•
A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY DAMIEN LEE, TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 TELEPHONE: (206) 220-6915

•

U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~-­ U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT_ _
DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JUN -a,. 2003
_ _ _ M.REC·D _ _~
oRiGlmtCED k

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
TELE-SERVICING INNOVATIONS, INC., Defendant.

)

) )

elva CIVIL ACTION NO.
3 - 221 - E- MHW

) COMPLAINT

)

) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

)

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices based on retaliation
and to provide appropriate relief to Brittney Baker who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") alleges that defendant retaliated against Ms. Baker because she engaged in protected EEO activity, complaining about sexual harassment, when defendant terminated her. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary

COMPLAINT - Page 1

U.$. EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
$eattlo Oi$.rlct Office
909 Fif~t Ave!'ll..le, Suite 400 Sa~ttle, W~5hingtol1 98104-1061
T!!I~phcme: (20B) 220-6883 FII[;~imile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (20B) 220-6882

I .

• •
compensatory damages and punitive damages, on behalf of Ms. Baker.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,

1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections

706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.SC. §§

2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"). and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

U.S.C. §1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency of

the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section

706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).

4. At all relevant times, defendant Tele-Servicing Innovations, Inc.,

incorporated in the State of Delaware, has continuously been a corporation doing

business in the State of Idaho and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

5. At all relevant times, defendant Tele-Servicing Innovations, Inc. has

continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the

meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b). (g) and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Brittney Baker

filed a charge with the Idaho Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment

COMPLAINT - Page 2

V.S. EQVAl EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSWN Sc.at1'lt bjs.tl'ic:;t Office
909" First AverRJ@:, suit!!; 400
SII-Qttle, Washington 96104-1061 TlI:-lepi1Qne' (~06) 2'20-6883 fac~i",iI~: (206) ~20-6911 TDD: (206) 22Q_61:1132

• •
Opportunity Commission, alleging violations of Title VII by defendant, Tele-Servicing

Innovations, Inc. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been

fulfilled.

7. From at least August 1, 2001, defendant, Tele-Servicing Innovations, Inc.,

engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Idaho Falls, Idaho facility in violation of

§ 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.SC. § 2000e-3(a). Defendant affected the terms and

conditions of Ms. Baker's employment by terminating her in retaliation for her

participation in protected EEO activity, including the filing of internal complaints of

sexual harassment and/or harassment based on her sex.

8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been

to deprive Ms. Baker of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect

her status as an employee.

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above

were intentional.

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above

were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

Ms. Baker.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors,

agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging

in any employment practice constituting retaliation based on a person engaging in

protected EEO activity, ~, opposing a discriminatory employment practice and/or

COMPLAINT - Page 3

U.S. EQUAL EMPI.OYMENT OPPO~TlINITY COMMISSION
Seattle Oillltrlct Office 909 First AW.MUtl, Suite. 400 ~Qttlc., Woshington 9.8104-1061 T~Ie.phan~: (206) 220-6883
F(lcslmlle: (206) 220-6911 TOO: (206) 220-6882

• •
participating in the informal and/or formal discrimination charge process.

B. Order defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which

eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

C. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Baker by providing appropriate back

pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other

affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment

practices.

D. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Baker by providing compensation for

past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices

described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket expenses, in

amounts to be determined at trial.

E. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Baker by providing compensation for

past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of

in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of

enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order defendant to pay Ms. Baker punitive damages for its malicious and

reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

/I

/I

/I

/I

/I COMPLAINT - Page 4

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OI'I'OATUNlTY COMMlSSlON .s.t:.anle blst,.ic;;t Office 90Sl Fir~t A\I41.nue, Suite 400
Seattle, Wa~hin9tan !j8104-1061 Tt!:ll!phDne~ (206) 220,681;1:3 FdC!llmill!: (206) 220-6~11 'rDD: (206) 220-68B2

• •
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

public interest

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

complaint

, DATED !hI, ;tq<o(",y of ~=
~NDOLYN A. LUIS LUCERO, JR.

2003. YOUNG REAMS

Regional Attorney

Associate General Counsel

KATHRYN OLSON

Supervisory Trial Attorney
DAMIEN LEE
T,I,' AHom", -

9

BY:~'~~

EQUAL E LOY T

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 220-6915

Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMPLAINT - Page 5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
5catti& bistrict Dffiee 909 First AYl!ihUe, Suit~ 400 Seottle, Woshington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Flmimile: (206) 220-6911 TOO; {~06} 2:i:O-61382

 
 •
'.

•

ORIGINAL

T. Jason Wood, Esq., ISB #501.6 THOMSEN STEPHENS LAW OFFICES 2635 Channing Way Idaho Falls, ID 83404 Telephone (208) 522~ 1230 Fax (208) 522-1277
Attorneys tor Plaintiff

• UNITED ST,4TES COUFF .~. DISTRICT OF IDAHO --. JUt , , 2003
LOtJ(B M. ~iD: ~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BRITTNEY BAKER,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

TELE-SERVICING INNOVATIONS,

)

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

-------------------------)

Case No. CIV-03-221-E-BLW
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF BRITTNEY BAKER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE

Brittney Baker (hereinafter called "Intervenor") requests that the court enter an order granting her Motion to Intervene in this action pursuant to FRCP 24(a) and 42 U.S.C. §2000e5(f)(1 ).
INTRODUCTION Plaintiff EEOC filed this lawsuit against Tele-Servicing Innovations, Inc., (hereinafter called "Defendant") on June 5, 2003. In its complaint against Defendant, Plaintiff has alleged that

1 - MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE
'\

• •
Defendant unlawfully tenninated Intervenor in retaliation lor her participation in protected £EO activity, including the filing of internal complaints of sexual harassment and/or harassment based on her gender, in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(l) ( see Complaint, ~l 7).
Brittney Baker, who is the aggrieved individual that the EEOC alleges Defendant unlawfully fired, requests that the court allow her to intervene pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §2000e5(f)( I) and FRCP 24(a) to individually assert claims of sex discrimination and/or harassment and retaliation under Title VII and Idaho state law, wrongful termination, and for negligent or intentional inlliction of emotional distress under Idaho law. A copy of Ms. Baker'S Complaint setting forth these federal and state claims is attached as Exhibit A to the Motion for Intervention filed herewith.
TITLE VII ALLQWS MS. BAKER TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
Ms. Baker is entitled to intervene in this action to assert individual discrimination claims pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(f)( l). That statute provides in relevant part:
(I) If within 30 days after a charge is filed with the Commission [EEOC1...the Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a civil action against any respondent not a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision named in the charge...The person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission..." Pll\'suant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(I), "anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: when a statute of the United States confers and unconditional right to intervene." It is well settled
2 - MEMORANDUM TN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENll

• •
that under the circumstances presented here, Ms. Baker has an unconditional right to intervene pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(l). See Truvillion v. King's Daughters Hosp., 614 F.2d 520, 525 (5th Cir. 1980); EEOC v. Contour Chair Lounge Co., 596 F.2d 809 (8'" Cir. 1979). See also EEOC v. Goodyear Aero.lpace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1987) ("If the EEOC brings an action [under Title VII), the charging [party) has the right to intervene."),
MS. BAKER IS ALSO ENTITLED TO ASSERT STATE LAW AND OTHER FEDERAL CLAIMS In the complaint attached as Exhibit A to Ms. Baker's Motion for Intervention, she asserts federal and state law claims of sex discrimination and/or harassment under Title VII, and simi lar state Jaw discrimination claims, as well as state law wrongful discharge claims and infliction of emotional distress. Ms. Baker is entitled to assert these additional claims beyond the scope of those asserted by the EEOC. See e.g. EEOC v. National Children's Center, Inc. , 98 F.3d 1406, 1408 (D.C.Cir. 1996)(two individual employees intervened alleging violations of Title VII and state law); EEOC v. Clear Lake Dodge , 60 F.3d 1146 (5th CiT. 1995) (employee intervened personally to raise state law claims). Here, there would be no limitations on Ms. Baker's ability to bring her additional federal and state law claims if she were pursuing her own Title VII lawsuit without the EEOC. Neither is she precluded from doing so in intervention. All 01' her claims arise out of the same facts, and judicial economy justifies bringing all such claims in the same action.
3 - MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE

•

•

•

CONCLUSION

For the rea~ons stated, the COUIt should enter an order granting Intervenor Brittncy Baker

the right to intervene in this action, and to file the complaint attached to the motion submitted

herewith.

L DATED this

day of July, 2003.

THOMSEN STEPHENS LAW OFFICES
1<~ By: l~v-L( ?,--y JnT;Wood, Esq. 1/

4 - MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE

•

•

•

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Jhereby certify that I am a duly licensed attorney in the State ofIdaho, resident of and with
my office in Idaho Falls, Idaho; that on the ~ day of July, 2003, I caused a true and COlTeel

copy of the rorcgoing MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORTOFBRTTINEY BAKER'S MOTION TO

INTERVENE to be served upon the following persons at the addresses below their names either

by depositing said document in the United States mail with the correct postage thereon or by hand

delivering or by transmitting by facsimile as set forth below.

GREGORY L CROCKET KATHERINE MORIARTY HOPKINS RODEN CROCKETT
HANSEN & HOOPES 428 PARK AVENUE POBOX 51219 IDAHO FALLS ID 83405

.YJMail
[ 1Hand Deli very [ 1Facsimile

A LUIS LUCERO KATHR YN OLSON DAMIENLEE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE WA 98104

,Y1Mail
[ 1Ha.nd Delivery [ 1Facsimile

THOMSEN STEPHENS LAW OFFICES

J:\d~t3.\T.iw\4006\OO7 JlLt!11\O intClVcnc.wpd

By: \... /

nWood

5 - MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MonON TO INTERVENE

 
 r-----------------------------

•

•

ORIGINAL

T. Jason Wood, Esq., ISB #5016 THOMSEN STEPHENS LAW OFFICES 2635 Channing Way Idaho Falls, LD 83404 Telephone (208) 522-1230 Fax (208) 522-1277
Attorneys fOf Plaintiff in Intervention, Brittncy Baker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF LDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

TELE-SERVTCING INNOVATIONS,

)

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

---------------------------) )

BRITTNEY BAKER,

)

)

Plaintiff in Intervention,

)

------------------------)

Case No. CIV-03-221-E-BLW
COMPLAINT TN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW Brittney Baker, the plaintiff herein, by and through her legal counsel, Thomscn Stephens Law Offices, and for cause of action against the above-namcd defendant, alleges as follows:

1 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

\ ?----

• •
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This action seeks declaratory relief, compensatory, general, liquidated and/or punitive damages, costs and attorney fees resulting from gender discrimination, sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, retaliation, breach of employment contract and wrongful termination of plaintiff by defendant, its agents and employees in bringing about the wrongful termination and breach of contract referenced herein.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over thc subject matter of this complaint in intervention pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.c. 2000e, el seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1332,1343, and 1367. 3. The matter in controversy in this action cxceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 4. All prerequisites required by federal and state law have been satisfied by Plaintiff in Intervention before brining this action, including acquisition of the attached Notice of Right to Sue from the Idaho Human Rights Commission. 5. This action properly lies in the District of Idaho, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 US.c. § 1391(b) because the claims arose, and the patties reside in this judicial district; and venue also properly lies in this district pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-5(1)(3) because the unlawful employment practicc was committed in this judicial district. 6. Declaratory relicf is sought pursuant to 28 US.c. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.c. § 20000-5(g), and compensatory and punitive damages are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §§ 1981a. 7. Costs and attorney fees may he awarded and are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.c. 2000e-5(k) and Fed. R Civ. P. 54, and as othelwise required or allowed by federal and state law.
2 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

•

•

PARTms 8. This matter was commenced by Plaintiff. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on June 5, 2003. 9. Plaintiff in Intervention is a female citizen and resident of the United States of America and of the State of Idaho, and has been during all periods relevant to the claims herein. 10. Defendant Tele-Servieing Innovations, Tnc. was and now is aDelaware corporation doing business in the State of Idaho and a body corporate with all powers of a corporate system, whose primary activity is the provision of telemarketing service, and with its principal place of business in the City of Greenwood Village, Arapahoe County, Colorado. 11. The EEOC has alleged that defendant unlawfully retaliated against Ms. Baker for
exercising rights secured by Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. 2000e, et seq.
Ms. Baker is entitled to intervene as a matter of right in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 200e5(0(1). Ms. Baker has satisfied all requirements concerning exhaustion ofad.ministrative remedies and all conditions precedent to the institution of her claims.
12. All allegations of the complaint filed by the EEOC against the defendant in this matter are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 13. Plaintiff in Intervention realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein and in their entirety. 14. Defendant entered into an agreement to employ Ms. Baker as a sales representative, with Ms. Baker's beginning date of employment being on or about August 22,2000.

3 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

• •
15. During the course of Ms. Baker's employment by defendant, Ms. Baker properly and satisfactorily performed all obligations and responsibilities required of her under the terms of plaintiff's employment agreement with defendant.
16. During the course of Ms. Baker's employment defendant engaged, or permitted certain managers, employees and/or agents to engage in certain conduct toward the Ms. Baker, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Creating, or knowingly pennitting to be created, a hostile work environment resulting in the sexual harassment of Ms. Baker and other co-workers;
b. Knowingly engaging in retaliation against Ms. Baker in response to Ms. Baker'S reports to defendant of sexual harassment in the work place;
c. Failure and/or refusal on the basis of Ms. Baker's gender and otherwise to reasonably address or investigate Ms. Baker's concerns or complaints of sexual harassment; and
d. Engaging in a campaign and conspiracy to wrongl'ullyterminateMs. Baker's employment and to breach Ms. Baker's employment agreement without reasonable grounds, basis or justification, all of which was motivated and based in whole or in part upon Ms. Baker's reports of sexual harassment.
17. On or about August 8, 2001, Ms. Baker was wrongfully terminated by defendant from her position as a quality assurance agent, for the express reason that she accused a co-worker of inappropriate conduct.
4 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURy TRIAL

•

•

COUNT ONE - DISCRIMINATION! HOSTILE WQRK ENVIRONMENT 18. Plaintiffin Intervention realleges the allegations of paragraphs I through 17 ofthis Complaint as if set forth at length herein and in their entirety. 19. By acting or failing to take action as alleged herein, defendant engaged in discrimination against Ms. Baker and caused, or knowingly permitted, sexual harassment against Ms. Baker by creating a hostile work environment, all based upon Ms. Baker's gender (female) in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act, the Idaho Human Rights Act, and defendant's own employment policies. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendant, Ms. Baker was terminated from her employment and has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future general and special damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
COUNT TWO - RETALIATION 21. Plaintiff in Intervention realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 200Hhis Complaint as if set forth at length herein and in their entirety. 22. Defendant intentionally tenninated Ms. Baker in retaliation for her protesting or reporting to defendant employment practices she reasonably believed were prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Idaho Human Rights Act, and defendant's own written employment policies. 23. Dcfendant's retaliatory termination of Ms. Baker was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Idaho Human Rights Act, and defendant's own written employment policies.

5 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

.. _-----_._-----------------------

•

•

31. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, Ms. Baker has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future, general and special damages in an amount to be proven at the time oftrial.
COUNT FIVENEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL INFLICTlQN OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
32. Plaintiff in Intervention realleges the allegations of paragraphs Ilhrough 31 of this Complaint as if set fOlth at length herein and in their entirety.
33. Defendant's conduct as described herein was intentional or negligent, was extreme and outrageous, and defendant knew or should have known that such conduct was highly likely to cause or result in severe emotional distress to Ms. Baker.
34. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendant, Ms. Baker has suffered serious emotion distress, including anxiety, worry. mental and emotional distress, and physical manifestations thereof, all to Ms. Baker's general and special damage and detriment in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
COUNT SIX - ATTORNEY FEES 35. Plaintiff in Intervention realleges the allegations ofparagraphs I through 34 of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein and in their entirety. 36. Ms. Baker has been required to secure the services of an attorney to prosecute the within claims and has engaged the undersigned attorneys for that purpose. Ms. Baker is entitled to an award of her reasonable attorney fees and costs as provided by statute and Court Rule.

7 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR J URY TRIAL

• •
24. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendant, Ms. Baker has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future general and special damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
COUNT THREE· BREACH OF CONTRACT 25. Plaintiff in Intervention realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein and in their entirety. 26. Defendant wrongfully terminated Ms. Baker's employment contract in breach and contravention of their employment agreement with Ms. Baker, and in violation of public policy. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendant, Ms. Baker has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future general and special damages arising from defendant's breach of the employment contract agreement, all in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 28. Portions of Ms. Baker's damages are liquidated as to the amount, and Ms. Baker is entitled to interest thereon at the maximum rate allowed by law and applicable statutes, all in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
COUNT FOUR· BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH 29. Plaintiff in Intervention realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint as if set Forth at length herein and in their entirety. 30. Defendant has, by its conduct, acts and omissions, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to Ms. Baker.
6 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

• •
COUNT SEVEN· PUNITIVE DAMAGES 37. Plaintiff in Intervention realleges the allegations ofparagraphs I through 36 ot'this Complaint as if set forth at length herein and in their entirety. 38. Defendant's actions as alleged constitute a malicious, wilful, knowing, andlor reckless disregard for Ms. Baker's federally protected rights, for which Ms. Baker is entitled to an award of punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1981a. Defendant's actions further constitute an extreme deviation from reasonable standards of conduct, thereby permitting Ms. Baker to request leave to amend this Complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages pursuant to Idaho Code § 6-1604.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff in Intervention demands trial by jury as to all issues triable to ajury in this action.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiffin Intervention prays for judgment against defendant on all counts as follows: 1. For a declaration that defendant's conduct was m violation of Plaintiff in Intervention's legal rights; 2. For an award of general, special, and punitive damages according to proof; 3. For interest on Plaintiffin Intervention's liquidated damages as provided by statute; 4. For attorney fees and as provided by statute and court Rule; 5. For the cost of suit incurred herein; and
8 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

...
• •
6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the circumstances.
DATED this.::L day of July, 2003 THOMSEN STEPHENS LAW OFFICES
TJW\lk J;\(Jillil\Tjw\400(N>05 campi hller.. ~ll.wpJ
9 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 
 • • UNITED STATES COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DEC ;" ~ 2003

WOGEO _M_ .RECF'O ILE"r~~/

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

)

Case No. CV-03-221-E-BLW

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT

v.

)

)

)

TELE-SERVICING INNOVATIONS, )

INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

----------------------)

Default is hereby entered against Defendant Tele-Servicing Innovations, Inc. with regards

to Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

~iy DATED this

of December, 2003.

CAMERON S. BURKE United State District Court By

• • UnIted States District Court

Ig

for tho

District of Idaho

December 22, 2003

* * CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING * *

Re: 4:03-cv-00221

I certify that I caused a copy of the attached document to be mailed or faxed to the following named persons:

A Luis Lucero Jr, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Kathryn Olson, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400
Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Damien Lee, Esq.

1-206-220-6911

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

909 First Ave #400

Seattle, WA 98104-1061

T Jason Wood, Esq. THOMSEN & STEPHENS 2635 Channing way
Idaho Falls, ID 83404

~Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill Judge Edward J. Lodge ---Chief Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle ___Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams
Visiting Judges:
Judge David o. Carter
----Judge John C. Coughenour -----Judge Thomas S. ZilIy

Date:

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk
BY: (Deputy Clerk)

 
 • •
pre-judgment interest; b. the sum of $125,000 in compensatory damages for the
emotional pain and suffering she endured as a result of the retaliatory termination, see Declaration of Brittney Baker, 'If 5 (Docket No. 27); c. the sum of$75,000 in punitive damages - Plaintiffs have demonstrated the Defendant was aware of the protections afforded Ms. Baker by Title VII, see Declaration of Wesley Katahira, Ex. 2 (Docket No. 28) and that defendant acted with reckless indifference when it terminated Ms. Baker in retaliation for reporting instances of sexual harassment; and d. post-judgment interest accruing on the above amounts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Finally, Defendant, its officers, successors, agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant are permanently enjoined from engaging in any employment practice constituting retaliation based on a person engaging in equal employment opportunity activity.
Dated this ~ay of June, 2004.
DEFAULT JUDGMENT-2

• • United States District Court for the District of Idaho June 22, 2004
* * CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING * *
Re: 4:03-cv-00221

I certify that I caused a copy of the attached document to be mailed or faxed to the following named persons:

A Luis Lucero Jr, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Kathryn Olson, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

Damien Lee, Esq.

1-206-220-6911

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

909 First Ave #400

Seattle, WA 98104-1061

T Jason Wood, Esq.
THOMSEN & STEPHENS
2635 Channing Way Idaho Falls, ID 83404

1-208-522-1277

_____Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill Judge Edward J. Lodge
-----Chief Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle ______.Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams
Visiting Judges: Judge David O. Carter
------·Judge John C. Coughenour ______.Judge Thomas S. Zilly

Date:

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk
BY: (Deputy Clerk)

 
 Case 4:03-cv-OO221-BLW Document 32-1 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 1 of 9

HOPKINS RODEN CROCKETT HANSEN & HOOPES, PLLC
Gregory L. Crockett, ISBN 1640 428 Park Avenue P. O. Box 51219 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83405-1219 Telephone: 208-523-4445 Attorneys for Deponent Jeff Neiswanger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
VS.
TELE-SERVICING INNOVATIONS, INC., Defendant.
BRITTANY BAKER, Plaintiff in Intervention.

Case No. CIV-03-221-E-BLW
DEPONENT JEFF NEISWANGER’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, MODIFY, AND ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW JeffNeiswanger, a potential deponent in this action, by and through his attorneys, and pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby objects to the Subpoena served on him on September 7, 2005, commanding him to produce a broad category of documents and give testimony on September 20, 2005. A true and correct copy of the Subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and made a part hereof by this reference. Mr. Neiswanger further respectfully moves for an order quashing the Subpoena or in the alternative, modifying it appropriately and entering an appropriate protective order.
JEFF NEISWANGER’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, MODIFY, AND ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

Case 4:03-cv-OO221-BLW Document 32-1 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 2 of 9

In support of his Objection and related Motions, Mr. Neiswanger represents and

states the following:

1. Mr. Neiswanger’s is an owner and principal in his own small business,

Channel Blend, LLC, located in Salmon, Idaho.

2. Mr. Neiswanger was served with the Subpoena at issue on the evening of

September 7, 2005. It was issued by counsel for the Plaintiff in Intervention on September 7,

2005, and commands him to produce a broad category of documents and provide testimony on

September 20, 2005. 3. Mr. Neiswanger is not involved with the Defendant Teleservicing
Innovations, Inc., and is not in possession or control of any documents, things or assets of that

company.

4. There exists no relationship between the defendant company,

Teleservicing Innovations, Inc., and Mr. Neiswanger’s company, Channel Blend, LLC.

5. It is believed and therefore alleged that the Plaintiff in Intervention is

currently employed by a competitor of Channel Blend, LLC and Mr. Neiswanger.

6. The Plaintiff in Intervention and her attorneys are simply engaged in a

fishing expedition designed only to cause Mr. Neiswanger burden, expense, humiliation and

emban’assment. 7.

Mr. Neiswanger is not an owner, stockholder, officer, director or employee

of the Defendant, Teleservicing Innovations, Inc.

JEFF NEISWANGER’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, MODIFY, AND ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2

Case 4:03-cv-OO221-BLW Document 32-1 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 3 of 9
8. Teleservicing Innovations, Inc. is believed by Mr. Neiswanger to be defunct; but any remnant of that company and its records are in the State of Colorado and those facts are well known to the Plaintiff in Intervention and her attorneys.
9. The documents sought by the Plaintiff in Intervention have absolutely no bearing or relevance to any issue or proceeding in this case.
10. The subject Subpoena does not comply with applicable law and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
11. No appearance or mileage fee was or has been tendered. 12. Given the breadth of the documents requested, the Subpoena as issued does not provide Mr. Neiswanger with sufficient time to comply with its commands. 13. From a review of the court’s file, it appears that the Subpoena was issued and served after conclusion and closure of this case and is therefore inappropriate. 14. The documents being sought include confidential information that is protected and protectable under the constitutional, statutory or common law right to privacy, contractual restrictions, and as Mr. Neiswanger’s confidemial business, financial, proprietary and trade secret information. In particular, such information is protected under the Idaho Trade Secrets Act, Idaho Code §48-801, et.seq, and Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15. The documents sought also include other confidential information that Mr. Neiswanger feels obligated to protect for the benefit of his customers and others who are also non-parties to this proceeding~ 16. In light of the documents being sought, Mr. Neiswanger also anticipates that the testimony being sought from him will likewise include such confidential information.
JEFF ~ISWANGER’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, MODIFY, AND ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3

Case 4:03-cv-OO221-BLW Document 32-1 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 4 of 9
17. Consequently, any compliance with the Subpoena as issued will wrongfully reveal such confidential information.
18. tn the event some form of compliance is required, Mr. Neiswanger is entitled to entry of an appropriate protective order that will adequately protect against the disclosure and dissemination of such confidential information and in particular preclude such information from becoming known to his competitors and others.
19. The document requests are overbroad, vague and appear to seek information and documents not otherwise pertinent to this action.
20. The document requests are unlimited as to time. 21. The document requests are also not reasonably limited as to subject matter. 22. It also appears that many of the documents sought are also readily available to the parties from each other and/or from other more reasonably available sources. 23. Mr. Neiswanger has been and will be forced to expend considerable effort and incur substantial expense, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys fees, in order to comply with the Subpoena as issued, and complying with it imposes an undue burden on him. 24. The party seeking production has failed to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing such undue burden and expense upon Mr. Neiswanger. She has likewise failed to establish that there is a substantial need for Mr. Neiswanger’s documents and testimony which cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship~ Finally she has failed to assure that Mr. Neiswanger be reasonably compensated for the effort and expense that will be necessary to comply with the Subpoena as issued.
JEFF NEISWANGER’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, MODIFY, AND ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER - 4

Case 4:03-cv-OO221-BLW Document 32-1 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 5 of 9
25. In the event some form of compliance is required, Mr. Neiswanger is entitled to be reasonably compensated for the necessary effort and expense involved in such compliance and hereby requests reasonable compensation for the same, including reimbursement for his reasonable attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, Mr. Neiswanger desires and respectfully requests all appropriate relief from the commands of the Subpoena, in accordance with Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including:
1. That the subject Subpoena be quashed to the extent it does not comply with the requirements of Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. That the subject Subpoena be quashed to the extent it is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome.
3. That the subject Subpoena be quashed to the extent it seeks disclosure of information that is protected under the constitutional, statutory or common law right to privacy, contractual restrictions or as confidential business, financial, proprietary and trade secret information and/or otherwise protected and protectable under the Idaho Trade Secrets Act, Idaho Code §48-801 et.seq, and other applicable law.
4. That the subject Subpoena be quashed to the extent it seeks information and/or documents that Mr. Neiswanger is obliged to maintain as confidential for the benefit of his customers and others.
5. That the subject Subpoena be quashed to the extent it has and will continue to subject Mr. Neiswanger to undue and substantial effort, expense and cost.
JEFF NEISWANGER’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, MODWY, AND ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER - 5

Case 4:03-cv-OO221-BLW Document 32-1 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 6 of 9
6. In the event some form of compliance is required, that the scope of the documents to be produced be appropriately narrowed with respect to pertinence, time and subject matter, and limited to those not already in the possession of or otherwise reasonably available to the Plaintiff in Intervention.
7. In the event some form of compliance is required, that an appropriate protective order be entered in Mr. Neiswanger’s favor that will adequately protect against the disclosure and dissemination of confidential information and in particular preclude such information from becoming known to his competitors.
8. In the event some form of compliance is required, that Mr. Neiswanger be reasonably compensated for his effort and expense associated with compliance, including his reasonable attorney’s fees.
9. That Mr. Neiswanger be afforded such other and further relief as may be just and equitable under the circumstances.
DATED this 14th day of September, 2005. HOPKINS RODEN CROCKETT HANSEN & HOOPES, P
,’ff Neiswanger, Deponent
JEFF NEISWANGER’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, MODIFY, AND ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER - 6

Case 4:03-cv-OO221-BLW Document 32-1 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 7 of 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY I filed the foregoing electronically through the CM/ECF system, which caused the following parties or counsel to be served by electronic means, as more fully reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing:
DATED this 14th day of September, 2005.
T. Jason Wood, Esq. THOMSEN STEPHENS LAW OFFICES 2635 Channing Way Idaho Falls, ID 83404
JEFF NEISWANGER’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, MODNY, AND ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER - 7

2 5 2 "

5 ~

Document 32-1CHA~F:ed ~005 Page 8 of 9 PAGE 82

T. Jason Wood, Esq., IsB #5016 THOMSEN STEPHENS LAW OFFICES 2635 Channing Way Idaho Falls, ID 83404 Telephone (208) 522-1230 Fax (208) 522-1277
Attorneys for PlaiI~tiff in Intervention, Brittany Baker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTtLICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

VS.

)

)

TELE-SERVICING INNOVATIONS,

)

INC.,

)

)

)

BRITTANY BAKER,

)

)

Plaintiff in Imervention,

)

)

Case No. CIV-03-221-E-BL.
SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
(RULE 69 FRCP)

THE STATE OF IDAHO SENDS GREETINGS TO: JEFFREY NEISWANGER
YOU ARE HEKEBY COMMANDED to appear at Thomsela Stephens Law O£fices, PLLC0 on 2635 Chm~.l~.i~g Way, Idaho Falls~ Idaho, on the 20 day of Sept~aaber, 2005, at ] :00 o’clock p.m. as a witness in the above entitled action for the purpose of your deposition bei.~g taken at the request

I -

SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM (RULE 69 FRCP)

u/ 7/2

!

Document 32-1~HA~d~4/2005 Page 9 of 9 PAGE 83

of Plaintiff Brittany Baker regardiJ~g business, legal, personal and financial information.,
documentation and records pertaining to Defendant Teleservicing Innoevations, Inc. and the
formation and operation of Channel Blend, LLC.
YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to bring with you the following items and
documents:
Any and all documentation pertaining to the liquidation and/or sale of assets of Teleservicing Innovations, Inc., and the organization, fundin.g and formation of Channel Blend, LLC, including but not limited to all legal, personal, business and financial records relevant to any transaction, asset, liability, legal matter including but not limited to any buy/sell agreement, documentation of the sale or purchase of assets, written communication, business plan, legal documents, and other records or documents relevar~t to these events.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that if you fail to appear at the place aud time specified
above, you may be heId in contempt of court, and the aggrieved party may recover from you the sum
of $100.00 and all damages which he may sustain by your failure to attend as a witness.
DATED this 7~’ day of September, 2005.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT.

4006\023

~Attorney ~r The State of Idaho

2 ° SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AT DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM (RULE 59 FRCP)

 
 JURY, LC3, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 3.2.1 (Pocatello − Eastern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:03−cv−00221−BLW

EEOC v. Tele−Servicing Innov Assigned to: Judge B. Lynn Winmill Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/02/2003 Date Terminated: 06/18/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by A Luis Lucero, Jr EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 (206) 220−6915 Email: luis.lucero@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damien Lee EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 (206) 220−6915 Fax: 1−206−220−6911 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Olson EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 (206) 220−6895 Fax: (206) 220−6911 Email: kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Tele−Servicing Innovations, Inc.
Miscellaneous Jeff Neiswanger

represented by Gregory L Crockett HOPKINS RODEN CROCKETT HANSEN &HOOPES P.O. Box 51219 Idaho Falls, ID 83405−1219 (208) 523−4445 Fax: (208) 523−4474 Email: gregcrockett@hopkinsroden.com TERMINATED: 08/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory L Crockett (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Brittney Baker

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by T. Jason Wood THOMSEN STEPHEN LAW OFFICES PLLC 2635 Channing Way Idaho Falls, ID 83404 (208) 522−1230 Email: tjwood@thomsenstephenslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/02/2003 06/04/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 07/01/2003 07/11/2003 07/11/2003 07/31/2003 07/31/2003 08/11/2003
08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/21/2003 09/22/2003 10/30/2003
11/12/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) (jml) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
2 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for plaintiff re complaint [1−1] (jml)
3 OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND REASSIGNMENT of case to Honorable B. Lynn Winmill (cc: all counsel) (SEALED) (dkh)
4 NOTICE of case number change (dkh)
5 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for def by Gregory L Crockett (wm) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
6 MOTION by Brittney Baker to intervene (wm)
7 MEMORANDUM by intervenor−pla Brittney Baker in support of motion to intervene [6−1] (wm)
8 MOTION by def to withdraw attorney (wm)
9 DECLARATION of Katherine Steele Moriarty in support of motion to withdraw attorney [8−1] (wm)
10 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting motion to withdraw attorney [8−1] ; terminating attorney Gregory L Crockett for Tele−Servicing Innov ; Case Mgmt ddl set for 9/1/03 for dft Tele−Servicing to file notice of representation (cc: all counsel) (wm)
11 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting motion to intervene [6−1] (cc: all counsel) (wm)
12 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by intervenor−pla Brittney Baker (wm)
13 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Katherine Steele Moriarty in support of motion to withdraw attorney [8−1] (wm)
14 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL of Tracy D. Belton regarding order [10−2] (wm)
15 MOTION by intervenor−plaintiff Brittney Baker for entry of default as to Tele−Servicing Innov , and for attorney fees (wm) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
16 CLERKS ENTRY OF DEFAULT ENTERED as to def Tele−Servicing Innov (wm) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
17 MOTION by pla for entry of default as to Tele−Servicing Innov (wm) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
18 DECLARATION of Wesley Katahira re motion for entry of default as to Tele−Servicing Innov [17−1] (wm) (Entered: 11/17/2003)

12/22/2003 02/06/2004 02/17/2004 03/04/2004 03/24/2004 03/24/2004 04/28/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 04/30/2004 06/18/2004
09/12/2005 09/14/2005
09/16/2005
07/12/2006

19 DEFAULT ENTERED as to def Tele−Servicing Innov (wm)
20 AFFIDAVIT of Brittney Baker regarding order default [19−1] (wm) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
21 APPLICATION by intervenor−pla Brittney Baker for default judgment against Tele−Servicing Innov (wm)
22 APPLICATION by pla for default judgment against Tele−Servicing Innovations Inc (ja) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
23 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Re: Submission of briefing (cc: all counsel) (dkh)
24 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Re: EEOC submissions (cc: all counsel) (dkh)
25 DECLARATION of Brittney Baker re motion for default judgment against Tele−Servicing Innovations Inc [22−1] (wm) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
26 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion for default judgment against Tele−Servicing Innovations Inc [22−1] (wm) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
27 DECLARATION of Brittney Baker re motion for default judgment against Tele−Servicing Innovations Inc [22−1] (wm) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
28 DECLARATION of Wesley Katahira re motion for default judgment against Tele−Servicing Innovations Inc [22−1] (wm) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
29 JOINDER by intervenor−plaintiff Brittney Baker joining memorandum [26−1] (wm) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
30 DEFAULT JUDGMENT by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Judgment for plas in the amount of $ 208,240.00; granting motion for default judgment against Tele−Servicing Innovations Inc [22−1], granting motion for default judgment against Tele−Servicing Innov [21−1] dismissing case (cc: all counsel) (JUDGMENT SCANNED) (wm) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
31 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena served on Jeffrey Neiswanger on 9/7/2005. (jlg, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
32 REPLY filed by Jeff Neiswanger. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support of Objection to Subpoena)(Crockett, Gregory) Modified on 9/16/2005 to create link to 31 Affidavit of Service of Subpoena (jlg, ).
33 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 31 Affidavit of Service, First MOTION for Protective Order, First MOTION to Quash by Jeff Neiswanger. Responses due by 10/11/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Support of Objection to Subpoena)(Crockett, Gregory)
34 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER finding as moot 33 Motion to Amend/Correct, finding as moot 33 Motion for Protective Order, and finding as moot 33 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by sbh)