RALPH E. CHAMNESS (Bar No. 6511) ERIK STRINDBERG (BarNo. 4154) STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS, LLC 44 Exchange Place, Second Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: 801-359-4169 Attorneys for Plaintiff

FILED U.S DiStRICT COURT
ruus SEP 22 A \\: l\ 1I
OISTR:CT OF UTAH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

JENNIFER RICHARDS, Plaintiff,
v. CONVERGYS CORP.,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
,-
Judge Dale A. Kimball DECK TYPE: Civil DATE STAMP: 09/22/2005 @ 11:44:35 CASE NUMBER: 2:05CV00790 DAK

Plaintiff Jennifer Richards ("Ms. Richards"), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendant Convergys Corporation ("Convergys").
I. INTRODUCTION 1. Convergys violated Ms. Richards' right to receive pay based upon her job duties as opposed to her gender by paying Ms. Richards less than it did a male employee performing substantially similar work. Convergys also violated Ms. Richards' right to engage in the protected activity of complaining about the discriminatory nature of the

unequal pay and filing a Charge of Discrimination ("Charge") with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") by disciplining and constructively terminating her because she complained and filed a Charge.
II. PARTIES 2. Ms. Richards is a female, and resides in Salt Lake County, State of Utah. 3. Convergys is an Ohio corporation doing business in Salt Lake County, State of Utah. At all relevant times it was engaged in an industry affecting commerce, with annual gross sales of not less than $500,000.00 and employed fifteen or more employees. 4. At all relevant times, Convergys was Ms. Richards's employer as defined by the FLSA, the EPA and Title VII.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,1337,1343 and 1345, in that this action arises under federal law, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216( c) and 217 to enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963,29 U.S.C. § 206(d) ("EPA") and pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et.seq.. This action is also initiated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 6. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed in Salt Lake County, Utah, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central Division of Utah. Thus, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
2

7. Ms. Richards filed a Charge with the EEOC on February 25,2004. In that Charge, Ms. Richards alleged that Convergys had discriminated against her on the basis of her gender by failing to pay her equal pay for equal work. The EEOC, after investigating Ms. Richard's Charge, issued Ms. Richards a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that Convergys had violated the EPA and Title VII by failing to pay Ms. Richards equal work for equal pay, by constructively discharging her and by retaliating against her because she filed a Charge. On September 20,2005, the EEOC issued Ms. Richards a Notice of Right to Sue onher Title VII claims.
IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Ms. Richards began working for Convergys on or about February 9, 1999. 9. During her employment, Ms. Richards rose to a Lead position in Convergys' Cisco department. In that position, Ms. Richards would take cases, take phone calls, conduct training and update the website. Nick Brooks ("Mr. Brooks"), a male employee essentially performed the same duties as Ms. Richards, but did not take phone calls or conduct training. 10. Mr. Brooks' duties and Ms. Richards' duties required substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which required equal skill, effort and responsibility. The duties were performed under similar working conditions at Convergys' Murray, Utah location.
3

11. Convergys paid Ms. Richards $13.77 per hour to perform the duties ofa Lead.
12. Convergys paid Mr. Brooks $14.52 an hour to perform substantially the same duties as Ms. Richards.
13. While both Ms. Richards and Mr. Brooks performed substantially the same duties and Convergys designated an equal bonus for both, a management official from Convergys ordered that Mr. Brooks receive all of the bonus money.
14. When Ms. Richards became aware that Mr. Brooks was receiving more money for performing substantially the same work, she complained to Convergys about the pay inequity. Convergys issued Ms. Richards an Employee Counseling Report to justify its failure to give Ms. Richards the bonus.
15. After receiving the discipline, Ms. Richard filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC.
16. Shortly after becoming aware of the EEOC charge, Convergys issued Ms. Richards a second disciplinary warning. Convergys issued the second disciplinary warning to force Ms. Richards to terminate her employment. After issuing the second written warning, Convergys issued a policy statement which addressed two of the issues for which it had disciplined Ms. Richards. The same management official, Convergys' Senior Business Manager, ordered all of the discipline taken against Ms. Richards.
4

17. After receiving the second unjustified written warning, Ms. Richards requested an unpaid leave of absence. The same Convergys' management official denied Ms. Richards' request. Based upon Convergys' failure to grant her leave, the fact that she was being paid less than her male counterpart and the fact that she had been unnecessarily disciplined, Ms. Richards was compelled to terminate her employment.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim for Relief (Violation of the EPA)
18. Ms. Richards incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint by this reference.
19. By paying Ms. Richards at a rate less than her male colleague in the same establishment for substantially equal work on a job requiring substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar work conditions, Convergys violated the EPA.
20. Because Convergygs purposefully and intentionally discriminated against Ms. Richards based upon her gender, in violation of the EPA by paying her less than it paid her male co-worker who was performing substantially the same work, Ms. Richards has suffered, and will continue to suffer, economic loss.
21. As a result ofConvergys' violation of the EPA, Ms. Richards is entitled to recover the amount of wages she would have been paid in the absence of the violation, an equal amount as liquidated damages and prejudgment interest on those amounts.
5

22. Ms. Richards is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended in prosecuting this action.
23. Ms. Richards is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. Second Claim for Relief
(Retaliation in Violation of the EPA) 24. Ms. Richards incorporates paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint by this reference. 25. Convergys took adverse employment actions against Ms. Richards because she engaged in the protected activity of complaining about the unequal pay she was receiving, including disciplining her and constructively terminating her employment. 26. Convergys' actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of the EPA. 27. As a result ofConvergys' actions, Ms. Richards has suffered, and will continue to suffer, both economic and non-economic loss, including, but not limited to: loss of wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, emotional distress, and other compensatory damages. 28. As outlined above, Convergys purposefully and intentionally retaliated against Ms. Richards based upon her complaint or Charge by taking adverse employment actions against her. Ms. Richards is entitled to recover damages for all future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and all other non-pecuniary losses caused by Convergys' unlawful retaliation.
6

29. Convergys' actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Ms. Richards' federally protected right to be free from retaliation for having complained or filing an Charge. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the retaliation against Ms. Richards, Ms. Richards is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Convergys from engaging in retaliatory conduct in the future.
30. Ms. Richards is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended in prosecuting this action.
31. Ms. Richards is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. Third Claim for Relief
(Discrimination in Violation of Title VII) 32. Ms. Richards incorporates paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint by this reference. 33. By paying a male employee more than it paid Ms. Richards for performing the same work, Convergys purposefully and intentionally discriminated against Ms. Richards in violation of Title VII. 34. Convergys' actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Ms. Richards' federally protected right to have employment decisions based upon legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the discrimination against Ms. Richards, Ms. Richards is entitled to an
7

award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Convergys from engaging in discriminatory conduct in the future.
35. Ms. Richards is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended in prosecuting this action.
36. Ms. Richards is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. Fourth Claim for Relief
(Retaliation in Violation of Title VII) 37. Ms. Richards incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint by this reference. 38. Convergys took adverse employment actions against Ms. Richards because she engaged in the protected activity of complaining about the discrimination she suffered, including disciplining her and constructively terminating her employment. 39. Convergys' actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII. 40. As a result of Convergys' actions, Ms. Richards has suffered, and will continue to suffer, both economic and non-economic loss, including, but not limited to: loss of wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, emotional distress, and other compensatory damages. 41. As outlined above, Convergys purposefully and intentionally retaliated against Ms. Richards based upon her complaint or Charge by taking adverse employment actions against her. Ms. Richards is entitled to recover damages for all future pecuniary
8

losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and all other non-pecuniary losses caused by Convergys' unlawful retaliation.
42. Convergys' actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Ms. Richards' federally protected right to be free from retaliation for having complained or filing a Charge. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the retaliation against Ms. Richards, Ms. Richards is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Convergys from engaging in retaliatory conduct in the future.
43. Ms. Richards is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended in prosecuting this action.
44. Ms. Richards is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. Request for Jury Trial
45. Ms. Richards requests that her claims be tried to a jury of her peers. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Ms. Richards respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against Convergys, and award the following:
a. Back pay, in amounts to be determined at trial; b. An amount equal to the amount awarded as back pay as liquidated damages;
9

c. Reinstatement, or front pay in lieu of reinstatement;

d. Emotional distress and punitive damages;

e. Compensatory and consequential damages;

f. Injunctive andlor declaratory relief requiring Convergys to take appropriate

actions to ensure that its female employees are paid equal pay for equal

work;

g. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;

h. Attorneys' fees and costs of this action, including expert witness fees, as

appropriate;

1. Injunctive relief restraining Convergys from engaging in further

discriminatory conduct; and,

j. Any such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

I

this;2A~ay Dated

of September, 2005.

STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS, LLC

Plaintiff s Address 3731 West 8850 South West Jordan, Utah 84088

(
Ralph E. Chamness Erik Strindberg Attorneys for Plaintiff

10

"'JS 44 (Rev. 3/99)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS JENNIFER RICHARDS

DEFENDANTS

CONVERGYS CORPORATION

FILED

US DISTRICT COURT

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

SALT LAKE

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(e) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Strindberg Scholnick & Chamness, LLC, 44 Exchange Place, 2nd Floor,
Salt Lake City. Utah 84111 - 801-359-4169

County of Residence of First Lis1Dll5 SE~~~ L.&1I: 113

L NOTE:

IN

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF
LAND CONDEMNATION CASES,

COlA"fSJEllSjCOJNd~LfI::W:

TRACT OF

LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)

~v·
DEPUTY CltKfI

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (place an "X" in One Box Only)

o 1 u.s. Government
Plaintiff

x 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a

(For Diversity Cases Only)

PT. DEF

Citizen of This State

0 1 01

and One Box for Defendant)

PT> DEF

Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4

4

of Business In This State

02 U.S. Government Defendant
IV. NATURE OF SliT CONTRACT

4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of in Item III)
(Place an "X" in One Box On]v) TORTS

Citizen of Another State

2

Citizen or Subject of a

o 3

Foreign CountrY

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

02 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 05 of Business In Another State

03 Foreign Nation

0 6 06

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES

0 110 Insurance 0 120 Marine 0 130 Miller Act 0 140 Negotiable Instrument 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enfurcement of Judgment
0 151 Medicare Act
0 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Ex.cL Veterans)
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran", Benefit,
0 160 Stockholders' Suits
0 190 Other Contract 0 195 Contract Product Liability
REAL PROPERTY
0 210 Land Conderrmation 0 220 Foreclosure 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 240 Torts to Land 0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY
0 310 Airplane 0 315 Airplane Product
Liability 0 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
0 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
0 340 Marine 0 345 Marine Product
Liability 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Injury
CIVIL RIGHTS
0 441 Voting x 442 Employment 0 443 Housing!
Acoonnnodations 0 444 Welfare 0 440 Other Civil Rights

362 Personal
""'.

0 365 Persooal

0

Product
li~i~esto,

0 0

Personal

Injury 0
ProoUC\

0 Liability

PERSONAL
bROPE~V Othet 0 Fraud

"!liP""". 0 371 Truth in
0
, Per~~eM
D~",

0 385 Property

Dama'P'ioouct

Liability

0

PRISONER

PETITIONS

0

0 510 Motious to Vocate

Sentence

Habeas
0 'm'~er.l 0

0

535 neath

2I';M 0 l'enalSY 4 0 0
0

0 ConditiO'Jl"~

610 AgricultW'e 620 Other Food & Drug 625 Drug Related Seizure
ofPropeny 21 usc 881
630 Liquor Laws 640 R.R. & Truck 650 Airline Regs. 660 Occupational
SafClylHcalth
690 Other
LABOR
,,, 710 Fair Labor Standards
720 LaborlMgmt. Relations
730 laborlMgmt.Reporting
& Disclosure Act
740 Railway Labor Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 E;mp\. Ret. Inc.
Security Act

0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
0 423 Withdrawal
2B USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
0 820 Copyrights 0 830 Patent 0 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
0 861 HIA (13950) 0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 863 DIWC/DlWW (405(g»
RSI 0 864 ssm Title XVI
0 865 (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defi:odant)
0 871 IRS-----Third Party
26USC7609

0 400 State Reapportionment 0 410 Antitrust 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 450 CommercefICC Rates/etc. 0 460 Deportation 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
0 810 Selective Service
0 850 Securities/Commoditiesl
Ex.change
0 875 Customer Challenge
12 USC 34]0
0 891 Agricultw"al Acts
0 892 Economic Stabilization Act 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 894 Energy Allocation Act 0 895 Freedom of
Infurmation Act
0 900 Appeal of Fee Detennination
Under Equal Access to
Justice 0 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
0 890 Other Statutory Actions

\-. ORIGIN
X 1 Original Proceeding

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)
o 2
Removed from State Court

o 3 Remanded 4

from

Reinstated or

Appellate

Reopened

Cowt

Transferred ft(JJtl

o 5

anOlher district (specify)

o 6
Multidistrict Litigation

o

7 ~fr~District
Magistrate

Judgm...t

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

(Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write brief statement of cause.

Do not cite jwisdictional statutes W1less diverSity.)

Violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
VllI. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
(See instructions):

QFM4ND~

Ncmp

Judge Dale A. Kimball DECK TYPE: Civil DATE STAMP: 09/22/2005 @ 11:44:35
CASE NUMBER: 2: 05CV00790 DAK

~\1mplaint:
o No

~2C?
f
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

JUDGE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

DOCKET NUMBER

RECEIPT # _ _ _ __ AMOUNT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPL _ _ _ __

ruDGE __________ MAG. JUDGE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/96)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

JENNIFER RICHARDS Plaintiff,
v. CONVERGYS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO EXTEND

Case No. 2:05-CV-00790-DAK Consolidated with 2:05-CV-00812 DAK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

District Judge Dale A. Kimball

v.

Magistrate Judge David Nuffer

CONVERGYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

In a telephone conference July 7, 2006,1 the magistrate judge ordered Convergys to supplement its responses to written discovery from Plaintiffs no later than July 17, 2006 and ordered that Plaintiff Richards’ deposition be rescheduled to permit Plaintiff to have the benefit

1 Docket no. 34

of reasonable discovery responses. Unfortunately, the deficiencies continue,2 and Convergys demonstrates its entrenched position in its responses to correspondence3 on the issues and in its memorandum4 opposing Plaintiff EEOC’s motion to compel.5
Convergys believes it can dictate the manner in which Plaintiff takes discovery and can defer disclosure of any substantial information until expensive depositions are convened, making them less effective by reason of Plaintiff’s prior lack of access to information. True, Convergys has produced 1,700 pages of documents, but it has not provided specific answers to straightforward and fundamental questions nor has it matched the voluminous production to the issues in the case as required by the EEOC’s interrogatories and requests for production.
Interrogatories Convergys says the first dispute over interrogatories is whether they are proper or “more appropriately obtained through deposition.”6 “Generally the party seeking discovery is entitled to make an initial choice of the method by which it is to be had and the court will not interfere unless sound reasons are shown.”7 Then, the court has “broad discretion in determining the scope and method of discovery based upon the circumstances of each case.”8 Thus, the reported cases stand for very little other than the fit of a discovery method to a particular case.
2 See Defendant’s Responses to EEOC’s First Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories (Convergys’ Interrogatory Responses) and Defendant’s Responses to EEOC’s First Request for Production of Documents (Convergys’ Production Responses), attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively, to Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion to Compel and for Protective Order (Motion to Compel), docket no. 37, filed July 19, 2006. 3 Letter from Catherine Reed to Sandra Padegimas, dated July 14, 2006, Exhibit E to Motion to Compel. 4 Defendant Convergys Corporation’s Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion to Compel and for Protective Order (Opposition Memorandum), docket no. 41, filed August 4, 2006. 5 Docket no. 37. 6 Opposition Memorandum at 6. 7 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.2d § 2039. 8 Casas v. Conseco Finance Corp. No. CIV 00-1512 (JRT/SRN) 2002 WL 246753, at *2 (D. Minn. February 15, 2002).
Page 2

Examination of the interrogatories in this case shows they are well designed to prepare for a deposition. They seek to gather fundamental information to enable intelligent focus of questions to deponents. Convergys’ responses to the interrogatories are so cursory and insubstantial that they do not really constitute “answers.”
Interrogatory Number 8 asks Convergys to “set forth each and every reason Jennifer Richards was denied an unpaid leave of absence before her separation from employment and the individual(s) who made, had any input in, or participated in that decision.”9 While Convergys claims it provided the name of the person who made the decision,10 it has not done so in its responses to the interrogatories. It should do so and should state the reasons Richards was denied an unpaid leave of absence. Convergys’ rebuff that “[t]his interrogatory seeks a narrative answer better obtained through deposition”11 is an offensive self-assertion. Convergys’ letter provided after the July 7th telephone conference is not much better. Convergys states that “this interrogatory assumes facts not in evidence,”12 apparently believing that an interrogatory must comply with rules applicable to trial interrogation. And Convergys goes on to object that this interrogatory “requires Defendant to speculate as to testimony not yet recorded.”13 Convergys has a duty to make a reasonable inquiry for information in its possession.14
Interrogatory Number 7 states: “For each instance that Jennifer Richards received formal discipline, i.e., a write up, counseling, warning, etc., please state each and every reason for such action and identify the individuals who made, had any input in, or participated in the decision to
9 Convergys’ Interrogatory Responses at 6. 10 Opposition Memorandum at 11. 11 Convergys’ Interrogatory Responses at 6. 12 Exhibit E to Motion to Compel at 5. Exhibit E to the motion to compel is filed as docket no. 51, August 29, 2006. 13 Id. 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(2).
Page 3

discipline Ms. Richards and, to the extent such decisions were reviewable, identify the reviewing official.”15 A written response to this question will substantially focus depositions. But Convergys provided no help, answering that “Convergys responds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d).”16 That rule permits a party to produce business records in lieu of a response to an interrogatory if the responding party includes a “specification . . . in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be ascertained.”17 Convergys included no such specification. Convergys’ reference to Rule 33(d) is stricken and it may not rely on that rule in any further responses to any interrogatories in this case.
Interrogatory Number 6 asks Convergys to “describe in detail the process by which Convergys established rates of pay for employees who worked at Convergys' Murray, Utah facility during the time Ms. Richards was employed by Convergys, including, but not limited to, the job title(s) of the individuals with the authority to establish such rates of pay and, if their decisions were reviewable, the title (s) of the reviewing official.”18 This question as stated is very broad, given the presence of 2,500 employees at the Murray facility.19 However, the interrogatory should be answered when limited to members of the Channels Team.
Interrogatory Number 5 asks Convergys to identify “the individuals who made, had input into, are [sic] participated in the decision to deny Jennifer Richards the bonus in or about

15 Convergys’ Interrogatory Responses at 5. 16 Id. at 6. 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). 18 Convergys’ Interrogatory Responses at 6. 19 Opposition Memorandum at 10.

Page 4

December, 2002 and describe in detail each and every reason for that decision.”20 Convergys’ answer says it knows something but will not tell what it knows: “Convergys cannot currently respond to this question because the person (or people) who made this decision does not work for Convergys.”21 Plaintiff is entitled to a straightforward answer to the question. Convergys’ offer to provide a 30(b)(6) representative22 is not sufficient because that designation will be of one person and will not identify, before depositions, all persons involved and the reasons for the decision.
Interrogatory Number 4 states: “Please state each and every reason for the disparity in pay between Jennifer Richards and Nick Brooks during the time they both worked on the Channel [sic] Team and, if you contend that the two did not perform the [sic] substantially similar duties, state with specificity the duties each performed.”23 Convergys again responds that “[t]his interrogatory seeks a narrative answer better obtained through deposition.”24 But this question is the heart of the case and the EEOC is entitled to an answer; to a statement of Convergys’ position.
All the foregoing interrogatories are sound attempts to focus the case, by determining Convergys’ position and the persons within Convergys who have knowledge. The interrogatories are not overly broad or burdensome in an objectionable way. The only burden is that they require a clear statement of Convergys’ contentions. That burden is legitimate, and a sound predicate to depositions.

20 Convergys’ Interrogatory Responses at 5. 21 Id. 22 Exhibit E to Motion to Compel at 5. 23 Convergys’ Interrogatory Responses at 4. 24 Id.

Page 5

Similarly, Interrogatory Number 3 is a helpful inquiry designed to move the case along. “Please identify any person having any information pertaining to the allegations contained in the Complaint or the denials, partial denials, or defenses raised in the Answer, and provide a brief narrative of that testimony or knowledge of the witness.”25 While “Convergys responded to this Interrogatory by directing the EEOC to its Rule 26 Disclosures,”26 those disclosures are not required to have a brief summary of the testimony or knowledge of witnesses. This interrogatory is not burdensome or invasive and will focus depositions. Identification of these individuals and the areas of their knowledge is particularly important because Convergys apparently relied on only one person to prepare the interrogatory responses, and relied on no one else for supporting information.27 It is hard to believe Convergys’ contention that it is “baffled as to why the EEOC is not satisfied with [Convergys’] response.”28
Interrogatory No. 2 was in dispute but has been substantially answered by correspondence between counsel.29 Plaintiff is, however, entitled to have those answers (with the others required by this order) in the form required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) signed by a party representative.

25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Answer to Interrogatory No. 1, Convergys’ Interrogatory Responses at 3. 28 Memo 41 at 5. 29 Exhibit E.

Page 6

Requests for Production The EEOC objects that Convergys has failed “to identify specifically the Bates number of the responsive documents” delivered on the requests for production.30 Convergys claims that it has produced the estimated 1,790 pages31 of documents as they were kept in the ordinary course of business, which satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).32 However, that rule requires that a producing party “explain the origin of any . . . categories of documents, i.e. where these documents were maintained or who maintained them, and whether the documents in each category came from one single source or file or from multiple sources or files.”33 If a party fails to make provenance clear at the time of production, it is appropriate to require the party to “identify, by the Bates Numbers . . . already stamped on the documents, which documents are responsive to each of the document requests . . . .”34 If there are no documents responsive to a request, the supplemental response shall so state.
Request No. 6 Request No. 6 seeks documents that reflect the names, sex, job titles, and rates of pay for each member of the Channels Team during Richards’ tenure on the team. Convergys objects that there were team members who did not hold the precise position of Tech Lead that was held by
30 Plaintiff EEOC’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel and Protective Order (Supporting Memorandum) at 11, attachment no. 1 (aka Part 2), docket no. 37, filed July 19, 2006. [The court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) has the unfortunate quirk of assigning two different numbers to each document filed when attachments are used. Attachment numbers show on the docket sheet and Part numbers show on the Document Selection Menu. While several courts have requested that this be changed, the confusion continues as of this date.] 31 Supporting Memorandum at 12. 32 Opposing Memorandum at 12. 33 Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 611, 618 (D. Kan. 2005). 34 Id. at 618-19.
Page 7

Ms. Richards. While it may be true that this information may not be admissible, it is within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and should be produced.
Request No. 8 Request No. 8 seeks documents that “reflect any write up or counseling of any [Convergys] employee regarding any performance issues by Defendant at its Murray, Utah facility during the time January 1, 2002 until the date of Jennifer Richards’ termination.” Convergys has 2500 employees at the facility in question, so the scope of response will be limited to write-up or performance counseling by a person involved in supervision, discipline or compensation decisions for Ms. Richards.
Other Requests Convergys has not argued any of its objections to producing documents in response to Requests 2, 3 and 9-13. The identification of documents by Bates numbers (or statement that there are no responsive documents) should develop the record so that Plaintiff can know what Convergys claims not to possess.
Motion to Extend Plaintiff EEOC and Richards jointly moved to extend the discovery deadline to December 15, 2006 from the present deadline of September 15, 2006.35 While no mention was made of the dispositive motion deadline (set October 31, 2006), Convergys objects that “the extension . . . does not allow five months between the Motion for Summary Judgment and

35 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time to Conduct Discovery, docket no. 43, filed August 11, 2006.

Page 8

trial.”36 Nonetheless, Convergys offered to extend discovery until November 1, 2006, noting that pre-existing litigation plans and holiday schedules limit Convergys’ counsel’s ability to travel after November 15, 2006.37 The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines can be extended to November 17, and December 1, 2006, without affecting the trial and related dates. The extension is needed because of the discovery difficulties.
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to compel and for protective order (docket no. 37) is GRANTED IN PART in that a. Convergys shall answer discovery as required in this order within ten days; and b. The deposition of Plaintiff Richards shall be deferred until Convergys provides
the ordered discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to extend (docket no. 43) is GRANTED IN PART. Fact discovery shall be completed on or before November 17, 2006, and dispositive motions shall be filed on or before December 1, 2006. Dated this 05th day of September, 2006.
BY THE COURT
___________________________ David Nuffer United States Magistrate Judge
36 Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time to Conduct Discovery at 2, docket no. 49, filed August 23, 2006. Convergys is referring to the court’s policy that “five months must be allowed between the dispositive motion deadline and the trial date to allow the motions to be filed, briefed, set, argued and decided before trial preparation starts. A motion or stipulation that does not leave this amount of time will likely not be granted.” http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ipt.html (last visited September 5, 2006). 37 Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time to Conduct Discovery at 2.
Page 9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

JENNIFER RICHARDS Plaintiff,
v. CONVERGYS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
Case No. 2:05-CV-00790-DAK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

Consolidated with 2:05-CV-00812 DAK District Judge Dale A. Kimball

v.

Magistrate Judge David Nuffer

CONVERGYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Defendant Convergys has moved to compel
 the EEOC and Jennifer Richards to provide specific calculations of the damages they seek;
 the EEOC to produce tax records and other documents relating to the income of Jennifer Richards;
 the EEOC to produce relevant documents withheld to this point; and  the EEOC and Jennifer Richards to memorialize all discovery responses in formal
pleadings.1

1 Defendant Convergys’ Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel) at 2, docket no. 67, filed November 17, 2006.

The last request is not at issue, as Plaintiffs did not resist it.2 The record is also clear that the third category refers to investigator’s notes3 which, in the most part do not exist. Notes which do exist is subject to a confidentiality requirement.4
Emotional Distress and Punitive Damages The principal point of dispute between the parties on damage calculation is that Defendant Convergys wants calculations of compensatory and punitive damages.5 Plaintiffs have provided calculations of backpay, another point originally in dispute, after atypical effort on Convergys’ part6 and some ambiguity. Backpay is only claimed through the date of Richards’ termination.7 “Compensatory damages for emotional distress are necessarily vague and are generally considered a fact issue for the jury and may not be amenable to the kind of calculation disclosure contemplated by Rule 26(a)(1)(C).”8 Therefore, Plaintiffs will not be required to provide calculations of compensatory damages for emotional distress or of punitive damages.
Richards’ Tax Records Convergys also seeks Richards’ tax records from 2000 through 2006 because it claims “the Plaintiffs are seeking post termination backpay.”9 However, when Convergys made that claim, Convergys knew that it had “received revised damages calculations from the EEOC
2 Defendant Convergys’ Reply in Support of Motion to Compel (Reply) at 8 n.5, docket no. 86, filed December 18, 2006. 3 Memorandum in Support (included as part of the Motion to Compel) at 7-8. 4 Plaintiffs’ Joint Response to Defendant Convergys Corporation’s Motion to Compel (Joint Response) at 9-12, docket no. 75, filed December 4, 2006. 5 Reply at 7. 6 Reply at 3-4, 7-8. 7 Reply at 4 and Exhibit 4 to Joint Response. 8 Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc. 227 F.R.D. 467, 470 (N.D.Tex. 2005) (citing Williams v. Trader Publishing Co., 218 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted). 9 Reply at 4.
Page 2

indicating that it did not intend to seek backpay damages after the date of Richards’ termination”10 and it also had Richards’ revised damage calculation calculating back pay only “to the termination of her employment.”11 No damage claim justifies the request for tax returns.
Convergys alternatively argues that it is entitled to tax returns because “there is evidence that Richards had a bad attitude [when] she was employed by Convergys. Evidence that Richards had financial problems or had received a financial windfall could explain Richards’ bad attitude . . . .”12 This is analogous to a claim to depose all friends and associates of a Plaintiff because the testimony might shed light on alleged employee performance. Convergys also claims that “the requested tax returns may be relevant to her motivation” at Convergys or “for filing suit.”13
Discovery is limited to materials which are “relevant to the claim or defense of any party.”14 The relevance Convergys describes is merely speculative, and certainly there are other less intrusive means of obtaining more relevant information. Convergys offers no factual basis to suggest that the tax returns will have pertinent information, and relies principally on a case in which outside income was so central an issue that failure to provide discovery resulted in dismissal of the case.15
Reasonable Expenses – Attorneys’ Fees Convergys claims expenses and fees incurred in the motion to compel, because Richard’s calculation of damages was not provided until after the motion was filed. However, Convergys
10 Reply at 4. 11 Exhibit 4 to Joint Response. 12 Reply at 5-6. 13 Id. at 6. 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 15 Aktipis v. Loyola University of Chicago, No. 98-3005, 98-3954, 1999 WL 164926 (7th Cir. March 17, 1999).
Page 3

also moved to compel in areas which were without merit. No expenses or fees will be awarded as the position of Plaintiffs was substantially justified.
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to compel16 is DENIED. Dated this 8th day of January, 2007.
BY THE COURT
___________________________ David Nuffer United States Magistrate Judge

16 Docket no. 67, filed November 17, 2006.

Page 4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

JENNIFER RICHARDS, Plaintiff,
v.
CONVERGYS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. CONVERGYS CORPORATION, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IN PART AND GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH
Case No. 2:05-CV-00790-DAK
Consolidated with 2:05-CV-00812 DAK District Judge Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge David Nuffer

Plaintiff Jennifer Richards filed a motion to quash subpoena and for a protective order1 in

relation to two subpoenas served by Defendant Convergys Corporation. Because the subpoenas are overly broad, the court will grant the motion to quash. The motion for protective order will also be granted in part.
BACKGROUND On November 13, 2006, without first giving notice to Richards, Convergys issued subpoenas to Richards’ current employer, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, and to Discover Financial Services, Inc., a company which allegedly made Richards an offer of

1Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order, docket no. 83, filed December 14, 2006.

employment after she left Convergys.2 Each subpoena seeks all documents in the possession or control of the recipient regarding the employment of Jennifer Richards.
Richards contends that the subpoenas should be quashed on the ground that Convergys failed to provide advance notice of the subpoenas as required by Rule 45(b)(1), and that her employment records are not relevant to the claims in this case. In addition, she seeks a protective order precluding Convergys from subpoenaing employment records from her former and present employers.
DISCUSSION A. Standing
Convergys argues that Richards does not have standing to object to the subpoenas at issue. Generally, a party does not have standing to object to a subpoena issued to a third party, unless the party challenging the subpoena has a personal right or privilege with respect to the subject matter sought by the subpoena.3 Several courts have concluded, however, that a party has a personal right with respect to information contained in his personnel files sufficient to confer standing to move to quash a subpoena for his employment records served on a third party.4
2Copies of the subpoenas are attached as Exhibit A to Richards’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (“Supporting Mem.”), docket no. 84, filed December 14, 2006. 3Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 683, 685 Shepardize (D. Kan. 1995); Windsor v. Martindale, 175 F.R.D. 665, 668 Shepardize (D. Colo. 1997); Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Acad., 230 F.R.D. 18, 21 Shepardize (D.D.C. 2005). 4See, e.g., Stewart v. Mitchell Transp., Civil Action No. 01-2546-JW L, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12958, at *4-5 Shepardize (D. Kan. July 11, 2002); Beach v. City of Olathe, Kan., Civil Action Nos. 99-2210-GTV, 99-2217-GTV, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16214, at *3-4 Shepardize (D. Kan. Sept. 17, 2001); see also Maxwell v. Health Ctr. of Lake City, Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-1056-J-32M CR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36774, at *4-6 Shepardize (M .D. Fla. June 6 2006)(noting that plaintiff arguably had standing under Rule 45 to object to nonparty subpoenas for her employment records based on her personal right regarding the materials sought, but declining to decide that issue because she had standing to move for a protective order under Rule 26).
Page 2

In opposition to the motion, Convergys states that Richards has cited no binding authority in this jurisdiction to support the proposition that a party may object to subpoenas served on a nonparty. Convergys asserts that the Tenth Circuit has not extended this right to persons other than those to whom the subpoena is directed. Convergys further argues that the Tenth Circuit has never held that a party has a personal right in employment records sufficient to confer standing to quash a subpoena. In addition, Convergys states that other courts have denied a party the right to object to subpoenas directed to third parties.5 However, the only case cited by Convergys in which a court found that a party had no standing to object to third-party subpoenas did not involve personnel records.6
The court agrees with the reasoning of the courts that have found that a party has a personal right in his employment records sufficient to confer standing. Further, if a subpoena is issued in a civil action, the court must necessarily have supervisory authority over the action to grant a party relief with respect to that subpoena. Accordingly, the court finds that Richards has standing to challenge the subpoenas. B. Failure to Provide Prior Notice of the Subpoenas
Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]rior notice of any commanded production of documents . . . shall be served on each party in the manner prescribed by Rule 5(b).” The Tenth Circuit has concluded that “Rule 45(b)(1) requires notice to be given
5Defendant Convergys’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff Richards’ Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (“Opposition”) at 7-8, docket no. 87, filed January 2, 2007. 6In re Seagate Tech. II Sec. Litig., No. C-89-2493(A)-VRW , 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18065 Shepardize (N.D. Cal. June 10, 1993).
Page 3

prior to service of a subpoena.”7 The court observed that “the 1991 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45 indicate that the purpose of the notice requirement is to provide opposing parties an opportunity to object to the subpoena.”8 The court stated that “[a] contrary interpretation of Rule 45(b)(1) . . . ‘would allow a party to mail notice to opposing counsel one day prior to the date of compliance, effectively prohibiting counsel from responding.’”9
In this case, it is undisputed that Convergys failed to provide notice prior to service of the subpoenas as required by the rule. Richards contends that the subpoenas should therefore be quashed for failure to comply with the rule.
In response, Convergys argues that this court should not even consider Richards’ motion to quash and for protective order because Richards failed to comply with local rule DUCivR 371(a) which provides that
the court will not entertain any discovery motion . . . unless counsel for the moving party files with the court, at the time of filing the motion, a statement showing that the attorney making the motion has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with opposing attorneys on the matters set forth in the motion. Convergys states that Richards made no attempt to confer with counsel before filing her motion.10 Richards agrees that had she been provided proper notice of the subpoenas under Rule 45(b)(1), she would have been required to contact opposing counsel and attempt to resolve her
7Butler v. Biocore Med. Techs., Inc., 348 F.3d 1163, 1173 Shepardize (10th Cir. 2003)(emphasis added). 8Id. Shepardize 9Id. Shepardize (quoting Biocore Med. Techs., Inc. v. Khosrowshahi, 181 F.R.D. 660, 667 Shepardize (D. Kan. 1998)). 10Opposition at 2.
Page 4

dispute regarding the subpoenas before filing her motion. She notes, however, that the very purpose of Rule 45(b)(1) presumably is to allow the parties the opportunity to resolve any dispute. She contends that by failing to comply with the notice requirement, Convergys put her in the position of trying to prevent harm from subpoenas that had already been served, thus depriving her of time to work out her differences with opposing counsel.11
It goes without saying that counsel for both parties should comply with all rules of the court. However, Convergys’ Rule 37-1(a) argument, in the face of its own failure to comply with Rule 45(b)(1), is disingenuous. Accordingly, the court will entertain Richards’ motion.
At least one court has quashed a subpoena for failure to provide prior notice.12 Other sanctions have also been imposed.13 This court nevertheless declines to quash the subpoenas as a sanction for the Rule 45(b)(1) violation because Richards has had a sufficient opportunity, albeit after the subpoenas had been served, to object to the subpoenas.
11Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order (“Reply”) at 2-3, docket no. 98, filed January 16, 2007. 12Beach, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16214, at *5-7 & n.2 Shepardize (granting motion to quash for failure to provide prior notice and for serving the subpoenas outside the 100 mile bulge allowed by Rule 45); see Khosrowshahi, 181 F.R.D. at 668 Shepardize (“Courts generally respond to Rule 45(b)(1) violations by striking the subpoenas, or allowing opposing counsel an opportunity to object.”)(citations omitted). 13See, e.g., Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 220 F.R.D. 661, 665-67 Shepardize (D. Kan. 2004)(monetary sanctions).
Page 5

C. Relevance, Overbreadth and Undue Burden Under Rule 26 (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party “may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” The rule further provides that relevant information “need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”14 Although the scope of discovery under the federal rules is broad, however, parties may not engage in a “fishing expedition” in an attempt to obtain evidence to support their claims or defenses.15 Thus, a court “may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”16
In her complaint, Richards raises claims under the Equal Pay Act17 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196418 alleging that she was paid less than a male employee for performing substantially similar work, and that she was disciplined and constructively discharged in retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC.19 In support of her motion, Richards contends that the subpoenas at issue in this case seek documents that are not relevant to the claims raised in her complaint, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.20 Richards

14Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) Shepardize . 15See Munoz v. St. Mary-Corwin Hosp., 221 F.3d 1160, 1169 Shepardize (10th Cir. 2000). 16Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) Shepardize . 1729 U.S.C. § 206(d) Shepardize . 1842 U.S.C. § 2000e. Shepardize 19Complaint ¶ 1. 20Supporting Mem. at 5.

Page 6

also argues that the subpoenas are overly broad,21 and that discovery of records from her present employer puts an undue burden on her in that it might have an unnecessarily negative effect on her employment situation as well as future prospects.22
1. Annoyance, Embarrassment, Oppression and Undue Burden The court first addresses Richards’ argument that the discovery requests to her current employer place an undue burden on her because they could have a negative effect on her employment situation. Convergys dismisses this argument as bordering on the “ridiculous” because a local newspaper apparently has printed a story about Richards’ claims. Further, Convergys states that if Richards’ current employer wanted to learn more about her claims, it could simply read the court files which are open to the public.23 The court agrees with Richards that a subpoena to a current employer may cause problems in the employment relationship. Even assuming that Richards’ current employer already is aware of the ongoing lawsuit, the subpoenas tend to focus the employer’s attention on the litigation. Further, compliance with the discovery requests places a burden on the employer which the employer may resent. At least one court has recognized that an employee “has a legitimate concern that a subpoena sent to her current employer under the guise of a discovery request could be a tool for harassment and result in difficulties for her in her new job.”24

21Id. at 6. 22Id. at 6-7. 23Opposition at 6. 24Graham v. Casey’s General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 256 Shepardize (S.D. Ind. 2002).

Page 7

Although the court in this case acknowledges that seeking discovery from a current employer is a more sensitive issue than seeking it from a former employer, the court declines to deny discovery from Richards’ present employer on the ground that it will subject her to “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden.” However, the court will take this issue into consideration in resolving the discovery dispute.
2. Relevance Richards argues that the documents sought by the subpoenas are not relevant to her claims. As Convergys points out, however, Richards’ salary and starting date at her present employment may be relevant to her claim for damages. Further, regarding Richards’ claim that she was constructively discharged from her employment at Convergys, Convergys states that it will present testimony that Richards told others at Convergys that she was leaving Convergys for a better job at Verizon.25 As Convergys argues, there may be information in Richards’ employment applications and hiring materials at Verizon and Discover which would reveal her reasons for leaving Convergys. Also, Convergys states that Richards claims that she was offered a job at Discover after leaving Convergys, but did not accept it because it did not pay enough.26 The facts surrounding the job offer might be relevant to mitigation of damages. Thus, it appears that at least some of the information sought by the subpoenas is relevant to the issues in this case.

25Opposition at 3. 26Id. Shepardize

Page 8

3. Scope of the Subpoenas Richards complains that the scope of the subpoenas is too broad. Each subpoena directs the recipient to produce “all documents in your possession or control regarding the employment of Jennifer Richards.”27 Other courts have required parties issuing similarly broadly-worded subpoenas to narrow their scope. For example, in Stewart v. Mitchell Transport, the subpoenas at issue sought “all records, documents or information in your possession regarding Larry G. Ramsey, including, but not limited to, your complete personnel file, job applications, job description and performance evaluations.”28 The district court held that the use of the word “regarding” made the request overly broad on its face.29 The court explained that “[t]he use of such omnibus phrases as ‘regarding’ or ‘pertaining to’ requires the answering party ‘to engage in mental gymnastics to determine what information may or may not be remotely responsive.’”30 The court found, however, that the request was not overly broad on its face to the extent that it asked the employer to produce discrete documents such at the employee’s personnel file, job application, job description, and performance evaluations.31 Similarly, in Maxwell v. Health Center of Lake City, Inc., the defendant proposed to serve subpoenas on six of the plaintiff’s prior employees requesting the plaintiff’s entire personnel

27Subpoenas, Ex. A to Supporting Mem. 282002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12958, at *12-13 Shepardize . 29Id. at *13 Shepardize . 30Id. Shepardize (quoting Mackey v. IBP, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 186, 198 Shepardize (D. Kan. 1996)). 31Stewart, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12958, at *13-14 Shepardize .

Page 9

file.32 The District Court for the Middle District of Florida found that while some of the documents in the plaintiff’s personnel files might reasonably lead to admissible evidence, the blanket requests for the entire personnel file were overly broad.33 The court therefore granted the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order prohibiting the defendant from seeking discovery pursuant to the subpoenas. However, the court gave the defendant permission to redraft subpoenas which were more limited in scope and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.34
Like the subpoenas in Stewart and Maxwell, the subpoenas at issue in this case make broad requests for all documents regarding Richards’ employment. While the subpoenaed entities may possess documents that would lead to discovery of admissible evidence as discussed above, a blanket request for all documents regarding Richards’ employment is overly broad. The court therefore will quash the subpoenas. However, Convergys is free to redraft subpoenas which are narrower in scope and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
In Maxwell, the court urged the parties to try and work out their discovery disputes between themselves before taking the more intrusive step of subpoenaing nonparties.35 For example, the court noted that there had been no showing why some of the requested records such

322006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36774, at *2 Shepardize . 33Id. at *8 Shepardize . 34Id. at *8-9 Shepardize . 35Id. at *12 Shepardize .

Page 10

as payroll and salary history would not be available directly from the plaintiff.36 In addition, the defendant sought to obtain medical and health insurance information which it believed might lead to evidence relating to the plaintiff’s claims of emotional distress. The court agreed with the defendant that this type of information might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, but concluded that the defendant should first attempt to obtain this type of evidence directly from the plaintiff through other avenues available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.37
As in Maxwell, the court encourages the parties in this case to attempt to resolve their discovery disputes between themselves to the extent possible. Under Rule 26(b)(2)(i), the court may limit discovery if it “is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” In this case, some of the relevant documents that Convergys seeks, such as salary information, should be available directly from Richards. Convergys has not indicated that it has attempted to obtain these documents from Richards.38
Richards complains that the subpoenas at issue contain no limitation as to subject matter or time. The court has attempted to provide some guidance as to the subject matter of documents that may be appropriate for discovery. In this vein, the court notes that Convergys appears to seek Richards’ performance evaluations from Verizon. Convergys asserts that because Richards seeks damages for emotional distress, it is entitled to learn about performance issues and difficulties Richards may have had with her present employer so that it can argue that those stressors, and not her employment at Convergys were the cause of her alleged emotional distress.

36Id. at *9-10 & n.2 Shepardize . 37Id. at *11-12 Shepardize . 38See id. at *12 Shepardize .

Page 11

Convergys also states that it may be able to use Richards’ performance problems at Verizon to illuminate her problems at Convergys.39 While the court will not enter a protective order at this time prohibiting such requests, the court has difficulty seeing how performance evaluations from a subsequent employer are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence in light of Richards’ claims in this case. Rather, the justification provided by Convergys seems more like a fishing expedition. Further, such requests are likely to cause embarrassment, and undue burden. The parties are urged to try to come to an agreement on which documents are relevant to Richards’ claims.
Regarding the time factor, Convergys argues that the subpoenas are not overly broad because they are logically restricted in time from the date Richards filed her employment applications with Discover and Verizon through the duration of her employment.40 The court agrees with Richards that Convergys is not entitled to an open-ended request for Richards’ employment records. The court encourages the parties to agree on an appropriate time limit for the discovery requests.

39Opposition at 4. 40Id. at 5-6 Shepardize .

Page 12

ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for protective order is GRANTED IN PART and the motion to quash41 is GRANTED. However, Convergys is not prohibited from redrafting subpoenas that are narrower in scope. All materials produced pursuant to any subpoenas should be served on Richards’ attorneys. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with DUCivR 45-1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the protective order in this case42 is amended to add the following paragraphs: 1A. Any party may designate information as “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” if the information is of such a nature as to require restriction to law firms of record for the parties. This category shall include all information produced in response to subpoenas directed to any employer of Plaintiff. In the case of documents, this Confidential Material shall be stamped “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” In the case of testimony, this Confidential Material shall be designated “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” within two weeks after the transcript is prepared. 2A. All information designated “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” shall be used solely for the prosecution or defense of this action and shall not be disclosed in any manner to anyone other than the law firms of record for the parties herein and legal assistants or other regular law firm employees who are involved in the prosecution or defense of this action, without permission of the other party to this litigation or order of the court. Counsel shall instruct all persons who
41Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order, docket no. 83, filed December 14, 2006. 42Docket no. 33, filed June 19, 2006.
Page 13

receive this information to maintain the confidentiality of Confidential Material pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order, and shall furnish to all such persons a copy of this Order.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2007. BY THE COURT ___________________________ David Nuffer United States Magistrate Judge
Page 14

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

JENNIFER RICHARDS,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

vs.

:

:

:

CONVERGYS CORPORATION,

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

vs.

:

:

CONVERGYS CORPORATION,

:

:

Defendant.

:

Consolidated Case No. 2:05CV00790 DAK (formerly 2:05CV00812 DAK) Judge Dale A. Kimball
CONSENT DECREE

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) filed this action against Defendant, Convergys Corporation (“Convergys” or “Defendant”), to enforce the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 et seq. (EPA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (Title VII), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a and to restrain the unlawful payment of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, and to provide appropriate relief due to Jennifer Richards (“Richards”) as a result of such unlawful practices. Richards filed her own action and is a party to this proceeding.
As a result of settlement negotiations, the Commission, Richards, and Convergys agree that this action should be finally resolved by this Consent Decree (“Decree”). The Commission, Richards, and Convergys entered into this Decree as a way of resolving all outstanding

differences that may have existed in this case. This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all claims arising out of the Complaint filed by the Commission and Richards, including, without limitation, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees. This Decree shall not constitute an adjudication of or finding on the merits of the case, and shall not be construed as an admission by Convergys of any violation of the EPA or Title VII.
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and of the parties hereto. 2. This Consent Decree resolves all claims asserted by the Commission on behalf of Jennifer Richards against Convergys in this lawsuit, including without limitation back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees. 3. The terms and provisions of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of the parties are adequately protected by this Decree. 4. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the EPA and Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of the EPA and Title VII, and will be in the best interests of the Commission, Richards, Convergys, and the public. 5. This Consent Decree applies to Convergys’ Murray, Utah facility, and shall be binding upon the present and future officers, agents, employees, assigns and successors of Convergys in their capacities as officers, agents and employees of Convergys and not in their individual capacities. 6. Convergys and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns, for the duration of this Decree, will not: violate the EPA or Title VII by discriminating against an employee in the payment of wages or any other compensation based on sex.
2

MONETARY RELIEF 7. Convergys shall pay the gross amount of $17,000 to Richards. Defendant shall pay $7,000 as back wages, and shall both pay all payroll taxes it owes on the back wages for the year 2004 and deduct the additional payroll taxes owed by Richards. Convergys shall make no deductions for the remaining amount of $10,000 for compensatory damages, and shall provide a United States Internal Revenue Form 1099 to Richards on or before January 31, 2008 for this payment. Convergys will pay Richards’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $50,000. 8. Convergys shall pay the settlement amount referenced above to Richards by check, cashier’s check, or money order no later than ten (10) business days from entry of this Decree. Convergys also shall mail copies of the check to:
Mary Jo O’Neill Regional Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Ave., Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012
EXPUNGING OF PERSONNEL FILE 9. Within 20 days of the entry of this Decree, to the extent necessary, Convergys shall expunge from the personnel file of Richards (a) all references to the charges of discrimination filed against Defendant that formed the bases of this action; and (b) all references to Richards’ participation in this action since she filed her first charge of discrimination.
NOTICE 10. Convergys will post, for two years after entry of this Decree, in a prominent place frequented by its employees at its Murray, Utah, facility, the notice attached as Attachment A in the same type, style, and size as Attachment A.
3

CORRECTIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES 11. Convergys shall review and revise, if necessary, its written policies against sex discrimination, copies of which are available to its employees. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of Decree, Convergys shall submit its written policies against sex discrimination to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office.
TRAINING 12. Within three (3) months of the entry of this Decree, and on an annual basis for the duration of this Decree, Convergys shall provide training on the EPA and Title VII for supervisory and Human Resources employees at the Murray, Utah, facility. Each annual training shall take place between ten (10) and fourteen (14) months after the completion of the prior year’s training. 13. The annual training shall be at least one and one half hours in length, including time for questions and answers. The training shall include the following topics: a. An overview of the EPA and Title VII generally and of Convergys’ obligations
under the EPA and Title VII with respect to both sex discrimination generally, and the payment of equal wages, specifically. b. An overview of Convergys’ obligations under the EPA and Title VII with respect to retaliation; c. Convergys’ policies and procedures regarding sex discrimination and retaliation. 14. Convergys shall provide a trainer(s) who is knowledgeable about all of the subjects of the training, to conduct the training, and shall supply a copy of the written training materials to the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Phoenix District Office within ninety days of the entry of this Decree.
4

15. In order to give all employees the opportunity to take the training, each annual training may be held on multiple dates. All personnel who attend the training shall sign an attendance roster. The registry of attendance shall be retained by Convergys for the duration of this Decree.
RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING 16. Convergys shall maintain all records concerning its implementation of this Decree for the entire term of the Decree. 17. Convergys shall report to the Commission in writing, within six months from the entry of this Decree and annually for the term of the Decree, regarding its compliance with the specific terms of the Decree, by sending the report to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC’s Phoenix District office at the address above. In addition to the reporting requirements set forth above, the report shall include the following information: a. Any revisions to Convergys’ policies and procedures regarding sex
discrimination; b. The registries of persons attending each of the seminar-training sessions, and lists
of current Utah employees on the days of the seminar-training sessions; c. Confirmation that (1) the Notice was posted, with a description of the locations
where it was posted; and (2) the training was held. 18. Convergys shall bear its own costs in conjunction with the maintenance of records and preparation of reports required by this Decree.
PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE 19. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the Decree. During this time, the Commission may petition this Court to order Convergys to comply with the Decree.
5

20. In the event that the Commission believes that Convergys has failed to comply with any provision(s) of this Decree, it shall, prior to filing any petition with the Court:
a. Notify Convergys in writing of the non-compliance by fax and by United States mail to the counsel and the corporate officer who signs this Decree on Convergys’ behalf, or to his or her successor, and
b. Afford Convergys thirty (30) days after service of the notice to remedy the noncompliance.
21. In the event the Court finds that Convergys has violated this Decree, the Court may order Convergys to remedy the non-compliance, and may extend this Agreement for such period as may be necessary to remedy its non-compliance.
FORCE AND EFFECT 22. The parties agree to the entry of this Agreement subject to final approval by the Court. 23. If any provision(s) of this Decree are found to be unlawful, only the specific provision(s) in question shall be affected and the other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 24. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for a period of two (2) years after entry of the Decree. Absent further extension by the Court, the Decree shall expire at the end of two (2) years without further action by the parties. DATED this 29th day of May, 2007.
DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Judge
6

APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO BY:
/s/William W. Ford III WILLIAM W. FORD III VICE PRESIDENT, LEGAL CONVERGYS CORPORATION
/s/ George E. Yund GEORGE E. YUND
FROST BROWN TODD, LLC 2200 PNC Center 201 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4182
Attorneys for Defendant
(Signed copy of document bearing signatures is being maintained in the office of the filing attorney)

/s/ Mary Jo O’Neill MARY JO O’NEILL Regional Attorney
/s/ Sally C. Shanley SALLY C. SHANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ Sandra Padegimas SANDRA PADEGIMAS Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504
Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

/s/ Jennifer Richards JENNIFER RICHARDS Plaintiff Richards

/s/ April Hollingsworth APRIL HOLLINGSWORTH
STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC 426 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Attorneys for Jennifer Richards

7

ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE TO ALL CONVERGYS EMPLOYEES
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of their sex. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC or the Utah Anti-Discrimination and Labor Commission (UALD).
Convergys will not discriminate against any employee on the basis of sex, and will not retaliate against any employee.
If you believe you have been discriminated against at Convergys, you are requested to seek assistance from the Convergys Human Resources department and you have the right to seek assistance from:
(1) EEOC, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 640-5000; or
(2) Utah Anti-Discrimination and Labor Commission, 160 East 300 South, 3rd Floor, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114, (801) 530-6801.
No Retaliation Clause. No action may be taken against you by any supervisory or management official of Convergys for (1) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal law, (2) filing a charge or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination, or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII. Should any such retaliatory actions be taken against you, you should immediately contact the EEOC or the UALD at the address or telephone numbers listed above.
Dated:

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

CLOSED, LEAD_CASE, LODGED_DOC
Electronic Case Filing System District of Utah (Central)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-00790-DAK

Richards v. Convergys Assigned to: Judge Dale A. Kimball Cause: 29:0206 Collect Unpaid Wages Plaintiff Jennifer Richards
1 of 14

Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Date Terminated: 05/31/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by April L. Hollingsworth STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: aprilecf@xmission.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Catherine Ann Reed FROST BROWN TODD 2200 PNC CTR 201 E FIFTH ST CINCINNATI, OH 45202-4182 (513) 852-4110 Email: creed@fbtlaw.com TERMINATED: 12/22/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik Strindberg STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: erikecf@xmission.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ralph E. Chamness SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE 451 S STATE ST STE 505 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)535-7630 Email: ralph.chamness@slcgov.com
6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report
Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
2 of 14

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...
TERMINATED: 08/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by C. Emanuel Smith EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 04/03/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carlie Christensen US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (UT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 00000 (801)524-5682 Email: Carlie.Christensen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sally C. Shanley EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5032 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Jo O'Neill EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra J. Padegimas EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE
6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report
V. Defendant Convergys
3 of 14

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...
3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: sandra.padegimas@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Catherine Ann Reed (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Skidmore FROST BROWN TODD 2200 PNC CTR 201 E FIFTH ST CINCINNATI, OH 45202-4182 (513) 651-6800 Email: dskidmore@fbtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P. O'Brien JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH (SLC) 170 S MAIN ST STE 1500 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 (801)521-3200 Email: mobrien@joneswaldo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ali Levin JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH (SLC) 170 S MAIN ST STE 1500 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 (801)521-3200 Email: alevin@joneswaldo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mekesha Houchins Montgomery FROST BROWN TODD (OH) 2200 PNC CTR 201 E FIFTH ST CINCINNATI, OH 45202-4182 (513)651-6800 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

Date Filed 09/22/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005 11/21/2005 11/28/2005 12/02/2005 12/12/2005 12/13/2005
12/22/2005
12/22/2005 12/22/2005
4 of 14

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Convergys (Filing fee $ 250, receipt number 4681006481), filed by Jennifer Richards.Assigned to Judge Dale A. Kimball (rlr, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
2 STIPULATION/MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer BY 11/21/05 re 1 Complaint filed by Defendant Convergys. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
3 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. Answer deadline updated for Convergys answer due 11/21/2005. . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 10/31/05. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
4 ANSWER to Complaint filed by Convergys.(Levin, Ali) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
5 NOTICE OF ADR, e-mailed or mailed to Plaintiff Jennifer Richards, Defendant Convergys. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
6 ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Case 2:05cv812 is consolidated into this lead case. This case (2:05cv790) will be the lead case and is the only one that will be docketed in per the entry of this order.. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 12/2/05. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
7 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint filed by EEOC filed by Convergys.(O'Brien, Michael) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
8 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: (Notice generated by clerk)***The Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and Proposed Scheduling Order forms, available on the court web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html, should be prepared 30 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference hearing date. The Court may enter a scheduling order and vacate the hearing if counsel (a) file a stipulated Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and (b) e-mail a Proposed Scheduling Order to ipt@utd.uscourts.gov 30 days before the scheduled hearing.*** Initial Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/2006 01:30 PM in Room 477 before Magistrate Judge David Nuffer. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
9 MOTION/ORDER granting motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for of Catherine Ann Reed for Jennifer Richards. Attorneys admitted pro hac vice may download a copy of the District of Utah's local rules from court's web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 12/21/05. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
10 Modification of Docket: Error: Added Catherine Ann Reed as counsel for plaintiff. Correction: Termed Ms. Reed as counsel for plaintiff and added her as counsel for dft Convergys Corporation. re 9 Motion/Order Pro Hac Vice,. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
11 MOTION/ORDER granting motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for of David A. Skidmore for Convergys. Attorneys admitted pro hac vice may download a copy of the District of Utah's local rules from court's web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

01/09/2006 01/12/2006
01/12/2006
01/26/2006 02/14/2006 02/14/2006 02/16/2006 02/16/2006 03/07/2006 03/16/2006

Dale A. Kimball on 12/21/05. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
12 REPORT OF ATTORNEY PLANNING MEETING. (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
13 NOTICE REMINDER of Attorneys' Planning Meeting Report due five days from receipt of this notice re [8] NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: (Notice generated by clerk)***The Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and Proposed Scheduling Order forms, available on the court web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html, should be prepared 30 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference hearing date. The Court may enter a scheduling order and vacate the hearing if counsel (a) file a stipulated Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and (b) e-mail a Proposed Scheduling Order to ipt@utd.uscourts.gov 30 days before the scheduled hearing.*** Initial Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/2006 01:30 PM in Room 477 before Magistrate Judge David Nuffer. (blk, ) (tsh, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/06 vacated. Amended Pleadings due by 2/15/2006. Joinder of Parties due by 2/15/2006. Discovery due by 9/15/2006. Motions due by 10/31/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/26/2007 02:30 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. 7 day Jury Trial set for 4/9/2007 08:30 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball.. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/11/06. (blk, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
15 CERTIFICATE of Counsel for Service of Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Sandra J. Padegimas for Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
16 CERTIFICATE of Counsel of Service of Defendant Convergys' Rule 26 Disclosures by Catherine Ann Reed for Defendant Convergys (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
17 Joint MOTION for Scheduling Order Regarding Trial Date and Final Pretrial Conference filed by Defendant Convergys. (Levin, Ali) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
18 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Kim Jones)7-day Jury Trial reset for 4/30/2007 08:30 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 4/16/2007 02:30 PM before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
19 ORDER granting 17 Motion for Scheduling Order. Final Pretrial Conference reset for 4/16/2007 02:30 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. 7 day Jury Trial reset for 4/30/2007 08:30 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 2/16/06. (kmj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Defendant (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
21 NOTICE OF FILING Certificate of Service of Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents Addressed to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Defendant

5 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

03/21/2006 03/28/2006 03/31/2006
04/03/2006 04/07/2006 04/25/2006 05/08/2006 06/07/2006
06/07/2006
06/07/2006
06/08/2006 06/19/2006 07/07/2006

Convergys. (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re: discovery by Jennifer Richards (blk, ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
23 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, C.) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
24 MOTION/ORDER granting motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for of Sally C. Shanley for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorneys admitted pro hac vice may download a copy of the District of Utah's local rules from court's web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/31/06. (blk, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
25 ORDER granting 23 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney C. Emmanuel Smith withdrawn from case . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 4/3/06. (blk, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Richards of Plaintiff's First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant (Chamness, Ralph) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Response to Defendant's Discovery Requests (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys of Defendant's Discovery Requests (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Richards re 28 Certificate of Service PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Chamness, Ralph) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
30 THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE FILED IN A DIFFERENT CASE - MOTION for Protective Order Stipulated Protectived Order filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1)(O'Brien, Michael) Modified on 6/8/2006: text added per Notice of Deficiency #31 (alt) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
31 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re: 30 MOTION for Protective Order Stipulated Protectived Order. The document is filed in the wrong case and the attachment is not identified. The court asks the filer of the original document to refile the pleading in the correct case and to identify the attachment (alt) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
32 Defendant's MOTION for Protective Order filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stipulated Protective Order)(O'Brien, Michael) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
33 ORDER granting 32 Stipulated Motion for Protective Order . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 6/19/06. (awm ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David Nuffer : Discovery Hearing held on 7/7/2006. Counsel present via telephone conference. Discussion heard on the discovery and

6 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

07/12/2006 07/12/2006 07/19/2006 07/24/2006 07/26/2006 08/03/2006 08/04/2006 08/09/2006
08/11/2006 08/11/2006
08/14/2006

deposition dispute of Ms. Jennifer Richards. The deposition is currently scheduled to commence on 7/10/06. Discussion heard on the possibility of rescheduling Ms. Richard's deposition from 7/10/06 to 7/21/06. Court ordered that the deposition be rescheduled for 7/21/06 and that Convergys to provide supplemental responses to discovery on or before 7/17/06 (delivery date). Court adjourned. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Sandy Padegimas, Ralph Chamness, Attorneys for Defendant David Skidmore, Catherine Reed, Michael O'Brien.(Court Reporter Electronic, Tape #418, Log #51-1198, Room 477.) (asb, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for First Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Second Supplemental Disclosure and Second Discovery Requests (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
37 MOTION to Compel discovery responses filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9)(Nutter, Karen) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Third Supplemental Disclosures and Third Discovery Requests (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
39 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge David Nuffer under 28:636 (b)(1)(A), Magistrate to hear and determine all nondispositive pretrial matters.. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 07/26/06. (abr, ) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
40 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL April L. Hollingsworth replacing Ralph E. Chamness as counsel on behalf of Jennifer Richards. (Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
41 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 37 MOTION to Compel discovery responses and for Protective Order filed by Defendant Convergys. (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys of Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff EEOC's Second Set of Interrogatories and Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's Second Request for Production of Documents (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
43 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
44 Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Support re 43 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
45 DOCKET TEXT ORDER taking under advisement 43 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any response to this motion shall be filed on or before August 23, 2006, and any reply shall be filed within 2 business days of the

7 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

08/17/2006 08/17/2006
08/18/2006 08/23/2006 08/25/2006
08/29/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/13/2006 09/19/2006 09/19/2006

response. Any document filed shall address implications for the trial date in the case in light of the policy that "five months must be allowed between the dispositive motion deadline and the trial date to allow the motions to be filed, briefed, set, argued and decided before trial preparation starts." http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ipt.html. Any document filed shall be simultaneously emailed to opposing counsel and mj.nuffer@utd.uscourts.gov, in addition to other service. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on August 14, 2006.No attached document. (Nuffer, David) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
46 ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery due: 12/15/06. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8/17/06.(blk, ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
47 DOCKET TEXT ORDER: The Order 46 granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery 43 was entered in error and is hereby VACATED. The parties should proceed according to the Docket Text Order entered by Magistrate Judge Nuffer on 8/14/06. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8/17/06. (awm, ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
48 REPLY to Response to Motion re 37 MOTION to Compel discovery responses filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A - C)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
49 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 43 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Skidmore, David) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
50 REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A; Declaration of Sandra Padegimas)(Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
51 ERRATA to 37 MOTION to Compel discovery responses filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
52 MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER granting in part 37 Motion to Compel, granting in part 43 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery . Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 9/5/06.(blk, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Fact Discovery due by 11/17/2006. Motions due by 12/1/2006. (blk, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission First Supplemental Responses to Defendant's First Request for Documents (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys of Defendant's First Requests for Admission and Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
55 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys of Defendant's First Requests for Admission and Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Jennifer Richards (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 09/19/2006)

8 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

09/20/2006
10/17/2006 10/17/2006 10/19/2006 10/19/2006 11/06/2006 11/07/2006 11/08/2006
11/16/2006
11/17/2006 11/17/2006
11/17/2006

56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys of Defendant's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's First Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Richards Answers to Requests for Admission and Second Set of Interrogatories (Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys of Defendant's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Discovery Requests (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Richards Second Set of Discovery (Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
61 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys of Its Revised Rule 26 Disclosures (Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
62 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mekesha Houchins Montgomery Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 414768. filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1)(O'Brien, Michael) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
63 ORDER granting 62 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mekesha Houchins Montgomery for Convergys. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice may download a copy of the District of Utahs local rules from the courts web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 11/8/06.(blk, ) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
64 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum served on Colleen Maughan on November 10, 2006, filed by Defendant Convergys. (O'Brien, Michael) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
65 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys Second Supplemental Discovery Responses (Skidmore, David) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
66 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum served on Michelle Renea Montague on November 14, 2006, filed by Defendant Convergys. (O'Brien, Michael) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
67 MOTION to Compel discovery filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A--Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit B--EEOC's Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement# 3 Exhibit C--Richards' Initial Disclosures# 4 Exhibit D--9/22/06 Hollingsworth Ltr. to Reed# 5 Exhibit E--11/6/06 Reed Ltr. to Hollingsworth# 6 Exhibit F--11/10/06 Skidmore Ltr. to Padegimas and Hollingsworth# 7 Exhibit G--10/26/06 Reed Ltr. to Padegimas# 8 Exhibit H--Convergys' First Request for Documents to EEOC# 9 Exhibit I--EEOC's Response to Convergys' First Request for Documents# 10 Exhibit J--8/3/06 Reed Ltr. to Padegimas# 11 Exhibit K--9/8/06 Padegimas Ltr. to Skidmore# 12 Exhibit

9 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

11/22/2006 11/22/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006 12/05/2006
12/06/2006

L--10/5/06 Reed Ltr. to Padegimas# 13 Exhibit M--10/11/06 Padegimas Ltr. to Reed# 14 Exhibit N--EEOC's Privilege Logs (2)# 15 Exhibit O--Affidavit of Catherine Ann Reed)(Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
68 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Convergys Corporation's Answers to Plaintiff Richards' Second Set of Written Discovery (Skidmore, David) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
69 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Unexecuted for Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Stephanie Hills, filed by Defendant Convergys. (O'Brien, Michael) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
70 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Convergys. (Skidmore, David) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
71 MEMORANDUM in Support re 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit A cont# 3 Exhibits B-F# 4 Exhibits G-P# 5 Exhibit Q# 6 Exhibit Q cont.)(Skidmore, David) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
72 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
73 MEMORANDUM in Support re 72 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List and Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibits 2 - 5)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
74 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Plaintiff EEOC's Fourth Supplemental Disclosure (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
75 RESPONSE to Motion re 67 MOTION to Compel discovery filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 - 5)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
76 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
77 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jennifer Richards Supplemental Disclosures (Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
78 DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting 76 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs may have a two and one page extension of the ten page limitation for Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant Convergys' Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 12/5/06.No attached document. (Nuffer, David) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
79 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for Subpoena served on Q K Incorporated on 11/16/2006, filed by Defendant

10 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

12/06/2006 12/06/2006 12/08/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/15/2006
12/18/2006 01/02/2007 01/02/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007

Convergys. (Skidmore, David) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
80 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for Subpoena served on Discover Financial Services on 11/14/2006, filed by Defendant Convergys. (Skidmore, David) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
81 ERRATA to 75 Response to Motion filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Sandra Padegimas)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
82 DOCUMENTS LODGED consisting of Order granting motion to file excess pages. This order is duplicative of previous order [78] granting this motion by Magistrate Nuffer (blk, ) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
83 Plaintiff's MOTION for Protective Order, MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
84 MEMORANDUM in Support re 83 Plaintiff's MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
85 ORDER re 83 Plaintiff's MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Jennifer Richards. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (a) pending disposition of this motion Defendant's counsel shall not use or disseminate any materials received pursuant to the subpoena at issue in this motion and shall not issue subpoenas to or serve subpoenas upon Plaintiff's former and current employers; and (b) on or before December 20, 2006, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff's counsel with copies of any subpoenas issued by Defendant but not served on Plaintiff prior to this date. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 12/15/06. (Nuffer, David) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
86 REPLY to Response to Motion re 67 MOTION to Compel discovery filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Reed, Catherine) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
87 RESPONSE to Motion re 83 Plaintiff's MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Skidmore, David) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
88 RESPONSE to Motion re 72 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A & B# 2 Exhibits C, D & E)(Skidmore, David) (Entered: 01/02/2007)
89 Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List and Exh. 1 -8# 2 Exhibits 8 20# 3 Exhibits 21 - 28)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
90 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 89 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to David Nuffer.(Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

11 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/04/2007
01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/10/2007 01/11/2007
01/12/2007
01/16/2007
01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007

91 ORDER granting 90 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Replies due by 1/4/2007. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/4/07. (kla) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
92 MOTION to Continue Trial Setting filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to David Nuffer.(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
93 REPLY to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List and Exhibits 1 - 2)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
Motions No Longer Referred: 92 MOTION to Continue Trial Setting per direction of Judge Kimball's chambers (e-mail from DAK's case administrator dated 1/8/07) (asb) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
94 MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 67 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/8/07. (blk) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
95 Amended MOTION to Continue Trial Setting filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to David Nuffer.(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
96 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memo) Motions referred to David Nuffer.(Levin, Ali) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
Motions No Longer Referred: 95 Amended MOTION to Continue Trial Setting, 96 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Motions refer to issues before the district judge. See docket entry January 8, 2007 and motion docket no. 70, filed December 1, 2006. (DN) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
97 ORDER granting 95 Motion to Continue Trial. Vacated hearings: Trial on 4/30/07; Final Pretrial Conference on 4/16/07. To be reset later by the case manager. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1/16/07. (blk) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
Deadlines/Hearings terminated. Trial date 4/30/07 & FPTRL Hrg date 4/16/07(blk) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
98 REPLY to Response to Motion re 83 Plaintiff's MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
100 ORDER granting 96 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1/16/07. (blk) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
99 REQUEST for Oral Argument/Notice to Submit re 83 Plaintiff's MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Defendant Convergys. (Levin, Ali) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
101 REPLY to Response to Motion re 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Convergys. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibits B - G# 3 Exhibit

12 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

01/23/2007 01/23/2007 01/24/2007 02/01/2007 02/02/2007 02/07/2007 03/07/2007 05/25/2007 05/31/2007

H# 4 Exhibits I - K# 5 Exhibit L part 1# 6 Exhibit L part 2# 7 Exhibits M S)(Skidmore, David) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
102 MOTION to Take Deposition from Vito Samperi filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to David Nuffer.(Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
103 MEMORANDUM in Support re 102 MOTION to Take Deposition from Vito Samperi filed by Plaintiff Jennifer Richards. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
104 DOCKET TEXT ORDER taking under advisement 102 Motion to Take Deposition of Vito Samperi. The Court orders that opposing counsel file a response by 2/2/07. Reply is due by 2/8/07.. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/24/07.No attached document. (asb) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
105 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Motion for Leave to Depose Vito Samperi by Jennifer Richards re 102 MOTION to Take Deposition from Vito Samperi (Hollingsworth, April) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
106 DOCKET TEXT ORDER finding as moot 102 Motion to Take Deposition from Vito Samperi. The motion was [1-5] withdrawn. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 2/2/07. No attached document. (DN) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
107 MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part 83 Motion for Protective Order; granting 83 Motion to Quash. Parties are ordered to comply with DUCivR 45-1. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 2/6/07. (blk) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
108 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 72 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 5/8/2007 03:00 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
109 NOTICE OF FILING of Consent Decree for Approval filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
110 CONSENT DECREE. Case Closed. Judge David Nuffer no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/29/07. (blk) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

PACER Login:
Description:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/13/2007 12:38:08

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:05-cv-00790-DAK

13 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

Billable Pages:

8

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?475376929377303-L_35...

Cost:

0.64

14 of 14

6/13/2007 1:39 PM

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?320604016527481-L_35...

CLOSED, CONSOLIDATED, NO_DOCKETING
Electronic Case Filing System District of Utah (Central)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-00812-DAK

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation Assigned to: Judge Dale A. Kimball Cause: 29:0203 Equal Pay Act

Date Filed: 09/28/2005 Date Terminated: 12/02/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C. Emanuel Smith EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carlie Christensen US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (UT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 00000 (801)524-5682 Email: Carlie.Christensen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Jo O'Neill EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra J. Padegimas EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848

1 of 3

6/13/2007 2:08 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?320604016527481-L_35...

V. Defendant Convergys Corporation

(602)640-5000 Email: sandra.padegimas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael P. O'Brien JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH (SLC) 170 S MAIN ST STE 1500 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 (801)521-3200 Email: mobrien@joneswaldo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ali Levin JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH (SLC) 170 S MAIN ST STE 1500 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 (801)521-3200 Email: alevin@joneswaldo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2005 09/29/2005
09/29/2005 11/10/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Convergys Corporation (Fee Status: Waived), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Assigned to Judge Dale A. Kimball (jwt, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 MOTION/ORDER granting motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice forC. Emanuel Smith, Mary Jo O'Niell and Sandra J. Padegimas for the EEOC Attorneys admitted pro hac vice may download a copy of the District of Utah's local rules from court's web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 9/29/05. (Attachments: # 1 Padegimas# 2 Smith)(blk, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
3 Modification of Docket: Error: Orders did not send to all attorneys. Correction: Sending out orders with this modification of docket. re 2 Motion/Order Pro Hac Vice,. (Attachments: # 1 Smith# 2 Padegimas) (blk, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
4 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as to Convergys Corporation served on 11/8/2005, answer due 11/28/2005. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)

2 of 3

6/13/2007 2:08 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?320604016527481-L_35...

11/28/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005
12/02/2005

5 STIPULATION/MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint filed by Defendant Convergys Corporation. (blk, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
6 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
7 ORDER granting 5 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Answer deadline updated for Convergys Corporation answer due 12/12/2005. . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 11/29/05. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
8 ORDER granting 6 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Case 2:05cv812 is consolidated into lead case 2:05cv790. All pleadings should now be filed under case number 2:05cv790-DAK. No filings will be docketed in the member case 2:05cv812. . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 12/2/05. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
Cases associated with lead consolidated case 2:05cv790. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/13/2007 13:09:47

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:05-cv-00812-DAK

2

Cost:

0.16

3 of 3

6/13/2007 2:08 PM