1

ARMANDO A. PANDOLA, JR.

Identification No.: 27608

400 Sterling Commerce Center ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

1819 JFK Boulevard

Philadelphia, Pa 19103

(215) 568-5010

_________________________________________________________________

JEROLD WASHINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

Vs. PENNSYLVANIA

 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4451

CORPORATION D/B/A AMTRAK

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of , 2003, it is hereby

ORDERED and DECREED that the defendant is ordered to produce the

documents requested in Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents and

that defendant's objections to the following requests are stricken: 6 and 7

(with the understanding the plaintiff will sign a confidentiality agreement as

to the personnel files), 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33,

34, 35 and 37. 

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________

J.

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 1 of 11
2

ARMANDO A. PANDOLA, JR.

Identification No.: 27608

400 Sterling Commerce Center ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

1819 JFK Boulevard

Philadelphia, Pa 19103

(215) 568-5010

_________________________________________________________________

JEROLD WASHINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

Vs. PENNSYLVANIA

 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4451

CORPORATION D/B/A AMTRAK

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OBJECTIONS

AND COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. On October 23, 2002, plaintiff filed Request for Production of 

Documents on defendants, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a

part hereof as Exhibit “A”. On or about December 20, 2002, defendant filed

responses, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as

Exhibit “B”. Defendant filed numerous objections to Plaintiff’s Request for

Production of Documents.

2. Each of Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents is 

necessary to the proper prosecution of this claim on behalf of the plaintiff.

Also, each request falls within the guidelines of discovery set by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is Plaintiff’s Memorandum 

of Law. In Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law, plaintiff sets forth all of the

objections made by the defendants, and responds to each objection. 

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 2 of 11
3

Based on the arguments and facts set forth in the enclosed Memorandum

of Law, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court order the defendants to

produce the documents requested.

4. On more than one occasion, plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to 

resolve this discovery dispute, and hereby certifies to the Court that after a

reasonable effort, the parties have been unable to resolve this dispute.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Honorable Court strike 

Defendant's objections and order the defendants to produce the requested

documents within ten (10) days or suffer sanctions upon further application

to this Court.

Respectfully submitted by,

ARMANDO A. PANDOLA, JR., ESQUIRE

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 3 of 11
4

ARMANDO A. PANDOLA, JR.

Identification No.: 27608

400 Sterling Commerce Center ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

1819 JFK Boulevard

Philadelphia, Pa 19103

(215) 568-5010

_________________________________________________________________

JEROLD WASHINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

Vs. PENNSYLVANIA

 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4451

CORPORATION D/B/A AMTRAK

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. Statement of Facts

Jerold Washington was hired by the defendant on May 10, 1999 as a 

Trackman. His duties were to construct, maintain, repair, inspect and

dismantle track and attach structures thereto, including right of way

maintenance. On or about November 30, 2000, a co-worker, James Hogan,

made inappropriate racial remarks to Mr. Washington, making reference to

a confederate flag that was located in the back window of a truck used in

the exterminating business. On that same day, the same co-employee

used tape to tie up Mr. Washington to the driver’s seat of the truck. The coemployee was holding a noose in his hand and he asked Mr. Washington if

he knew what it was for. All of the other, non-minority employees at this

location supported the employee who harassed the plaintiff.

These racial remarks were part of a general hostile work

environment at the Lancaster Division of the defendant.

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 4 of 11
5

Because of this hostile work environment, Mr. Washington was

unable to work in the Lancaster Division, and he has lost employment

because of his inability to work at that location. On a regular basis, jobs

are given to non-blacks who are less qualified than Mr. Washington and

others of his race.

The practices and policies of the defendant have a discriminatory

impact on minorities because of the inability of minorities to accept jobs

throughout the defendant's system; regional rules controls many jobs.

II. Plaintiff’s Request for Production and Defendants Objections

Plaintiff filed specific Requests for Production of Documents based on 

the specific allegations made by the plaintiff in his civil action. The

purpose of the requests was to obtain documents concerning those

employees of the defendant who had harassed the plaintiff, and caused a

hostile working environment that he was forced to endure and, eventually,

was forced to leave.

Additionally, plaintiff sought documents, generally, concerning the

defendant’s poor record in dealing with issues of a hostile working

environment and, specifically, a hostile working environment for minorities.

Additionally, there is a broader issue concerning minority

advancement. Mr. Washington has alleged that he was unable to take

advantage of certain job openings because his ability to work at certain

locations was greatly restricted by the defendant’s policy of having each of

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 5 of 11
6

its locations make their own policies concerning certain job requirements.

Usually, those requirements contained a geographic condition which

prevented persons outside of a specific geographic area from applying for

certain jobs.

Regarding Requests #6-7, we agreed to sign a confidentially stipulation,

as to the entire personnel file. To date, none has been forwarded.

Request #9, specifically asks for any and all reports or forms filed by or

on behalf of the defendant concerning claims of racial discrimination made

against it. Defendant claims that answering this request is burdensome.

Are there so many claims of racial discrimination being made against the

defendant, that supplying these documents would be burdensome? If that

is the case, then defendant should simply state so. In any event, plaintiff is

entitled to see these documents.

Regarding Request #10, plaintiff clarified that it was a request for any

and all documents that defendant may have forwarded to an outside

agency other then PHRC or the EEOC. In other words, did defendant send

this matter out to be investigated by an outside entity? Of course, we are

not asking about documents sent to an attorney. Many large companies

now use an outside investigator. We have the right to see those

documents.

Regarding Request #14, as stated above, have there been so many

complaints that it would be burdensome for defendant to produce all of

them? Plaintiff has the right to review all such documents.

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 6 of 11
7

Regarding Request #15, defendant's response does not answer the

request. Once again, we want any and all lawsuits filed against the

defendant from 1995 to the present in which it was claimed that the

defendant or its employees were guilty of racial discrimination.

Regarding Request #19, defendant does not answer the request. We

want any and all affirmative action plans signed by the defendant, not only

those to which plaintiff was part of the class. 

Regarding Request #20, plaintiff is alleging that he applied for this job

and was denied it. Therefore, the basis of defendant's objection does not

exist.

Regarding #21 and 22, defendant has yet to supply the documents

requested and to advise that it has completed its investigation.

Regarding #24, see above.

Regarding Request #25, while we do not believe that clarification is

necessary, plaintiff is requesting whether there are any internal policies

which relate to how jobs are posted and how applicants are selected for

those jobs. It appears to us to be a simple question, and most

organizations can provide a simple answer to it.

Regarding Requests #’s 26 and 27, plaintiff is alleging that he applied

for this job and we would like this information.

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 7 of 11
8

Regarding Request #28, we would like information concerning any

policies that the defendant has regarding evaluations for any employee.

Regarding Request #30, we need the names and identifying information

for all the employees at the Lancaster Division so that we can discover

information concerning those matters that go to the heart of this litigation. 

Regarding Request 32 and 33, it is obvious to us that not only will this

information lead to admissible evidence, it is probably admissible evidence

in and of itself.

Request #34 is not answered; it does not apply to the plaintiff, only.

Regarding Request #35, we believe that this information is vital,

especially regarding the Lancaster Division. 

Regarding Request #37, there are no assumptions in the question.

Instead, we wish to know whether such attempts were made. Defendant

may answer by simply stating that it did not believe that it was necessary

since there is no racial discrimination practiced at the Lancaster Division.

In any event, the question must be answered.

II. Conclusion

Defendant has attempted to restrict discovery to the particular claim 

of racial harassment suffered by the plaintiff, that is, plaintiff’s claim of

harassment and discrimination at the Lancaster Division. In fact, plaintiff’s

claims goes beyond the restrictions placed upon it by the defendant. By

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 8 of 11
9

restricting the discovery available to the plaintiff, defendant hopes to

prevent the plaintiff from discovering those facts that lead to the hostile

work environment that plaintiff endured, and will prove that there is a

systemic problem throughout defendant's railroad. 

Defendant has already been subject to a consent order concerning its

treatment of minorities. It has refused to supply any documents other then

that consent order, even though the consent order requires it to keep

various statistics and file various reports concerning its treatment of

minorities. It is possible that the defendant has never complied with the

requirements set forth in the consent decree.

The information requested is vital to a proper prosecution of this claim.

We request that the Court order the defendant to produce the documents

requested.

Respectfully submitted by,

ARMANDO A. PANDOLA, JR., ESQUIRE

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 9 of 11
10

V E R I F I C A T I O N

ARMANDO A. PANDOLA, JR., ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for

Plaintiff herein, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true

and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and that this

statement is made subject to the penalties of relating to unsworn falsification

to authorities.

Date:______________________ _________________________

ARMANDO A.PANDOLA, JR.

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 10 of 11
11

ARMANDO A. PANDOLA, JR.

Identification No.: 27608

400 Sterling Commerce Center ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

1819 JFK Boulevard

Philadelphia, Pa 19103

(215) 568-5010

_________________________________________________________________

JEROLD WASHINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

Vs. PENNSYLVANIA

 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4451

CORPORATION D/B/A AMTRAK

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

Armando A. Pandola, Jr., Esquire, attorney for plaintiff hereby certifies

that the attorney of record in the attached action has been served with a true

and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Objections and Compel

Answers to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents by first class

mail on March 12, 2003 to the following:

Jennifer M. Nix, Esquire

Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

1701 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921

________________________

ARMANDO A. PANDOLA, JR.

Case 2:02-cv-04451-CG Document 12 Filed 03/13/2003 Page 11 of 11