please provide copies of cell phone records, text messages, and email correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendants Jessica Tavares (Hiring Manager) and Michelle Strait. RESPONSE NO. 1 ' Defendants object to Plaintiff's characterization of this Second Request for Production of Documents as a “Resubmission” of otherwise unanswered requests. Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production of Documents mailed on July 13, 2023 is largely duplicative of her First Request for Production of Documents, which was answered on July 10, 2023, and which Defendants further responded on July 14, 2023 with Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents. Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 1 from Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered with responsive documents. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without waiving such objections, see documents produced as part of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents. REQUEST NO. 2 Please provide all communication from the Plaintiffs’ work cell phone (857)218-2134, detailing the interaction between Plaintiff and other employees and how she interacted with her subordinates. Also, provide copies of the call logs. RESPONSE NO. 2 Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 13 from Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this interrogatory because it seeks information from third parties and information not within its possession, custody, control, or personal knowledge. Defendants object to this interrogatory to the extent information sought is known by the requesting party or available to both parties equally. REQUEST NO. 3 Please provide any and all Photographs or audio-video recordings concerning the alleged Narcotic Mismanagement alleged against Plaintiff. RESPONSE NO. 3 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations with respect to “audio-video recordings” and “concerning the alleged Narcotic Mismanagement”, is unintelligible as written and seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, see the responsive documents already produced in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents. There are no other responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. REQUEST NO. 4 Please provide any documents concerning the Plaintiff's wages and salary, not limited to Direct deposits and paystubs. Defendant uses the Kronos time-keeping tool to record Plaintiff's work schedule accurately and has all Plaintiffs Punch on KRONOS in its possession. RESPONSE NO, 4 Defendants object to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 4 from Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered with responsive documents, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly- broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass, R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, see Exhibit A attached hereto, which contains the “Kronos Punches” for Plaintiff from 4/25/21 to 10/13/21, Prior to 4/25/21 Defendant High Point utilized a different software with no available history. Further answering, see the responsive documents already produced in response to Request No. 4 from Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents RE UEST NO. 5 Please provide documents showing onc hundred and eighty bottles of Methadone miscount, which was alleged grounds for Plaintiff's termination on October 15, 2021. RESPONSE NO. 5 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, see the responsive documents already produced in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, REQUEST NO. 6 Please provide Copies of all documents related to Plaintiff's retirement accounts showing the account balance at the time the Plaintiff was employed by HPTC and upon termination. RESPONSE NO. 6 Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 19 from Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. REQUEST NO. 7 Please provide defendants’ policies for creating job descriptions for Nurse Managers. RESPONSE NO. 7 Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants to describe their policies for creating Nurse manager job descriptions. Defendants further object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request Nos. 22 and 17 from Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, which have been answered. Defendants further object to this request as overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written, and seeking documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it demand they create a document not otherwise in existence, REQUEST NO. 8 Please explain why it is documented that Plaintiff is not eligible for rehire. RESPONSE NO. 8 Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants to explain why Plaintiff is not eligible for rehire. Defendants object to this request as overly broad in time and scope, unduly vague and burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action and, therefore, beyond the scope of Mass. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34. Defendant objects to this request as it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work- product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Defendants object to this request to the extent it demand they create a document not otherwise in existence. REQUEST NO. 9 Please provide list of all Nurse Managers who were Terminated by HPTC five years before Plaintiffs employment and five years after the Plaintiffs termination via Phone call notification and their belongings boxed for them to pick up. RESPONSE NO. 9 Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants to list all Nurse Managers fired over a ten year period who were notified by phone and had their belongings packed up. Defendants object to this request to the extent it demand they create a document not otherwise in existence. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with regard to the release of an individual's employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int’l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that “there is a high expectation of privacy" in a personnel file and that the release of information from a personnel file is a "substantial interference with the right to privacy". Skelley v. Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414,418 (November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep, 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002), The SIC has stated that "[i]n evaluating whether the information sought from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees' effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees! privacy.” Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cmi v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L.c.214, sec, 1 B. REQUEST NO. 10 Please Provide the qualifications of all Nurse Managers and years of experience in the nursing field. RESPONSE NO. 10 Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants to describe the qualifications of all Nurse Managers and their years of experience in the nursing field. Defendants object to this request as overly broad in time and scope, unduly vague and burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action and, therefore, beyond the scope of Mass. R. Civ, P. 26 and 34. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P, 34. Defendant objects to this request as it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent it demand they create a document not otherwise in existence. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with regard to the release of an individual's employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int’! Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that "there is a high expectation of privacy" in a personnel file and that the release of information from a personnel file is a "substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass, Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr, 414,418 (November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that "[i]n evaluating whether the information sought from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy." Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cmi v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L.c.214, see. 1 B. REQUEST NO. 11 Please provide copies of Plaintiff's three months and one-year evaluations. RESPONSE NO. 11 Defendants object to this request as overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written, and seeking documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request as it is assumes facts not in evidence. Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, see the responsive documents already produced in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents. There are no other responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. REQUEST NO. 12 Please provide Video footage for the two weeks that Plaintiff was left alone to work in the dosing room from 4 am to 5 pm; April 13-20 of 2021; and the first or second week of July 2021, RESPONSE NO. 12 Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 3 from Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34. Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, Defendants state as follows: there are no responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. REQUEST NO. 13 Please explain the fluctuation in pay rate from June 2021 to July 2021. RESPONSE NO. 13 Defendants object to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants explain an alleged pay fluctuation. Defendants object to this request to the extent it demand they create a document not otherwise in existence. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendant objects to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). REQUEST NO. 14 Please provide Proof of postage of the unemployment brochure allegedly mailed to Plaintiff upon termination by the Defendants. RESPONSE NO. 14 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, Defendants state as follows: there are no responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. REQUEST NO. 15 The documents show that On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff received an email from Lisa allegedly stating Plaintiff requested a schedule change. Plaintiff wants Lisa Akins to provide such an email from me requesting a schedule change. RESPONSE NO. 15 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence, Without waiving or limiting the foregoing objections, and subject thereto, Defendants state as follows: there are no responsive items in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. REQUEST NO. 16 Defendants alleged. Plaintiff submitted false documentation of dosing provided to a patient. Please provide documentation of this allegation and video footage of such conduct. RESPONSE NO. 16 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without waiving such objections, see documents produced as part of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents. REQUEST NO. 17 Please provide Patient census from April 2021 to July 2021. RESPONSE NO. 17 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. REQUEST NO. 18 Defendants alleged Plaintiff did not sign Controlled Substance Records. Please provide Proof of all such documents not signed by Plaintiff. RESPONSE NO. 18 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations and unintelligible as written. Without waiving such objections, see documents produced as part of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents. REQUEST NO. 19 Please indicate on Plaintiffs job description where it states Plaintiff will be working as a dosing nurse. RESPONSE NO. 19 Defendants objects to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants to review Plaintiff's job description and identify details. Defendants object to this request to the extent it demands they create a document not otherwise in existence. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R., Civ. P. 34. REQUEST NO. 20 Please provide the role and responsibilities of Lisa Akins, Michelle Strait, Daniel Mumbauer, and Jessica Hargrove. RESPONSE NO. 20 Defendants objects to this request as it is not a request for documents, instead asking Defendants to describe the role and responsibilities of various persons. Defendants object to this request to the extent it demands they create a document not otherwise in existence. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants object to this request to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence. Defendants object to this request to the extent that it does not describe each item or category with reasonable particularity in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 34. REQUEST NO. 21 Please provide copies of the Job description and payroll records for Daniel Mumbauer, Jessica Hargrove, Lisa Akins, and Michelle Strait. RESPONSE NO. 21 Defendants object to this request as improperly duplicative of Request No. 23 from Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, which has been answered. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with regard to the release of an individual's employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int’] Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that there is a high expectation of privacy" in a personnel file and that the release of information from a personnel file is a "substantial interference with the right to privacy". Skelley v. Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414,418 (November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that "[i]n evaluating whether the information sought from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy.” Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cmi y. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L.c.214, sec. 1 B. DEFENDANTS, HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER, INC., DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO, JESSICA HARGROVE, LISA AKINS, AND MICHELLE STRAIT, By their attorneys, sf John P. Coakley John P, Coakley, BBO#558685 Jameson W. Toner, BBO# 669285 MURPHY & RILEY, P.C. 100 Franklin Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02110 617-423-3700 jcoakley@murphyriley.com kgarrison@murphyril com Date: March 12, 2024 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John P. Coakley, hereby certify that on this day a true copy of the within document was served upon the Plaintiff by mail and email as follows: Gloria Shalders 55 David Terrace, Apt. 19 Norwood, MA 02062 GloriaShalders@RegisteredNurses.com ts/ John P. Coakley DATED: March 12, 2024 11 EXHIBIT 2 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION No.: 2282CV00920 GLORIA SHALDERS PLAINTIFF Vv. HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC, DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO, JESSICA HARDGROVE, LISA AKINS and MICHELLE STRAIT DEFENDANT HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST NO. 1 Please provide Copies of all cell phone records, text messages, emails, and any form of communication between Plaintiff and the Defendants: Michelle Strait, Lisa Akins, Jessica Hargrove, Jessica Tavares, Susan, and all people in management. RESPONSE NO. 1 Defendant High Point Treatment Center, Inc. (“HPTC”) objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 2 A copy of the Plaintiffs’ annual evaluation. RESPONSE NO. 2 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and subject to varying interpretations. Without waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. Provide Video footage for the two weeks that Plaintiff was left alone to work in the dosing room: April 13 to 20 of 2021; and the first or second week in July 2021. RESPONSE NO. 3 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. REQUEST NO. 4 Copies of all Paystubs for Plaintiff; explain the fluctuation in pay rate from June to July of 2021. RESPONSE NO. 4 HPTC objects to this request on the grourids that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, HPTC will produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REQUEST NO. 5 Please provide the Plaintiffs pay stubs and provide the Plaintiffs pay rate from August 10, 2020, to July 31, 2021, and the Pay rate from August 1, 2021, to October 15, 2021. RESPONSE NO. 5 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, HPTC will produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REQUEST NO. 6 Provide all Dosing room Policies, including all Policies on Narcotic counts: how many people are supposed to count narcotics and stock narcotics. RESPONSE NO. 6 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or 2 Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Without waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 7 List of Employees who received severance pay, benefits, and other compensation upon Termination in the past three years. RESPONSE NO.7 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to scope and time. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with regard to the release of an individual’s employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass, 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that “there is a high expectation of privacy” in a personnel file and that the release of information from a personnel file is a “substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414, 418 (November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that “[i]n evaluating whether the information sought from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy.” Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cort v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L. c. 214, sec. 1B. REQUEST NO. 8 List of all employees written up based on Camera review in the past three (3)-years by Lisa Akins. RESPONSE NO. 8 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to scope and time. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with regard to the release of an individual’s employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that “there is a high expectation of privacy” in a personnel file and that the release of information from a personnel file is a “substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414, 418 (November 3 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that “[iJn evaluating whether the information sought from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy." Bratt, 392 Mass, at 520, citing Cort v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L. ¢. 214, sec. 1B. REQUEST NO. 9 Provide Copies of the Pay grid for al! Nurse managers, directors, and administrators. RESPONSE NO. 9 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or private information concerning HPTC employees other than the plaintiff without such employee’s consent. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that jt demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence. Without waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 1! Pay rates for all nurse managers at high point treatment centers, qualification, and the years of experience of the Nurse managers. RESPONSE NO. 16 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to scope and time. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with regard to the release of an individual’s employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that “there is a high expectation of privacy” in a personnel file and that the release of information from a personnel file is a “substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414, 418 (November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that “[i]n evaluating whether the information sought from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's legitimate interest in 4 determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees’ privacy." Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cort v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L. c. 214, sec. 1B. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence. Without waiving such objections, see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 11 Please provide a written employment contract or any other form of agreement that contributed to the Plaintiff's terminations. RESPONSE NO. 11 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or private information concerning HPTC employees other than the plaintiff without such employee’s consent. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes the truth of an allegation disputed by HPTC. RE UEST NO. 12 Please calculate/provide all hours owed in pay, overtime hours, leave hours, as well as short and long-term disability contributions and all unauthorized deductions. RESPONSE NO. 12 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or private information concerning HPTC employees other than the plaintiff without such employee’s consent. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it assumes the truth of an allegation disputed by HPTC. REQUEST NO. 1 Please provide all communication from Plaintiffs work cell phone, 857-218-2134, detailing communication between Plaintiff and other employees. RESPONSE NO. 13 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action REQUEST NO. 14 ‘ Copies of all documents showing all persons who have participated in the development of Defendant's seniority or merit system and describe each person's role. RESPONSE NO. 14 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks confidential and/or private information concerning HPTC employees other than the plaintiff without such employee’s consent. HPTC further objects to this request to the extent that it demands that HPTC create a document not otherwise in existence. REQUEST NO. 15 Copies of any policy of insurance which provides coverage for any potential judgment. RESPONSE NO. 15 See documents produced herewith. RE UEST NO. 16 Copies of all policies that Defendant has in place, as it relates to lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, and overtime payments. RESPONSE NO, 16 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, Defendant will produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. REQUEST NO. 1 Copies of the job description that Defendant has in place for a Nurse Manager and a Charge Nurse. RESPONSE NO. 17 Please see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 18 Copies of all policies, memoranda, handbooks, manuals, memos, handouts, rules, personne] forms, applications, and terms and conditions of employment related to Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant. RESPONSE NO. 18 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, please see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 19 Copies of all documents related to Plaintiffs retirement account, showing what the balance of the account was at the time that Plaintiff's employment terminated. RESPONSE NO. 19 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. REQUEST NO. 20 Copies of any internal documents, policies, rules and/or handbooks showing if any employees of Defendant received diversity training, safety training, or COVID-19 training, RESPONSE NO. 20 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, please see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 21 Copies of any documents showing the Policy, if any, in place for Defendant's safety policies and practices. RESPONSE NO. 21 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, please see documents produced herewith. RE UEST NO. 2: Provide all Defendants’ policies for creating internal Job descriptions for all staff. RESPONSE NO, 22 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and secks documents not relevant to the pending action. REQUEST NO. 23 Copies of any documents showing the Payroll Records and Personnel File for DANJELS. MUMBAUER, JESSICA HARGROVE, LISA AKINS, AND MICHELLE STRAIT. RESPONSE NO. 23 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad as to scope and time. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. HPTC further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information concerning an employee that is private. The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized a privilege with regard to the release ofan individual's employment personnel file. See Bratt v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 518, (1984). Massachusetts courts have held that “there is a high expectation ofprivacy” in a personnel file and that the release of information from a personnel file is a “substantial interference with the right to privacy”. Skelley v. Trustees of the Fessenden School, 1997 Mass. Super. LEXIS 149, 7 Mass. L. Rptr. 414, 418 (November 10, 1997). See also, Fitzgerald v. Morrison, 14 Mass. L. Rep. 283 (Worcester Super. Ct. 2002). The SJC has stated that “[iJn evaluating whether the information sought from employees could amount to an unreasonable interference with their right of privacy, we stated that the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees’ effectiveness in their jobs should be balanced against the seriousness of the intrusion on the employees' privacy." Bratt, 392 Mass. at 520, citing Cort v. Bristol-Myers, Co., 385 Mass. 300, 308 (1982). HPTC further objects to this request in that it violates common law and statutory privacy protections, including, without limitation, M.G.L. c. 214, sec. 1B. Respectfully submitted, DEFENDANT HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER, INC. By its attorneys, ¢s/ John P. Coakley John P, Coakley, BBO#558685 MURPHY & RILEY, P.C 100 Franklin Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02110 617-423-3700 icoakley@murphyriley.com kgarrison@murphyriley.com Date: July 10, 2023 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ! Hereby Certify That On This Day A True Copy Of The Within Document Was Served Upon The. Atom of Ot a Record For Each Party By Mall/Hand:— Dated: yee3 ©. oS EAHIBIT 3 COMMONWEAL TH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION No.: 2282CV00920 GLORIA SHALDERS PLAINTIFF Vv. HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC, DANIEL S. MUMBAUER, CEO, JESSICA HARDGROVE, LISA AKINS and MICHELLE STRAIT DEFENDANT HIGH POINT TREATMENT CENTER INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST NO. 4 Copies of all Paystubs for Plaintiff; explain the fluctuation in pay rate from June to July of 2021. RESPONSE NO. 4 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, HPTC will produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 4 Without waiving such objections, please see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 5 : Please provide the Plaintiffs pay stubs and provide the Plaintiffs pay rate from August 10, 2020, to July 31, 2021, and the Pay rate from August 1, 2021, to October 15, 2021. RESPONSE NO. 5 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and 4 scope, is vague and subject to varying interpretations, unintelligible as written and seeks documents not relevant to the pending action. Without waiving such objections, HPTC will produce responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. 5 Without waiving such objections, please see documents produced herewith. REQUEST NO. 6 Provide all Dosing room Policies, including all Policies on Narcotic counts: how many people are supposed to count narcotics and stock narcotics, RESPONSE NO. 6 HPTC objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly-broad and burdensome in time and scope, is vagu