Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00452-CFD Document 67-4 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
HAt.t.oRAN
Macs r..t.e
ATTORNEYS Ai 1AW
_]OSEPH ANDRIOLA Direct 860 29`i’·=i6i9 nndriola@haiiornn—sugc com
Mss admitted in New Yorlc
November 2, 2007
Via E-mail and Regular lliiail
Wiiliam G. Madsen, Esq.
Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC
44 Capitol Avenue, 2nd Fioor E.
Suite 201
Hartford, CT 06108
Re; David Buren v. Beth El Templ of West Hartford, Inc.
Our File No.: 09672.0057
Dear Attorney Madsent
We are in receipt of Piaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Set of
interrogatories which are dated February 26, 2007. As previously advised, this was the
first time we have seen these responses, notwithstanding that they were previously
served upon prior defense counsel.
We disagree with many of plaintiffs objections to defendants interrogatories.
Specifically, we disagree with plaintiffs objection and non—response to interrogatories
number 9, 10, 11, and 13. interrogatories numbers 9 and ‘i0 request information
regarding each and every statement and/or action of empioyees of Beth Ei Temple
upon which the plaintiff reiies in his allegations that Beth Ei Temple violated the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and the Connecticut Fair Ernpioyment
Practices Act ("CFEP/—\"), respectively. lnterrogatory number if requests information
regarding the allegations that Beth EI Temple engaged in a pattern of age
discrimination. Interrogatory number 13 requests the identification of each and every
person who was a witness to any ofthe facts and circumstances aileged in plaintiffs
complaint and persons plaintiff intends to call at triai.
Piaintiff has obiected to interrogatories number 9 and 10 because they are overly
broad and unduly burdensome and because they require information from a qualified
professional or attorney to determine what does and does not support a claim for a
violation of ADEA and CFEPA. Plaintiff has objected to interrogatories number 11
because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and because it requires knowledge
of an attorney to establish the legal standards of age discrimination under applicabie
law. Plaintiff has objected to Interrogatory number 13 because it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibie
Om: Goodwin Squarc, 225 Asylum Succ:. Hartford, Connecticut 06303 860 522··Gl03 Fu 860 548-0006 www i:¤li¤::m—s:zg¤ com
Hartford I Middletown I Westport I W:isi1ingr¤n.D C

Case 3:03-cv-00452-CFD Document 67-4 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
November 2, 2007
Page 2
evidence because it purports to apply to "any of the facts and circumstances alleged in
the Complaint"
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 37, counsels for
each party must discuss "discovery issues between them in detail in a good faith effort
to eliminate or reduce the area of controversy, and to arrive at a mutually satisfactory
resolution" Accordingly, while not waiving any response to plaintiffs objections and not
agreeing with the plaintiff that the interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome
or reouire special legal knowledge, in order to avoid the time and expense of motion
practice, the defendant is willing to accept the following specific information as a
response to these interrogatories.
For a response to lnterrogatory number 9, please indentify the exact date, time
and place in which, as alleged in paragraph 15 of plaintiffs complaint, Stuart Bernstein,
asked you about what kind of family celebration you was talking place for your daughter
in Florida. Second, please provide the date and time in which you received an e-mail
from Naomi Cohen congratulating you on your granddaughters high school graduation.
Please also indentify all individuals that were present to these communications and any
documents that support said claims.
For a response to Interrogatory number l0, please indentify all written and oral
communications that support your claims in paragraph 30 and Bi that the President and
both Vice Presidents of Beth El Temple did not read p|aintiff's response to the
performance review on May 14, 2002 Board Meeting and that the decision of the Board
at that meeting was precipitated by the actions and misrepresentations of Mr. Bernstein,
Ms. Cohen and Mr. Kleinman. To the extent that it is alleged that il/lr. Fturan provided a
written response to his 2002 performance review, please immediately provide that to
.. me.
For a response to lnterrogatory number 1 t, please identify each employee of
Beth El Temple that has been forced out because of age and replaced with a younger,
less qualified employee; identify the date of each occurrence; identify whether that
employee was terminated, resigned, or contract not renewed; and identify all documents
which support said claim.
For a response to lnterrogatory number 13, please indentify the time, date and
place of each occurrence in which, as alleged in paragraph i4, you were asked by
former President Michael Cohen, as well as other members of Beth El Temple’s
congregation how old you were. lndentify all written and other communications that
support this claim and all individuals present during those communications. Second,
please indentify the time, date and place in which, as alleged in paragraph 25 of
plaintiffs complaint, a member of defendants congregation, and former member of
defendants Board of Directors, asked how old you were. Please indentify that

Case 3:03-cv-00452-CFD Document 67-4 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
November 2, 2007
Page 3
individual who asked you how old you were. indentify all written and other
communications that support this ctaim and ail tndividuais present during those
communications.
These specifications to lnterrogatory number Q, 10, 11, and i3 are made in a
good faith effort to resolve discovery issues and should not be interpreted as a waiver of
any and atl challenges to the plaintiffs objections. Responses to the requested
information wilt oe considered compliance with interrogatories number 9, 10, i 1, and 13.
it this does not resolve our discovery dispute then Beth Ei Temple will be required to tile
a Motion to Compel and/or undertake other motions and options available to it under the
Federal Ruies of Civil Procedure.
Please be further advised that we are awaiting a copy of responses to
defendants First Set of Production of Documents which, as you know, are not in our
possession aithough may have previously been provided to prior defense counsel.
Please provide us with copies ofthe requested documents as soon as possibie.
Furthermore, please see attached our Second Set of Requests for Production of
Documents pursuant to Federal Flutes of Civil Procedure 34. To the extent that they are
duplicative of prior discovery requests, we will consider response to the First Set of
Request for Production of Documents sufficient answers to the Second Set.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
.·#"'°'“
Joseph J, Andrioia
1071521v i