Preview
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 1 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
CHATARPAUL LAW FIRM, P. C.
Employment Litigation and Consumer Protection
101 Hudson Street, Suite 2100* 7912 River Road, Suite 1212
Jersey City, New Jersey 07020 North Bergen, New Jersey 07047
Tel: 201-222-0123 Web: www.chatarpaullaw.com
Fax: 201 355-4525 email: info@chatarpaullaw.com
*Please Reply to North Bergen Office
Via efiled and Fax
10/23/17
Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C.
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Hudson County
583 Newark Avenue
Jersey City, New Jersey 07306
Re: Caballero v. Cablevision Systems Corp, et al
HUD L 4540-15
Dear Judge Turula:
The undersigned represents the plaintiff in the above referenced matter. The Court
requested that plaintiff re-submit a letter memorandum in double space format previously
submitted on October 19, 2017. This herein constitute plaintiff’s submission, modified in light
of defense counsel’s additional submissions to the Court.
As Your Honor may recall, on October 13, 2017, both parties appeared before Your
Honor for oral argument pursuant to Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order relating to
plaintiff’s third and forth notice for production of documents. (The Court subsequently denied
defendant’s motion as follows: “Denied as moot as Judge Costello on October 13, 2017 denied
Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery.” See, attached Exhibit A).1
1
The plaintifffiled a cross-motion to compel production of her Third and Fourth Requests. But there is no
indication whether that motion was granted or denied.
1
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 2 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
During oral argument, the Court requested that both parties submit a letter to the Court
as to the Court’s September 15, 2017 Order granting plaintiff’s motion to Compel, as well as an
order granting defendant’s cross-motion to compel. See Orders attached as Exhibit B.
As Your Honor may recall, after the entry of the above Orders on September 21, 2017
and September 25, 2017, respectfully, defense counsel, August Heckman, Esq., sent a letter to
the Court dated September 27, 2017. In his letter, Mr. Heckman wrote to the Court requesting a
“clarification” of the two (2) orders. According to him, “… there are conflicting Orders
regarding the outcome of Plaintiff’s motion to compel….” But then he added: “…although
there does not appear to be any doubt that the Court intended to grant Defendant’s cross-
motion.” He then “suggests” to the Court that “the most efficient course forward may be to
reach a decision on its motion for a protective order prior to revisiting Plaintiff’s motion to
compel and the conflicting orders.” See Mr. Heckman’s September 27, 2017 letter attached as
Exhibit C.
Despite acknowledging that the Orders are “conflicting,” he writes to the Court on
October 19, 2017 that the plaintiff is in “contempt of court” for not abiding by the “conflicting”
orders, and oblivious to the fact that the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and the
defendants have failed to produce any of the documents within 20 days as ordered by the
Court.
As the Court is aware, this is an employment discrimination case in which the plaintiff
was employed by the defendant for more than 15 years. In early to mid- 2015, she took an
almost two (2) month leave of absence to undergo a bladder operation. After she returned from
that operation, she was fired and replaced by a 26-year-old employee and substantially lower
pay.
The defendants claimed that plaintiff was not fired because of her age or disability, but
because she (1) failed to remove her ex-husband as a beneficiary on her health insurance plan
2
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 3 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
following her divorce in July 2013, and (2) subsequently her ex-husband illegally used
plaintiff’s insurance card to obtain health care treatment.
However, plaintiff produced documents showing that in October 2013, she faxed her
divorce papers to Defendants’ Human Resources Manager, along with a copy of her new
drivers’ license and application for new social security card with her maiden name- Caballero.2
Further, as part of defendant’s 2015 verification process, in March 2015, plaintiff re-
submitted her divorce papers as evidence of her divorce, along with verification of her child’s
dependent status. An Unemployment Appeals Judge cited this fact and found that “The
claimant did not falsify company records, nor conspired to conceal her divorce status
with her ex-husband f r o m the above named employer.”
In discovery, Defendants produced a spreadsheet, which appears to be prepared for this
litigation, showing that in 2013 and 2014, the actual amount defendant “should have” paid in
medical insurance premium assuming the plaintiff did not remove her ex-husband, was the
grand total of ZERO. See Exhibit D.3
As to the defendant’s claim that plaintiff permitted her ex-husband to use her insurance
card to illegally to obtain health care treatment, as of the close of discovery on October 13,
2017, and almost two (2) years into litigation, the defendant has not produced even a writing on
a napkin demonstrating the truthfulness of that assertion.
In addition to the above, the defendant claimed that in 2015, they conducted an audit of
all their 16,000 employees. Each of these employees submitted a Dependent Verification Form.
The intent of that process was to verify the eligibility of those employees’ dependents as listed
on their company provided health insurance. The plaintiff was included in that process. The
defendant cited this process in firing the plaintiff, but in discovery refused to produce any
2
labelled as CABLEVISION 0078, 0076, 0077, 0075, 0059, 001391, and 001392.
3
The plaintiff’s position that the listed amount of $708.48” for 2015 lacks credibility given the evidence in this case.
3
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 4 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
documents submitted by any of those employees, such as the Dependent Verification Forms,
which could be submitted under a confidentiality order. They instead submitted a list of names
of employees fired and list of names of those disciplined, and the reasons for their discipline in
connection with the audit. The defendant’s position is that the plaintiff should just accept that
as “evidence.” The most obvious question is if an employee failed to remove an illegible
dependent but was given a written warning for which plaintiff was terminated, then how would
the plaintiff know that? And if an employee failed to remove a beneficiary, but was NOT
terminated or given a written warning, how would plaintiff know that? That evidence would be
relevant and important to plaintiff’s claim of differential treatment and thus pretext.
As the Court is aware, it is well-settled that a party is entitled to discovery of
information which is not just relevant to the claims, but which might lead to the discovery of
relevant information.
The defendant claimed that the Court intended to deny plaintiff’s motion to compel
because “obviously” it is “overbroad,” “burdensome” and a “fishing expedition.” The plaintiff
respectfully request that the Court revisit her motion, and make a determination for itself as to
the relevancy of the requested documents.
But when it comes to their cross-motion, the defendant wrote that “it is clear the Court
intended to grant Defendant’s Cross-Motion in its entirety…” However, it is respectfully
requested that the Court revisit defendants’ cross-motion. The defendant seeks, for instance, the
“exact” damages for punitive damages as well as emotional distress. It is beyond
comprehension that punitive damages have nothing to do with the plaintiff, but with the
defendant’s conduct, and neither punitive damages or emotional distress is monetarily
quantified, as both damages are awarded by a jury based on the evidence put before them. A
review of the Punitive Damage Act (PDA) as well as the jury instructions makes this very clear.
4
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 5 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
The defendant’s cross-motion also sought information as to whether plaintiff spoke to an
attorney following her termination, and in a subsequent letter explaining the reason, to
determine whether the plaintiff was “coached” while she was employed by the defendant. One
of the oldest privileges known to litigation is the sacred attorney-client communication
privilege. Even if that was remotely true, communications between any attorney and their client
for the purpose of seeking legal advice (even if “coaching”) is protected by both statute and our
Rules. See N.J.S.A. 2A:84A–20(1) and N.J.R.E. 504(1).
Thank you for consideration.
Respectfully,
/s Jay Chatarpaul
JAY CHATARPAUL
JC/sd
cc: August W. Heckman, III, Esq.
5
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 6 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
EXHIBIT A
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017
09/27/2017 4:33:17
10/13/20175:37:07
PgPMPM
1 ofPgPg
3 7Trans
1of
of19
3 Trans
Trans
ID: ID:
ID:LCV2017257648
LCV2017368491
LCV2017344353 #76
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
F I L E D
(Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership) OCT 13, 2017
502 Carnegie Center
Princeton, NJ 08540-6241 JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C.
609.919.6600
Michelle Seldin Silverman – NJ ID 004272004
August W. Heckman III – NJ ID 030222005
Rudolph J. Burshnic II – NJ ID 014492012
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
ADA CABALLERO, HUDSON COUNTY – LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, Civil Action
v. Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ORDER
EARNEST R. PASTOR, Individually and as
Human Resource Manager of Cablevision, and
STEPHANY DALTON, Individually and as
Human Resource Manager of Cablevision,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court by way of Defendant CSC TKR,
LLC’s (“Cablevision,” incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Cablevision Systems
Corporation) Motion for a Protective Order,
For good cause appearing, IT IS on this _____ 13th day of October 2017,
ORDERED that Cablevision’s Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the proper scope of discovery in this matter is limited to Plaintiff and
those employees who were disciplined or discharged in connection with the Audit at issue (the
“Comparator Pool”); and it is further
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017
09/27/2017 4:33:17
10/13/20175:37:07
PgPMPM
2 ofPgPg
3 8Trans
2of
of19
3 Trans
Trans
ID: ID:
ID:LCV2017257648
LCV2017368491
LCV2017344353
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production of Documents and Fourth
Request for Production of Documents are hereby stricken in their entirety, and Plaintiff is further
prohibited from propounding any additional written discovery; and it is further
ORDERED that to seek any other written or documentary discovery Plaintiff must seek
leave of the court by way of motion absent agreement between the parties; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking in discovery the entirety of any
current or former employee personnel files (including, but not limited to, the “Comparator Pool);
and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking the home addresses or other contact
information regarding the individuals in the Comparator Pool; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff and her counsel are prohibited from soliciting the individuals in
the Comparator Pool; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking any discovery about any former or
current Cablevision employees other than those in the Comparator Pool;
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking discovery relating to claims for
benefits made by current or former Cablevision employees, including, but not limited to, current
or former employees in the Comparator Pool; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking discovery relating to money paid for
claims and/or premiums for benefits for current or former Cablevision employees, including, but
not limited to, current or former employees in the Comparator Pool; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking discovery relating to the medical
documentation and information of other current or former Cablevision employees, including, but
not limited to, current or former employees in the Comparator Pool; it is further
2
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017
09/27/2017 4:33:17
10/13/20175:37:07
PgPMPM
3 ofPgPg
3 9Trans
3of
of19
3 Trans
Trans
ID: ID:
ID:LCV2017257648
LCV2017368491
LCV2017344353
ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from deposing, absent leave of Court or
agreement amongst the parties, any current or former Cablevision employee other than Stephany
Dalton, Earnest Pastor, and Norma Martinez.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order will be served on all counsel of
record via the eCourts system.
______________________________
Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C.
Opposed: ( )
Unopposed: ( )
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BY THE COURT ON
THE RECORD ON OCTOBER 13, 2017
Denied as moot as Judge Costello on October 13, 2017 denied Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery.
3
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 10 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
EXHIBIT B
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD
HUDL L004540-15
004540-1510/23/2017
08/14/2017
4:33:17PgPM
09/15/2017 1 Pg
ofPg
21 11
ofTrans
2ofTrans
19ID:
Trans
ID: LCV2017165046
ID: LCV2017368491
LCV2017243387 #62
F I L E D
SEP 15, 2017
JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C.
15th September
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD
HUDL L004540-15
004540-1510/23/2017
08/14/2017
4:33:17PgPM
09/15/2017 2 Pg
ofPg
22 12
ofTrans
2ofTrans
19ID:
Trans
ID: LCV2017165046
ID: LCV2017368491
LCV2017243387
20
7
JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C.
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017
08/24/2017 4:33:17
09/15/20174:52:25
PgPMPM
1 ofPg
Pg
2 131 of 19
Trans 2 Trans
Trans
ID: ID:
ID:LCV2017148263
LCV2017368491
LCV2017232416 #77
F I L E D
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP SEP 15, 2017
(Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership)
502 Carnegie Center JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C.
Princeton, NJ 08540-6241
609.919.6600
Michelle Seldin Silverman – NJ ID 004272004
August W. Heckman III – NJ ID 030222005
Rudolph J. Burshnic II – NJ ID 014492012
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
ADA CABALLERO, HUDSON COUNTY – LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, Civil Action
v. Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, [PROPOSED] ORDER
EARNEST R. PASTOR, Individually and as
Human Resource Manager of Cablevision, and
STEPHANY DALTON, Individually and as
Human Resource Manager of Cablevision,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court by way of Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Discovery and Defendant CSC TKR, LLC’s (“Cablevision,” incorrectly identified in the
Complaint as Cablevision Systems Corporation) Cross-Motion to Compel Discovery,
For good cause appearing, IT IS on this _____ 15th day of September 2017,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Cablevision’s Cross-Motion to Compel is GRANTED in its entirety;
and it is further
within 20 days of the date of this Order
ORDERED that Plaintiff appear for a deposition on September ___, 2017, at the offices
of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 502 Carnegie Center, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, and that
she must remain there until her deposition is completed; and it is further
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD-L-004540-15
HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017
08/24/2017 4:33:17
09/15/20174:52:25
PgPMPM
2 ofPg
Pg
2 142 of 19
Trans 2 Trans
Trans
ID: ID:
ID:LCV2017148263
LCV2017368491
LCV2017232416
ORDERED that within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff will produce to Cablevision’s
counsel all documents responsive to Cablevision’s Document Request Nos. 7, 9, 15, 34, 42, and
46 in Cablevision’s First Request for Production of Documents; and it is further
ORDERED that within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff will provide to Cablevision’s
counsel fully responsive narrative answers to Cablevision Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 17, and
18; and it is further
ORDERED that within 7 days of this Order, Plaintiff will provide fully executed HIPAA
releases in the form attached as Exhibit C to Cablevision’s First Set of Interrogatories for all
healthcare providers identified in Plaintiff’s response to Cablevision’s Interrogatory No. 8; and it
is further
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order will be served on all counsel of
record via the eCourts system.
______________________________
Hon. Lisa Rose, J.S.C.
Opposed: ( ) JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C.
Unopposed: ( )
2
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 15 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
EXHIBIT C
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 16 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 17 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 18 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
EXHIBIT D
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 19 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491
Page 1 of 1
Ada Caballero (015398)
Monthly Difference in Employer's Portion of the
Employer's Monthly Portion of the Premium Employer's Monthly Portion of the Premium
Premium
(Actual) (Should Have Been Without Inelig Dep)
(Actual ‐ Should Have Been)
Medical Dental Medical Dental Medical Dental
Option 1 PPO Option 1 PPO Option 1 PPO
2013 (<$50k)
8/1/13 ‐ 12/31/13 $1,894.48 $100.60 $1,894.48 $65.28 $0.00 $35.32
2014 (<$50k)
1/1/14 ‐ 12/31/14 $1,933.31 $102.90 $1,933.31 $66.77 $0.00 $36.13
2015 (<$50k)
1/1/15 ‐ 4/30/15 $2,024.23 $105.21 $1,315.74 $68.26 $708.49 $36.95
5/1/15 ‐ 8/30/15* $1,315.74 $68.26 $1,315.74 $68.26 $0.00 $0.00
* Individual enrolled as spouse removed effective 5/1/15 due to DEV
CONFIDENTIAL Sheet1 CABLEVISION 001401
Preview
HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 1 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 CHATARPAUL LAW FIRM, P. C. Employment Litigation and Consumer Protection 101 Hudson Street, Suite 2100* 7912 River Road, Suite 1212 Jersey City, New Jersey 07020 North Bergen, New Jersey 07047 Tel: 201-222-0123 Web: www.chatarpaullaw.com Fax: 201 355-4525 email: info@chatarpaullaw.com *Please Reply to North Bergen Office Via efiled and Fax 10/23/17 Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County 583 Newark Avenue Jersey City, New Jersey 07306 Re: Caballero v. Cablevision Systems Corp, et al HUD L 4540-15 Dear Judge Turula: The undersigned represents the plaintiff in the above referenced matter. The Court requested that plaintiff re-submit a letter memorandum in double space format previously submitted on October 19, 2017. This herein constitute plaintiff’s submission, modified in light of defense counsel’s additional submissions to the Court. As Your Honor may recall, on October 13, 2017, both parties appeared before Your Honor for oral argument pursuant to Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order relating to plaintiff’s third and forth notice for production of documents. (The Court subsequently denied defendant’s motion as follows: “Denied as moot as Judge Costello on October 13, 2017 denied Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery.” See, attached Exhibit A).1 1 The plaintifffiled a cross-motion to compel production of her Third and Fourth Requests. But there is no indication whether that motion was granted or denied. 1 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 2 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 During oral argument, the Court requested that both parties submit a letter to the Court as to the Court’s September 15, 2017 Order granting plaintiff’s motion to Compel, as well as an order granting defendant’s cross-motion to compel. See Orders attached as Exhibit B. As Your Honor may recall, after the entry of the above Orders on September 21, 2017 and September 25, 2017, respectfully, defense counsel, August Heckman, Esq., sent a letter to the Court dated September 27, 2017. In his letter, Mr. Heckman wrote to the Court requesting a “clarification” of the two (2) orders. According to him, “… there are conflicting Orders regarding the outcome of Plaintiff’s motion to compel….” But then he added: “…although there does not appear to be any doubt that the Court intended to grant Defendant’s cross- motion.” He then “suggests” to the Court that “the most efficient course forward may be to reach a decision on its motion for a protective order prior to revisiting Plaintiff’s motion to compel and the conflicting orders.” See Mr. Heckman’s September 27, 2017 letter attached as Exhibit C. Despite acknowledging that the Orders are “conflicting,” he writes to the Court on October 19, 2017 that the plaintiff is in “contempt of court” for not abiding by the “conflicting” orders, and oblivious to the fact that the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and the defendants have failed to produce any of the documents within 20 days as ordered by the Court. As the Court is aware, this is an employment discrimination case in which the plaintiff was employed by the defendant for more than 15 years. In early to mid- 2015, she took an almost two (2) month leave of absence to undergo a bladder operation. After she returned from that operation, she was fired and replaced by a 26-year-old employee and substantially lower pay. The defendants claimed that plaintiff was not fired because of her age or disability, but because she (1) failed to remove her ex-husband as a beneficiary on her health insurance plan 2 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 3 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 following her divorce in July 2013, and (2) subsequently her ex-husband illegally used plaintiff’s insurance card to obtain health care treatment. However, plaintiff produced documents showing that in October 2013, she faxed her divorce papers to Defendants’ Human Resources Manager, along with a copy of her new drivers’ license and application for new social security card with her maiden name- Caballero.2 Further, as part of defendant’s 2015 verification process, in March 2015, plaintiff re- submitted her divorce papers as evidence of her divorce, along with verification of her child’s dependent status. An Unemployment Appeals Judge cited this fact and found that “The claimant did not falsify company records, nor conspired to conceal her divorce status with her ex-husband f r o m the above named employer.” In discovery, Defendants produced a spreadsheet, which appears to be prepared for this litigation, showing that in 2013 and 2014, the actual amount defendant “should have” paid in medical insurance premium assuming the plaintiff did not remove her ex-husband, was the grand total of ZERO. See Exhibit D.3 As to the defendant’s claim that plaintiff permitted her ex-husband to use her insurance card to illegally to obtain health care treatment, as of the close of discovery on October 13, 2017, and almost two (2) years into litigation, the defendant has not produced even a writing on a napkin demonstrating the truthfulness of that assertion. In addition to the above, the defendant claimed that in 2015, they conducted an audit of all their 16,000 employees. Each of these employees submitted a Dependent Verification Form. The intent of that process was to verify the eligibility of those employees’ dependents as listed on their company provided health insurance. The plaintiff was included in that process. The defendant cited this process in firing the plaintiff, but in discovery refused to produce any 2 labelled as CABLEVISION 0078, 0076, 0077, 0075, 0059, 001391, and 001392. 3 The plaintiff’s position that the listed amount of $708.48” for 2015 lacks credibility given the evidence in this case. 3 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 4 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 documents submitted by any of those employees, such as the Dependent Verification Forms, which could be submitted under a confidentiality order. They instead submitted a list of names of employees fired and list of names of those disciplined, and the reasons for their discipline in connection with the audit. The defendant’s position is that the plaintiff should just accept that as “evidence.” The most obvious question is if an employee failed to remove an illegible dependent but was given a written warning for which plaintiff was terminated, then how would the plaintiff know that? And if an employee failed to remove a beneficiary, but was NOT terminated or given a written warning, how would plaintiff know that? That evidence would be relevant and important to plaintiff’s claim of differential treatment and thus pretext. As the Court is aware, it is well-settled that a party is entitled to discovery of information which is not just relevant to the claims, but which might lead to the discovery of relevant information. The defendant claimed that the Court intended to deny plaintiff’s motion to compel because “obviously” it is “overbroad,” “burdensome” and a “fishing expedition.” The plaintiff respectfully request that the Court revisit her motion, and make a determination for itself as to the relevancy of the requested documents. But when it comes to their cross-motion, the defendant wrote that “it is clear the Court intended to grant Defendant’s Cross-Motion in its entirety…” However, it is respectfully requested that the Court revisit defendants’ cross-motion. The defendant seeks, for instance, the “exact” damages for punitive damages as well as emotional distress. It is beyond comprehension that punitive damages have nothing to do with the plaintiff, but with the defendant’s conduct, and neither punitive damages or emotional distress is monetarily quantified, as both damages are awarded by a jury based on the evidence put before them. A review of the Punitive Damage Act (PDA) as well as the jury instructions makes this very clear. 4 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 5 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 The defendant’s cross-motion also sought information as to whether plaintiff spoke to an attorney following her termination, and in a subsequent letter explaining the reason, to determine whether the plaintiff was “coached” while she was employed by the defendant. One of the oldest privileges known to litigation is the sacred attorney-client communication privilege. Even if that was remotely true, communications between any attorney and their client for the purpose of seeking legal advice (even if “coaching”) is protected by both statute and our Rules. See N.J.S.A. 2A:84A–20(1) and N.J.R.E. 504(1). Thank you for consideration. Respectfully, /s Jay Chatarpaul JAY CHATARPAUL JC/sd cc: August W. Heckman, III, Esq. 5 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 6 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 EXHIBIT A HUD-L-004540-15 HUD-L-004540-15 HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017 09/27/2017 4:33:17 10/13/20175:37:07 PgPMPM 1 ofPgPg 3 7Trans 1of of19 3 Trans Trans ID: ID: ID:LCV2017257648 LCV2017368491 LCV2017344353 #76 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP F I L E D (Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership) OCT 13, 2017 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6241 JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C. 609.919.6600 Michelle Seldin Silverman – NJ ID 004272004 August W. Heckman III – NJ ID 030222005 Rudolph J. Burshnic II – NJ ID 014492012 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ADA CABALLERO, HUDSON COUNTY – LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action v. Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15 CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ORDER EARNEST R. PASTOR, Individually and as Human Resource Manager of Cablevision, and STEPHANY DALTON, Individually and as Human Resource Manager of Cablevision, Defendants. THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court by way of Defendant CSC TKR, LLC’s (“Cablevision,” incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Cablevision Systems Corporation) Motion for a Protective Order, For good cause appearing, IT IS on this _____ 13th day of October 2017, ORDERED that Cablevision’s Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the proper scope of discovery in this matter is limited to Plaintiff and those employees who were disciplined or discharged in connection with the Audit at issue (the “Comparator Pool”); and it is further HUD-L-004540-15 HUD-L-004540-15 HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017 09/27/2017 4:33:17 10/13/20175:37:07 PgPMPM 2 ofPgPg 3 8Trans 2of of19 3 Trans Trans ID: ID: ID:LCV2017257648 LCV2017368491 LCV2017344353 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production of Documents and Fourth Request for Production of Documents are hereby stricken in their entirety, and Plaintiff is further prohibited from propounding any additional written discovery; and it is further ORDERED that to seek any other written or documentary discovery Plaintiff must seek leave of the court by way of motion absent agreement between the parties; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking in discovery the entirety of any current or former employee personnel files (including, but not limited to, the “Comparator Pool); and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking the home addresses or other contact information regarding the individuals in the Comparator Pool; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff and her counsel are prohibited from soliciting the individuals in the Comparator Pool; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking any discovery about any former or current Cablevision employees other than those in the Comparator Pool; ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking discovery relating to claims for benefits made by current or former Cablevision employees, including, but not limited to, current or former employees in the Comparator Pool; it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking discovery relating to money paid for claims and/or premiums for benefits for current or former Cablevision employees, including, but not limited to, current or former employees in the Comparator Pool; it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking discovery relating to the medical documentation and information of other current or former Cablevision employees, including, but not limited to, current or former employees in the Comparator Pool; it is further 2 HUD-L-004540-15 HUD-L-004540-15 HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017 09/27/2017 4:33:17 10/13/20175:37:07 PgPMPM 3 ofPgPg 3 9Trans 3of of19 3 Trans Trans ID: ID: ID:LCV2017257648 LCV2017368491 LCV2017344353 ORDERED that Plaintiff is prohibited from deposing, absent leave of Court or agreement amongst the parties, any current or former Cablevision employee other than Stephany Dalton, Earnest Pastor, and Norma Martinez. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order will be served on all counsel of record via the eCourts system. ______________________________ Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C. Opposed: ( ) Unopposed: ( ) FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BY THE COURT ON THE RECORD ON OCTOBER 13, 2017 Denied as moot as Judge Costello on October 13, 2017 denied Plaintiff's motion to extend discovery. 3 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 10 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 EXHIBIT B HUD-L-004540-15 HUD HUDL L004540-15 004540-1510/23/2017 08/14/2017 4:33:17PgPM 09/15/2017 1 Pg ofPg 21 11 ofTrans 2ofTrans 19ID: Trans ID: LCV2017165046 ID: LCV2017368491 LCV2017243387 #62 F I L E D SEP 15, 2017 JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C. 15th September HUD-L-004540-15 HUD HUDL L004540-15 004540-1510/23/2017 08/14/2017 4:33:17PgPM 09/15/2017 2 Pg ofPg 22 12 ofTrans 2ofTrans 19ID: Trans ID: LCV2017165046 ID: LCV2017368491 LCV2017243387 20 7 JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C. HUD-L-004540-15 HUD-L-004540-15 HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017 08/24/2017 4:33:17 09/15/20174:52:25 PgPMPM 1 ofPg Pg 2 131 of 19 Trans 2 Trans Trans ID: ID: ID:LCV2017148263 LCV2017368491 LCV2017232416 #77 F I L E D MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP SEP 15, 2017 (Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership) 502 Carnegie Center JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C. Princeton, NJ 08540-6241 609.919.6600 Michelle Seldin Silverman – NJ ID 004272004 August W. Heckman III – NJ ID 030222005 Rudolph J. Burshnic II – NJ ID 014492012 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ADA CABALLERO, HUDSON COUNTY – LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action v. Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15 CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, [PROPOSED] ORDER EARNEST R. PASTOR, Individually and as Human Resource Manager of Cablevision, and STEPHANY DALTON, Individually and as Human Resource Manager of Cablevision, Defendants. THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court by way of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Defendant CSC TKR, LLC’s (“Cablevision,” incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Cablevision Systems Corporation) Cross-Motion to Compel Discovery, For good cause appearing, IT IS on this _____ 15th day of September 2017, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Cablevision’s Cross-Motion to Compel is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further within 20 days of the date of this Order ORDERED that Plaintiff appear for a deposition on September ___, 2017, at the offices of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 502 Carnegie Center, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, and that she must remain there until her deposition is completed; and it is further HUD-L-004540-15 HUD-L-004540-15 HUD L 004540-15 10/23/2017 08/24/2017 4:33:17 09/15/20174:52:25 PgPMPM 2 ofPg Pg 2 142 of 19 Trans 2 Trans Trans ID: ID: ID:LCV2017148263 LCV2017368491 LCV2017232416 ORDERED that within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff will produce to Cablevision’s counsel all documents responsive to Cablevision’s Document Request Nos. 7, 9, 15, 34, 42, and 46 in Cablevision’s First Request for Production of Documents; and it is further ORDERED that within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff will provide to Cablevision’s counsel fully responsive narrative answers to Cablevision Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 17, and 18; and it is further ORDERED that within 7 days of this Order, Plaintiff will provide fully executed HIPAA releases in the form attached as Exhibit C to Cablevision’s First Set of Interrogatories for all healthcare providers identified in Plaintiff’s response to Cablevision’s Interrogatory No. 8; and it is further IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order will be served on all counsel of record via the eCourts system. ______________________________ Hon. Lisa Rose, J.S.C. Opposed: ( ) JOSEPH A. TURULA, J.S.C. Unopposed: ( ) 2 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 15 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 EXHIBIT C HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 16 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 17 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 18 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 EXHIBIT D HUD-L-004540-15 10/23/2017 4:33:17 PM Pg 19 of 19 Trans ID: LCV2017368491 Page 1 of 1 Ada Caballero (015398) Monthly Difference in Employer's Portion of the Employer's Monthly Portion of the Premium Employer's Monthly Portion of the Premium Premium (Actual) (Should Have Been Without Inelig Dep) (Actual ‐ Should Have Been) Medical Dental Medical Dental Medical Dental Option 1 PPO Option 1 PPO Option 1 PPO 2013 (<$50k) 8/1/13 ‐ 12/31/13 $1,894.48 $100.60 $1,894.48 $65.28 $0.00 $35.32 2014 (<$50k) 1/1/14 ‐ 12/31/14 $1,933.31 $102.90 $1,933.31 $66.77 $0.00 $36.13 2015 (<$50k) 1/1/15 ‐ 4/30/15 $2,024.23 $105.21 $1,315.74 $68.26 $708.49 $36.95 5/1/15 ‐ 8/30/15* $1,315.74 $68.26 $1,315.74 $68.26 $0.00 $0.00 * Individual enrolled as spouse removed effective 5/1/15 due to DEV CONFIDENTIAL Sheet1 CABLEVISION 001401