IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 :

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 :

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW SUPPORTING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION 

This Motion for Sanctions follows two Court Orders compelling discovery. The first 

required Aiken to appear for deposition by April 1, 2004, after Plaintiff's attempts to schedule his 

deposition beginning in November 2003 failed. The second order compelled defendants to 

answer her Request for Production of Documents and produce the documents. Defendants did 

neither. 

Plaintiff was Executive Director of defendant corporation for ten years. She has just one 

claim, under the Pennsylvania Constitution's Equal Rights Amendment. She was subjected to 

disgusting physical and verbal sexual degradation and harassment by two successive Presidents 

of the Board of Directors of the Greater Hatboro chamber of Commerce, Bud Aiken and 

Marshall (a/k/a Mickey) Glantz. Glantz's filthy mouth was offensive and constant. Aiken's 

unwanted touching culminated in indecent exposure of his private parts in the Chamber office, 

and when she yelled and threw him out, he "reorganized" the one-person office staff and took her 

job himself. Defendants then denigrated Barrett's reputation in the community, and she could 

1 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 17-2 Filed 05/13/2004 Page 1 of 6
not find local employment. She moved to New Jersey and got a job. Jurisdiction is based on 

diversity of citizenship. 

Defendants have just two defenses: (1) None of this ever happened1

; and (2) Neither they 

nor the Chamber has any insurance, and they have no money to settle. As for the second, 

financial, defense, counsel made representations to the Court, and to Plaintiff, that there is 

neither insurance nor money which could satisfy a judgment, so she should simply go away. 

Nonetheless, defendants have retained experienced and specialized counsel with offices in 

downtown Philadelphia, and are financing this litigation somehow. They are vigorously 

defending every claim Plaintiff makes, by denial and evasion. So far, defense costs have 

probably exceeded any potential offer to settle. Yet the fight goes on. Defendants are business 

people and a business association. They have assets. 

Defendants made no objection to Plaintiff's request for financial reports and other 

information, including minutes of Chamber meetings and treasurer's reports. Indeed they have 

not even bothered to answer the Request for Production. They prefer to create confusion by 

producing financial "documents" not prepared in the normal course of business. And they prefer 

to ignore routine requests for minutes of Chamber meetings. Even after Plaintiff finally had to 

resort to a Motion to Compel, and obtained an Order to comply "forthwith" they delayed, and 

came up with papers that prove nothing -- except that something is being hidden. Assets are 

hidden, and may have been transferred. 

Defendants' Treasurer, a CPA and custodian of the Chamber's tax returns and financial 

records, was not permitted to answer a simple question, i.e. whether defense counsel's fees are 

being paid from the General Checking Account. (See Ex. I hereto, deposition of C. Fullam, N.T. 

5/5/04, at p. 32.) There is no "privilege" objection; the check register for the corporate General 

 

1

 This is not an unusual defense. The second defense, however, is novel in the experience of undersigned counsel. 

2 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 17-2 Filed 05/13/2004 Page 2 of 6
Account does show a few payments to defense counsel, for legal representation. It was a 

straightforward question. There is no reason why it cannot be answered, except for purposes of 

concealment. One sanction Plaintiff requests is to establish in the record of this case, and to 

advise the jury at trial, that defendants are concealing financial information and sources of funds 

to finance this litigation. 

Ms. Fullam also was unable to vouch for the accuracy of the documents produced, which 

she was shown; the four-year purported P&L statement (ex. G hereto) was a Quickbooks 

printout' Fullam uses Excel and was confused as to whether it covered only one year or four, and 

could not determine the accuracy of any numbers without careful review (Fullam, N.T. 5/5/04, 

pp. 12 through 14). Fullam was not asked to supply the documents requested; defendants 

decided instead to produce what they wished, and as little of it as possible. Limiting the 

financial information to 1999-2003 is especially prejudicial for Plaintiff, who was fired in 2000; 

the contributions she made to the Chamber are simply unavailable for comparison over the years 

she was there. We have no idea where these documents came from or what they mean. 

This concealment may well be directly related to the deposition testimony of Glantz and 

Aiken, both of whom denied ever receiving Plaintiff's repeated written requests to stop touching 

her, and to stop sexually degrading remarks against her. If Glantz and Aiken are being defended 

at the cost of the Chamber on condition that they have not done what Plaintiff claims, and would 

have to indemnify the Chamber if they are found liable, they both have a tremendous financial 

incentive to deny everything Plaintiff says. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Roadway Express v. Piper, 100 S. Ct. 2455 (1980) held attorney fees could be awarded as 

sanctions under Rule 37 for failure to comply with discovery; the Court has inherent power to 

3 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 17-2 Filed 05/13/2004 Page 3 of 6
assess attorney fees in certain cases, and in some circumstances attorney fees could be assessed 

against counsel.2 Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962) recognized the 

well established, inherent power of a Court to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation 

practices. 

Ingram v. Home Depot Inc., 1999 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 1725, Feb. 19. 1999, Hutton, J., an 

employment discrimination case, held that Home Depot must produce documents relating to the 

employer's discharge, promotion, and transfer of non-whites because the information was 

relevant and could lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Judge Hutton also ordered Home

Depot to produce pre-construction market studies of its stores constructed in the Philadelphia 

area, because one of the factors considered in those studies was racial demographics. The 

company hired workers based on racial composition of the market area, but did not promote 

nonwhite management trainees above the assistant store manager level. In that case, defendant 

made numerous objections to production of the requested documents. But in this case, NO 

objection is being made to any request for production -- and even the Chamber's tax returns, 

which are publicly available because of its "nonprofit" tax status, are being withheld. 

The conduct of defendants in discovery in this case displays an arrogance and disrespect 

for rules of Court, and Orders of Court. Defendants are entitled to a hearing, and should be 

required to produce each and every document requested and withheld, and explain to the Court 

their reasons for concealment. The current President of the Chamber of Commerce made 

absolutely no effort to comply with the Court Order. Aiken and Glantz, while denying 

everything, appear to be distancing themselves from the Chamber, as though they are no longer 

involved. They should be required to explain why the financial documents are being withheld -- 

 

2

 Plaintiff does NOT seek sanctions against defense counsel. Plaintiff believes defendants, not counsel, are 

responsible for the failure to provide routine discovery and comply with Court orders. 

4 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 17-2 Filed 05/13/2004 Page 4 of 6
if not to protect the Chamber, perhaps to protect them. The Chamber's books must be open to 

preserve its favorable tax status. Have Chamber funds been transferred somewhere so as not to 

appear "on the books?"

Discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed 

to help define and clarify the issues. Oppenheimer Fund Inc. v. Sanders, 98 S. Ct. 2380, 437 U.S. 

340 (1978); see also, Financial Bldg. Consultants Inc. v. American Druggists Ins. Co. , 91 F.R.D. 

59 (D. C. Ga. 1981) 

Additionally, Constitution Bank v. Levine, 151 F.R.D. 278 (E. D. Pa. 1993) recognized 

that the propriety of discovery sought is not at issue at the time sanctions are being imposed for 

failure to comply with a discovery order. 

Plaintiff requests Defendants be assessed a fine of at least $3,000, and also be required to 

pay counsel fees for filing the second Motion to Compel, this Motion for Sanctions, and 

representation at the hearing for imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff requests that the jury be told 

defendants are self-insured, financially responsible, and have hidden their assets to escape 

liability in this case, and deny every contention of sexual discrimination, degradation and 

harassment that Plaintiff has made to protect their assets from Plaintiff's judgment. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and authority of law, Plaintiff requests a hearing be scheduled 

for imposition of sanctions, including a fine, counsel fees, and establishment of facts concerning 

concealment of financial documents, to be read to the jury in this case, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 (Signature Code AFA 2128) 

 _______________________ 

 Anita F. Alberts, Counsel for Plaintiff. 

5 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 17-2 Filed 05/13/2004 Page 5 of 6
6 

 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 17-2 Filed 05/13/2004 Page 6 of 6