{00008967; 1}

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

SCOTT D. DALESANDRO, et al.,

 On behalf of themselves and

 all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE INTERNATIONAL PAPER 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. C-1-01-109

Judge Sandra S. Beckwith

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

COURT APPROVAL OF CLASS

COMMUNICATION 

(Exhibits & Proposed Entry attached)

MOTION 

Plaintiffs move the Court to approve and authorize a letter from Class Counsel to the 

class members informing them of the status of the parties’ dispute as to whether vacation pay is 

recoverable in this lawsuit. The proposed communication is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The 

bases for this Motion are set forth in the following Memorandum in Support, and a proposed 

Entry is attached (Exhibit C) and has been sent to the Court via electronic mail in Word format.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

In the Court Ordered Notice dated September 24, 2003 the class members were informed 

that this action had been certified, that judgment had been entered, and that they had certain 

rights and obligations related to their participation or exclusion from the action. This Notice also 

included Defendant’s calculation of each employee’s severance benefits (provided by Section 2 

of Policy #828), but did not include any calculation of the employees’ earned but unused 

vacation pay (provided by Section 7.1 of Policy #828).

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 56 Filed 11/11/2003 Page 1 of 4
{00008967; 1} 2

This Notice instructs the class members to review the calculation of their benefits and to 

send a letter within 30 days to Defendant (Sharon Barger is the contact person provided by 

International Paper) if they believe the calculation is incorrect and explaining the grounds as to 

why the calculation is incorrect. More than 70 employees sent letters within the required time 

objecting to the calculations based on the omission of their earned but unused vacation time that 

they had earned while under Defendant’s employ.

1

The Notice also stated that International 

Paper Company would respond to those objections setting forth a reviewed determination and 

explanation of the calculation no later than 20 days after the receipt of any such letter. 

Soon after the Court’s Notice was mailed, Plaintiffs’ counsel began receiving phone calls 

with questions about the omission of the vacation pay; these phone calls continued over the 

weeks and have not ceased.2 Plaintiffs’ counsel has also received many copies of letters that 

class members have sent to Defendant which, to date, total in excess of 70.3 Further, Plaintiffs 

counsel has received multiple calls, which are increasing, from class members who have not 

received the promised response from International Paper within the 20 day period stated in the 

Notice.

4

 Plaintiffs’ counsel then contacted defense counsel to alert him to the issue, to inquire as 

to Defendant’s response to the letters, and to come to an agreement on the procedure by which it 

should be addressed.5 Counsel were unable to reach agreement and the parties presented the 

dispute to the Court in a phone conference on October 28, 2003.6The Court granted Defendant’s 

request to conduct discovery and the dispute is in the process of being presented to and decided 

by the Court.7 

 

1 Groh Declaration, Exhibit B.

2

Id.

3

Id.

4

Id.

5

Id.

6

Id.

7 Court Order dated October 28, 2003 (Doc. #55).

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 56 Filed 11/11/2003 Page 2 of 4
{00008967; 1} 3

At the conclusion of the October 28, 2003 conference with the Court, Plaintiffs’ counsel 

requested permission to send a letter to the class members for the sole purpose of informing them 

of the status of the vacation pay dispute. Plaintiffs agreed to draft the letter and to submit it to 

Defendant and then to the Court for review. Immediately thereafter, on October 29, 2003, 

Plaintiffs sent via electronic mail the letter to the class that they intended to submit to the Court 

for approval.8 That letter is attached as Exhibit A. 

In that October 29 transmission Plaintiffs requested that Defendant inform them of any 

revisions so that the letter could be jointly submitted to the Court.9 When, one week later on 

November 5, 2003, Plaintiffs had not received any response from Defendant, they sent another 

electronic message asking Defendant whether they could submit the letter and represent to the 

Court that Defendant did not oppose the language; Plaintiffs also informed Defendant that they 

intended to file the letter for the Court’s review in the following days on November 6 or 7 before 

the end of that week.10 As of November 11, 2003, Plaintiffs have received no response to these 

requests from Defendant.11

This communication is necessary based upon the number of phone calls and letters from 

employees, and based upon the belief that Defendant has not sent any response to any employee 

who wrote letters.

12 The proposed letter is appropriate under F.R.Civ.P. 23(d)(2) and will 

provide useful information in a neutral and uniform manner and ensure that the class members 

are notified that their responses to the first Court Notice will be fully and fairly addressed.

 

8 Groh Declaration.

9

Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Plaintiffs’ counsel has not received copies of any responses from Defendant to any employees’ letters, and has 

been informed by many employees that their letters to International Paper were sent well over 20 days ago, as is 

supported by the dates of those employee letters, and that they have received no response from International Paper. 

Groh Declaration, Exhibit B.

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 56 Filed 11/11/2003 Page 3 of 4
{00008967; 1} 4

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to grant their request 

and to approve the letter from Class Counsel to the class members which is attached as Exhibit 

A. A proposed Entry is attached as Exhibit C and has been sent to the Court via electronic mail 

in Word format. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/Theresa L. Groh

Theresa L. Groh (0029806)

John C. Murdock (0063749)

Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, L.P.A.

700 Walnut Street, Suite 400

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2011

Telephone: (513) 345-8291

Facsimile: (513) 345-8294

Trial Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 11, 2003, 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: Michael Roberts, Esq., Graydon, Head & Ritchey LLP, 1900 Fifth Third Center, 511 

Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and I hereby certify that I have mailed the document by 

United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: W. Carter Younger, Esq. 

and James P. McElligott, Esq., McGuire Woods, LLP, One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, 

Richmond, VA 23219-4030.

s/Theresa L. Groh

Theresa L. Groh 

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 56 Filed 11/11/2003 Page 4 of 4