1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICARDO WRIGHT, BERYL

JACKSON, TRACEY MARTIN,

C A L V I N FL UKE R, LI S A

PITCHFORD, KIMBERLY LOVE,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

U.S.FOODSERVICE,INC. and U.S.

F O O D S E R V I C E , I N C . -

MONTGOMERY DIVISION,

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

) 2:06cv785-MHT

)

) JURY DEMAND

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

COME NOW, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and files this reply to

Defendant, U.S. Food Service, Inc.’s, response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel as

follows:

1. Defendant’s reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel asserts it failed to respond

to discovery because

it chose to try to Mediate as opposed to producing discovery. Defendant’s response

tries to paint Plaintiffs as being unwilling to mediate. However, Defendant failed to

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 41 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 4
1

In its Response, Defendant states that it has been talking with Plaintiffs’ counsel since

March 2006. To the contrary and as shown by Defendant’s own exhibits attached to its

Response, the Parties have been talking about Mediation since January 2007, and Plaintiffs have

been asking for discovery responses since that time. (See EX A to Defendant’s Response to

Motion to Compel.)

2

inform this Court that Defendant demanded Plaintiffs resign their employment as a

condition of mediation. Plaintiffs made it clear to Defendant many months ago that

they were not willing to give up their employment to settle their claims.

1 Plaintiffs

have never agreed to allow Defendant to delay responding to their discovery requests

in order to mediate this case, and Defendant has pointed to no evidence showing such

an agreement.

2. To this date, over five months after Plaintiffs sent discovery to Defendant,

Plaintiffs have received no responses to their discovery requests. Plaintiffs’ counsel

has been extraordinarily patient with Defense Counsel, but that patience has been at

the expense of the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ claims. To continue to allow Defendant

to delay is extremely prejudicial to Plaintiffs.

3. Defendant concludes its Motion stating that "defendant respectfully requests

at least thirty (30) days to respond to the discovery requests." Given the fact that

Defendant has no legitimate excuse for failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery

requests and that Defendant has had more than an abundant amount of time to

respond, Plaintiffs respectfully moves this Court to Order Defendant to immediately

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 41 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

provide full and complete responses.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request

that this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Defendant provide full and

complete responses to all of Plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery on or before July 2,

2007.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Jon. C. Goldfarb

Jon C. Goldfarb (GOL015)

Ethan R. Dettling (DET001)

Melissa N. Tapp (TAP005)

Counsel for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL:

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19

th Street North

Birmingham, AL 35203

Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500

Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 41 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have filed a true and correct copy of the above and

foregoing document the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will

electronically notify the following counsel of record:

Tammy L. Baker, Esq.,

Jackson Lewis, LLP

2001 Park Place North, Suite 650

Birmingham, AL 35203

on this the 25

th

day of June , 2007.

s/Jon C. Goldfarb

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 41 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 4 of 4