Schulte Roth&Zabel LLP

919 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

212.756.2000

212.593.5955 fax

www.srz.com

Writer's Direct Number

212.756.2331

June 6,2008

VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Mr. Alan 1. Rich, Esq.

Law Offices of Alan J. Rich, LLC

26 Court Street

Suite 1801

Brooklyn, New York 11242

Re: Fuller v. Interview, Inc., et aI., 07-CV-05728 (RJS)

Dear Alan:

Writer's E-mail Address

j iII.goldbergmi ntzer@srz.com

Enclosed are Defendant's Amended Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs

Interrogatories ("Interrogatory Responses") and verifications of such Interrogatory Responses

from Deborah Blasucci and Sandra Brant. 1

Please contact me when you are prepared to commence settlement negotiations.

Enclosures

Per your May 23, 2008 email and our previous discussions, will not be providing a verification from Peter

Brant at this time. As reflected in Defendants' Amended Answer, Mr. Brant had no involvement in the alleged facts

and circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs lawsuit.

10687818.1

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 19
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------,)(

VICTORIA FULLER,

Plaintiff,

- againstINTERVIEW, INC.; BRANT

PUBLICA nONS, INC., as the owner of •

Interview, Inc.; PETER BRANT, individually:

and as the shareholder and owner of Brant .

Publications, Inc.; SANDRA J. BRANT, .

individually and as the shareholder and owner :

of Brant Publications, Inc.; and DEBORAH .

BLASUCCI, individually and as the

E)(ecutive Vice President and Chief Financial

Officer of Interview, Inc. and Brant

Publications, Inc.,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------,)(

Civ. No.: 07 CIV 5728

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED

OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFF'S

INTERROGATORIES

Defendants, Interview Inc. ("Interview"), Brant Publications Inc. ("Brant

Publications"), Peter Brant, individually and as the shareholder and owner of Brant Publications,

Sandra J. Brant, individually and as the shareholder and owner of Brant Publications, 1and

Deborah Blasucci, individually and as the E)(ecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

of Brant Publications (collectively, "Defendants"), by their attorneys, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP,

hereby object and respond (collectively, the "Responses") to Plaintiffs Interrogatories

(collectively, the "Interrogatories").

GENERAL STATEMENTS

1. Defendants' Responses are based on information presently known to Defendants

and/or their counsel. Defendants reserve the right to supplement, amend or modify the

As of February 22,2008, Sandra J. Brant is no longer an owner or shareholder of Brant

Publications.

10677132.1

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 19
Responses in the event and to the extent that future discovery so justifies. Should Defendants at

any time supplement or amend their Responses to any Interrogatory by agreement or otherwise,

Defendants reserve the right to assert any available privilege, immunity or other protection as to

any communications, information or documents that might otherwise be discoverable in

connection with Defendants' supplementation or amendment.

2. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission, concession, or waiver by

Defendants of any contention with respect to the validity of any claim or argument asserted by

Plaintiff.

3. By making information available to Plaintiff, Defendants do not waive, and do not

intend to waive, any objections they may have regarding Plaintiffs use of such information, and

Defendants expressly reserve: (a) all objections regarding the competency, privilege, relevance,

materiality and admissibility of all information produced and the contents thereof; (b) the right to

,object to Plaintiffs use of any of the Responses, in whole or in part, or to object to the subject

matter covered thereby in any later stage of this litigation or any other subsequent proceeding, on

any or all of the grounds set forth herein; (c) the right to object on any and all proper grounds, at

any time, to other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of any

information produced by Defendants; and (d) all objections as to vagueness and ambiguity.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Defendants assert the following general objections, each of which is hereby

incorporated by reference in each of the specific Responses below.

1. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they may purport to

impose upon Defendants obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the local rules of this Court, including Local Rule 33.3.

10677132.1 2

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 19
2. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable

privilege or immunity from, or prohibition of, disclosure. The inadvertent disclosure of

documents or information protected by any such privilege shall not constitute a waiver by

Defendants of their right to assert any applicable privilege as to such documents or as to any

other information. Any such inadvertently produced document(s) shall be returned to

Defendants, along with any copies made thereof.

3. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to compel

the production of proprietary and/or confidential information.

4.. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information

which is publicly available.

5. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek irrelevant

information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

6. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they call for a legal

conclusion, a legal argument, or constitute a discovery request that is premature at this stage of

the litigation.

7. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that theyare unduly

burdensome, oppressive or seek material that is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative or

obtainable from other sources more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

8. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague,

ambiguous or overbroad.

9. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are overbroad as to

temporal scope.

10677132.1 3

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 19
10. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are repetitious,

redundant and/or seek information already in Plaintiffs possession. Defendants will not produce

documents more than once in the event a given document may be responsive to more than one

request.

11. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are so broadly

worded that they require narrative responses that may be more effectively obtained through an

oral examination or document production.

12. Defendants reserve all objections to the admissibility of any information produced

in response to the Interrogatories. Production of any document or information in response to the

Interrogatories does not constitute an admission by Defendants that such document or

information is relevant to or admissible in this litigation.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO.1

Identify each person who supplied information in answering these interrogatories.

Specify by numbers those answers to which each person supplied the information.

Response to Interrogatory NO.1

Defendants object to Interrogatory NO.1 on the grounds that it is overbroad,

unduly burdensome and calls for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges or immunities.

Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Defendants respond that to the best of

their knowledge, the following people have supplied information regarding the Interrogatories:2

2 We have listed the specific interrogatories for which each individual provided information in parenthesis following

each individual's name.

10677132.1 4

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 5 of 19
• Deborah Blasucci, Brant Publications (Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2-7);

• William Murray, Anchin Block & Anchin LLP (Interrogatory Responses

Nos. 2(a), 3 and 4); and

• Joshua Homer, Brant Publications (Interrogatory Responses Nos. 2(a) and

(c), 3 and 4).

INTERROGATORY NO.2

State, with specificity, all reasons for which Plaintiff, Victoria Fuller, was

terminated, including, but not limited to, the specific factual bases referred to in the Termination

Letter. When identifying all reasons for termination, include references to any specific "for

cause" grounds enumerated in para. 6.1 of the "Employment Agreement," the specific factual

basis for each separate "for cause" ground, and the factual basis for any other ground for

termination, whether or not enumerated in the Employment Agreement. Identify each document

that defendants used at the time of plaintiffs termination that formed a factual basis upon which

plaintiff was terminated.

Response to Interrogatory NO.2

Defendants object to Interrogatory NO.2 on the grounds that it is overbroad,

unduly burdensome, fails to define quoted terms, calls for legal conclusions and calls for

information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

doctrine and/or other applicable privileges or immunities. Defendants further object on the

ground that this Interrogatory 2 calls for information that is already available to Plaintiff.

Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Defendants respond that Plaintiffs

employment was terminated for the following reasons:

10677132,1 5

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 6 of 19
(a) Plaintiff engaged in acts of material fraud, theft and material dishonesty in violation

of Section 6.1(a) of her Employment Agreement dated August 15,2002, as amended,

bearing Bates numbers BRANT ARB HC 000402-408 (the "Employment

Agreement"), by engaging in a pattern of submitting falsified and fabricated expense

reports in 2005 and 2006 and demanding that her assistants, including Joshua

Homer, Adrian Bellazza and Marie LaFrance, fabricate Plaintiffs expense reports so

that she would be reimbursed for all of her receipts, including those for personal

expenses. See Exhibit A (Expense Reports from 2005 and 2006)3; BRANT ARB HC

000091-97 (Adrien Bellazza statements and notes regarding Fuller's 2005 Expense

Reports) BRANT ARB HC 000098-000100, BRANT ARB HC 000136-000144 and

BRANT ARB HC 002100-002101 (Letter from Joshua Homer with attachments),

BRANT ARB HC 000222-000225 (Marie LaFrance statements); see also BRANT

ARB HC 000101-000278 and BRANT ARB HC 002105-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005

and 2006 calendars). Such expense reports and the receipts attached thereto reflect

that Ms. Fuller repeatedly submitted:4

(i) taxi receipts for personal travel expenses, including trips to her

psychologist and to meals with friends, see, e.g. BRANT ARB HC

000080-83 (Notes taken by Deborah Blasucci during March 19, 2007

meeting with William Murray of Anchin Block & Anchin LLP), BRANT

ARB HC 000091-97 (notes of Adrien Bellazza statement and Mr.

Bellazza's comments regarding Fuller's expense reports), BRANT ARB

HC 002105-002131 (Victoria Fuller's 2005 Calendar); see also Exhibit A

(Expense Reports from 2005 and 2006), BRANT ARB HC 000101-

000278 and BRANT ARB HC 002105-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005 and

2006 calendars);

(ii) taxi receipts for alleged business travel that bear time stamps incongruent

with the listed purpose of the travel, see, e.g., BRANT ARB HC 000074-

79 (including a taxi receipt dated December 19,2005 at 3:51 p.m. for an

event that began at 6 p.m.); February 2006 Expense Report (BRANT ARB

HC 000154-161, 204-206) (including a receipt dated February 22, 2006

from Solo restaurant for a client lunch and taxi receipts dated February 16,

2006 for travel to and from the same client lunch); April 2006 Expense

Report (BRANT ARB HC 000169,853-59) (including a taxi receipt dated

April 19,2006 at 7:11 p.m. for a breakfast meeting; a taxi receipt dated

April 20, 2006 at 10:25 a.m. or 10:25 p.m. to a movie screening and a

For ease of reference and review, we have compiled a list of Bates ranges that correspond

to Plaintiffs expense reports for each relevant month. That list is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4 This Response NO.2 sets forth the categories of Plaintiffs improper behavior and

violations of her Employment Agreement on which Defendants relied in terminating Plaintiffs

employment and lists examples of such behavior and violations. Although Defendants have

made a good faith effort to list all of the factual bases for the decision to terminate Plaintiffs

employment, they reserve the right to supplement Response NO.2 if they become aware of

additional facts.

10677132.1 6

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 7 of 19
receipt home froni the same screening at 7:48 p.m.; a taxi receipt dated

April 26, 2006 at 5:58 p.m. home from a dinner that ended at 8:32 p.m.);

see also BRANT ARB HC 000148 (taxi receipts dated January 25, 2006

from the same tax:i medallion number for travel to a client dinner at 9:38

p.m. and home from the same dinner at 9:55 p.m.); see also Exhibit A

(Expense Reports from 2005 and 2006) and BRANT ARB HC 000101-

000278 and BRANT ARB HC 002105-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005 and

2006 calendars); :

(iii) taxi receipts for travel from the office to Plaintiffs home for "working

late" on evenings:on which she did not work late (i.e., until 8 or 9 p.m.),

see, e.g., BRANT ARB 000098-100; see also Exhibit A (Expense Reports

from 2005 and 2006), BRANT ARB HC 000101-000278 and BRANT

ARB HC 002105-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005 and 2006 calendars);

,

(iv) taxi receipts from the office to Plaintiff's home with vastly different

mileage reflected on individual receipts (when neither Brant Publications'

offices nor Plaintjffs home were relocated), see BRANT ARB HC

000098-100, 136•.140 (March [7], 2007 Letter from Joshua Homer and

related notes regarding Plaintiffs expense reports); see also Exhibit A

(Expense Reports from 2005 and 2006), BRANT ARB HC 000101-

000278 and BRANT ARB HC 002105-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005 and

2006 calendars); I

(v) receipts for Metrocards that were not used for the stated purpose (which

Plaintiff directed her assistants to include on her expense reports so that "it

wouldn't appear that she was taking taxis to every meeting"), see BRANT

ARB HC 000091-93, 953, 961; see also Exhibit A (Expense Reports from

2005 and 2006), BRANT ARB HC 000101-000278 and BRANT ARB HC

002105-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005 and 2006 calendars);

i

(vi) receipts for meals and/or drinks that Plaintiff claimed were related to

client meetings or events but were actually receipts for personal expenses

for meals and/orrdrinks with Interview colleagues and/or friends, see

BRANT ARB HiC000068-69 (May 24, 2005 Receipt from Indochine

Restaurant); BRANT ARB HC 000070-73; see also Exhibit A (Expense

Reports from 2005 and 2006), BRANT ARB HC 000101-000278 and

BRANT ARB H;c 002105-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005 and 2006

calendars); and :

(vii) receipts for personal expenses that Plaintiff claimed were for client

meetings, see, e.ig.BRANT ARB HC 000164 (receipt dated March 15,

2006 from L'Occitane for lavender bath products, but submitted for

reimbursement for client lunch); see also Exhibit A (Expense Reports

from 2005 and 2006), BRANT ARB HC 000101-000278 and BRANT

ARB HC 00210!5-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005 and 2006 calendars).

10677132.1 7

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 8 of 19
(b) Plaintiff engaged in acts of gfoss insubordination and repeated uncorrected

insubordination in violation of Section 6.1(d) of her Employment Agreement,

including her failure to comply with Brant Publications' instruction not to contact

employees and/or clients during her FMLA leave in 2006 and 2007; her

circumvention of Sandra Brant's directions regarding the creation of an Interview

website; her failure to comply with Deborah Blasucci's directions regarding her return

to work from FMLA leave on March 2, 2007 and her highly improper statements

I

questioning Deborah BlasucCi's authority. See, e.g., BRANT ARB 19663 (December

8,2006 email from Marie Mascaro to Ms. Fuller); BRANT ARB HC 001859

(January 4, 2007 email from Marie Mascaro to Ms. Fuller); BRANT ARB HC

001977-001990 (cell phone records from December 2007); BRANT ARB 025066

(December 5, 2006 email from Sandra Brant to Ms. Fuller); BRANT ARB 025067-68

(December 8, 2006 email from Marie Mascaro to David Hamilton and Deborah

Blasucci); BRANT ARB 025078 (December 11, 2006 email from Marie LaFrance to

Deborah Blasucci); BRANT!ARB 025259 (December 12, 2006 email from Marie

LaFrance to Deborah BlasucCi); BRANT ARB 031686 (December 19,2006 email

from Ms. Fuller to Marie Mascaro); BRANT ARB 025092 (January 2, 2007 email

from J.A. Forde to Deborah Blasucci); BRANT ARB 025099-100 (email chain

including January 3, 2007 email from Ms. Fuller to Marie LaFrance); BRANT ARB

025097 (January 4,2007 email from Ms. Fuller to Marie LaFrance); see also BRANT

ARB HC 002045-2047 (Deborah Blasucci's outline for and notes from November 21,

2006 meeting with Ms. Fuller), BRANT ARB 019966-68 (March 5, 2007 email from

Deborah Blasucci to Ms. Fuller), BRANT ARB 020035-37 (March 7,2007 email

from Deborah Blasucci to Ms. Fuller); BRANT ARB 025163-64 (March 21, 2007

email from Katryna Glettler to Deborah Blasucci); BRANT ARB 025156-57 (March

9,2007 email from Renata Merriam to Deborah Blasucci).

(c) In addition to the "for Cause" bases for the termination of Plaintiffs employment set

forth above, Plaintiffs poor work performance, including her intimidation of staff and

alienation of clients contribJted to Brant Publications' decision to terminate her

I

employment. See, e.g., BRANT ARB HC 002045-2047 (Deborah Blasucci's outline

for and notes from November 21, 2006 meeting with Ms. Fuller); BRANT ARB

25229-31 (email chain including September 4,2006 email from Ms. Fuller to David

Hamilton); BRANT ARB HC 002494-99 and BRANT ARB 006277-87 (November

2006 through January 2007 ,communications regarding Puma); BRANT ARB

025163-64 (March 21, 2007 email from Katryna Glettler to Deborah Blasucci);

BRANT ARB 025106-112 (January 8, 2007 email from Renata Merriam to David

Hamilton and Deborah Blasucci and attached document); BRANT ARB 025125

(March 2, 2007 email from David Hamilton to Deborah Blasucci); BRANT ARB

025132 (March 2, 2007 email from Adrien Bellazza to Deborah Blasucci); BRANT

ARB 025133 (March 2,2007 email from Dan Pruyn to Deborah Blasucci).

10677132.1 8

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 9 of 19
INTERROGATORY NO. 3

State all facts referred to as part of defendants' "investigation," in defendants'

!

Termination Letter, including identifying; all documents which defendants used as a basis for the

termination at the time it was effectuated.

Response to Interrogatory NO.3

Defendants object to Interrogatory NO.3 on the grounds that it is overbroad,

!

vague and unduly burdensome, duplicative of Plaintiffs other interrogatories and calls for

information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work

product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges or immunities. Subject to the foregoing

General and Specific Objections, Defendants refer Plaintiff to their Response to Interrogatory

!

NO.2 and part (a) thereof, regarding Plaintiffs violations of Section 6.1(a) of her Employment

Agreement. In addition, Defendants state that their investigation included a March 19,2007

meeting between Deborah Blasucci and William Murray, an accountant associated with Anchin

Block & Anchin LLP, regarding Plaintiffs' expense reports; a meeting on or about March 7, 2007

between Deborah Blasucci and Joshua Homer and March 15,2007 meetings between Deborah

I

Blasucci and each of Adrien Bellazza and Marie Lafrance. See, e.g., BRANT ARB HC 000080-

83 (Notes taken by Deborah Blasucci during March 19, 2007 meeting with William Murray of

Anchin Block & Anchin LLP); Exhibit! A (Ms. Fuller's Expense Reports from 2005 and 2006);

BRANT ARB HC 000091-97 (Adrien Bellazza statements and notes regarding Fuller's 2005

Expense Reports) BRANT ARB HC 000098-000100, BRANT ARB HC 000136-000144 and

BRANT ARB HC 002100-002101 (Letter from Joshua Homer with attachments), BRANT ARB

HC 000222-000225 (Marie LaFrance statement); see also BRANT ARB HC 000101-000278 and

i

BRANT ARB HC 002105-002131 (Ms. Fuller's 2005 and 2006 calendars).

10677132.1 9

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 10 of 19
INTERROGATORY NO. 4

State the specific violations of the Employment Agreement that defendants claim

were committed by plaintiff, when they were committed, and identify any documents that

substantiate such claims of contractual violations. Identify any other documents which refer to

or discuss such specific violations and discuss documents that substantiate such claims.

Response to Interrogatory NO.4

Defendants object to Interrogatory NO.4 on the grounds that it is overbroad,

vague, unduly burdensome, duplicative of Plaintiffs other Interrogatories and calls for

information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

doctrine and/or other applicable privileges or immunities. Subject to the foregoing General and

Specific Objections, Defendants refer Plaintiff to their Response to Interrogatory NO.2.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5

State whether there were any written warnings given to plaintiff regarding any

alleged violations of the Employment Contract by plaintiff. State whether there were any

responses to any such written warnings. Identify all documents referred to that were warnings

and responses.

Response to Interrogatory NO.5

Defendants object to Interrogatory NO.5 on the grounds that it is overbroad,

vague and unduly burdensome, duplicative of Plaintiffs' other Interrogatories, calls for

information irrelevant to this dispute and calls for information protected from disclosure by the

attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges or

immunities. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Defendants respond that

10677132.1 10

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 11 of 19
on multiple occasions, Brant Publications directed Plaintiff in writing not to contact clients or

staff during her leave of absence. See, e.g., BRANT ARB 19663 (December 8, 2006 email from

Marie Mascaro to Ms. Fuller); BRANT ARB HC 001859 (January 4,2007 email from Marie

Mascaro to Ms. Fuller). Plaintiff repeatedly ignored this direction. In addition, Defendants

advised Plaintiff of her poor performance on several occasions, including at a November 21,

2006 meeting. See BRANT ARB HC 002045-2047 (Deborah Blasucci's outline for and notes

from November 21,2006 meeting with Ms. Fuller); see also BRANT ARB 025066 (December

5,2006 email from Sandra Brant to Ms. Fuller regarding Ms. Fuller's failure to follow Ms.

Brant's instructions).

INTERROGATORY NO.6

State any other grounds or bases upon which defendants would have terminated,

taken adverse employment action, or had the right to take such action against plaintiff, Victoria

Fuller, based on "after acquired" evidence. Identify all documents which relate to or form the

basis for any such action or right on behalf of defendants.

Response to Interro gatory NO.6

Defendants object to Interrogatory NO.6 on the grounds that it is overbroad,

vague, unduly burdensome, duplicative of Plaintiffs other Interrogatories and calls for

information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

doctrine and/or other applicable privileges or immunities. Defendants further object to

Interrogatory NO.6 because the term "after acquired" evidence is ambiguous and undefined.

Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Defendants respond that Plaintiffs

medical records, which Plaintiff obtained in connection with the arbitration brought by Plaintiff

on February 20, 2007 before the American Arbitration Association against Brant Publications

106771321 11

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 12 of 19
and Interview, suggest that Ms. Fuller may not have been entitled to FMLA leave and that she

may have fraudulently obtained certification for such leave. Evidence of such misconduct would

have justified adverse employment action against Plaintiff, up to and including termination of

Plaintiffs employment.

INTERROGATORY NO.7

A) State the basis for the statement at page two of the letter of Deborah Blasucci

to Victoria Fuller dated March 22, 2007, that Blasucci did not "find credible" the certification of

plaintiffs doctor. B) If defendant Blasucci did not find plaintiffs doctor's certification and or

opinions "credible," why defendants did not request the opportunity to "contact the employee's

health care provider, with the employee's permission, for purposes of clarification and

authenticity of the medical certification" pursuant to the FMLA at 29 C.F.R. 825.307. C) State

why, if defendants had "reason to doubt the validity of [the] medical certification [defendants did

not] require the employee to obtain a second opinion at the employer's expense" as is permitted

pursuant to the FMLA at 29 CFR 825.307. D) State any opinion, including medical or expert

opinions, in any form, which were used in defendants disputing the opinions or conclusions of

plaintiffs doctors, including identifying any documents relating to defendants' questioning the

credibility, disputing or otherwise attempting to ascertain the veracity or accuracy of Dr.

Clements certifications and opinions.

Response to Interrogatory NO.7

Defendants object to Interrogatory NO.7 on the grounds that it is overbroad,

unduly burdensome, ambiguous, assumes facts not in dispute, calls for legal conclusions and

calls for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work

product doctrine and/or other applicable privileges or immunities. Defendants further object to

10677132.1 12

~C1

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 13 of 19
Interrogatory NO.7 as it is not clear whether it seeks information relating to Plaintiffs first

FMLA leave from December 2006 to March 2007 or her second request for FMLA leave on

March 12,2007. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Defendants respond

that:

(a) As to subsection A) ofInterrogatory No.7, Deborah Blasucci stated in her March 22,

2007 letter that she did "not find credible that [Ms. Fuller's] doctor would certify [her]

fitness to return to work on March 6, but, less than a week later, write another letter

about impending surgery and a three month recovery period." See BRANT ARB HC

001758-59. Ms. Blasucci's statement speaks for itself. In addition, Plaintiffs medical

records from Dr. Christina Kwon, which Defendants received in response to their

document requests (and Plaintiffs executed HIPAA release), suggest that her surgery

was an elective procedure that did not have to be scheduled in March 2007. See also

P 000149.

(b) As to subsections B) and C), Defendants respected Plaintiffs request for FMLA leave

on or about December 7,2006 (which leave lasted until March 2,2007) and elected

not to exercise their rights to seek a second opinion or clarification from Plaintiffs'

physician. As to Plaintiffs March 12, 2007 request for FMLA leave, Deborah

Blasucci questioned the credibility of such request and the physician's documentation

in support thereof in her March 22,2007 letter. See BRANT ARB HC 001758-59.

Defendants did not pursue their rights seek a second opinion or clarification from

Plaintiffs' physician with respect to this March 12,2007 FMLA leave request,

however, as they were in the process of investigating Plaintiffs violations of her

Employment Agreement and determined that Plaintiffs misconduct required her

suspension from work on March 14,2007, see BRANT ARB HC 001789, and the

termination of her employment on March 27,2007, see BRANT ARB HC 001757.

(c) As to subsection D), Defendants did not rely on any medical or expert opinions in

"disputing" the opinions or conclusions of any of Plaintiffs doctors.

Dated: New York, New York

June 6, 2008

10677132.1

SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP

B

ark K Brossman

Scott A. Gold

Jill Goldberg Mintzer

919 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

(212) 756-2000

Attorneys for Defendants

13

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 14 of 19
EXHIBIT A

INDEX OF PLAINTIFF'S 2005 AND 2006 EXPENSE REPORTS

January 2005 000951 000959

February 2005 000960 000967

000087 000089

March 2005 000968 000978

000688 000689

April2005 1000979 000983

000986

000988 000989

000695 000696

000698 000702

May 2005 1000068 000069

000705 000706

000708

000711 I 000712

000990

000993 1000998

June 2005 1000999

001002 001005

000713 000715

000719 000720

July2005 001008 001017

August 2005 001018 001026

September 2005 001027

000738 1000746

001036

001038 001039

000749 000751

000070 000073

000062 000067

October 2005 001044 001049

November 2005 001050 001080

December 2005 001081 001083

000074 000079

January 2006 I 000145 000150

000880 000881

February 2006 I000151 000160

10677132.1

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 15 of 19
000204 000206

March 2006 000162 000168

000884 000888

April2006 000169 000176

000854 000859

May 2006 000844 000849

000178

000180

000182 000184

June 2006 000808 000812

000814

000207 000210

000873 000875

000877

000186 000193

July2006 000797 000802

000804 000806

000194 000199

000203

August 2006 000212 000217

000861 000869

September 2006 000787 000796

000240 000244

October 2006 000816 000823

000825 000827

000226

000228

000234

November 2006 000248

000250 000263

000829

December 2006 000264 000265

10677132.1 2

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 16 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

JILL GOLDBERG MINTZER, an attorney associated with Schulte Roth & Zabel

LLP, does hereby certify that on June 6, 2008, she caused to be served by first class mail a true

and correct copy of Defendants' Amended Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs

Interrogatories, dated June 6, 2008 upon:

Alan J. Rich, Esq.

Law Offices of Alan J. Rich, LLC

26 Court Street

Suite 1801

Brooklyn, New York 11242

Dated: June 6, 2008

10677132.1

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 17 of 19
JUN-OB-200B FRI 05:02 PM Brant Publ ications

VERIFICATION:

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

FAX NO. 2129412932 P, 03

Deborah Blasucci, be~g dilly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am an individual defendant in the above-captioned action.

2. I am the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Offi.cer of Brant

Publications, Inc. ("Brant Publications "), a Defendant in the above~captioned action, and I am the

agent of Brant Publications and its subsidiary, Interview, Inc. ("Interview"), also a Defendant in

the above-captioned action, for the purpose of answering Plaintiff's Interrogatories.

3. I have read the foregoing Amended Objections and Responses to

Plaintiffs Interrogatories and the same are true to the best of my information, knowledge and

belief.

4. I am signing this verification in my individual capacity and as an agent of

Brant Publications and Interview.

~

Deborah Blasucci

Sworn before me this

6th day of llU1e, 2008

l

1II~v)

I otary Pubhc

10677132.1

MAlUB MASCAR.O

NOTAllY PUBLIC State ofNn York

No.01MA4778628

Qualified in New York County

Certificate Filed in New York Counl1

ConunillliOD Expiroa. ) -31- ;;2.0/V

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 18 of 19
JUN-OB-200B FRI 05:02 PM Branl Publicalions

VER1FICATIO~

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss;

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

FAX NO, 2129412932 P. 02

Sandra J. Brant, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is an individual

defendant in this action, and that she has read the foregoing Objections and Responses to

Plaintiffs Interrogatories and that the same are true to the best of her information. knowledge

l ~

and belief.

Sworn before me this

-.b- day o~, 2008

~.

1ftuL?#f~

Notary pUbliC

MARlB MASCARO

NOTARY PUBLIC Statl!l of Now York

No. OlMA4778628

Qualified in New York County

Cmificato Filed in New York COlUlty

CommiSlion Bxpiroa .I...a j-{iJIJ.IO

10677132.1

~

~..".

'. "

j

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-9 Filed 07/22/10 Page 19 of 19