Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 1 of 6

IL

D

a

D

Cl

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 2 of 6

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 3 of 6

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 4 of 6
to
0

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 5 of 6

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 1 Filed 09/28/2005 Page 6 of 6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

____________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

RRR BOWIE, LLC d/b/a TOYOTA OF )

BOWIE

)

)

Defendant.

)

____________________________________)

Civil Action No. RWT-05-2697

ORDER

A Motions Hearing was convened on October 25, 2006 to resolve two discovery

disputes. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Charging Parties’ Current

and Former Employers (Document No. 22) was DENIED for the reasons stated at the hearing.

The Court REMOVED the August 15, 2006 restriction (Document No. 24) on Defendant to

segregate and not review subpoenaed documents. Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling

Discovery (Document No. 27) was GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART as

summarized below.

1. The Court ORDERED Plaintiff to produce voluntarily the federal tax returns and

W-2s of the two charging parties (Phillip Kennedy and Charles Dyer) for a five year period

(1999 to 2005). The redaction shall be done by counsel for the parties jointly. If Kennedy and

Dyer are unable to produce their federal tax returns, then Kennedy and Dyer must sign

authorizations for the year(s) they cannot produce. If the trial occurs next year, before April 15,

2007, the charging parties will be required to provide their 2006 W-2s.

1

2. Regarding Interrogatory No. 22, Plaintiff must re-answer. If Plaintiff does not have information to provide (because charging parties are unable to recall after due diligence), Plaintiff must state it is unable to provide this information.
3. Regarding Interrogatory No. 23, Court will not order this interrogatory to be answered because it has been. Plaintiff of course has a continuing obligation to supplement.
4. Regarding Interrogatory No. 25, the Court found this interrogatory extremely narrow concerning time absent from work. Defendant offered to limit this interrogatory from seven years to five years (2000 to 2005) and to expand this interrogatory from one week to three weeks. The Court found this interrogatory too attenuated and declined to order Plaintiff to answer.
5. The Court ORDERED Plaintiff to produce Kennedy’s pay plans, in Kennedy’s possession at home, which Kennedy agreed to produce during his deposition (and requested by Defendant in its Notice of Deposition).
6. The Court ORDERED Plaintiff to produce Kennedy’s schedule of pay or “daily logs” showing deals by person, comparing performance with others for the months of August and September, which Kennedy agreed to produce during his deposition (and requested by Defendant in its Notice of Deposition).
7. The Court ORDERED Plaintiff to produce Kennedy’s pay stubs from Toyota Bowie, which Defendant requested in its Notice of Deposition.
8. The Court ORDERED Plaintiff to have Kennedy check his records for a copy of the list of deals requested by Schrembs which Kennedy mentioned during his deposition. If Kennedy has a copy of the list, it must be produced. If Kennedy no longer has a copy of the list,
2

Plaintiff must affirmatively state that Kennedy is unable to find the list. 9. The Court ORDERED Plaintiff to produce original copies of Exhibit 6
(Statement) and Exhibit 7 (Agreement) from Kennedy, which Defendant requested in its Notice of Deposition. If Kennedy does not possess these documents, then Plaintiff must affirmatively state so in its answer.
10. The Court ORDERED that if Dyer possesses his DarCars New Carrollton Pay Plan, which Defendant requested in its Notice of Deposition, Plaintiff must produce it.
11. The Court ORDERED Plaintiff to comply with this Order [supplemental answers and production of documents] within 20 days from October 25, 2006.
The Court TOOK UNDER ADVISEMENT Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees.

October 31, 2006 Date

___________________/s/_________________ WILLIAM CONNELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EEOC, Plaintiff
v. RRR BOWIE, LLC,
Defendant

* * * * * Case Number: 05cv2697 RWT * * * * *

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Sum mary Judgment [Paper No. 40], the

opposition and reply thereto, and the arguments of counsel presented at the hearing conducted beofre

the undersigned on April 30, 2007, and for the reasons stated on the record, it is this 30th day of

April, 2007, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,

ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Paper No. 40] isDENIED;

and it is further

ORDERED, that the Court will hold a telephone status conference onMay 16, 2007at 5:30

p.m.

/s/ ROGER W. TITUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maryland

William Connelly United States Magistrate Judge

6500 Cherrywood Lane Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Office: (301) 344-0627 Fax: (301) 344-8434

July 13, 2007

Debra M. Lawrence, Esquire Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Allan A. Noble, Esquire Budow and Noble, P.C. 7315 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 500 West Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Steven M. Nemeroff, Esquire Wortman & Nemeroff, P.A. 7700 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 520 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Re: Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. RRR Bowie, LLC Civil Action No.: RWT-05-2697

Dear Counsel:

Pending before the Court and ready for resolution is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Document No. 62). This dispute was initiated by Plaintiff’s Notice of Service of Motion to Compel (Document No. 56), which Defendant opposed in its Notice of Service of Response to Motion to Compel (Document No. 60) and Plaintiff supported in its Notice of Service of Reply (Document No. 61). A motions hearing was held on July 6, 2007 and the matter was taken under advisement. The Court now resolves this discovery dispute.

In its Second Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiff sought, among other things, a response to Request No. 3 which states:

For the period August 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004, all files from each and every customer, including all documents which set forth the identity of each F&I1 Manager to whom the file/customer was assigned and all documents which set forth the nature of the work to be performed and/or actually was performed by the F&I

1 Finance and Insurance.
1

Manager pertaining to such customer.
On July 6, 2006, Defendant provided the following response:
Defendant objects and will not produce for copying all files from each and every customer, including all documents which set forth the identity of each F&I Manager to whom the file/customer was assigned and all documents which set forth the nature of the work to be performed and/or actually was performed by the F&I Manager pertaining to each customer for the period August 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004 on the grounds that (1) the request is irrelevant nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence; (2) the request is unduly burdensome and overly broad; (3) the request involves confidential and proprietary customer information who are not involved in this litigation and the disclosure of such confidential financial information may violate the customers[’] privacy rights and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 6809.
Also, on July 6, 2006, by separate correspondence, Defendant’s counsel prepared a cover letter for transmitting documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents. See Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 2. In this correspondence, Defendant’s counsel expounded upon Defendant’s response to Request No. 3.
For the two month period of August 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004, there were 462 deals. To pull all of those files and to produce all of those documents would be incredibly burdensome and in any event, not relevant to the issues in this case. In an effort to resolve this matter, my client can produce finance summary reports2 for August and September, 2004. They can also produce electronic records that support these figures, including the amounts of the various categories for finance deals. For privacy concerns the names of the customers would be redacted. This should give you the information you seek.
Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 2 (Letter from Noble to Lawrence of 7/6/06, at 3).
In her letter of July 25, 2006, Ms. Lawrence, Plaintiff’s counsel, reminded Defendant’s counsel that “you were going to examine these customer files to see if the information I was seeking can be obtained from those files.” Id., Def.’s Ex. 3. Ms. Lawrence raised the issue of documents responsive to Request No. 3 in her letter of August 3, 2006. See id., Def.’s Ex. 4. In his letter of
2 The Finance Survey Reports are also called F&I Recaps.
2

August 4, 2006, Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Noble, responded, “[c]oncerning Request No. 3, I am still conferring with my client and will get back to you on this.” Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 2 at 1; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 5, at 1.
In her letter of November 13, 2006, Ms. Lawrence asked whether Defendant will provide documents responsive to Request No. 3. Ms. Lawrence offered to enter into a Protective Order to preserve confidentiality of customer information. Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 3; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 6. In his January 19, 2007 letter, Mr. Noble provided the following response:
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner on Plaintiff’s Request No. 3 of its Second Request for Production of Documents. The position of the Defendant was set forth in my letter of July 6, 2006. However, I am still attempting to see if there is any kind of middle ground that would be available to try to satisfy your Request. . . . . I hope to conference this [matter] in with my client and give you a definitive answer thereafter.
Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 4; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 7.
Ms. Lawrence replied to Mr. Noble in her January 23, 2007 letter.
I also am in receipt of your letter of January 19, 2007 regarding Plaintiff’s Request No. 3. Though you rely on your initial position set forth in your letter of July 6, 2006, I was focusing on your representation to confer with your client, contained in your letter of August 4, 2006, my suggestion of a Protective Order in my letter of November 13, 2006, and our telephone conversations. I believe you would agree that this source information is relevant; I have addressed confidentiality concerns. Whatever other concerns you have, please bring them to my attention and we can address them.
Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 5; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 8.
Mr. Noble responded on February 2, 2007 as follows:
This letter will serve to follow up our communications concerning Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents and Defendant’s Response to Request No. 3. As you know, we have objected to this Request on the grounds set forth in my letter of July 6, 2006. Without waiving our objection, and without prejudice to our position, we are submitting the following documentation and/or information, which I believe is not only responsive to Plaintiff’s Request, but will give you all of the information that you need or seek by this Request.
3

Enclosed please find Excel spreadsheets for August and September, 2004 listing the deals for new and used vehicles; a breakdown of the number of warranties sold; GAP3 policies sold; and life, accident, and health insurance sold. This is further broken down by Finance Managers. I believe that you already have copies of these documents.
Attached to each Excel spreadsheet is statistical information by each deal, which backs up the figures in the Excel spreadsheets. We have deleted the customer names for consumer rights privacy concerns and consistent with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. However, the deal number assigned to each deal is listed. The statistical backup is broken down by new and used vehicles.
***
I had Toyota of Bowie randomly pull a number of deal files and have personally verified the accuracy of the statistical information on these deal files. Each of the 462 deal files has a substantial amount of paper, none of which is relevant to the issues in this case, nor designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, nor does this paper set forth the work performed by F & I Managers for each customer as requested in Request No. 3. Pulling of all of these deal files and letting you inspect them would be so unduly burdensome that we cannot reasonably allow you to inspect each file. Since you have all of the information that you need in the statistical printouts related to your Request, it would be a total waste of time, incredibly burdensome, and a great imposition on my clients (and counsel), to allow such a mass inspection. If you would like to review one or two files to review the accuracy of the information, I can probably arrange to have one or two files (redacted as to customer names) copied and sent to you.
Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 6; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 9.
Ms. Lawrence sent another letter on February 5, 2007 requesting the raw data used in creating the spreadsheets. Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 7; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 10. Ten days later, Mr. Noble responded by advising Ms. Noble that the documents produced were not simply spreadsheets but contain Defendant’s F&I back up data for the transactions. Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 8; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 11. On February 27, 2007, Mr. Noble provided Ms. Lawrence two randomly selected customer files and asked that these documents be accepted as Defendant’s
3 Guaranteed Auto Protection.
4

Supplemental Response to Request No. 3. Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 12.
The next communication between the parties regarding Request No. 3 occurred on May 3, 2007. In her letter Ms. Lawrence renewed her request for all customer files. She offered her staff to perform or arrange for copying to minimize the burden on Defendant and also offered to pay for the copying. Ms. Lawrence asked Defendant to respond by May 11, 2007. Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 9; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 13. Defendant did not respond as requested and Plaintiff filed its Notice of Service of Motion to Compel three days later.
Before addressing the substantive issue, the Court must first resolve a procedural issue — whether Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is untimely. Defendant contends, in accordance with Local Rule 104.8.a, Plaintiff should have moved to compel within 30 days of receiving Defendant’s July 6, 2006 response to Request No. 3. Plaintiff did not file its motion until May 14, 2007, more than ten months after Plaintiff received Defendant’s response. Alternatively, Defendant claims, under the most liberal interpretation of the Local Rule, Plaintiff should have moved to compel within 30 days of February 27, 2007 when Defendant supplemented its response to Request No. 3.
In reviewing the correspondence quoted above, although Defendant objected to Request No. 3 on July 6, 2006, by separate correspondence, Defendant offered to produce finance summary reports and electronic records to support these figures in an effort to resolve this matter. Moreover, on August 4, 2006, in response to Ms. Lawrence’s inquiry about the status of Request No. 3, Mr. Noble responded, “I am still conferring with my client and will get back to you on this.” Document No. 56, Pl.’s Ex. 2, at 1; Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 5, at 1. Mr. Noble indicated a willingness to continue efforts to resolve the dispute regarding Request No. 3. The Court thus does not find July 6, 2006 was the date the “within 30 days” clock began ticking. It is readily apparent from the quoted correspondence that from July 6, 2006 through February 27, 2007, the parties continued, on an informal basis, to attempt to resolve this dispute.
After Defendant supplemented its response to Request No. 3 on February 27, 2007, no additional response was received from Plaintiff until May 3, 2007. Defendant had every reason to assume its supplemental response was satisfactory. If dissatisfied with this supplemental response, in accordance with Local Rule 104.8.a, Plaintiff should have moved to compel within 30 days of February 27, 2007. Plaintiff’s failure to do so is problematic.
Plaintiff explains the reason for its delay.
Once the Commission received and reviewed these sample files, in March 2007, oral argument on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was just weeks away. At that point, out of consideration for the parties and for the Court, the Commission reserved filing its Motion until it survived summary judgment. Almost immediately after the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Commission resumed its pursuit of the files, at which point Defendant no longer engaged in dialogue regarding the customer
5

files. Only then did the Commission need the Court’s intervention.
Document No. 61, at 1-2 (footnote omitted).
At the July 6, 2007 motions hearing, the Court inquired further about Plaintiff’s decision not to move to compel until after “surviving” summary judgment. When the Court asked Ms. Lawrence — would you not want the evidence you now seek before Judge Titus when he was deciding the summary judgment motion — Ms. Lawrence responded that Plaintiff wanted to but Plaintiff had a lot of other information, enough information to survive summary judgment. Ms. Lawrence acknowledged that there is always the likelihood that a case will not make it beyond summary judgment. Ms. Lawrence noted her speciality in this area of law and commented that she did not want to have this “battle” unless the case was going forward.
The Court finds Plaintiff gambled that the case would survive summary judgment and that thereafter Plaintiff presumed it could pursue its motion to compel. If Judge Titus had ruled in Defendant’s favor, Plaintiff’s case would have been dismissed. The filing of a motion to compel should not be deferred pending resolution of a summary judgment motion. There is no authority for such a procedure in the Local Rules. Motions to compel must be timely filed.
While this Court has the grounds to deny Plaintiff’s motion as untimely, considering that this case is not scheduled for trial until April 2008 and considering what relief the Court shall grant, the Court declines to deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel on that basis. Plaintiff’s Request No. 3 seeks (1) the identity of each F&I Manager to whom the file/customer was assigned and (2) documents listing the nature of the work to be performed and/or actually performed by the F&I Manager pertaining to such customer.
Plaintiff deposed Jerry Goldfeder, Defendant’s Comptroller. The following exchange occurred between Plaintiff’s counsel and Mr. Goldfeder:
Q: Are there documents set forth in the files of the customers that reflect the actual work done by the F and I Manager which generated the income?
A: No.
Document No. 60, Ex. 11, at 3 (Goldfeder Dep. 51:8 - 12). Mr. Goldfeder’s testimony is undisputed.
In reviewing Defendant’s opposition, reviewing Mr. Goldfeder’s testimony and considering the arguments of counsel at the motions hearing, the Court finds the customer files, with the exception of the F&I Recap, do not contain the information Plaintiff specifically sought in its
6

Request No. 3. The information Plaintiff seeks is contained in the F&I Recap4 which Defendant offered to produce to Plaintiff on July 6, 2006. See Document No. 60, Def.’s Ex. 2, at 3.
The Court thus ORDERS Defendant to produce the 462 F&I Recaps for the two month period of August 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004. Defendant must redact customer privacy information such as names, telephone numbers and social security numbers. Defendant must produce these documents not later than August 10, 2007.
For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Document No. 62) is hereby GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART.
Although informal, this letter constitutes an Order of the Court and will be docketed accordingly.
Sincerely, /s/
William Connelly United States Magistrate Judge
4 The F&I Recap identifies the F&I Manager for each sale and provides a detailed breakdown of the amount financed, loan APR (annual percentage rate), cost of the loan, warranties and insurance sold for each transaction. See Document No. 61, Pl.’s Exs. 16-17.
7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maryland

William Connelly United States Magistrate Judge

6500 Cherrywood Lane Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Office: (301) 344-0627 Fax: (301) 344-8434

October 19, 2007

Debra M. Lawrence, Esquire Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC 10 South Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Allan A. Noble, Esquire Budow and Noble, P.C. Suite 500 West, Air Rights Center 7315 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Steven M. Nemeroff, Esquire Wortman & Nemeroff, P.A. 7700 Old Georgetown Road Suite 520 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Re: Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. RRR Bowie, LLC Civil Action No.: RWT-05-2697

Dear Counsel:

Pending before the Court and ready for resolution is Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Document No. 66). Plaintiff filed an Opposition (Document No. 68) and Defendant a Reply (Document No. 70). No hearing is deemed necessary, see Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2004); therefore, Defendant’s Request for Hearing (Document No. 67) is DENIED.

By way of background, in the Order of July 13, 2007 (Document No. 64), the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. The Court ordered Defendant “to produce the 462 F&I Recaps for the two month period of August 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004. Defendant must redact customer privacy information such as names, telephone numbers and social security numbers.” Document No. 64, at 7.

On August 9, 2007, Defendant transmitted to Plaintiff the F&I recaps pursuant to the Court’s Order. Defendant disclosed that the F&I recaps did not total 462 deals and it was in the process of reconciling the difference. Defendant’s counsel, Allan Noble, concluded the letter, stating:

This documentation is confidential. Accordingly, you are not permitted to show, provide, or disclose any of the documents or

1

confidential information contained therein to anyone outside your office. This includes Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dyer, or Mr. Schrembs. If you intend to disclose any of this information to anyone outside your office, please advise us so that we may seek a ruling from the Court to determine whether you are authorized to do so. Should you have any questions concerning these matters, please feel free to call me.
Document No. 66, Ex. 1 (Letter from Noble to Lawrence of 8/9/07).
In her August 22, 2007 letter, Ms. Lawrence challenged the assertion that the F&I recaps are confidential.
[W]ithout a showing as to why these redacted F&I recap sheets are confidential, I cannot agree to their confidentiality. Though I have no intention of sharing them with Mr. Dyer, I may need to share them with others who have worked in F&I around the time these documents were generated.
Id., Ex. 2 (Letter from Lawrence to Noble & Nemeroff of 8/22/07, at 3).
In his response Mr. Noble reiterated his contention that the documents produced pursuant to the Court’s Order are confidential.
These F&I documents are highly confidential. This confidentiality issue was specifically raised [i] in the discovery responses [ii] at the discovery hearing before Judge Connelly and [iii] in my letter dated August [9], 2007. At each turn, the EEOC was expressly warned against disclosing this confidential financial information to others. It is my recollection that at the discovery hearing, you represented to the Court you would agree to a protective order.
First, neither Mr. Kennedy nor Mr. Dyer is a party to this case and therefore, there is no legitimate basis for providing them with confidential and proprietary financial information belonging to RRR Bowie.
Second, Mr. Schrembs is not a party to this case. The EEOC is not even asserting any claim on behalf of Mr. Schrembs in this case. Therefore, there is clearly no legitimate basis for providing Mr. Schrembs with confidential and proprietary financial information belonging to RRR Bowie. Furthermore, Mr. Schrembs has expressed significant animus and vindictiveness towards RRR Bowie. He has brought claims against them twice in the past and has threatened to assert a third claim against them now. Therefore, providing Mr.
2

Schrembs with access to RRR Bowie’s confidential and proprietary financial information is improper and highly prejudicial.
Third, as the Court correctly observed at the discovery hearing, the EEOC has no expert witness in this case. Neither Mr. Schrembs nor any other witness the EEOC seeks to show them to can offer their opinions or conclusions about these documents or information.
In light of the foregoing, please do not disclose this confidential and proprietary financial information belonging to RRR Bowie to anyone until there is a ruling from the Court on this issue. If you want to do so, please let me know in writing today and I will file a Motion for Protective Order with the Court.
Id., Ex. 3 (Letter from Noble to Lawrence of 8/27/07, at 1-2) (footnote omitted).
Ms. Lawrence responded the next day.
I certainly can agree to an arrangement whereby the F&I recap sheets are not publicly filed. They are only of value to me, however, if I can share them with individuals who may have been involved in the transactions reflected thereon. Please be assured that I will not disclose them before you have had the opportunity [to] raise this issue with the Court.
Id., Ex. 4 (Letter from Lawrence to Noble of 8/28/07).
Mr. Noble acknowledged receipt of Ms. Lawrence’s letter.
Thank you for your letter of August 28, 2007 concerning the confidentiality of the F&I recap sheets. It is our intention to file a Motion for a Protective Order to prohibit disclosure of these confidential documents to anyone outside of the EEOC office. This prohibition would include, but not be limited to, Charles Dyer, Phillip Kennedy, and/or Jeffrey Schrembs. Based upon your letter of August 28, I understand that you will not disclose this documentation to anyone else other than personnel of the EEOC office until the Court has had an opportunity to rule on this matter. Should you wish to discuss this matter, please call me.
Id., Ex. 5 (Letter from Noble to Lawrence of 9/6/07).
Eleven days later Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order. In addition to the arguments against disclosure raised in Mr. Noble’s letter of August 27, 2007, Defendant asserts a
3

fourth basis for a protective order.
Fourth, if the EEOC is permitted to disclose this confidential and proprietary financial information to Mr. Schrembs so that he can comment on it and offer his conclusions, it will cause this case to digress into 462 mini-trials of disinformation [of] totally unrelated issues resulting in a 5 month trial. The EEOC has not offered any legitimate or valid reason as to why it needs to disclose this documentation to anyone other than its own personnel.
Def.’s Mem. P.&A. Supp. Mot. Protective Order, at 7.
In its Opposition the EEOC claims,
It is essential that Kennedy, as someone with personal knowledge of the work performed by him and his department, have access to these records. Similarly, the Commission also is entitled to share these records with Jeffrey Schrembs, initially head of the F&I department and then the second-level supervisor of that department. Simply put, for these documents to have any meaning . . . the Commission needs to share them with those who were part of the F&I department at the time they were generated.
Document No. 68, at 2.
In opposing the motion the EEOC argues Defendant has failed to show good cause for a protective order. No specific facts or affidavits have been offered in support of the motion and Defendant instead relies on conclusory assertions of harm. Next, the EEOC contends the F&I recap sheets contain no information which would hinder Defendant’s competitive advantage in the industry. Third, the EEOC characterizes as disingenuous Defendant’s assertion that Phillip Kennedy is merely a witness to the lawsuit and thus not entitled to review the documents. The EEOC notes it has brought the claims on behalf of Phillip Kennedy. Phillip Kennedy, a claimant, is not simply a witness. Finally, the EEOC asserts the documents are useless in a vacuum without the assistance of individuals involved in the transactions.
Just as Defendant has the ability to share the F&I recap sheets with anyone of its choosing, the Commission has the need to share information with its identified claimants. Plaintiff simply seeks an even playing field. Preventing the Commission from sharing such information with its identified classmember will directly hamper the Commission’s ability to prosecute this lawsuit, exactly the outcome sought by Defendant.
A similar rationale applies to the Commission’s entitlement to share
4

this information with Kennedy’s supervisor at the time, Jeffrey Schrembs, a former high-level manager of Defendant who witnessed and tried, unsuccessfully, to correct Defendant’s discriminatory behavior. Defendant’s anger at Schrembs for his cooperation with the Commission has resulted in trashing him throughout this case. The Commission’s sharing of information with Schrembs, a manager with the potential to authenticate and/or recollect the transactions reflected in the documents, also is essential to the Commission’s trial preparation. That Defendant does not like or trust him has no bearing on the Commission’s entitlement to share with him this information.
Id. at 5.
In its Reply Defendant notes it raised the issue of confidentiality during the July 6, 2007 motions hearing. The Court understood Defendant’s concern. At the hearing the EEOC expressed a willingness to enter into a protective order. However, in its Opposition, the EEOC does not address this matter. Second, Defendant claims Phillip Kennedy lacks personal knowledge of the vast majority of the financial transactions and documents. Of the 462 recap files, Mr. Kennedy was involved in approximately 50 or less than 10%. He thus has or would have potentially personal knowledge about less than 10% of the transactions. Defendant further contends Mr. Kennedy cannot show that a single customer was assigned to him improperly. “Thus, there would be no basis to show him confidential financial data for these 462 customer files when he has no personal knowledge of them. He should not be able to change his sworn testimony and concoct new evidence for trial by using them.” Document No. 70, at 4.
Similarly, Defendant asserts Jeffrey Schrembs lacks personal knowledge of the financial transactions and documents.
Jeffrey Schrembs did not have personal knowledge of most of this financial data for these 462 transactions. Mr. Schrembs was not an F & I Manager or F & I Director during most of this time period. In fact, the F&I Statements requested and produced to the EEOC in discovery demonstrate that Jeff Schrembs was the F&I Manager for only 10 of the 462 confidential customer files at issue. He did not receive each of these financial documents in these customer files in the ordinary course of his duties, especially on the approximately 400 customer files he did not personally handle. Like Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schrembs was not even working at Toyota of Bowie during some of the period of these transactions.
***
Second, Jeffrey Schrembs’ own sworn deposition testimony undermines the EEOC’s entire argument. Mr. Schrembs was not an
5

F & I Manager or the F & I Director during most of this time period. Ed Trott was. In Jeffrey Schrembs’ deposition, he testified that he only looked at the individual customer files and the financial data therein on those rare days when “Ed Trott was not in the dealership.” Therefore, it is disingenuous for the EEOC to represent to this Court that Jeffrey Schrembs has personal knowledge of all this confidential financial information and actually looked at all of these documents in the course of his duties. This statement is demonstrably untrue.
Id. at 4, 5. These assertions about the lack of knowledge by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Schrembs are based on the affidavit of Randy Whalen, the Vice-President of RRR Bowie, LLC t/a Toyota of Bowie. See Document No. 70, Ex. 10.
Defendant rejects the EEOC’s assertion that Mr. Schrembs can authenticate the financial transactions. Defendant reiterates that Mr. Schrembs lacks personal knowledge of most of these transactions. Furthermore, Defendant contends the EEOC seeks to use Mr. Schrembs to provide expert opinion testimony.
[T]he EEOC wants to improperly use Mr. Schrembs to offer his opinions and conclusions on each of these 462 financial transactions. The EEOC has made it clear that it wants the assistance of Mr. Schrembs to offer his opinions and conclusions about these documents so that they are not “meaningless” to the EEOC. If the EEOC thought it was important to have someone give opinions on this financial information, they were more than able to comply with the Court’s Scheduling Order and identify an expert who could do so. They chose not to in this case.
Id. at 6.
Finally, Defendant rejects the EEOC’s assertion that Defendant seeks a protective order because Mr. Schrembs was unsuccessful in correcting Defendant’s discriminatory behavior. Defendant does acknowledge that a protective order is needed because of Mr. Schrembs’ animus or vindictiveness towards Defendant.
Based on the arguments outlined above, the Court must answer two questions before resolving this dispute. The first issue is whether the F&I recap sheets Defendant produced to the EEOC constitute proprietary financial and business data entitled to protection from public disclosures, i.e., other than employees of the EEOC. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 ( c) allows such protection for good cause shown.
In his affidavit Randy Whalen describes who has and does not have access to the financial data.
6

2. The F&I Statements, and all of the back-up customer and financial data which was produced to the EEOC is confidential and proprietary financial and business information belonging to Toyota of Bowie. They are not generally shared with people outside of Toyota of Bowie’s business.
3. This confidential and proprietary customer and internal financial information is also not known by all employees within our business. All of this back-up customer and financial data which was produced to the EEOC would not be shared with or known by Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was a routine F & I Sales Manager who[se] job duties were limited [to] selling various financing, insurance and other warranty products in connection with the sale of motor vehicles. He did not have personal knowledge of most of these documents or financial transactions. He did not supervise these financial transactions or the data contained in these customer files. Mr. Kennedy was not even working at Toyota of Bowie during the period of most of these transactions.
***
5. As the GSM, Jeffrey Schrembs would not receive all of his confidential back-up customer and financial data in the course of his normal duties, especially on customer files and financial transactions he did not personally handle, which comprise at least 400 of the customer files at issue. Jeff Schrembs did not have personal knowledge of most of this financial data for these 462 transactions. Jeff Schrembs was not the F & I Manager or F & I Director during most of the time period of these 462 customer transactions. Like Mr. Kennedy, Jeff Schrembs was not even working at Toyota of Bowie during some of the period of these transactions. Jeff Schrembs was not the F & I Manager or F & I Director during most of this time period. Ed Trott was.
6. Toyota of Bowie takes significant measures to guard this confidential and proprietary customer and internal financial information. It is maintained within a Reynolds & Reynolds computer system to which only a handful of people have access and requires a 2 part code and password.
Document No. 70, Ex. 10.
Mr. Whalen’s sworn statements are not rebutted by the EEOC. Based on Mr. Whalen’s affidavit, the Court finds the financial data Defendant produced is confidential commercial
7

information and deserves protection.
The second question requiring resolution is whether Mr. Kennedy and/or Mr. Schrembs are permitted to view this confidential data. It is uncontested that Mr. Schrembs is not a party to the case, not a complainant to the case, and has not been identified as an expert witness by the EEOC. Mr. Whalen’s affidavit contradicts the EEOC’s contention that Mr. Schrembs could potentially authenticate or recollect the transactions reflected in the documents since Mr. Schrembs did not personally handle at least 400 of the 462 deals. The Court finds no basis for permitting Mr. Schrembs to examine the F&I recap sheets and thus the EEOC is prohibited from showing, providing, or disclosing these documents to Mr. Schrembs.
Mr. Kennedy, in contrast to Mr. Schrembs, is a complainant in this case. The EEOC has brought this lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Kennedy and other individuals. Mr. Kennedy has personal knowledge concerning approximately 50 of the F&I recap sheets, since he was involved in those transactions. Mr. Kennedy thus is entitled to review those 50 documents. For the remaining approximately 412 transactions where Mr. Kennedy was not personally involved and thus has no personal knowledge, and further considering his limited period of employment with Defendant, the Court finds there is no basis for Mr. Kennedy to examine these other transactions. The EEOC is prohibited from showing, providing, or disclosing the approximately 412 transactions to Mr. Kennedy.
If the EEOC seeks to show these 462 deals (F&I recap sheets) to individuals other than its employees, the EEOC must first seek the Court’s approval by filing a motion.
For the above reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Document No. 66) is hereby GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART.
Although informal, this letter constitutes an Order of the Court and will be docketed accordingly.
Sincerely,
/s/
William Connelly United States Magistrate Judge
8

 
 Case 8:05-cy-02697-RWT Document 108 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYL~jI;) FILED

ENTERED

SOUTHERN DIVISION

lODGED _ _RECENED

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
RRR BOWIE, LLC d/b/a TOYOTA OF BOWIE,
Defendant.

)

APR - 1 Z008

)

)
) av

)

) Civil Action No. 8:05-cv-02697-RWT

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

This action was instituted by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

"EEOC" or the "Commission"), against Defendant, RRR Bowie, LLC (hereinafter "Defendant").

The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII") 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a) by refusing to hire Charles

Dyer for the positions of sales manager or finance manager and for terminating Phillip Kennedy

from his position of finance manager, because of their race, black. Defendant filed an Answer

denying all allegations in the Complaint.

Both the Commission and Defendant have entered into this Decree to resolve this

disputed claim and to avoid the time and expense of continued litigation, and they desire to

formulate a plan to be embodied in a Decree which will promote and effectuate the purposes of

Title VII.

This Decree, being entered with the consent of the Commission and Defendant, is for

settlement purposes only and shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the

case and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant of any discriminatory practice or

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 108 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 6
as a waiver by the Commission of any contentions of discrimination. The Court has examined this Decree and finds that it is reasonable and just and in accordance with the purposes of Title VII. Therefore, upon due consideration of the record herein and being fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
I. This Decree resolves all issues and claims alleged in the Complaint filed by the Commission in this Title VII action which emanated from charges of discrimination, filed by Charles Dyer and Phillip Kennedy.
2. This Decree shall be in effect for a period of three [3) years from the date it is entered by the Court. During that time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree. In all other respects, upon approval and entry by the Court of this Decree, the Commission's action against Defendant is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to remove this action from the Court's calendar.
3. Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons acting or claiming to act in its behalf and interest shall be enjoined and restrained from engaging in any employment practice during the Term of this Decree which discriminates against its applicants and employees based on race, in violation of Title VII, particularly the following provision:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (l) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual ... because of such individual's race .... 4. In furtherance of paragraph 3, above, within three months following the entry of this Decree, Defendant will provide a minimum of four hours equal employment opportunity ("EEO") training, through a qualified law firm or consultant with expertise in EEO matters, to its Vice President and General Manager and to all other employees responsible for the hiring and firing of sales managers and finance managers, and/or making recommendations therefor,
2

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 108 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 6
specifically with regard to making employment decisions in accordance with Defendant's obligations under Title VII. Upon the completion of such training, Defendant will provide certification to Commission counsel that such training has been provided including the identity of the provider, the dates and location of the training, the names of the attendees, and the number of hours of training.
5. Within ten days after entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant will pay to Phillip Kennedy the amount of$IOO,OOO.OO in compensatory damages, plus $1,000.00 in attorney's fees and to Charles Dyer the amount of $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus $1,000.00 in attorney's fees, making the sum total $202,000.00. Defendant will take no withholdings from the foregoing amounts and a Form 1099 will be issued to Phillip Kennedy and Charles Dyer reflecting the foregoing payments.
6. Upon approval of this Decree, Defendant will post immediately in all places where notices to employees customarily are posted, the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. Said Notice attached hereto as Exhibit"A" shall be posted and maintained for a period of at least three years from the date ofposting and shall be signed by a responsible official of Defendant with the date of actual posting shown thereon. Should the Notice become defaced, marred, or otherwise made unreadable, Defendant will ensure that new readable copies of the Notice are posted in the same manner as heretofore specified. Within thirty (30) days of approval of this Decree, Defendant shall forward to the attorney of record at the Baltimore Field Office a copy of the signed Notice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and written certification that the Notice referenced herein has been posted and a statement of the location(s) and date of posting.
7. If the Commission believes that Defendant has breached a material provision of
3

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 108 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 4 of 6

this Decree, it shall so notify Defendant's current President or Vice-President, in writing, of the

alleged breach. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve their dispute. If the parties

cannot in good faith resolve their dispute, the Commission may file with the Court a motion

alleging Defendant's violation of the terms of this Decree seeking appropriate relief. Jurisdiction

and venue to resolve any dispute arising under this Decree resides in the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland.

8. The Commission and Defendant shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees.

9.

The undersigned counsel of record in the above-captioned action hereby consent,

on behalf of their respective clients, to the entry of the foregoing Consent Decree.

For Defendant:

For Plaintiff:

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel

ALLAN A. NOBLE (Signed by Maria Salacuse with permission ofAllan A. Noble) BUOOW AND NOBLE, P.C. Suite 500 West, Air Rights Center 7315 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (301) 654-0896

lsi
JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR (Signed by Maria Salacuse with permission
ofJacqueline H. McNair)
Regional Attorney

lsi
STEVEN M. NEMEROFF (Signed by Maria Salacuse with permission ofSteven M. Nemeroff) WORTMAN & NEMEROFF, P.A. 7700 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 520 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (301) 986-5200

lsi
DEBRA M. LAWRENCE (Signed by Maria Salacuse with permission ofDebra M. Lawrence) Supervisory Trial Attorney
lsi
MARIA SALACUSE Senior Trial Attorney

4

Case 8:05-cv-02697-RWT Document 108 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 5 of 6
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION lOS. Howard Street, 3'd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 209-2733

Of~ SO ORDERED.
Signed and entered this k./day

ri ( ,2008.

~ .. ;"~

5

 
 District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

CASREF, CLOSED, MAG-D, MAG-S
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Greenbelt) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:05-cv-02697-RWT

EEOC v. RRR Bowie, LLC Assigned to: Judge Roger W Titus Referred to: Magistrate Judge William Connelly Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 09/28/2005 Date Terminated: 03/24/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff EEOC

represented by Debra Michele Lawrence U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092734 Fax: 14109624270 Email: debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald S Kiel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624207 Fax: 14109624270 Email: gerald.kiel@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 1 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM
Fax: 14109622817 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria Luisa Morocco US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092730 Fax: 14109624270 Email: maria.morocco@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria Salacuse U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Baltimore Field Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092733 Fax: 14109624341 Email: maria.salacuse@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
RRR Bowie, LLC doing business as Toyota of Bowie

represented by Allan Ames Noble Budow and Noble PC Air Rights Bldg 7315 Wisconsin Ave Ste 500 West Bethesda, MD 20814 13016540896 Fax: 13019079591 Email: anoble@budownoble.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven M Nemeroff Wortman and Nemeroff 7700 Old Georgetown Rd Ste 520 Bethesda, MD 20814 13019865200 Fax: 13019864520 Email: smn@WortmanNemeroff.com LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 2 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2005 09/28/2005 09/29/2005 12/22/2005 12/23/2005 01/04/2006 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 02/02/2006 02/03/2006
02/14/2006 02/14/2006 02/16/2006 02/23/2006 02/24/2006
02/24/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against RRR Bowie, LLC , filed by EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(apl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
Jury Trial Demand by EEOC. (apl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 Summons Issued 20 days as to RRR Bowie, LLC. (apl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by RRR Bowie, LLC.(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
4 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Report due by 5/8/2006.. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 12/23/05. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven M Nemeroff on behalf of RRR Bowie, LLC (Nemeroff, Steven) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
6 Status Report Submitted by Defendant and by EEOC (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
7 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day for settlement. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 1/6/06. (jmw, Chambers) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
8 Correspondence re: scheduling settlement conference. Reply required. (bab, Chambers) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
9 Letter/Order scheduling settlement conference with consent of the parties.. Signed by Judge Charles B. Day on 02/03/2006. (c/m 2/3/06)(elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
10 MOTION to Compel by EEOC. Responses due by 3/3/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support thereof)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
11 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 10 MOTION to Compel by Debra Michele Lawrence on behalf of EEOC (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
12 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge William Connelly for discovery. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/16/06. (jmw, Chambers) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
13 MOTION to Withdraw Motion to Compel by EEOC. Responses due by 3/13/2006 (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
14 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Withdraw Its Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 02/24/06. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
15 PAPERLESS ORDER FINDING AS MOOT 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 02/24/06. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 02/24/2006)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 3 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

04/04/2006 04/05/2006 04/18/2006 04/27/2006 04/28/2006 06/30/2006 07/27/2006 08/07/2006 08/08/2006 08/15/2006
08/24/2006

16 Consent MOTION to Continue /Revise Scheduling Order by RRR Bowie, LLC. Responses due by 4/21/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Points and Authorities# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
17 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 16 Consent Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. Discovery/Status Report deadline 9/11/06; Requests for Admissions 9/18/06; Dispositive Motions deadline 10/10/06. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 4/4/06. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
18 NOTICE of Change of Address by Allan Ames Noble (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
19 Settlement Conference - setting (bab, Chambers) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
Settlement Conference held on 4/27/2006 before Judge Charles B. Day. (bab, Chambers) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
20 Correspondence re: rescheduling settlement conference. (bab, Chambers) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
21 Correspondence re: rescheduling settlement conference. Reply required. (bab, Chambers) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
22 Emergency MOTION to Quash Subpoenas by EEOC. Responses due by 8/24/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 # 7 Text of Proposed Order # 8)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
23 Correspondence re: confirmation of settlement conference. (bab, Chambers) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
24 PAPERLESS ORDER DIRECTING Defendant to SEGREGATE documents it receives in response to the subpoenas sent to 18 current and former employers of the two charging parties. The Court understands Defendant has already received and reviewed responsive documents from at least 2 of the 18 current and former employers. Effective immediately, Defendant will set aside and not open envelopes nor review any documents sent in response to its subpoenas. This Order shall remain in effect until the Court resolves Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas Issued to Charging Parties' Current and Former Employers (Doc. No. 22). Defendant's Response is due August 24, 2006. Plaintiff's Reply is due September 7, 2006. The Court will schedule a telephone conference once the Motion to Quash is ripe for resolution. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 08/15/06. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
26 RESPONSE re 22 Emergency MOTION to Quash Subpoenas Opposition to Motion to Quash filed by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Quash# 2 Supplement Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits# 3 Supplement Request for Hearing on Motion to Quash# 4 Text of Proposed Order Motion to Quash# 5 Exhibit A-2 Noble letter dated 3/21/06# 6 Exhibit A-3 EEOC letter dated 5/1/06# 7 Exhibit A-4 Nemeroff letter dated 5/9/06# 8 Exhibit A-5 Notice to Take Deposition of Dyer# 9 Exhibit A-6 Notice of Taking Deposition of Kennedy# 10 Exhibit A-7Noble letter dated 5/16/06# 11 Exhibit A-8

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 4 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

08/24/2006
08/25/2006
08/28/2006
08/28/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006
09/07/2006 09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006 09/14/2006
09/18/2006

Noble letter dated 6/5/06# 12 Exhibit A-9 Sample Notice of Records Deposition and Subpoena# 13 Exhibit A-11 Noble letter dated 7/25/06# 14 Exhibit A-12 Noble letter dated 7/27/06# 15 Exhibit A-13 EEOC letter dated 7/27/06# 16 Exhibit A-14 EEOC letter dated 7/28/06# 17 Exhibit D Deposition of Breinig)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
27 MOTION to Compel by RRR Bowie, LLC. Responses due by 9/11/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 2 Supplement Local Rule 104.7 Certification# 3 Supplement Request for Hearing# 4 Text of Proposed Order Motion to Compel)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
28 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by RRR Bowie, LLC RRR's Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Compel# 2 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 3 Supplement Rule 104.7 Certification# 4 Supplement Request for Hearing# 5 Text of Proposed Order Order to Motion to Compel)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
29 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by RRR Bowie, LLC RRR Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Motion to Compel# 2 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 3 Supplement Local Rule 104.7 Certification# 4 Supplement Request for Hearing# 5 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by Maria Salacuse on behalf of EEOC (Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
31 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 Emergency MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by EEOC. (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
32 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by EEOC re 29 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery, (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
Settlement Conference held on 9/7/2006 before Judge Charles B. Day. (bab, Chambers) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
33 STATUS REPORT by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
34 Status Report Submitted by EEOC (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
Judge Charles B. Day no longer assigned to case. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
35 PAPERLESS ORDER SCHEDULING Motions Hearing for Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3B, U.S. Courthouse (Greenbelt) regarding 22 Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 09/14/06. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
36 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by RRR Bowie, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Reply Memorandum)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 5 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

09/18/2006 09/22/2006 10/06/2006 10/10/2006
10/10/2006 10/10/2006 10/19/2006 10/23/2006 10/24/2006 10/25/2006

37 NOTICE by RRR Bowie, LLC RRR's Request for Genuineness of Documents (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
38 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by EEOC. Responses due by 10/10/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Surreply# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
39 RESPONSE to Motion re 38 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply filed by RRR Bowie, LLC.Replies due by 10/20/2006. (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
40 MOTION for Summary Judgment by RRR Bowie, LLC.Responses due by 10/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Table of Contents# 2 Exhibit List of Exhibits# 3 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment# 4 Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Randy Whalen# 5 Exhibit 5 Excerpts of Trott's Deposition# 6 Exhibit 7 Excerpts from Goldfeder Deposition# 7 Exhibit 9 Schrembs Settlement Agreement# 8 Exhibit 10 Dyer's Resume# 9 Exhibit 10A Dyer's Resume - Errors# 10 Exhibit 11 Notice of Default Transmittal Letter# 11 Exhibit Notice of Default# 12 Exhibit 13 Dyer's Chronology of Events# 13 Exhibit 14 Employee Register# 14 Exhibit 15 Kennedy Employment Application# 15 Exhibit 16 Kennedy Criminal Search# 16 Exhibit 17 Kennedy Pay Plan# 17 Exhibit 18 Standard 30-Day Probation Period# 18 Exhibit 19 Daily Finance Reports# 19 Exhibit 20 Kennedy Termination# 20 Exhibit 21 Plaintiff's Answer to Interrogatory No. 24# 21 Exhibit 23 Receipt for Employee Handbook by Kennedy# 22 Exhibit 24 Preventing Discrimination and Harassment Certification# 23 Exhibit 25 Customer Satisfaction Commitment# 24 Exhibit 26 Kennedy Checks and Pay Sheets# 25 Exhibit 27 Organizational Chart# 26 Supplement Request for Hearing# 27 Text of Proposed Order)(Noble, Allan) Modified on 10/11/2006 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (Lengthy exhibits rec'd - FILED SEPARATELY) (c/s chambers) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
41 NOTICE by RRR Bowie, LLC re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment Notice of Lengthy Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
42 MEMO Scheduling a Motions Hearing for March 19, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. re: 40 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
43 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment by RRR Bowie, LLC. Responses due by 11/6/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Memorandum# 2 Corrected Affidavit - Exhibit 1# 3 Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
44 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 43 Consent Motion to Amend/Correct Memorandum of Points and Authorities & Exhibit 1. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 10/23/06. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
45 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 38 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 10/24/06. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
Motion Hearing held on 10/25/2006 re 22 Emergency MOTION to Quash Subpoenas

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 6 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

10/27/2006 10/27/2006 10/31/2006
10/31/2006 11/13/2006 11/14/2006 11/15/2006

filed by EEOC, 27 MOTION to Compel filed by RRR Bowie, LLC held before Judge William Connelly. (FTR Gold: Kemp) (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
46 PAPERLESS CORRESPONDENCE to counsel RESCHEDULING the March 19, 2007 Motions Hearing for April 2, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
47 RESPONSE in Opposition re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EEOC.Replies due by 11/13/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits)(Lawrence, Debra) Modified on 10/30/2006 (elt, Deputy Clerk). (10/30/06 hard copy rec'd, filed separately) (c/s) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
48 ORDER denying 22 Motion to Quash; the Court REMOVED the August 15, 2006 restriction 24 on Defendant to segregate and not review subpoenaed documents; granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion for Order Compelling Discovery; the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce voluntarily federal tax returns and W-2s of the two charging parties for a five-year period; the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce Kennedy's pay plans, in Kennedy's possession at home, which Kennedy agreed to produce during his deposition and requested by Defendant in its Notice of Deposition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce Kennedy's schedule to pay or "daily logs" which was agreed to during deposition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce Kennedy's pay stubs requested in Defendant's Notice of Deposition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to have Kennedy check his records for a copy of deals requested by Schrembs which Kennedy mentioned during his deposition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce original copies of Exhibit 6 (Statement) and Exhibit 7 (Agreement) from Kennedy, the Court ordered that if Dyer possesses his DarCars Pay Plan, Plaintiff must produce it, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to comply with this Order [supplemental answers and production of documents] within 20 days from October 25, 2006. The Court took under advisement Defendant's request for attorney's fees. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 10/31/2006. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
49 Correspondence re: ECF User Registration mailed to counsel. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
50 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 47 Response in Opposition to Motion, by RRR Bowie, LLC. Responses due by 11/30/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
51 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 50 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's reply to 40 Motion for Summary Judgment due 11/15/06. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 11/14/06. (Chasanow, Deborah) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
52 REPLY to Response to Motion re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2A-DyerDepo(Add'l)# 3 Exhibit 3A-KennedyDepo(Add'l)# 4 Exhibit 4A-BreinigDepo(Add'l)# 5 Exhibit 6AWhalenDepo(Add'l)# 6 Exhibit 8A-SchrembsDepo(Add'l)# 7 Exhibit 28SchrembsMemo# 8 Exhibit 29-EEOCLetter# 9 Exhibit 30-NemeroffLetter# 10 Exhibit 31-DyerEmployAppl)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 7 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

11/15/2006
01/05/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 05/01/2007 05/14/2007 05/16/2007 05/17/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007
06/01/2007

53 PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING 27 Defendant's Request for Attorney's Fees and Reasonable Costs incurred in pursuing its Motion for Order Compelling Discovery. The Court took this matter under advisement at the October 25, 2006 Motions Hearing, as memorialized in the Order of October 31, 2006 (Document Nop. 48). The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion for Order Compelling Discovery. Upon further consideration, the Court finds an award is not warranted pursuant to Rule 37 because the EEOC is the Plaintiff and the charging parties, not the EEOC, have or may have the information and documents sought by Defendant. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 11/15/06. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
54 Memo/ORDER the hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment previously scheduled for April 2, 2007 is RESCHEDULED to April 30, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 1/5/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
Motion Hearing held re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by RRR Bowie, LLC held before Judge Roger W Titus. (Court Reporter: T. Dunlap) (hbm, Courtroom Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
ORAL DECISION rendered by the Court. re Motion Hearing. entered by Judge Roger W Titus on 04/30/07. (hbm, Courtroom Deputy Clerk)(Written Order to be entered by the Court) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
55 ORDER denying 40 Motion for Summary Judgment; that the Court will hold a telephone status conference on May 16, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 4/30/2007. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
56 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by EEOC (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion# 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Text of Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
Telephone Status Conference held on 5/16/2007 held before Judge Roger W Titus. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
57 Memorandum/ORDER scheduling pre-trial conference and jury trial. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 5/17/07. c/m to Gwendolyn Young Reams (ch, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 5/17/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/17/2007)
58 STIPULATION Extending time for RRR to file Response to EEOC Motion to Compel by EEOC, RRR Bowie, LLC. (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
59 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING 58 Stipulation whereby the parties agree that the deadline for Defendant RRR Bowie to file its Response to EEOC's Motion to Compel (filed on April 14, 2007) be EXTENDED from Tuesday, May 29, 2007 to Friday, June 1, 2007. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 05-2697. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
60 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by RRR Bowie, LLC re 56 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery, (Attachments: # 1 Table of

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 8 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

06/08/2007 06/25/2007 06/28/2007 07/06/2007 07/13/2007 07/18/2007 09/17/2007
09/17/2007

Contents# 2 List of Exhibits# 3 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits# 4 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of RRR's Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel# 5 Request for Hearing# 6 Text of Proposed Order # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 1 RRR's Response to EEOC's Second Request for Production of Documents# 8 Exhibit 2 - Noble ltr dated 07/06/06# 9 Exhibit 3- Lawrence ltr 07/25/06# 10 Exhibit 4 Lawrence ltr 08/03/06# 11 Exhibit 5 - Noble ltr 08/04/06# 12 Exhibit 6 - Lawrence ltr 11/13/06# 13 Exhibit 7 - Noble ltr 01/19/07# 14 Exhibit 8 - Lawrence ltr 01/23/07# 15 Exhibit 9 - Noble ltr 02/02/07# 16 Exhibit 10 - Lawrence ltr 02/05/07# 17 Exhibit 11 - Noble ltr 02/15/07# 18 Exhibit 12 - Noble ltr 02/27/07# 19 Exhibit 13 - Lawrence ltr 05/03/07# 20 Exhibit 14 - Monthly Finance Reports# 21 Exhibit 15 Affidavit of Randy Whalen# 22 Exhibit 16 - Excerpts from Kennedy Dep.)(Noble, Allan) Modified on 6/4/2007 (aaps, Deputy Clerk). (Hard Copy Rec'd 6/4/07 aap) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
61 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by EEOC re 60 Notice of service of response to motion to compel discovery,,,, (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit 11# 3 Exhibit 12# 4 Exhibit 13# 5 Exhibit 14# 6 Exhibit 15# 7 Exhibit 16# 8 Exhibit 17)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
62 MOTION to Compel Discovery by EEOC. Responses due by 7/12/2007 (Attachments: # 1)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
63 PAPERLESS ORDER SCHEDULING a Motions Hearing on Friday, July 6, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2A regarding 62 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 06/28/07. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
Motion Hearing held on 7/6/2007 re 62 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by EEOC held before Judge William Connelly. (Fosbrook 3-B.) (pkf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
64 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 7/13/07. (ch, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 7/13/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk). (c/m 7/13/07 CRH) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
65 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on April 30, 2007 before Judge Roger W. Titus. Court Reporter: Tracy Dunlap. (Filed Seperately) (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
66 MOTION for Protective Order by RRR Bowie, LLC. Responses due by 10/4/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Protective Order# 2 Exhibit Letter dated August 9, 2007 from Allan A. Noble to Debra Lawrence# 3 Exhibit Letter dated August 22, 2007 from Debra Lawrence to Allan A. Noble# 4 Exhibit Letter dated August 27, 2007 from Allan A. Noble to Debra Lawrence# 5 Exhibit Letter dated August 28, 2007 from Debra Lawrence to Allan A. Noble# 6 Exhibit Letter dated September 6, 2007 from Allan A. Noble to Debra Lawrence# 7 Exhibit Depo. Breinig# 8 Exhibit Depo. Schrembs# 9 Exhibit Schrembs Depo. Exh. 35# 10 Text of Proposed Order Protective Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
67 Request for Hearing re 66 MOTION for Protective Order. (Noble, Allan) (Entered:

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 9 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

09/26/2007 10/05/2007 10/08/2007 10/19/2007 12/10/2007
12/10/2007 12/10/2007

09/17/2007)
68 RESPONSE in Opposition re 66 MOTION for Protective Order filed by EEOC.Replies due by 10/10/2007. (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
69 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 7/6/07 before Judge William Connelly. (krc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 66 MOTION for Protective Order filed by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 List of Exhibits# 2 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits# 3 Exhibit 9 - Transcript of Motions Hearing# 4 Exhibit 10 - Affidavit of Randy Whalen# 5 Exhibit 11 - Kennedy's Depo.# 6 Exhibit 12 - Schrembs' Depo.# 7 Exhibit 14 - Breinig's Depo.# 8 Exhibit 15 - Sept. 23, 2004 Memo)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 10/08/2007)
71 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion for Protective Order; 67 Request for Hearing is DENIED. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 10/19/07. (aap, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
72 MOTION in Limine by RRR Bowie, LLC. Responses due by 12/27/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents# 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities# 3 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits# 4 Exhibit Index# 5 Exhibit 2-Toyota of Bowie Memo to Schrembs with notes# 6 Exhibit 3-Toyota of Bowie Memo to Schrembs without notes# 7 Exhibit 4-EEOC determination charge# 8 Exhibit 5-Nemeroff letter to EEOC May 17, 2007# 9 Exhibit 7-Dyer Dep.# 10 Exhibit 8-Schrembs memo re: Dyer Sept. 10, 2004# 11 Exhibit 9-Schrembs note to Dyer# 12 Exhibit 10-Schrembs internal memo to Breinig Aug. 5, 2004# 13 Exhibit 11-Schrembs internal memo re: Lawson termination# 14 Exhibit 12-Schrembs Declaration - Oct. 24, 2006# 15 Exhibit 13-Whalen Affidavit - Oct. 4, 2007# 16 Exhibit 14-Schrembs secret spreadsheet# 17 Exhibit 15-EEOC's letter May 1, 2006# 18 Exhibit 16-Nemeroff letter May 9, 2006# 19 Exhibit 17-Breinig Dep.# 20 Exhibit 18-Goldfeder Dep.# 21 Exhibit 19-Whalen Dep.# 22 Exhibit 20-Whalen Affidavit Oct. 10, 2006# 23 Exhibit 21-Toyota of Bowie Employee Termination Form# 24 Exhibit 22-Toyota of Bowie standard probation period# 25 Exhibit 23-Trott Dep.# 26 Exhibit 24-Toyota of Bowie Finance Reports# 27 Exhibit 25-Kennedy Pay Plan# 28 Exhibit 26-Whalen Affidavit June 1, 2007# 29 Text of Proposed Order proposed Order# 30 Request for Hearing)(Noble, Allan) (LENGHTY EXHIBITS 1 & 6 RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE 12/11/07-C/S TO JUDGE CONNELLY) Modified on 12/11/2007 (ch, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 12/10/2007)
73 MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Pertaining to Schrembs' August 11th Amended Pay Plan by EEOC. Responses due by 12/27/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum# 2 Exhibit Excerpt from Whalen deposition# 3 Exhibit Excerpt from Kennedy deposition# 4 Exhibit Excerpt from Whalen deposition)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
74 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Dyer and Kennedy by EEOC. Responses due by 12/27/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum# 2 Exhibit Excerpts from Whalen deposition# 3 Exhibit Excerpt from Kennedy's deposition# 4 Exhibit Declaration of Kennedy)(Lawrence, Debra)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 10 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

12/10/2007 12/11/2007 12/21/2007
12/28/2007 01/10/2008 01/10/2008
01/11/2008
01/15/2008

(Entered: 12/10/2007)
75 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Schrembs by EEOC. Responses due by 12/27/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum# 2 Exhibit Excerpt from Schrembs deposition)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
76 NOTICE by EEOC of Substituted Declaration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Signed Declaration of Kennedy)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
77 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 73 MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Pertaining to Schrembs' August 11th Amended Pay Plan, 72 MOTION in Limine, 75 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Schrembs, 74 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Dyer and Kennedy by RRR Bowie, LLC. Responses due by 1/7/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
78 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 77 Joint Motion to Extend Time for Filing of Responses to Each Parties' Respective Motions in Limine. The parties have to and including January 10, 2008 to file their respective Responses to the Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge William Connelly on 12/28/07. (Connelly, William) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
79 RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION in Limine filed by EEOC. Replies due by 1/24/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibit)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
80 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 73 MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Pertaining to Schrembs' August 11th Amended Pay Plan, 75 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Schrembs, 74 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Dyer and Kennedy by RRR Bowie, LLC Responses due by 1/28/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
81 RESPONSE in Opposition re 73 MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Pertaining to Schrembs' August 11th Amended Pay Plan, 75 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Schrembs, 74 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Dyer and Kennedy filed by RRR Bowie, LLC. Replies due by 1/25/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents to RRR's Opposition to Plaintiff's Three Motions in Limine, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Notice of Filing Lengthy Exhibits, # 4 Exhibit Exh. E - Schrembs Pay Plan, # 5 Exhibit Exh. F - Kennedy's Witness Statement, # 6 Exhibit Exh. G TOB Memo to Schrembs with Handwritten Notes, # 7 Exhibit Exh. H - TOB Memo to Shrembs, # 8 Request for Hearing on all Motions in Limine, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
82 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 80 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 1/14/08. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 11 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

01/24/2008
01/25/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/08/2008 02/12/2008
02/14/2008
02/14/2008

83 REPLY to Response to Motion re 73 MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Pertaining to Schrembs' August 11th Amended Pay Plan, 75 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Schrembs, 74 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Dyer and Kennedy filed by EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
84 MEMO Scheduling a Motions Hearing for February 29, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. re: 72 73 74 75 Pending Motions In Limine. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
85 Proposed Jury Instructions by EEOC. (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
86 Proposed Voir Dire by EEOC. (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
87 Proposed Pretrial Order submitted by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
88 Proposed Voir Dire by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
89 NOTICE by RRR Bowie, LLC Defendant's Special Interrogatories to the Jury (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
90 NOTICE by EEOC of filing Special Verdict Form (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
91 Proposed Jury Instructions by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Nemeroff, Steven) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
92 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Gordon Thomas and Fred Gheyssari by EEOC Responses due by 2/25/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
93 NOTICE by RRR Bowie, LLC re 87 Proposed Pretrial Order Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Portion of PreTrial Statement (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
94 Memo/ORDER to accomodate a change in the Court's calendar, the hearing on motions in limine, previously scheduled for February 29, 2008 is RESCHEDULED for February 25, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. Defendant is DIRECTED to file any response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Gordon Thomas and Fred Gheyssari [Paper No. 92] on or before February 19, 2008. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any reply in suppport of same motion on or before 12:00 p.m. on February 22, 2008. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/13/2008. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
95 Memo/ORDER regarding Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Portion of Pretrial Statement [Paper No. 93] at the pretrial motions hearing scheduled for February 25, 2008, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any response in opposition to such objections on or before February 19, 2008; Defendant is DIRECTED to file any reply in support of its objections on or before 12:00 p.m. on February 22, 2008. Signed by Judge Roger

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 12 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008
02/21/2008 02/22/2008 02/25/2008
02/27/2008
02/28/2008 03/03/2008

W Titus on 2/14/2008. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
96 Correspondence re: Joint PreTrial documents (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
97 Proposed Voir Dire by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
98 Proposed Jury Instructions by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
99 RESPONSE re 95 Order, filed by EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Attachment 4, # 5 Attachment 5, # 6 Attachment 6)(Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
100 RESPONSE in Opposition re 92 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Gordon Thomas and Fred Gheyssari filed by RRR Bowie, LLC. Replies due by 3/4/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
101 REPLY to Response to Motion re 92 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Gordon Thomas and Fred Gheyssari filed by EEOC. (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
102 REPLY to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION in Limine filed by RRR Bowie, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Nemeroff, Steven) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
103 Motion Hearing and Pretrial Conference held on 2/25/2008 re 73 MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Pertaining to Schrembs' August 11th Amended Pay Plan filed by EEOC, 92 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Gordon Thomas and Fred Gheyssari filed by EEOC, 72 MOTION in Limine filed by RRR Bowie, LLC, 75 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Schrembs filed by EEOC, 74 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and/or Disparaging Allegations Against Dyer and Kennedy filed by EEOC before Judge Roger W Titus. (Court Reporter: T. Dunlap) (hbm, Courtroom Deputy Clerk)(Written order to be entered by the Court) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
104 ORDER denying without prejudice 72 Motion in Limine; granting 73 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying as moot part 74 Motion in Limine; granting 75 Motion in Limine; granting 92 Motion in Limine; and that Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Portion of Pretrial Statement [Paper No. 93] are overrulled in part with prejudice and overruled in part without prejudice, in accordance with the Court's rulings on the record. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/26/2008. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
105 MOTION to Amend/Correct 87 Proposed Pretrial Order Defendant's Motion to Modify the Parties' Proposed PreTrial Order and to Withdraw Stipulation by RRR Bowie, LLC Responses due by 3/17/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Noble, Allan) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
106 RESPONSE in Opposition re 105 MOTION to Amend/Correct 87 Proposed Pretrial Order Defendant's Motion to Modify the Parties' Proposed PreTrial Order and to

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 13 of 14

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.1.2)

4/22/08 3:08 PM

03/24/2008
04/01/2008 04/01/2008

Withdraw Stipulation MOTION to Amend/Correct 87 Proposed Pretrial Order Defendant's Motion to Modify the Parties' Proposed PreTrial Order and to Withdraw Stipulation filed by EEOC. Replies due by 3/17/2008. (Lawrence, Debra) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
107 ORDER DISMISSING case with each party to bear its own costs unless otherwise agreed, in which event the costs shall be adjusted between the parties in accordance with their agreement. The entry of this Order is WITHOUT PREJUDICE either to the right of the parties to file a consent decree or to the right of a party to move for good cause within 60 days to reopen this action if settlement is not consummated. If no party moves to reopen, the dismissal shall be WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr on 3/24/08. (c/s 3/24/08)(ch, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
108 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT /Consent Decree by EEOC. (Salacuse, Maria) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
109 CONSENT DECREE and ORDER resolving all issues, enjoining and restraining defendant, its officers agents, servants, employees and all person acting or claiming to act in its behalf ; posting upon approval in all places the Notice as Exhibit A; paying within ten days to Phillip Kennedy the amount of $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus $1,000.00 in attorney's fees and to Charles Dyer the amount of $100,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus $1,000.00 in attorney's fees, making the sum total $202,00.00; the Commission and defendant shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Roger W. Titus on 4/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(rank, Deputy Clerk) Modified to reflect Judge Titus on 4/3/2008 (rank, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/03/2008)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/22/2008 16:04:58

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 8:05-cv-02697-RWT

Billable Pages: 10

Cost:

0.80

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?108731092127502-L_567_0-1

Page 14 of 14