Free Pretrial Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The following is the lodged joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order to be considered at the Final Pretrial Conference set for July 31, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Plaintiff: Mary Jo O'Neill Sally C. Shanley Katherine J. Kruse Michelle G. Marshall Valerie L. Meyer EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: 602-640-5029 Fax: 602-640-5009 vs. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIV 04-0627-PHX-JAT FINAL PRETRIAL FORM OF ORDER

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

Document 137

Filed 08/09/2006

Page 1 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. B.

Defendant: J. Mark Ogden, Esq. J. Greg Coulter, Esq. Kristin R. Culbertson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON Camelback Esplanade Suite 900 2425 E. Camelback Rd. Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4242 Telephone: 602.474.3600 Fax: 602.957.1801 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. Jurisdiction is not disputed.

STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS AND LAW 1. The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 1. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CGLIC) is a whollyowned subsidiary of CIGNA Corporation. 2. CGLIC operates several customer service call centers, including the Phoenix Service Center. 3. The Phoenix Service Center regularly utilizes the "CIGNA" name in conducting its business. 4. CGLIC, offered Carmen Santa Cruz a position as a customer service associate in November 2001. 2. The following facts, although not admitted, will not be contested at trial

by evidence to the contrary: 1. On November 8, 2001, Ms. Santa Cruz submitted a resume to CGLIC via the Internet for one of several available customer service
2

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

Document 137

Filed 08/09/2006

Page 2 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 pregnancy. D. 1. 3. parties: None. 4. 3. 2.

associate positions. On November 15, 2001, Ms. Santa Cruz submitted an application to CGLIC in person, and tested for the position. Cheryl Wroten, a customer service manager for CGLIC, interviewed Ms. Santa Cruz for a customer service associate position on November 16, 2001. On behalf of CGLIC, Sandra Gasche, a CGLIC staffing consultant, offered Ms. Santa Cruz a customer service associate position on November 16, 2001. The following issues of law are uncontested and stipulated to by the

CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW The following are the issues of fact to be tried and decided:

Plaintiff's List of Contested Factual Issues: Issue 1: Whether Defendant failed to hire Carmen Santa Cruz due to her pregnancy. Plaintiff Contends: Defendant failed to hire Carmen Santa Cruz due to her

Defendant Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz declined the position. Issue 2: Whether Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to back-pay, and in what amount. Plaintiff Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to back-pay in an amount to be proven at trial. Defendant Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz is not entitled to back pay. Issue 3: Whether Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to compensatory damages, and in what amount. Plaintiff Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
3

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

Document 137

Filed 08/09/2006

Page 3 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 damages.

Defendant Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz is not entitled to compensatory

Issue 4: Whether Defendant acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to Ms. Santa Cruz's federally protected rights, and if so, what amount of punitive damages should be imposed. Plaintiff Contends: Defendant acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to Ms. Santa Cruz's federally protected rights. Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Defendant Contends: Defendant did not act with malice and/or reckless indifference to Ms. Santa Cruz's federal protected rights and Ms. Santa Cruz is not entitled to punitive damages. Issue 5: Whether Defendant made good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Plaintiff Contends: Defendant did not make good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Defendant Contends: Defendant engaged in good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Defendant's List of Contested Factual Issues: Issue 1: Whether CGLIC withdrew the offer of employment to Ms. Santa Cruz because of her pregnancy or whether Ms. Santa Cruz declined the offer. Plaintiff Contends: CGLIC withdrew its offer of employment to Ms. Santa Cruz because of her pregnancy. Defendant Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz declined the offer of employment. Issue 2: If CGLIC withdrew the offer of employment because of Ms. Santa Cruz's pregnancy, whether she is entitled to damages. Plaintiff Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to damages, including back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Defendant Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz is not entitled to any damages. Issue 3: Whether Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to back pay, compensatory, and/or
4 Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 4 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

punitive damages. Plaintiff Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to damages, including back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Defendant Contends: Ms. Santa Cruz did not suffer any damages. To the extent the Court finds Ms. Santa Cruz is entitled to economic damages, Defendant contends that Ms. Santa Cruz's claim for back pay terminates when she became employed with Security Trust, effective approximately January 18, 2002 and was paid a salary that exceeded the salary offered by Defendant. Moreover, Ms. Santa Cruz was employed by Wells Fargo on July 8, 2002, at a salary that exceeded what was offered by Defendant. Issue 4: Whether Plaintiff can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that CGLIC acted with malice or reckless indifference to her federally protected rights. Plaintiff Contends: CGLIC acted with malice or reckless

indifference to Ms. Santa Cruz's federally protected rights. Defendant Contends: Defendant contends that it did not act with malice or reckless indifference to Ms. Santa Cruz's federally protected rights. Issue 5: Whether CGLIC can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it made good faith efforts to adopt antidiscrimination policies, educate its workforce about its policies, and enforce its policies. Plaintiff contends: CGLIC did not make good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Defendant contends: CGLIC will demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that CGLIC made good faith efforts to adopt antidiscrimination policies, educate its workforce about its policies and enforce its policies. 2. The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined:

Plaintiff's List of Contested Legal Issues: Issues 1-5. Identical to Plaintiff's List of Contested Factual Issues, seth forth above Issue 6: Whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief, and if so, the specific
5 Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 5 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

remedies to which Plaintiff is entitled. Plaintiff contends: Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief, including a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in pregnancy discrimination and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex; an Order requiring Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for pregnant applicants and employees, and which eradicat the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. Because injunctive relief is an equitable remedy, this is an issue for the Court. Defendant contends: Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. Defendant's List of Contested Legal Issues: Issues 1-5. Identical to Defendant's List of Contested Factual Issues, set forth above. Issue 6: What constitutes a withdrawal of an offer? Plaintiff Contends: The offer of employment to Ms. Santa Cruz was withdrawn if Cigna took any action inconsistent with its intention to hire Ms. Santa Cruz. Formal notice that Cigna was withdrawing the offer was not necessary. If Ms. Santa Cruz, as a reasonable person acting in good faith, believed that the offer was withdrawn based on Cigna's actions, that is sufficient. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 42 and 43; Collins v. Thompson, 679 F. 2d 168 (9th Cir. 1982); Butler v. Weherly, 425 P.2d 130, 134 (Ariz. App. 1967). Defendant Contends: To find that the offer of employment was withdrawn, the Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that CGLIC communicated its withdrawal of the offer before Ms. Santa Cruz could accept the offer of employment and that Ms. Santa Cruz knew the offer was withdrawn. Butler v. Weherly, 425 P.2d 130, 134 (Ariz. App. 1967).
6 Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 6 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

E.

LIST OF WITNESSES Plaintiff: (1) witnesses who shall be called at trial; 1. Carmen Santa Cruz c/o Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 North Central Ave., Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012

Ms. Santa Cruz, a fact witness, will testify as to Defendant unlawfully discriminating against her due to her sex, female, on account of her pregnancy. She will testify about Defendant's failure to hire her due to her pregnancy. She will also testify about her damages. 2. Sandra Gasche 1401 Paris Drive Godfrey, Illinois 62035 (provided by Def.) Ms. Gasche, a fact witness, was involved in Defendant's failure to hire Ms. Santa Cruz due to her pregnancy and may have information about Defendant's unlawful conduct. She also may have information about the training she received on equal employment opportunity at Defendant. 3. Heather Casey Giles 1455 East McCellen Blvd. Phoenix, Arizona 85014 (provided by Def.) Ms. Giles, a fact witness, was involved in Defendant's failure to hire Ms. Santa Cruz due to her pregnancy and may have information about Defendant's unlawful conduct. She also may have information about the training she received on equal

employment opportunity at Defendant. She may lay foundation for admission of documents. 4. Cheryl Wroten 21030 North 19th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85027 Ms. Wroten, a fact witness, is a manager for Defendant. At the time of the events
7 Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 7 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

at issue in this litigation, Ms. Wroten was the Customer Services Manager who interviewed Ms. Santa Cruz for a position in customer service. Ms. Wroten may testify about her interview and assessment of Ms. Santa Cruz, and about the training she received on equal employment opportunity at Defendant. She may lay foundation for admission of documents. 5. Dolores Nelson c/o EEOC, at address above Dolores Nelson, a fact witness, is a paralegal for the EEOC. Using a spreadsheet, she created a document showing Ms. Santa Cruz's back pay. Ms. Nelson will testify about the steps taken to calculate Ms. Santa Cruz's back pay. (2) witnesses who may be called at trial; 1. Francisco Santa Cruz 5431 West Sands Road Glendale, AZ 85301 Mr. Santa Cruz, a fact witness, is the husband of Carmen Santa Cruz. Mr. Santa Cruz may testify about the financial burden and emotional distress experienced by the Santa Cruz family as a result of Defendant's failure to hire Ms. Santa Cruz. 2. Robert Jarvis 21030 North 19th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85027 (provided by Def.) Mr. Jarvis, a fact witness, is a manager working for Defendant. Mr. Jarvis may testify about the Phoenix Service Center, the relationship between CGLIC and CIGNA Corporation, financial documents pertaining to CGLIC, and salary information for customer service associates. He may lay foundation for admission of documents. 3. Tiffanie Dillard 21030 North 19th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85027 Ms. Dillard, a fact witness, is an employee for Defendant working in Human Resources. Ms. Dillard may testify about the Phoenix Service Center, the relationship between CGLIC and CIGNA Corporation, financial documents pertaining to CGLIC, and
8 Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 8 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

salary information for customer service associates. She may lay foundation for admission of documents. 4. D. Timothy Tammany Associate Chief Counsel 2 Liberty Place - TL16F 1601 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19192 Mr. Tammany, a fact witness, was the Vice President of Tax for CIGNA corporation, the parent company of CGLIC, in 2003. Mr. Tammany may testify about the income tax return of CGLIC, in accordance with his affidavit of April 26, 2005, provided by Defendant. 5. Any and all custodian of records needed.

(3) witnesses who are unlikely to be called at trial. None. Defendant: (1) witnesses who shall be called at trial; 1. Carmen Santa Cruz c/o Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 North Central Avenue #600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Ms. Santa Cruz is the Plaintiff in this case and is a fact witness. She has knowledge and information relevant to the claims asserted in this lawsuit. It is expected that she will testify regarding the allegations contained in her Complaint, her experience, education and work history, her conduct and alleged damages. It is anticipated that Ms. Santa Cruz will testify regarding any and all information disclosed in her disclosure statement or revealed during discovery in this matter. 2. Sandra Gasche 1401 Paris Drive Godfrey, Illinois 62035 Ms. Gasche is a fact witness and was employed as a Staffing Consultant with CGLIC. She has knowledge and information related to the Customer Service Associate
9 Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 9 of 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

position applied for by Carmen Santa Cruz. It is expected she will testify regarding the processes and procedures followed in filling that position. She will testify that Ms. Santa Cruz declined the offer of employment. 3. Heather Casey Giles 1455 East McCellen Blvd. Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Ms. Casey was the Assistant Director of Human Resources for CGLIC in Arizona and is a fact witness. She has knowledge and information related to the Customer Service Associate position applied for by Carmen Santa Cruz. It is expected she will testify regarding the telephone conference call she participated in with Ms. Gasche and Ms. Santa Cruz and the processes and procedures followed in filling that position. Ms. Giles will also provide testimony regarding CGLIC's EEO policies and procedures. 4. Cheryl Janes Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 550 Main Street, Suite 10019 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-5202 Ms. Janes was the investigator assigned to investigate the Equal Employment Opportunity charge made by Plaintiff and is a fact witness. She has knowledge and information related to the investigation, as well as the Determination made in this matter. 5. Dolores Nelson c/o Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 North Central Avenue #600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Ms. Nelson is expected to testify regarding the topics raised in her deposition and Ms. Santa Cruz's back pay. Ms. Nelson is a fact witness. 6. Cheryl Wroten 21030 North 19th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85027 Ms. Wroten is employed as a Customer Service Manager for CGLIC in Arizona and is a fact witness. She interviewed Ms. Santa Cruz for the Customer Service Associate position. It is expected she will testify regarding the processes and procedures followed
10 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 10 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in filling that position and her interview of Ms. Santa Cruz and the statements made by Ms. Santa Cruz during the course of the interview. 7. Tiffany Dillard 21030 North 19th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85027 Ms. Dillard is employed as an Assistant Director of Human Resources for CGLIC in Arizona and is a fact witness. She has knowledge and information related to the Customer Service Associate position applied for by Carmen Santa Cruz. It is expected she will testify regarding the processes and procedures followed in filling that position. Ms. Dillard may also provide testimony regarding the customer service associate salary progression and promotional process. Ms. Dillard may provide testimony regarding the EEO policies and procedures set forth by CIGNA. 8. Korena Carlyon c/o Littler Mendelson 2425 East Camelback #900 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Ms. Carlyon was employed in the CGLIC Human Resources Department in Arizona and is a fact witness. She has knowledge and information related to the Customer Service Associate position applied for by Carmen Santa Cruz. It is expected she will testify regarding the processes and procedures followed in filling that position. Ms. Carlyon may also provide testimony regarding the customer service associate salary progression, available benefits and promotional process. Ms. Carlyon may provide testimony regarding the EEO policies and procedures set forth by CIGNA. (2) witnesses who may be called at trial; 1. Francisco Santa Cruz 5431 West Sands Road Glendale, AZ 85301 Mr. Santa Cruz is expected to testify regarding the nature and scope of Ms. Santa Cruz's damages as well as the allegations made within the Complaint. Ms. Santa Cruz is a fact witness.
11 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 11 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2.

Charles D. Burtner, Former District Director, EEOC ­ Phoenix District Office c/o Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 North Central Avenue #600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Mr. Burtner was the District Director for the EEOC ­ Phoenix District during all applicable times related to Ms. Santa Cruz's charge and has information related to the investigation of the charge. Mr. Burtner signed the EEOC's Determination and will testify regarding its contents. Mr. Burtner is a fact witness. 3. Assistant Director or Acting Director, EEOC ­ Phoenix District Office c/o Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3300 North Central Avenue #600 Phoenix, Arizona The Assistant or any Acting Director that had contact or information with the charge, investigation and Determination in this matter may have information related to those matters. It is anticipated that any such person will testify regarding their knowledge. This individual is a fact witness. 4. Robert A. Jarvis 21030 North 19th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85027 Mr. Jarvis is expected to testify consistent with his deposition testimony as the 30(b)(6) designee for CGLIC. Mr. Jarvis may also provide additional testimony regarding the history and background of CGLIC. Mr. Jarvis may render testimony regarding CGLIC's policies and procedures. Mr. Jarvis is a fact witness. 5. Any and all custodians of record, as needed.

(3) witnesses who are unlikely to be called at trial. None. Each party understands that it is responsible for ensuring that the witnesses it wishes to call to testify are subpoenaed. Each party further understands that any witness a party wishes to call shall be listed on that party's list of witnesses above and that party
12 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 12 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

cannot rely on that witness having been listed or subpoenaed by another party. F. LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. The following exhibits are admissible in evidence and may be marked

in evidence by the Clerk: a. 2. 3. 4. Plaintiff's Exhibits:

Flexible Time Off Policy (EEOC-CGLIC-0046 to -0055). Job Requisition Details (D0028-0030). Welcome to the CIGNA HealthCare Phoenix Customer Service Call Center (EEOC-CGLIC-0101 to -0118).

5.

Interview Results and Candidate Evaluation (EEOC-CGLIC-0057 to -0062).

6. 7.

Manager Interview Topics (EEOC-CGLIC-0064). Job Description Customer Service Associate (EEOC-CGLIC-0119 to -0120).

8. 13. 14. 15.

Customer Service Associate Job Preview (D1015). Salary Information for 12/17/2001 Training Class (D0912A to 0914A). Salaries/Raises of CSAs Hired with Carmen Santa Cruz (D1053 to 1055). Severance Agreement Between Ms. Santa Cruz and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (EEOC-CGLIC-00296 to -00304).

16.

Carmen Santa Cruz 2002 IRS W-2 from Wells Fargo (EEOC-CGLIC-0367) (redacted home address, social security number "SSN").

17.

IRS copy of Carmen Santa Cruz 2002 W-2 from Security Investment Mgmt. (EEOC-CGLIC-00876) (redacted home address, "SSN").

19.

You and CIGNA Employee Programs, Services and Facilities (EEOCCGLIC-0130 to 0217).

20.

Notes on Back Pay Calculations for Carmen Santa Cruz (EEOC-CGLIC00881 to -00883).

21.

Interest Rates Used for Computation of Back Pay (EEOC-CGLIC-00877 to
13 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 13 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 54. 53. 49. 46. 45. 43. 27. 28. 29. 34. 25. 24. 23. 22.

-00879). Back Pay Calculations Using Comparator Celina Ramirez (EEOC-CGLIC00884 to -00885). Back Pay Calculations Using Comparator Tara Ball (EEOC-CGLIC-00886 to -00887). Salary History and Work History for Tara Ball (unnumbered 2-page document dated 6/8/2005, (dep. ex. 106)). Salary History and Work History for Celina Ramirez (unnumbered 2-page document dated 6/8/2005, (dep. ex. 107)). 26. Salary History and Work History for Heather Dunn (unnumbered 2-page document dated 6/8/2005, (dep. ex. 108)). Job History Information, Tara Ball (D0268). Job History Information, Heather Dunn (D0271). Job History Information, Celina Ramirez (D0274). Cheryl Wroten Notes from First Interview of Carmen Santa Cruz (EEOCCGLIC-0066 to-0069). Job Application History of Carmen Santa Cruz, from monster.com (EEOCCGLIC-0033). Carmen Santa Cruz Employment Application (D0002 to D0004) (redacted home address and home telephone number). Carmen Santa Cruz Resume (D0005) (redacted home address, telephone number). Defendant CGLIC's Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Responses to Interrogatory 1 (31 pp. document). Back Pay Calculations Using Comparator Celina Ramirez with interest to present (EEOC-CGLIC-1018 to -1020). Back Pay Calculations Using Comparator Tara Ball with interest to present (EEOC-CGLIC-1021 to -1023).
14 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 14 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. 1. 3. 2. stipulations: 128. 134. 107.

b.

Defendant's Exhibits:

Plaintiff's EEOC First Supplemental Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. Wells Fargo Offer Letter (07/03/2002) (EEOC-CGLIC-00359R-00360R). Plaintiff EEOC's Response to Defendant's Third Set of Interrogatories.

As to the following exhibits, the parties have reached the following

a. b.

Plaintiff's Exhibits: None. Defendant's Exhibits: None.

As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the exhibit is to be

offered objects to the admission of the exhibit and offers the objection stated below: a. Plaintiff's Exhibits:

Welcome to CIGNA (D0765-D0773A).

Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This exhibit is irrelevant to the issues presented for trial. It contains information regarding the relationship between CGLIC and CIGNA as well as the reporting structure of the CGLIC Phoenix call center, which are not at issue in this litigation. Moreover, the parties reached a stipulation regarding the relationship between the two entities and, thus, this information is cumulative. 9. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. 2003 Statutory Balance Sheets (D0854). Objection: Relevance. CGLIC will provide the most recent information. Thus, CLGIC's financial status in 2003 is irrelevant. 10. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. 2003 Statutory Statements of Income and Changes in Capital and Surplus (D0855). Objection: Relevance. CGLIC will provide the most recent information. Thus, CLGIC's financial status in 2003 is irrelevant. Salaries/Raises of CSAs Hired with Carmen Santa Cruz (unnumbered 3page document (dep. ex. 49)).
15 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 15 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33.

Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to individuals that were not used as comparators in Ms. Santa Cruz's damages calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 12, and 35-42. 12. Salary Information for 12/17/2001 Training Class (D0912 to 0914). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to individuals that were not used as comparators in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11, and 35-42. 18. Carmen Santa Cruz 2003 IRS W-2 from Wells Fargo (EEOC-CGLIC-0368) (redacted home address, SSN). Objection: Relevance. This information is irrelevant because Ms. Santa Cruz's salary in 2002 exceeded that which she was offered by CGLIC. Therefore, her income in 2003 is irrelevant to any back pay analysis. 30. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. 2003 Income Tax Return, with schedules and attachments (D0856-D0893). Objection: Relevance. CGLIC will provide the most recent information. Thus, CLGIC's financial status in 2003 is irrelevant. 31. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. Statutory Balance Sheets Adding Year 2004 (D0927). Objection: Relevance. CGLIC will provide the most recent information. Thus, CLGIC's financial status in 2004 is irrelevant. 32. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. Statutory Statements of Income and Changes in Capital and Surplus, Adding Year 2004 (D0928). Objection: Relevance. CGLIC will provide the most recent information. Thus, CLGIC's financial status in 2004 is irrelevant. Letter from Robert C. Drake, CIGNA counsel, to EEOC Investigator Cheryl A. Janes, dated April 17, 2002 (D0065-0066).
16 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 16 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Objection: Hearsay, foundation, and relevance. The information contained in the position statement contains hearsay statements. Mr. Drake, the author of the statement was not directly involved in Ms. Santa Cruz's offer of employment. The information contained within the statement is based on interviews he conducted with CGLIC employees. Each of these employees are witnesses in this case, have been deposed, and are available for trial testimony. Moreover, CGLIC cannot properly establish foundation for the position statement because Mr. Drake is not a named witness and, therefore, cannot be called to establish any foundational elements. For the aforementioned reasons the information in this exhibit lack probative value and, therefore, is irrelevant. 35. Salary History for Debra Holcombe (D1056). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to an individual that was not used as a comparator in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11 and 12. 36. Work History for Debra Holcombe (D1057). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to an individual that was not used as a comparator in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11 and 12. 37. Salary History for Sarah McClain (D1058). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to an individual that was not used as a comparator in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11, and 12. 38. Work History for Sarah McClain (D1059). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to an individual that was not used as a comparator
17 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 17 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11 and 12. 39. Salary History for Carmen Miller (D1060). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to an individual that was not used as a comparator in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11 and 12. 40. Work History for Carmen Miller (D1061). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to an individual that was not used as a comparator in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11 and 12. 41. Salary History for Amanda Stacy (D1062). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to an individual that was not used as a comparator in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11 and 12. 42. Work History for Amanda Stacy (D1063). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This information is irrelevant because it contains information related to an individual that was not used as a comparator in Ms. Santa Cruz's damage calculations. Moreover, this information is duplicative of information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 11 and 12. 44. Resume of Carmen Santa Cruz, from monster.com (EEOC-CGLIC-0034 to0035). Objection: Cumulative. This exhibit is an electronic copy of Ms. Santa Cruz's resume. The information contained therein is duplicative of the resume listed as Plaintiff's Exhibit 46. Defendant proposes that Plaintiff select Exhibit 46 to represent this information since the format is less confusing.
18 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 18 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

47.

Arizona Department of Insurance Information on CGLIC (EEOC-CGLIC00437 to -00438). Objection: Relevance, cumulative, and foundation. This information is

irrelevant because it seeks to clarify the relationship between CGLIC and CIGNA, which is not at issue in this case. Moreover, it is cumulative of the stipulations the parties propose in this case explaining the relationship between the two entities. Finally, Plaintiff has not identified any witness that possesses the necessary foundation to testify regarding the contents of this exhibit. 48. Affidavit of D. Timothy Tammany, April 26,2005 (2 pp. unnumbered document, provided with Def.'s Second Supp. Disclosure Statement). Objection: Relevance. This affidavit is irrelevant since CGLIC produced its most updated financial information to Plaintiff. 50. Defendant CGLIC's First Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Responses to Interrogatories 2, 9, and 10 (6 pp. document). Objection: Relevance. This information is irrelevant since CGLIC provided updated information. 51. Organization Chart Showing CIGNA Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 2003 (D0783). Objection: Relevance and cumulative. This is irrelevant because the relationship between CGLIC and CIGNA is not at issue in this litigation. Moreover, the relationship between CIGNA and all of its subsidiaries is not at issue. Likewise, the relationship between these entities in 2003 not relevant to incidents occurring in 2001. Finally, the parties stipulated to facts addressing the relationship between the two entities, therefore, this information is cumulative. 52. Organization Chart Showing CIGNA Corporation and subsidiaries as of July 2001 (D0787). Objection: Relevance. This is irrelevant because the relationship between CGLIC and CIGNA is not at issue in this litigation. Moreover, the relationship between
19 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 19 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CIGNA and all its subsidiaries is not at issue. Finally, the parties proposed stipulated facts to address the relationship between the two entities, and therefore, this information is cumulative. 55. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. Statutory Financial Statements, For the Year Ended December 31, 2005 (D1105-1107). 56. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. 2004 Income Tax Return, with schedules and attachments (D1064-1104). b. 101. Complaint. Objection: Relevance, Foundation. Allegations in a complaint are not evidence; therefore it is irrelevant. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. 102. Employment Tracking Form re CSA (D0001). Objection: Hearsay, foundation. The document contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is unlikely that CGLIC can establish foundation for the document if Ms. Gasche, an out-of state-witness, does not appear. 103. Applicant Flow Log ­ Redacted (D0023-0027). Defendant's Exhibits:

Objection: Hearsay, foundation, cumulative, unredacted version available, relevance . Defendant lists a redacted version of this document, but Defendant also produced a version during discovery, removing the redaction of some items, and redacint others, with the same Bates stamp number (Dep. ex. 34). Each partially-redacted document is incomplete. The document is not relevant because testimony indicates it was created to track affirmative action. The document contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The information is hand-written; it is unlikely that Defendant can establish foundation using its listed witnesses. It is cumulative of the information in exhibit 102. 104. HR Status ­ Carmen Santa Cruz declined job offer ­ Redacted (D0553-0554).
20 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 20 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Objection: Hearsay, foundation, cumulative. The document contains hearsay statements about Santa Cruz, offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using its listed witnesses. It is also cumulative of exhibits 102 and 103 above. 105. Customer Service Associate 16376hs [Job Requisition] (EEOC-CGLIC0071-0073). Objection: Hearsay, Foundation, cumulative, version with fewer redactions available. Defendant proposes introducing a redacted version of this document, but Defendant provided a partially unredacted version during discovery, D0017-0019 (second version of documents with these nos., dep. ex 33). There is no reason to introduce the version redacted to exclude comparator names. The document contains hearsay statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using its listed witnesses. It is also cumulative of exhibits 102, 103, and 104 above. 106. Offer form for Carmen Santa Cruz (D0774-0776).

Objection: Hearsay, foundation, cumulative. The document contains hearsay statements that are being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using its listed witnesses. It is also cumulative of exhibits 102, 103, 104 and 105 above. 108. Charge Questionnaire (EEOC-CGLIC-0027-0029). Objection: Relevance, hearsay. This document contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted; it is not a statement against interest. Santa Cruz is available to testify regarding CGLIC's failure to hire her. It is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. 109. Charge of Discrimination (EEOC-CGLIC-0014). Objection: Relevance, hearsay. This document contains double hearsay; it is not a statement against interest. Santa Cruz is available to testify regarding CGLIC's

21 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 21 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

failure to hire her. It is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. 110. Amended Charge of Discrimination (EEOC-CGLIC-0016). Objection: Relevance, hearsay. This document contains double hearsay; it is not a statement against interest. Santa Cruz is available to testify regarding CGLIC's failure to hire her. It is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. 111. Summary of Interview of Heather Casey by Cheryl Janes, 07/16/2003. (EEOC-CGLIC-0089). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation. This document contains double hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted. This EEOC investigator interview summary is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. The EEOC investigator no longer resides in Arizona; thus Defendant cannot establish foundation for this document. 112. Summary of Interview of Sandra Gasche by Cheryl Janes, 07/16/2003. (EEOC-CGLIC-0088). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation. This document contains double hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted. It is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. The EEOC investigator no longer resides in Arizona; thus Defendant cannot establish foundation for this document. 113. 07/09/2003 Telephone Interview of Carmen Santa Cruz (EEOC-CGLIC0023). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation. This document contains double hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted. It is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. The EEOC investigator no longer resides in Arizona; thus Defendant cannot establish foundation for this document.
22 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 22 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

114.

01/24/2002 Intake Notes (EEOC-CGLIC-0025-0026). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation. This document contains

double hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted. It is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. The EEOC investigator no longer resides in Arizona; thus Defendant cannot establish foundation for this document. 115. 01/28/2002 Correspondence (ltr to C. Janes fr C. Santa Cruz re Date of Discrimination) (EEOC-CGLIC-0031). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation. This document contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted. It is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. The EEOC investigator no longer resides in Arizona; thus Defendant cannot establish foundation for this document. 116. 06/28/2002 Interview of Carmen Santa Cruz by Cheryl Janes (EEOCCGLIC-0024). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation. This document contains double hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted. It is not relevant because trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. The EEOC investigator no longer resides in Arizona; thus Defendant cannot establish foundation for this document. 117. Evidence Summary of Charging Party's Allegations, Respondent's Position, (EEOC-CGLIC-0008-0009). Objection: Hearsay, relevance, confusion of issues, foundation. This document contains double hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted. It is not relevant because it is the EEOC investigator's summary and analysis; trial is de novo and the EEOC is not introducing evidence of its administrative determination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues resulting from offering the EEOC investigator's summary of the charge and evidnece. The EEOC
23 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 23 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

investigator no longer resides in Arizona; thus Defendant cannot establish foundation for this document. 118. West Valley Behavioral Health, Adult Assessment 02/27/2003 (EEOC-CGLIC-00848-850). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation, unfair prejudice. This document contains double hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant because it does not pertain to the emotional damages Santa Cruz suffered as a result of the discrimination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from introduction of unrelated information about Ms. Santa Cruz's personal life. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using the listed witnesses. 119. Medical Records from West Valley Behavioral Health, Extended Intake, 03/05/2005 (EEOC-CGLIC-0851). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation, unfair prejudice. This document contains double hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant because it does not pertain to the emotional damages Santa Cruz suffered as a result of the discrimination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from introduction of unrelated information about Ms. Santa Cruz's personal life. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using the listed witnesses. 120. Medical records from Dr. Daniel Hu (EEOC-CGLIC-00852-00854). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation, unfair pejudice. This medical record contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant because it does not pertain to the emotional damages Santa Cruz suffered as a result of the discrimination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from introduction of unrelated information about Ms. Santa Cruz's medical care. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using the listed witnesses.
24 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 24 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

121.

Medical Records from Paseo Family Physicians (EEOC-CGLIC-0086900870). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation, unfair pejudice. This medical

record contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant because it does not pertain to the emotional damages Santa Cruz suffered as a result of the discrimination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from introduction of unrelated information about Ms. Santa Cruz's medical care. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using the listed witnesses. 122. CIGNA Medical Records: Adult Progress Record (02/20/2003) (EEOC-CGLIC-0896-0897). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation, unfair pejudice. This medical record contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant because it does not pertain to the emotional damages Santa Cruz suffered as a result of the discrimination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from introduction of unrelated information about Ms. Santa Cruz's medical care. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using the listed witnesses. 123. CIGNA Medical Records: Adult Progress Record (02/24/2003) (EEOC-CGLIC-00898). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation, unfair pejudice. This medical record contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant because it does not pertain to the emotional damages Santa Cruz suffered as a result of the discrimination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from introduction of unrelated information about Ms. Santa Cruz's medical care. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using the listed witnesses.

25 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 25 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

124.

CIGNA Medical Records: Adult Progress Record (05/22/2003) (EEOC-CGLIC-00895). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation, unfair pejudice. This medical

record contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant because it does not pertain to the emotional damages Santa Cruz suffered as a result of the discrimination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from introduction of unrelated information about Ms. Santa Cruz's medical care. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation for the document using the listed witnesses. 125. Patient Medical History ­ Dr. Sekosky (08/19/2003) (EEOC-CGLIC00902). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, unfair pejudice. This is patient medical history prepared by Ms. Santa Cruz contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant case because it does not pertain to the emotional damages Santa Cruz suffered as a result of the discrimination. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting from introduction of unrelated information about Ms. Santa Cruz's medical care. 126. Response to Exhibit A of the subpoena to Dolores Nelson (05/25/2005) Objection: Relevance, foundation. This letter responding to a subpoena for documents has no relevance. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. 127. Resume of Dolores Nelson (EEOC-CGLIC-00880). Objection: Relevance, hearsay. This document is hearsay offered for the truth of the matters asserted, and is not relevant because the witness to whom it pertains, Dolores Nelson, is offered solely to explain arithmetic used to calculate back pay. 129. 2003 W-2 Wage and Tax Statements from Wells Fargo Investments (EEOC-CGLIC-0830).

26 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 26 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Objection: Cumulative, foundation. The information in this exhibit is cumulative of the information provided in exhibit 18, above. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. 130. Career Opportunities at CIGNA: Policy Preview (D1016). Objection: Relevance, foundation. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It contains no information relevant to the issues in the case. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could lead the jury to draw conclusions about CIGNA's conduct based on based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the conduct at issue. 131. Building an Inclusive Environment: A Diversity Program for HealthCare Managers (D1018-1052). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could lead the jury to draw conclusions about CIGNA's conduct based on based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the actual conduct at issue. 132. 2001 IRS re Unemployment (EEOC-CGLIC-00831). Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation. The document contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is irrelevant because unemployment compensation is not an offset to back pay. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. 133. Unemployment Compensation Letter (EEOC-CGLIC-0256).
27 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 27 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 asserted. 137.

Objection: Relevance, hearsay, foundation. The document contains hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is irrelevant because unemployment compensation is not an offset to back pay. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. 135. Handwritten Calculations by Dolores Nelson Objection: Relevance, hearsay. The document is hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not relevant because it contains mathematical calculations made during a deposition, based on hypotheticals. 136. Affidavit of Carmen Santa Cruz; EEOC Statement of Facts Objection: This document is hearsay offered for the truth of the matter

CIGNA Code of Ethics & Compliance Policies (EEOC-CGLIC-02440248). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The

document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to make its decision based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the actual conduct at issue. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. 138. Guidelines for Ethical Decision Making (D0934-0935). Objection: Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because it does not pertain to equal employment opportunity or discrimination, and there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. General representations designed to create an image of good corporate character are not relevant to the issue of whether Defendant engaged in discrimination, or whether Defendant made the specific good faith efforts to combat discrimination necessary to establish an affirmative defense to punitive damages.
28 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 28 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could lead the jury to draw conclusions about CIGNA's conduct based on based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the conduct at issue. 139. Doing Things the Right Way: An Employee Guide to CIGNA Policies & Ethics (D0936-0941). Objection: Relevance, unfair prejudice, and confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to make its decision based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the actual conduct at issue. 140. Reaffirmation of Equal Employment Opportunity (01/03/2003 memo to All CIGNA employees fr Ed Hanway) (D0945). Objection: Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because the statements therein were made in 2005, years after CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to make its decision based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the actual conduct at issue. 141. Honest Interviewing for Rational Employment (D00946-0980). Objection: Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is

irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to make its decision based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the actual conduct at issue. 142. Civil Treatment for Managers: Course Objectives (D0981).
29 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 29 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Objection: Relevance, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It does not reference equal employment opportunity or discrimination; it merely lists course objectives, not contents. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to make its decision based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the actual conduct at issue. 143. Equal Employment Opportunity, Behavioral Interviewing (Overhead #13) (D0983). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. The document does not explain whether the material therein is CGLIC policy; therefore, it is irrelevant to an affirmative defense of good faith compliance efforts. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to conclude that a company that references affirmative action would not engage in discrimination. 144. Employment Discrimination Laws, Behavioral Interviewing (Overhead #14) (D0984). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to conclude that a company that references antidiscrimination laws would not engage in discrimination.

30 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 30 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

145.

Equal Employment Opportunity Interview Questions, Behavioral Interviewing ­ Redacted (D0985-0986). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The

document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to conclude that a company that lists impermissible interview questions would not engage in discrimination. 146. Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Plan: Management Training Guide (D0987-0988). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The

document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to conclude that a company that references affirmative action would not engage in discrimination. 147. Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Plan: Management Responsibilities (D0989-0990). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to conclude that a company that references affirmative action would not engage in discrimination. 148. CIGNACentral: Culture - it's what you create (D0991-1005).
31 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 31 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to conclude that a company that references affirmative action and diversity would not engage in discrimination. 149. CIGNACentral: Career ­ it's what you know (D1006-1008). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to conclude that a company that lists appropriate interview questions would not engage in discrimination. 150. Blank Employment Application (D1010-1013). Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because there is no evidence that it was in effect, available, or in use at CGLIC, particularly in Phoenix in 2001 when CGLIC failed to hire Santa Cruz. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses. Any probative value it has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could cause the jury to conclude that a company that a company listing legal requirements regarding discrimination would not engage in discriminatory conduct. 151. Career Opportunities at CIGNA: The CIGNA Vision (D1014.) Objection: Relevance, foundation, unfair prejudice, confusion. The document is irrelevant because it does not pertain to equal employment opportunity or discrimination. A list of awards and general representations designed to create an image
32 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 32 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of good corporate character are not relevant to the issue of whether Defendant engaged in discrimination, or whether Defendant made the specific good faith efforts to combat discrimination necessary to establish an affirmative defense to punitive damages. Any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues because it could lead the jury to draw conclusions about CIGNA's conduct based on based on representations of good corporate character rather than on the conduct at issue. It is unlikely that Defendant can lay foundation with the listed witnesses.

Each party hereby acknowledges by signing this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order that any objections not specifically raised herein are waived. G. DEPOSITIONS TO BE OFFERED

The parties shall list the depositions that may be used at trial. The portions to be read at trial shall be identified by page and line number. Additionally, the party offering the deposition shall provide the Court with a copy of the offered deposition testimony. The offering party shall highlight, in color, the portions of the deposition to be offered. If multiple parties are offering the same deposition, only one copy of such deposition shall be provided. Such copy shall contain each party's highlighting (each party should use a different color). Each party hereby acknowledges by signing this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order that any deposition not listed as provided herein will not be allowed, absent good cause. Plaintiff 1. Plaintiff intends to introduce the following from the video-taped deposition of Sandra Gasche, if Ms. Gasche does not appear at the trial, on video tape. 7:9-11 10:3-11:14 12:18-23 22:5-8 24:19-26:3 26:20-28:13 31:17-32:8
33 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 33 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

32:19-22 33:2-8 37:14-38:18 40:1-41:3 41:9-42:25 44:17-45:1 47:8-13 57:12-58:13 63:12-64:6 66:5-69:15 70:12-14 71:21-23 74:6-18 75:17-77:13 78:4-79:25 80:1-15 81:11-19 82:21-83:8 85:8-86:9 87:11-22 88-9-95:17 96:5-98:4 98:24-100:19 101:1-103:13 105:8-106:11 129:21-130:2 130:12-131:8 132:5-11 132:21-137:5 143:1-8 147:4-12 149:11-15 149:22-151:10 153:25-155:6 156:20-158:14 Defendant 1. Defendant intends to introduce the following deposition testimony from Sandra Gasche: 10:11-18 11:3-20 12:18-23 22:5-8 23:17-28:13 32:2-8
34 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 34 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H.

37:14-40:9 40:17-41:3 41:9-44:20 44:21-45:1 45:14-47:6 47:8-13 57:12-58:13 59:6-16 61:6-62:13 63:12-64:6 66:5-67:14 67:15-68:16 68:17-69:3 70:9 89:15 89:16-95:1 95:2-99:17 99:22-100:19 101:1-104:1 104:2-106:11 106:12-22 110:1-4 113:24-114:3 114:24-117:9 117:16-118:18 122:20-123:11 124:20-125:1 128:8-137:5 149:16-21 149:22-152:25 153:1-15 153:16-19 153:25-155:17 155:18-157:9 157:14-25 158:6-14 MOTIONS IN LIMINE (JURY TRIAL) Motions in limine shall be filed as separate pleadings and responded to in accordance with the instructions contained in the Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference. Plaintiff's Motions in Limine: 1. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Prohibit Defendant From Calling EEOC Employees as Witnesses
35 Document 137 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 35 of 38

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L. K. I.

2.

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendant's Affirmative Action Policies, Reputation for Workplace Culture and Diversity, and Culture and Diversity of its Workforce and Work Environment

Defendant's Motions in Limine: 1. Defendant's Motion in Limine re: Economic Damages

LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages

J.

ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL The parties estimate the length of the trial to be 3-4 days. JURY DEMAND A jury trial has been requested: 1. The parties stipulate that the request was timely and properly made. JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, JOINT PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS, AND PROPOSED FORMS OF VERDICT The joint Proposed Jury Instructions, joint Proposed Voir Dire Questions, and

Proposed Forms of Verdict shall be filed as separate pleadings in accordance with the instructions contained in the Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference. The separately filed joint Proposed Jury Instructions, joint Proposed Voir Dire Questions, and Proposed Forms of Verdict are incorporated by reference into this joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order. M. CERTIFICATIONS The undersigned counsel for each of the parties in