Free Pretrial Memorandum - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 143.4 kB
Pages: 36
Date: June 1, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 6,832 Words, 42,483 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/35914/76-11.pdf

Download Pretrial Memorandum - District Court of Delaware ( 143.4 kB)


Preview Pretrial Memorandum - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 1 of 36

Defendants' Exhibits Exh. No. DX-1. Description Mellon Employee Handbook Bates Nos. Mel/Bloz 473-96 Plaintiff's Basis for Objection No Objection. Defendants' Response to Objection

DX-2. DX-3. DX-4.

Mellon Corporate Policies & Procedures Manual concerning Equal Employment Opportunity Mellon Corporate Policies & Procedures Manual concerning Employee Complaint/Appeal Process Mellon Corporate Policies & Procedures Manual concerning Sexual and Other Discriminatory Harassment Mellon Corporate Policies & Procedures Manual concerning Managing Performance and Conduct Through Corrective Action Mellon Corporate Policies & Procedures Manual concerning Corrective Action Process

Mel/Bloz 497-499 Mel/Bloz 500503 Mel/Bloz 504510

No Objection. No Objection. Objection. Irrelevant. F.R.E. 402. Plaintiff has pled age and sex harassment claims; subject to Defendants' summary judgment motion

DX-5. DX-6.

Mel/Bloz 511515 Mel/Bloz 516518

No Objection. Objection. Irrelevant. F.R.E. 402. The document is dated August 4, 2004, but Plaintiff's employment was terminated on July 14, 2003. No Objection. No Objection. Defense witnesses will testify that the predecessor policy, in effect in 2002 and 2003, was substantially the same as the 2004 policy

DX-7. DX-8.

Mellon Corporate Policies & Procedures Mel/Bloz 519Manual concerning Performance Management 522 Process Job description for Portfolio Administrator P3

PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 2 of 36

DX-9.

Ms. Blozis current work sheet

P4

Objection. Irrelevant. F.R.E. 402. The document is dated March 30, 2001. This is remote in time from the Plaintiff's July 14, 2003 discharge and her alleged performance issues in 2002. No Objection. No Objection. No Objection.

The document is relevant because it has some tendency to show the existence of what Plaintiff's job duties were and how they changed over time more probable.

DX-10. DX-11. DX-12.

Portfolio Assistant Position Responsibilities General/Miscellaneous Duties Blozis Employee Profile dated August 30, 2004

P5 P6 Mel/Bloz 455

DX-13.

Email from Wm. Becker to Blozis dated Oct. 8, 2002 and Blozis' Oct. 9, 2002 response re "Projects."

Mel/Bloz 593, P856-57

No Objection.

DX-14.

Automated Investment Review Forms with handwritten notes of Wm. Becker dated Nov. 12, 2002 Automated Investment Review Forms with handwritten notes of Wm. Becker dated Nov. 12, 2002

A 114

No Objection.

DX-15.

A-115

No Objection.

-2PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 3 of 36

DX-16.

Security Risk of Holders form with handwritten notes of Wm. Becker dated Nov. 19, 2002

A 116

No Objection.

DX-17. DX-18.

Single Bond Buy Form with handwritten notes of Wm. Becker dated Dec. 2, 2002 Asset Risk Profile Questionnaire dated Dec. 2, 2002

A 117 Mel/Bloz 572

No Objection. No Objection.

DX-19.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire

Mel/Bloz 573

No Objection.

DX-20.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire

Mel/Bloz 574

No Objection.

DX-21.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire

Mel/Bloz 575

No Objection.

DX-22.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire

Mel/Bloz 576

No Objection.

DX-23.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire -3-

Mel/Bloz 577

No Objection.

PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 4 of 36

DX-24.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire

Mel/Bloz 578

No Objection.

DX-25.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire

Mel/Bloz 579

No Objection.

DX-26.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire

Mel/Bloz 583

No Objection.

DX-27.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire

Mel/Bloz 584

No Objection.

DX-28.

Email from Blozis to Waters dated November 19, 2002

Mel/Bloz 592

No Objection.

DX-29.

Single Bond Buy Form

Mel/Bloz 595

No Objection.

-4PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 5 of 36

DX-30.

Email from Wm Becker to Linda Blozis re "Notification of Account Overdraft"

A 118-19 (Blozis 12)

No Objection.

DX-31.

Single Equity Sell Sheets dated Dec. 30, 2002

Mel/Bloz 580-81

No Objection.

DX-32.

Automated Investment Review System Forms

Mel/Bloz 588-591

No Objection.

DX-33.

Email between Blozis and Becker dated Nov. 19, 2002

A-113

Objection. Probative value is outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This exhibit is identical to DX-28. F.R.E. 403. No Objection.

Exhibit withdrawn as it is a duplicate of DX-28

DX-34.

Summary of Assets form dated Dec. 2, 2002 with handwritten notes of Wm Becker

Mel/Bloz 594

DX-35.

Email from Wm. Becker to Rosemary Thomas dated Dec. 4, 2002 and response of -5-

Mel/Bloz 682

No Objection.

PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 6 of 36

Thomas.

DX-36.

Email from Keith Patterson to Blozis dated Dec. 6, 2002 with handwritten notes of Wm. Becker

Mel/Bloz 596-97

No Objection.

DX-37.

Email from Stephen A. Mozur to Blozis re PWM rebalancing dated Dec. 6, 2002

Mel/Bloz 585

No Objection.

DX-38.

Investment Review sheet dated Dec. 31, 2002 with notes of Gregg Landis attached

Mel/Bloz 603

No Objection.

DX-39.

Performance Management Form dated 2003 for evaluation of Blozis and Blozis rebuttal

Mel/Bloz 456466

No Objection.

DX-40.

Email from Linda Blozis to William Becker re: Notification of Account Overdraft

Mel/Bloz 598

Objection. Probative value is outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This exhibit is identical to a previously identified exhibit in this list. F.R.E. 403.

The document is admissible because it is logically relevant under Rule 401 and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and the evidence is corroborative of an issue central to the

-6PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 7 of 36

DX-41.

Email from William Becker to Linda Blozis re: Notification of Account Overdraft

Mel/Bloz 599

DX-42.

MPAM Performance Results dated December 31, 2002

Mel/Bloz 604

case. However, if the document has been previously identified, without objection, Defendants will withdraw it. Objection. Probative The document is value is outweighed by admissible because it is the needless logically relevant under presentation of Rule 401 and its cumulative evidence. probative value is not This exhibit is identical substantially outweighed to a previously by the danger of unfair identified exhibit in this prejudice and the list. F.R.E. 403. evidence is corroborative of an issue central to the case. However, if the document has been previously identified, without objection, Defendants will withdraw it. No Objection.

DX-43.

Combined investment review dated December Mel/Bloz 605 31, 2002

No Objection.

DX-44.

Single Equity Sell Form

Mel/Bloz 607

Objection. Probative value is outweighed by the needless presentation of

Withdrawn

-7PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 8 of 36

cumulative evidence. This exhibit is identical to DX-31. F.R.E. 403. DX-45. Email from William Becker to Linda Blozis re: trade ticklers dated January 6, 2003 Mel/Bloz 609 No Objection.

DX-46.

Holdings list dated January 6, 2003

Mel/Bloz 610

No Objection.

DX-47.

Asset Allocation Risk Profile Questionnaire dated January 10, 2003

Mel/Bloz 611

No Objection.

DX-48.

Letter dated April 30, 2003

Mel/Bloz 613614

No Objection.

DX-49.

Email from Gregg Landis to Bruce Holmquist

Mel/Bloz 623

No Objection.

DX-50.

Email from Linda Blozis to Gregg Landis dated March 21, 2003

Mel/Bloz 634

No Objection.

-8PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 9 of 36

DX-51.

Series of emails the last one being from William Becker to Gregg Landis dated February 24,2003

Mel/Bloz 646647

No Objection.

DX-52.

Combined investment dated March 31, 2003

Mel/Bloz 651

No Objection.

DX-53.

Email from Gregg Landis to Linda Blozis dated June 6, 2003

Mel/Bloz 659660

Objection. Irrelevant. F.R.E. 402. The handwritten notes on this e-mail constitute after-acquired evidence that admittedly was discovered "after [Plaintiff] was fired[.]" Therefore, it could not have been a factor in the any alleged performance reason for Defendants' decision to discharge her. No Objection.

Defendants have pled an after-acquired evidence affirmative defense in their answer; moreover, the original email is dated June 6, 2003, more than a month before her termination and shows that Plaintiff provided inaccurate information.

DX-54.

Email from Linda Blozis to Gregg Landis dated June 5, 2003

Mel/Bloz 663

DX-55.

Email from Linda Blozis to Gregg Landis

Mel/Bloz 664665

No Objection.

-9PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 10 of 36

DX-56.

Boston Company Asset Management Form

Mel/Bloz 670

No Objection.

DX-57.

Boston Company Asset Management Form

Mel/Bloz 671

Objection. Probative value is outweighed by confusion of the issues. F.R.E. 403. The title of this exhibit is inaccurate because it is inconsistent with the language in the actual document. The document does not appear to be a Boston Company Asset Management Form. No Objection.

The name of the document should be The Dreyfus Corporation. Defendants are willing to re-title the document. Document is relevant and highlights performance issues.

DX-58.

Email from Gregg Landis to Rosemary; Thomas series of emails ending with email from Gregg Landis to Rosemary Thomas dated June 26, 2003. Document concerning stale priced assets report dated June 20, 2003

Mel/Bloz 674675

DX-59.

Mel/Bloz 676677

No Objection.

DX-60.

Handwritten notes by Gregg Landis day May 19, 2003 - 10 -

Mel/Bloz 685

Objection. Lack of foundation; Hearsay.

Mr. Landis will testify that he made these notes

PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 11 of 36

F.R.E. 802. These are unsigned handwritten notes purported to be made by Gregg Landis through which Defendants attempt to introduce out-of-court statements of Plaintiff and Human Resources' Rosemary Thomas for the truth of the matter(s) asserted in Mr. Landis' notes. DX-61. Performance management form year end assessment 2001 Mel/Bloz 717726 No Objection.

during his meeting with Plaintiff in which Ms. Thomas was also present. Document is admissible under 801(d)(2)(A), 803(1), 804(b)(3) and 805

DX-62.

Email from Linda Blozis to Gregg Landis dated March 13, 2003

Mel/Bloz 762

Objection. Probative value is outweighed by confusion of the issues needless presentation of cumulative evidence. F.R.E. 403. This document is identical to an exhibit previously identified in this list. Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note on the bottom of a job

If this document has been previously identified and if there has been no objection by Plaintiff, Defendants will withdraw it.

DX-63.

Portfolio Administrator Position

Mel/Bloz 766

Plaintiff and/or Rosemary Thomas can testify concerning when the document was distributed; document is a business record; there is

- 11 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 12 of 36

description.

no F.R.E. that specifically addresses the issue of crossexamination; however, Plaintiff will likely not be precluded from cross examining defense witnesses about the document

DX-64.

Email from Linda Blozis to Rosemary Thomas dated April 30, 2003

P 30

No Objection.

DX-65.

Information questionnaire dated May 20, 2003

P 214

No Objection.

DX-66.

Plaintiffs second supplemental response to Defendants first set of interrogatories no. 14

No Objection.

DX-67.

Letter form First National Bank to Linda Blozis

Mel/Bloz 286287

No Objection.

DX-68.

Letter from Orion Bank to Linda Blozis dated January 3, 2005

P536-P538

No Objection.

- 12 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 13 of 36

DX-69.

CV of Brian Sullivan

Objection. Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. F.R.E. 403. Defendants' economic expert's CV need not be presented to the jury. He can testify at trial as to his education and experience. Exhibit TB #3 Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's economic expert's list of other case in which he has testified may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and it does not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Also, his case list is Exhibit TB #2 in his deposition.

Document is admissible as a business record. Document is admissible under Rule 401 and is not unduly prejudicial.

DX-70.

Thomas Borzilleri's case list

Dr. Borzilleri's case list is TB #2 and is admissible under F.R.E. 401. Defendants have a right to cross-examine him on the cases he has handled previously, to show bias, inconsistencies, etc. This is contemplated by the F.R.Civ.P. which direct that expert's produce this information without the opposing party even requesting it.

- 13 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 14 of 36

DX-71.

Article from Journal of Forensic Economics entitled "On Using PBGC Methodology to Evaluate Defined Benefit Pensions in divorce cases served on Plaintiff on May 3, 2007

Objection. Lack of cross-examination, Irrelevant, Hearsay, and Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403, and 802. Defendants produced this article after expert discovery ended and are attempting to introduce expert testimony of its author who was never identified as a defense witness in this case through an article. The article also has no tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence in this employment

Defendants noticed Plaintiff's expert before the expert discovery end date. It was Plaintiff's expert who required an adjournment. Therefore, it is disingenuous at best, for Plaintiff to raise a timeliness issue. Moreover, Plaintiffs expert was asked at his deposition if any authors had agreed or disagreed with his published note and he did not know either way. Defendants on their own had to research the issue. The issue is use of the PBGC Methodology which he uses in his report to calculate damages. Defendants as well as Defendants' own expert should have an

- 14 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 15 of 36

discrimination action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence because the article deals with divorce cases. Defendants' properly identified economic expert witness can be called to rebut Plaintiff's expert witness testimony. DX-72. Thomas C. Borzilleri's 1992 article Objection. Irrelevant, Hearsay, and Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. F.R.E. 402, 403, and 802. This article written by Plaintiff's economic expert 15 years ago in 1992 is remote in time from and has no tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence in this action regarding a termination of employment in 2003 more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

opportunity to refer to his article for purposes of critiquing Plaintiff's expert's methodology. Article is admissible under F.R.E. 803(18) and 401.

Article is admissible under F.R.E. 401 and 803(18). Plaintiff's expert relies on the PBGC methodology as part of his damages calculations. Defendants should have the opportunity to challenge the use of this methodology.

- 15 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 16 of 36

DX-73.

State Individual Income Taxes

Objection. Lack of cross-examination, Irrelevant, Hearsay, and Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403, and 802. Defendants produced this article after expert discovery ended and are attempting to introduce expert testimony of its two authors who were never identified as defense witnesses in this case through an article. The article also has no tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence in this - 16 -

This is a document (a chart) that was relied upon by Defendants' expert witness to show that there are no state income taxes in Florida, but that Delaware has them. It is admissible under F.R.E. 401 and 803(18). Again, Plaintiff's argument based on timeliness is disingenuous since it was her expert who requested the adjournment. The Court may take judicial notice of these facts.

PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 17 of 36

action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Defendants' properly identified economic expert witness can be called to rebut Plaintiff's expert witness testimony. DX-74. Email from Gregg Landis to Linda Blozis dated June 11, 2003 Mel/Bloz 658 Objection. Irrelevant and Probative value is substantially outweighed by the Danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. F.R.E. 402, 403. In this case, Defendants have never asserted that Plaintiff allegedly failed to protect client confidentiality as an alleged reason for her discharge. Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note on the bottom of a document. Defendants have always asserted that Plaintiff was terminated for performance reasons. This document is an example of performance problems. Therefore; document is relevant under 401, is not unduly prejudicial and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

DX-75.

Agenda for client meeting dated Jan. 31, 2003

Mel/Bloz 608

Gregg Landis will testify that Plaintiff draft the document and that errors were caught. He will testify that he wrote the note at the bottom of the document. Bill Becker will testify that he caught the errors and reprinted the agenda.

- 17 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 18 of 36

DX-76.

Email change from Feb. 4, 2003 Feb. 23, 2003 among Wm Becker, Gregg Landis, and Blozis

Mel/Bloz 648

No Objection.

DX-77.

Email from Blozis to Landis dated Mar. 18, 2003

P 031

No Objection.

DX-78.

Letter from Blozis to client dated March 19, 2003 with handwritten notes of Gregg Landis

Mel/Bloz 637

Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note on the bottom of a document.

DX-79.

Statement of Investment Policy

Mel/Bloz 640

Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note on the bottom of a document.

Gregg Landis will testify that Plaintiff prepared the document and upon his review, he found errors. Mr. Landis will testify that it is his writing on the bottom of the document. Plaintiff will be able to cross-examine Mr. Landis concerning the document. Gregg Landis will testify that Plaintiff prepared the document and upon his review, he found errors. Mr. Landis will testify that it is his writing on the bottom of the document. Plaintiff will be able to cross-examine Mr. Landis concerning the document.

- 18 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 19 of 36

DX-80.

Email from Blozis to Gregg Landis dated March 21, 2003

Mel//Bloz 635

Objection. Probative value is outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This exhibit is identical to DX-50. F.R.E. 403. No Objection.

Withdrawn.

DX-81.

Handwritten notes of Gregg Landis dated March 31, 2003 with attached Asset Allocation Risk Profile questionnaires

Mel/Bloz 629-633

DX-82.

Investment review sheets with handwritten notes of Gregg Landis dated April 24, 2003

Mel/Bloz 622

No Objection.

DX-83.

Handwritten notes dated April 29, 2003 of Gregg Landis discussing problems with investment review sheet

Mel/Bloz 616-17

Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. These are unsigned and undated handwritten notes on a document.

Gregg Landis will testify that Plaintiff prepared the document and upon his review, he found errors. Mr. Landis will testify that it is his writing on the bottom of the document. Plaintiff will be able to cross-examine Mr. Landis concerning the document. Gregg Landis will testify

DX-84.

Handwritten notes of Gregg Landis, undated - 19 -

Mel/Bloz 636

Objection. Lack of

PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 20 of 36

on "Statement of Investment Policy

foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note.

DX-85.

Email from Gregg Landis to Linda Blozis Mel/Bloz 654 dated April 24, 2003 discussing preparation of books with handwritten notes

Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note on the bottom of a document.

DX-86.

Email from Gregg Landis to Blozis dated April 21, 2003 concerning April 2003 Stale Price Report

Mel/Bloz 618

Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note on the bottom of a document.

that Plaintiff prepared the document and upon his review, he found errors. Mr. Landis will testify that it is his writing on the bottom of the document. Plaintiff will be able to cross-examine Mr. Landis concerning the document. Gregg Landis will testify that Plaintiff prepared the document and upon his review, he found errors. Mr. Landis will testify that it is his writing on the bottom of the document. Plaintiff will be able to cross-examine Mr. Landis concerning the document. Gregg Landis will testify that Plaintiff prepared the document and upon his review, he found errors. Mr. Landis will testify that it is his writing on the bottom of the document. Plaintiff will be able to cross-examine Mr. Landis concerning the document. If this exhibit has been previously identified and has not been objected to by Plaintiff, Defendants will withdraw it.

DX-87.

Document concerning Stale Priced Assets Report dated April 17, 2003

Mel/Bloz 620621

Objection. Probative value is outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

- 20 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 21 of 36

This exhibit is identical to a previously identified exhibit in this list. F.R.E. 403.

DX-88.

Handwritten notes of Rosemary Thomas dated April 30, 2003 regarding meeting with Blozis

Mel/Bloz 683

Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note.

DX-89.

Handwritten notes of Rosemary Thomas dated May 1, 2003

Mel/Bloz 468-69

Objection. Lack of foundation; Lack of cross-examination. This is an unsigned handwritten note.

Ms. Thomas will testify that she authored these notes contemporaneously with her discussion with Brendan Gilmore and as part of her human resources duties. The notes also constitute a business record. Ms. Thomas will testify that she made these notes contemporaneously with her discussion with Plaintiff and are a part of her investigation of Plaintiff's complaint. The notes also constitute a business record.

DX-90.

Email from Gregg Landis to Rosemary Thomas dated May 7, 2003 re "Linda Blozis

Mel/Bloz 657

No Objection.

DX-91.

Email from Gregg Landis to Brendan Gilmore Mel/Bloz 688 dated May 9, 2003 re "Linda Blozis"

No Objection.

- 21 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 22 of 36

DX-92.

Email from Paul Kochis to Gregg Landis dated May 9, 2003

Mel/Bloz 689-90

No Objection.

DX-93.

Handwritten notes of Gregg Landis dated May 13, 2003 on documents showing "Combined Equity Diversification for Individual" Investment Review dated May 14, 2003 with handwritten notes of Gregg Landis dated May 15, 2003

Mel/Bloz 652

No Objection.

DX-94.

Mel/Bloz 649

No Objection.

DX-95.

Handwritten notes dated May 12, 2003 of Gregg Landis regarding final written warning and meeting with Rosemary Thomas

Mel/Bloz 684

No Objection.

DX-96.

Email from Rosemary Thomas to Gregg Landis dated May 16, 2003

B 931 (Mel/Bloz 687)

No Objection.

DX-97.

Handwritten notes of May 19, 2003 between Gregg Landis and Blozis

Mel/Bloz 686

Objection. Hearsay, Lack of foundation; Lack of crossexamination. F.R.E. 802. This is an unsigned handwritten note.

Gregg Landis will testify that he made these notes in connection with his meeting with Plaintiff. Document is admissible under F.R.E. 401 and 803(1), 803(3)

- 22 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 23 of 36

DX-98.

Final Written Warning for Performance dated May 19, 2003

P042

No Objection.

DX-99.

Blozis' May 21, 2003 to do list

Mel/Bloz 672

Objection. Probative value is outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. F.R.E. 403. This exhibit is identical to a previously identified exhibit in this list. Objection. Probative value is outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative evidence. F.R.E. 403. This exhibit is identical to DX-58. No Objection. Lack of foundation, Lack of crossexamination, and Hearsay. F.R.E. 802. This is an undated and unsigned timeline of

If Defendants have previously identified this document and if it has not been objected to by Plaintiff, Defendants will withdraw the document.

DX-100.

Email from Gregg Landis to Rosemary Mel/Bloz Thomas regarding "Linda Blozis 678-680 Performance" concerning items not done from May 21, 2003 to do list

Withdrawn.

DX-101. DX-102.

Email from Gregg Landis to Brendan Gilmore Mel/Bloz 694 re termination of employment of Linda Blozis Memorandum from Rosemary Thomas to Thomas Galante requesting permission to discharge Blozis from her employment Mel/Bloz 695

Ms. Thomas will testify that she drafted this document in her human resources capacity and as part of her business review of the issues with

- 23 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 24 of 36

events which Defendants seek to introduce for the truth of the matters asserted in the anonymous, undated document.

Mr. Galante. Mr. Galante will testify that he reviewed this document in connection with the decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Document is admissible under F.R.E. 401; 803(6); 803(1); 803(3). Mr. Landis will testify that he drafted these notes contemporaneously with his meeting with Plaintiff. Document is admissible under F.R.E. 401, 803(1) and 803(3).

DX-103.

Handwritten notes of Gregg Landis dated July Mel/Bloz 692 14, 2003 regarding termination of Blozis

Lack of foundation, Lack of crossexamination, and Hearsay. F.R.E. 802. These are undated and unsigned handwritten notes which Defendants seek to introduce for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Objection. Probative value is substantially outweighed by Considerations of Undue Delay, Waste of Time, and Needless Presentation of Cumulative Evidence. F.R.E. 403. This is over 700 pages of documents purported to be used by Defendants' economic experts in preparing its expert

DX-104.

Documents contained on Appendix I of Defendants' Economic report, including Professional and Governmental publications

Documents have been relied upon by Defendants' expert in preparing his expert report. Defendants have identified those documents as Defendants' expert may refer to them.

- 24 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 25 of 36

report. Defendants have not identified which page(s) of this collection of documents it intends to introduce at trial. DX-105. Medical Records from the Endoscopy Center of Naples Mel/Bloz 7-21 Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness. Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

- 25 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 26 of 36

DX-106.

Medical Records from the Montgomery Eye Center

Mel/Bloz 25-30

Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness.

Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

DX-107.

Medical Records from Kenneth DeMarco

Mel/Bloz 32-92

Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and

Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are

- 26 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 27 of 36

confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness.

admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

DX-108.

Medical Records from Kae Ferber, MD

Mel/Bloz 94-117

Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or

Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central

- 27 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 28 of 36

confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness. DX-109. Medical Records from H. Ross Harris Mel/Bloz 309310 Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less

issue in this case.

Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

- 28 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 29 of 36

probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness. DX-110. Pharmacy Records from Happy Harry's Mel/Bloz 299300 Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

- 29 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 30 of 36

she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness. DX-111. Medical Records from Anchor Health Centers Mel//Bloz 315335, 382-392 Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness. Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

DX-112.

Medical Records from Ronaldo L. Domingo, MD - 30 -

Mel/Bloz 337374,

Defendants should have the opportunity to cross-

PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 31 of 36

403-445

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness. Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E.

examine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

DX-113.

Medical Records of Fanny J. Berg, MD

Mel/Bloz 448

Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the

- 31 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 32 of 36

402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness. DX-114. Medical Records from Delaware Orthopaedic Center Mel/Bloz 451452 Objection. Irrelevant; Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues and consideration of waste of time. F.R.E. 402, 403. Plaintiff's medical records may prejudice and/or confuse the jury, and they do not have any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence

danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

Defendants should have the opportunity to crossexamine Plaintiff on other possible causes of her emotional distress. Documents are admissible under F.R.E. 401, is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is corroborative of a central issue in this case.

- 32 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 33 of 36

to the determination of this action more or less probable than it would be without this evidence. Plaintiff has a claim for garden variety emotional distress under Title VII and State law for which she does not intend to introduce a medical expert witness.

Defendants reserve the right to use any of Plaintiff's exhibits that are admitted into evidence.

- 33 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 34 of 36

Defendants' Demonstrative Evidence 6(a) Defendants' Exhibit No. 1. Description Timeline of Events Plaintiff's Basis for Objection See Pl. Objection to Mel/Bloz 695 supra. Lack of foundation, Lack of cross-examination, and Hearsay. F.R.E. 802. This is an undated and unsigned timeline of events which Defendants seek to introduce for the truth of the matters asserted in the anonymous, undated document. Objection. Probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Plaintiff. F.R.E. 403. Previously during fact discovery, Plaintiff served Defendants with an Interrogatory asking them to "Identify by name, title, sex and date of birth all employees on Brendan Gilmore's Team in 2002 and/or 2003." Defendants failed to produce this information and instead responded, "Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Defendants' Response to Objection See Defendants' response to DX-102. However, independent of DX-102 Defendants have the right to make a timeline from any written or oral statement admitted into evidence. If the Court does not allow Defendants to develop a timeline, Defendants object to any similar demonstratives from Plaintiff. Plaintiff never moved to compel this information, but has pursued her theory that the composition of Gilmore's team is indicative of age and sex discrimination. Defendants have the right to make a demonstrative based on oral and written statements, that are admitted into evidence. Moreover, Defendants should be able to show the number of individuals employed at the Delaware office.

2.

Charts Showing the Composition of the Gilmore Team

- 34 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 35 of 36

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendants answer as follows: see Defendants' answers and objections to Request No. 5." In Request No. 5, Defendants merely provided the following: "Plaintiff, Maria Dunlop (D/O/B 2/14/75), Kathy Agne (D/O/B 4/17/52), Laura Shannon (D/O/B 1/24/69)." See Def. Resp. to Int. Nos. 5 and 6 at pp. 4-5; PX3; B39-40. Having admitted that such information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial and having refused to produce the information when expressly requested to do so in fact discovery, Defendants cannot now seek to introduce this information at trial. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Charts concerning alleged damages Charts concerning mitigation Summary of Plaintiff's Performance issues Chart of Plaintiff's tax information Chart of average wage of positions for which Plaintiff applied - 35 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR

Document 76-11

Filed 06/01/2007

Page 36 of 36

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Chart from current population survey Chart of average wage positions Chart from Occupational employment statistics Any additional charts from any experts' reports Blow-up of any admitted exhibit Any other additional demonstratives

Defendants reserve the right to use any of Plaintiff's Demonstrative Exhibits and/or to make objections thereto.

- 36 PRCLIB-447369.2-SWILSON 6/1/07 3:26 PM