UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Roger Wright, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No.: 1:06 cv 647-WKW

§

Pemco World Air Services, Inc. §

Defendant. §

MOTION TO COMPEL

Comes now the Plaintiff, Roger Wright, and pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, moves this court for an order compelling the Defendant to respond to certain 

discovery matters and as grounds therefor, the Plaintiff states as follows: 

1. The Plaintiff served interrogatories and request for production of documents on 

the Defendant on or about January 23, 2007. On February 26, 2007, the Defendant responded, a 

copy of the response is attached herein as Exhibit A. On June 7, 2007, the undersigned wrote to 

Defendant’s counsel and requested that the Defendant provide the information requested but no 

response has been received. (See Exhibit B.) The areas of contention are as follows:

a. First, with regard to initial disclosures, Defendant has failed, despite requests, to 

provide a copy of the applicable insurance agreement in this case as required under Rule 26.

b. Defendant’s answers to interrogatories are also incomplete and unverified. 

Defendant's letter of February 26, 2007 indicates that Defendant intended to send verified 

responses (Exhibit C), but Plaintiff has never received the verified responses.

c. Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories are also insufficient without a privilege log

as required by Rule 26. 

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 5
d. With regard to Interrogatory #2, Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant 

was asked to identify the name, address and job title of any person who participated in an 

investigation of Plaintiff's complaints. Such information is not covered by any privilege, nor do 

the Initial Disclosures provide any answer to this question. 

e. With regard to Interrogatory #4, Defendant generally refers to the "documents 

produced" without specifying the specific bates page number which would respond to

Interrogatory #4. Defendant has produced over fifty pages of lists and charts without labeling 

them to correspond to the interrogatory request as required under Rule 34 (b)(ii). 

f. With regard to Interrogatory #5, Defendant indicated that the information will be 

provided, but Plaintiff has not received anything on this request. 

g. With regard to Interrogatory #6, the request is specifically limited and is relevant 

to the age discrimination claim and therefore Defendant has improperly failed to fully answer 

#6. Also, Defendant indicated that some documents are produced in response to this request, but 

again, Defendant did not identify the specific bates page which corresponds to Defendant's

answer to this interrogatory.

h. With regard to Interrogatory #7, Defendant's response is the same as Interrogatory 

#6 and therefore again, Plaintiff would request a full response and also ask Defendant to identify 

the documents that are responsive to this interrogatory.

i. With regard to Interrogatory #8, this is the same issue as #6 and #7.

j. With regard to Interrogatory #9 and #10, again, this information is not overly 

broad and Plaintiff would request a full response to the interrogatories and that Defendant also 

identify the documents which are responsive to these questions.

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 2 of 5
k. With regard to Interrogatory #12, again, Defendant has not identified the specific 

documents that are responsive to this interrogatory.

l. With regard to Interrogatory #18, Defendant did not provide the information that 

is responsive to this interrogatory.

m. With regard to Interrogatory #19, Defendant has not identified the specific 

documents that are responsive to this interrogatory and Defendant has not described any 

evidence which the Defendant has at this time which is responsive to this interrogatory. 

n. With regard to Interrogatory #22, this request is not overly broad and Defendant 

has not answered.

o. With regard to Interrogatory #23, this request is not overly broad and Defendant 

has not answered.

p. With regard to Interrogatory #25, this information is highly relevant to Plaintiff's 

age discrimination claim and Plaintiff is only asking for information for six years. This is 

certainly a reasonable time period for discovery.

q. With regard to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Request to P roduce Documents, 

again, Defendant has not identified the bates page numbers which correspond with the specific 

request. Also, again, to the extent that Defendant claims privilege, Plaintiff would request that 

Defendant produce the privileged log.

r. With regard to Document Request #11, the records which Defendant has produced 

are inadequate. Although there are statements of earnings of other employees, Roger Wright's 

statement of earnings is not included, nor is there any information supplied regarding his 

retirement pension records, payroll records, benefit records, insurance records, etc. Plaintiff is

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 3 of 5
aware of time sheets which Roger Wright kept on the job and also payments of overtime and 

none of these have been produced. 

s. With regard to Document Request #12, Plaintiff has not received the personnel 

files of Ray Bennett, Dennis Johnson, or Henry Ward, key witnesses in the case. Plaintiff has

received some records with respect to Clark Briody, but again, because Defendant has not 

identified the specific bates numbers which pertain to this document request, it is not clear from 

what Defendant has produced as to whether this Request #12 has been fully answered. 

t. With regard to Document Request #13, Defendant's response indicates that it has

provided us with copies of the job descriptions. To Plaintiff's knowledge, job descriptions have 

not been so provided.

u. With regard to Document Request #15, Defendant indicates that additional 

documents will be produced, but nothing has been received. Nothing has been produced with 

regard to the Plaintiff's salary, bonuses, plan benefits, pension and other benefits items which are 

clearly discoverable in an employment case. 

v. With regard to Document Request #16, this information has not been produced. It 

is highly relevant considering Defendant's defense in this case and therefore, this information 

should be produced.

w. With regard to Document Request #20 and #22, again, this is highly relevant 

information and should be produced. 

2. Plaintiff hereby certifies that counsel for both parties have met and conferred and 

have been unable to resolve their differences without court action. In addition to telephone 

conversations, Plaintiff corresponded with Defendant's counsel on June 7, 2007 and July 6, 

2007. (Exhibit B & D.) The parties also met and discussed these issues on July 11, 2007. 

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 4 of 5
Defendant's delay has had the effect of impeding discovery in this case and Plaintiff is being 

forced to conduct depositions without the documents which Defendant is obligated to produce. 

Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays that this court grant his motion to compel the Defendant to 

provide full responses to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests and for such other relief as allowed by 

Rule 37. 

Respectfully submitted,

_s/ Elizabeth B. Glasgow_____

Elizabeth B. Glasgow

ASB-8348- S58E

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 2228

Dothan, Alabama 36302

(334) 793-2424

F. (334) 793-6624

eglasgow@fphw-law.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 27, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 

following: 

John Holmes, Esq. 

Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.

1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400

Birmingham, AL 35203

__s/ Elizabeth B. Glasgow_____

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 2 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 3 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 4 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 5 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 6 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 7 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 8 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 9 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 10 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 11 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 12 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 13 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 14 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 15 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 16 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 17 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 18 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 19 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 20 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 21 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 22 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-2 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 23 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-3 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-3 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-3 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-3 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-4 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 10-5 Filed 07/13/2007 Page 1 of 1