Preview
HUD-L-004540-15 10/20/2017 10:54:50 AM Pg 1 of 4 Trans ID: LCV2017357424
August W. Heckman III
Associate
+1.609.919.6696
august.heckman@morganlewis.com
October 20, 2017
Via E-Filing
Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C.
W. J. Brennan Courthouse
583 Newark Avenue, 2nd Floor
Jersey City, NJ 07306
Re: Caballero v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al.
Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15
Return Date: October 13, 2017__________
Dear Judge Turula:
We represent Defendant CSC TKR, LLC (“Cablevision” incorrectly identified in the
Complaint as Cablevision Systems Corporation) in the above-referenced matter. We submit this
correspondence via facsimile pursuant to Your Honor’s direction at oral argument on Friday,
October 13.
As was discussed before Your Honor, Judge Costello denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend
Discovery and, therefore, discovery closed on Friday, October 13.1 In light of that decision, Your
1
Judge Costello granted, however, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to
add back into the action the originally named individual defendants who were dismissed
without prejudice.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
502 Carnegie Center
Princeton, NJ
08540-6241 +1.609.919.6600
United States +1.609.919.6701
A Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership | Steven M. Cohen, Partner-in-Charge
HUD-L-004540-15 10/20/2017 10:54:50 AM Pg 2 of 4 Trans ID: LCV2017357424
Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C
October 20, 2017
Page 2
Honor ruled that Cablevision’s Motion for a Protective Order and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion to Compel
Discovery are now moot, as that discovery is no longer valid (that Order was entered today). Your
Honor requested that the parties advise the Court, in writing, as to their positions regarding the
conflicting orders on the parties’ prior motions to compel.
By way of reminder, on September 21, the Court uploaded the first September 15 Order
granting Cablevision’s Cross-Motion to Compel Discovery and denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Discovery in its entirety. On September 25, the Court uploaded a second Order dated September
15 granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. The second Order did not deny Defendant’s
Cross-Motion, thus, it is clear that the Court intended to grant Defendant’s Cross-Motion in its
entirety, which sought very basic discovery from Plaintiff (as opposed to the overbroad and unduly
burdensome nature of Plaintiff’s Motion). Notably, Plaintiff ignored the Order granting Defendant’s
Motion and, to date, has failed to comply with any of the Order’s provisions, including appearing
for her deposition. Because Defendant’s Motion was granted during the discovery period, Plaintiff
must comply – she cannot remain in contempt simply because the discovery end date was not
extended.2
It is Defendant’s position that the Court erred in entering the second Order which granted
Plaintiff’s Motion, likely because the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s papers out of context and after
having already granted Defendant’s Motion. As a result, the Order granting Defendant’s motion
and denying Plaintiff’s Motion was the correct Order and should remain in effect. Indeed, as
Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion – and its recent Motion for a Protective Order – makes
clear, the remaining discovery Plaintiff sought was not only irrelevant to her claims and the
defenses at issue, but also was overbroad and unduly burdensome to even attempt compliance
2
In addition, Plaintiff served subpoenas on Xerox, the company that administrated the Audit,
and Plaintiff’s divorce attorney, but, to date, has not produced a single document received in
response to those subpoenas.
HUD-L-004540-15 10/20/2017 10:54:50 AM Pg 3 of 4 Trans ID: LCV2017357424
Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C
October 20, 2017
Page 3
with. For example, Plaintiff insisted on Company-wide discovery for a 7-10 year time period when
the proper scope should be limited to the 2015 Dependent Eligibility Verification Audit which was
the legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
Further, the applicable comparator pool for Plaintiff to attempt to show disparate
treatment would be those similarly situated individuals who were likewise either terminated as a
result of the Audit or disciplined as a result of the Audit.3 There is simply no reason other than
harassment and oppression to extend the scope of discovery beyond what is necessary and
Defendant has already produced documents and information in its possession, custody, and/or
control that are responsive to Plaintiff’s requests when narrowed to the relevant time frame and
comparator pool. For example, Defendant has identified the individuals who were terminated or
disciplined as a result of the Audit. Documents related to those terminations or disciplinary actions
have been produced. Information regarding the increased costs of Plaintiff’s healthcare coverage
due to her ex-husband’s inclusion has been provided. Communications related to the Audit,
including those directed to and received from Plaintiff have been produced. Personnel files have
been produced. Documents regarding the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment have been
3
For example, Plaintiff is not entitled to a list and all related documents for every Cablevision
employee (approximately 16,000 at any given time) who was disciplined or terminated for
things such as “falsifying records,” “dishonesty,” “acts of deception,” “lying or making a
misrepresentation,” “cheating,” and “acts of fraud” over a period of ten years, as these
requests would encompass employees not similarly situated to Plaintiff and would be unduly
burdensome, as Cablevision is a company with locations in many states, with thousands of
managers and employees. Instead, Cablevision identified all employees who were discharged
or subject to discipline in connection with the Audit regardless of position or manager, and
has produced responsive documents relating to these employment terminations and
disciplinary actions to the extent such documents exist. Accordingly, Cablevision has satisfied
its obligation to provide discovery concerning similarly situated employees. In another
example, Plaintiff seeks discovery related to “all employees who were terminated while on
leave for any kind of medical treatment from January 1, 2010 to the present.” Instead, she is
entitled, at best, to “leave” information for those who were discharged or subject to discipline
in connection with the Audit.
HUD-L-004540-15 10/20/2017 10:54:50 AM Pg 4 of 4 Trans ID: LCV2017357424
Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C
October 20, 2017
Page 4
produced. In sum, Defendant has already responded to the 168 document requests and answered
206 interrogatories (not including subparts).
We thank the Court for its attention to this matter, and we remain available for a
conference at the Court’s convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ August W. Heckman III
August W. Heckman III
cc: Jay Chatarpaul, Esq. (via email)
Rudolph J. Burshnic II, Esq. (via email)
Preview
HUD-L-004540-15 10/20/2017 10:54:50 AM Pg 1 of 4 Trans ID: LCV2017357424 August W. Heckman III Associate +1.609.919.6696 august.heckman@morganlewis.com October 20, 2017 Via E-Filing Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C. W. J. Brennan Courthouse 583 Newark Avenue, 2nd Floor Jersey City, NJ 07306 Re: Caballero v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al. Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15 Return Date: October 13, 2017__________ Dear Judge Turula: We represent Defendant CSC TKR, LLC (“Cablevision” incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Cablevision Systems Corporation) in the above-referenced matter. We submit this correspondence via facsimile pursuant to Your Honor’s direction at oral argument on Friday, October 13. As was discussed before Your Honor, Judge Costello denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery and, therefore, discovery closed on Friday, October 13.1 In light of that decision, Your 1 Judge Costello granted, however, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to add back into the action the originally named individual defendants who were dismissed without prejudice. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6241 +1.609.919.6600 United States +1.609.919.6701 A Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership | Steven M. Cohen, Partner-in-Charge HUD-L-004540-15 10/20/2017 10:54:50 AM Pg 2 of 4 Trans ID: LCV2017357424 Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C October 20, 2017 Page 2 Honor ruled that Cablevision’s Motion for a Protective Order and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion to Compel Discovery are now moot, as that discovery is no longer valid (that Order was entered today). Your Honor requested that the parties advise the Court, in writing, as to their positions regarding the conflicting orders on the parties’ prior motions to compel. By way of reminder, on September 21, the Court uploaded the first September 15 Order granting Cablevision’s Cross-Motion to Compel Discovery and denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery in its entirety. On September 25, the Court uploaded a second Order dated September 15 granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. The second Order did not deny Defendant’s Cross-Motion, thus, it is clear that the Court intended to grant Defendant’s Cross-Motion in its entirety, which sought very basic discovery from Plaintiff (as opposed to the overbroad and unduly burdensome nature of Plaintiff’s Motion). Notably, Plaintiff ignored the Order granting Defendant’s Motion and, to date, has failed to comply with any of the Order’s provisions, including appearing for her deposition. Because Defendant’s Motion was granted during the discovery period, Plaintiff must comply – she cannot remain in contempt simply because the discovery end date was not extended.2 It is Defendant’s position that the Court erred in entering the second Order which granted Plaintiff’s Motion, likely because the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s papers out of context and after having already granted Defendant’s Motion. As a result, the Order granting Defendant’s motion and denying Plaintiff’s Motion was the correct Order and should remain in effect. Indeed, as Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion – and its recent Motion for a Protective Order – makes clear, the remaining discovery Plaintiff sought was not only irrelevant to her claims and the defenses at issue, but also was overbroad and unduly burdensome to even attempt compliance 2 In addition, Plaintiff served subpoenas on Xerox, the company that administrated the Audit, and Plaintiff’s divorce attorney, but, to date, has not produced a single document received in response to those subpoenas. HUD-L-004540-15 10/20/2017 10:54:50 AM Pg 3 of 4 Trans ID: LCV2017357424 Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C October 20, 2017 Page 3 with. For example, Plaintiff insisted on Company-wide discovery for a 7-10 year time period when the proper scope should be limited to the 2015 Dependent Eligibility Verification Audit which was the legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for terminating Plaintiff’s employment. Further, the applicable comparator pool for Plaintiff to attempt to show disparate treatment would be those similarly situated individuals who were likewise either terminated as a result of the Audit or disciplined as a result of the Audit.3 There is simply no reason other than harassment and oppression to extend the scope of discovery beyond what is necessary and Defendant has already produced documents and information in its possession, custody, and/or control that are responsive to Plaintiff’s requests when narrowed to the relevant time frame and comparator pool. For example, Defendant has identified the individuals who were terminated or disciplined as a result of the Audit. Documents related to those terminations or disciplinary actions have been produced. Information regarding the increased costs of Plaintiff’s healthcare coverage due to her ex-husband’s inclusion has been provided. Communications related to the Audit, including those directed to and received from Plaintiff have been produced. Personnel files have been produced. Documents regarding the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment have been 3 For example, Plaintiff is not entitled to a list and all related documents for every Cablevision employee (approximately 16,000 at any given time) who was disciplined or terminated for things such as “falsifying records,” “dishonesty,” “acts of deception,” “lying or making a misrepresentation,” “cheating,” and “acts of fraud” over a period of ten years, as these requests would encompass employees not similarly situated to Plaintiff and would be unduly burdensome, as Cablevision is a company with locations in many states, with thousands of managers and employees. Instead, Cablevision identified all employees who were discharged or subject to discipline in connection with the Audit regardless of position or manager, and has produced responsive documents relating to these employment terminations and disciplinary actions to the extent such documents exist. Accordingly, Cablevision has satisfied its obligation to provide discovery concerning similarly situated employees. In another example, Plaintiff seeks discovery related to “all employees who were terminated while on leave for any kind of medical treatment from January 1, 2010 to the present.” Instead, she is entitled, at best, to “leave” information for those who were discharged or subject to discipline in connection with the Audit. HUD-L-004540-15 10/20/2017 10:54:50 AM Pg 4 of 4 Trans ID: LCV2017357424 Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C October 20, 2017 Page 4 produced. In sum, Defendant has already responded to the 168 document requests and answered 206 interrogatories (not including subparts). We thank the Court for its attention to this matter, and we remain available for a conference at the Court’s convenience. Respectfully submitted, /s/ August W. Heckman III August W. Heckman III cc: Jay Chatarpaul, Esq. (via email) Rudolph J. Burshnic II, Esq. (via email)