1

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Joshua W. Carden, SBN 021698

Joshua Carden Law Firm, P.C.

16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 410 

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

joshua@cardenlawfirm.com

(480) 454-1100

(480) 454-1101 (Fax)

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Sorge,

Plaintiff,

v.

Yelp Inc., 

Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-04518-SMM 

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH 

SORGE

My name is Joseph Sorge. I am over the age of 18. I make the following declaration upon

my own personal knowledge under penalty of perjury:

1. After I started working for Yelp, I noticed that once we began soliciting sales, the

“Razz Daddies” team (not my team) had selected the 50 Cent song “Straight to the Bank” as 

their “theme song.”

2. When a member of a team completed a sale, that team got to play its theme song

very loudly over the loudspeakers. 

3. The Razz Daddies played their song between 10 to 15 times daily.

4. Early in the song, “Straight to the Bank” contains the word “faggot” and the line

“Homey you a bitch you got feminine ways/heard you got four lips and bleed for seven days”; 

these lines would be played every time the song was played. 

5. I am a straight white male, with women and homosexuals in my family and among

my friends. As a result, I find these lyrics outrageously offensive. 

6. I was extremely embarrassed to be working around women while this song was being

played. 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 25
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. Furthermore, the song lyrics themselves are not directed to a homosexual or to a 

woman, they are directed to a man (“homey”) with a “wife on the futon” – these lyrics are clearly 

intended to insult an otherwise straight man – by calling him a faggot and accusing him of having 

a vagina and menstrual cycle rather than a penis. 

8. It played so many times that I learned the lyrics and probably did mouth some of 

them when the song was played. 

9. At one point, I copied the rapper’s ridiculous laugh during the song as one way to 

cope with how much I hated the song.

10. However, I never mouthed or sang the offensive lyrics

11. I became so disgusted by the song that I occasionally recorded it. 

12. I recorded it with my phone once on June 14, 2016 at 8:35 a.m., once on June 15 at 

11:58 a.m., and once on June 16 at 1:41 p.m. A true and correct copy of these videos have been 

submitted to the Court and filed with the Clerk but not electronically filed. 

13. My phone date and time stamped the recordings, which is why I am able to be exact 

about the time and date. 

14. On June 16, after I recorded the song, I also complained directly to Matthew Susa 

my manager (who sat near me) that I found the song offensive because it demeaned homosexuals 

and women. 

15. His response to me was to say “it is company culture to play songs after a team sells 

to business owners” and that I should “get over it” or words to that effect. 

16. I reiterated that I still found the song offensive. 

17. Shortly thereafter on June 16, I attended the team-wide training event, which lasted 

nearly the rest of the afternoon. 

18. I sat near the back in a room with approximately 60 people. 

19. Matthew Susa was not present, but I saw Abby Kennedy near the front of the room. 

20. No note-taking was required. 

21. I had never met nor seen the presenter at the training.

22. I was very frustrated with Susa’s response to my complaint and I was exhausted 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 25
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from having my ears assaulted multiple times a day that week by the offensive song. 

23. It is entirely possible that I did not appear in a “peak state” during the meeting. 

24. When I left that day after the training, I did not say anything to Mr. Meagher (or 

anyone else) as alleged by Yelp. 

25. Earlier on June 16, I had received some additional training with Mr. Susa and Ms. 

Kennedy. 

26. I had no problem with the training, and was doing my best to implement a lot of new 

information and processes being thrown at me and the other sales people during the first week we 

were permitted to actually make sales.

27. During that same meeting Mr. Susa emphasized the importance of the personal 

metrics document being filled out daily and I agreed to work on improving the time it took me to 

complete the personal metrics document. 

28. I told Mr. Susa and Ms. Kennedy that I had previously believed based on discussions 

with team members that the particular document requested was only required to be completed by 

the end of each week (there were several things we had to update) and they corrected that 

misunderstanding. 

29. Based on additional metrics that Yelp posted up on the large whiteboard for each 

team (see Team Razz Daddies whiteboard photo attached hereto as Exhibit A) and the weekly 

metric sheet and my discussions with my team members, I believed myself to be doing quite well 

as a sales person within my team, and I shared that with Mr. Susa and Ms. Kennedy.

30. Furthermore, based on my discussions with my other team members (most of whom 

were new relatively to phone sales), I also informed Mr. Susa and Ms. Kennedy that I believed 

myself to be more experienced that most of my other team members. 

31. At no time did Mr. Susa or Ms. Kennedy tell me I was a poor performer within my 

team, or that I was being disciplined or in any trouble – they presented the meeting solely as 

additional training. I was not disrespectful, and any laughing was in my belief that the meeting was 

congenial

32. I did not question Ms. Kennedy’s presence at the meeting nor did I ask to not have 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 3 of 25
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

her there at future meetings as alleged by Yelp.

33. On the morning of June 17, 2016, I was instructed to meet with Mr. Susa and an HR 

Representative.

34. In the meeting, I was told by Mr. Susa that I was being terminated. 

35. Mr. Susa claimed to have “seen” me acting disrespectfully and “not paying 

attention” during the previous day’s teamwide training event. 

36. I reminded Mr. Susa that he was not in attendance at that meeting. 

37. He backpedaled immediately and then changed his story to having “heard” this 

about me from “someone” who was at the meeting. 

38. I proceeded to provide for him (and the HR rep) the substance of the meeting in 

detail. 

39. I then looked at the HR rep and informed her that I believed I was actually being 

terminated for reporting the offensive song to Mr. Susa on the previous day. I also told her that 

Mr. Susa used the F-word with great regularity when addressing me and my teammates. 

40. She looked uncomfortable at this new information but did not intervene to stop my 

termination. 

41. I told them that I planned to take legal action for this termination and would be 

posting the truth about what happened there on social media. I did not threaten to post “negative 

information.”

42. Mr. Susa also threw in an accusation that I had said something inappropriate to 

someone in the lobby but provided no details. 

43. During the next twelve months, I missed approximately 8 weeks of work – it took 

several months to be truly comfortable in a sales position again after my experience at Yelp. 

44. Yelp produced its harassment policy during discovery in this lawsuit; a true and 

correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit B.

45. Yelp produced its termination document for me during discovery in this lawsuit; a 

true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C. 

46. A true and correct copy of Yelp’s Third Amended Disclosure Statement is attached 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 25
Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 5 of 25
Exhibit A

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 6 of 25
Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 7 of 25
Exhibit B

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 8 of 25
G. Policy Against Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation 

We do not tolerate harassment or discrimination based on sex, including pregnancy, childbirth, 

breastfeeding or related medical conditions; race; religious creed; color; gender, gender identity or 

gender expression; national origin or ancestry; physical or mental disability; medical condition; marital 

or registered domestic partner status; age; genetic information; military or veteran status; sexual 

orientation; denial of family and medical care leave; or any other basis protected by federal, state or 

local law or ordinance or regulation. 

We prohibit harassment, discrimination, and retaliation at all levels of the organization, and our policy 

extends to harassment of or by users, advertisers, vendors, independent contractors and other third 

parties involved in our operations. It also extends to harassment based on the perception that someone 

has any of the characteristics listed above, or is associated with a person who has or is perceived as 

having any of those characteristics. 

Prohibited harassment includes, but is not limited to, the following behavior: 

• Threats and demands, whether explicit or implicit, to submit to sexual requests as a condition 

of continued employment, or to avoid some other loss and offers of employment benefits in 

return for sexual conduct; 

• Verbal conduct such as epithets, derogatory jokes or comments, slurs or unwanted sexual 

advances, invitations or comments; 

• Visual displays such as derogatory and/or sexually-oriented posters, photography, cartoons, 

drawings or gestures or similarly offensive emails, IM messages webpages, or other digital 

communications; 

• Physical conduct including assault, unwanted touching, intentionally blocking normal 

movement or interfering with work because of sex, race or any other protected basis; 

• Retaliation for reporting or threatening to report harassment. 

Complaint Procedure. If you believe you have witnessed or experienced unlawful harassment, 

discrimination or retaliation, it is your responsibility to report it to your manager, Human Resources or 

any department head. Managers, in particular, who observe or have knowledge of conduct they believe 

could be harassing are required to report the conduct or situation to Human Resources. 

Investigation. Upon receipt of a complaint, Yelp will undertake a prompt, thorough and objective 

investigation into such report. The investigation will be conducted by qualified personnel in good faith 

and with appropriate due process for relevant parties. While Yelp and the investigator will keep the 

details of the complaint and the investigation itself confidential to the extent possible, they cannot 

guarantee confidentiality as it may be necessary to reveal some aspects of the complaint to pursue a 

thorough investigation. Upon conclusion of the investigation, Yelp will provide a timely response 

regarding its findings to the individual who submitted the complaint. Yelp will also appropriately 

G. Policy Against Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation

We do not tolerate harassment or discrimination based on sex, including pregnancy, childbirth,

breastfeeding or related medical conditions; race; religious creed; color; gender, gender identity or

gender expression; national origin or ancestry; physical or mental disability; medical condition; marital

or registered domestic partner status; age; genetic information; military or veteran status; sexual

orientation; denial of family and medical care leave; or any other basis protected by federal, state or

local law or ordinance or regulation.

We prohibit harassment, discrimination, and retaliation at all levels of the organization, and our policy

extends to harassment of or by users, advertisers, vendors, independent contractors and other third

parties involved in our operations. It also extends to harassment based on the perception that someone

has any of the characteristics listed above, or is associated with a person who has or is perceived as

having any of those characteristics.

Prohibited harassment includes, but is not limited to, the following behavior:

● Threats and demands, whether explicit or implicit, to submit to sexual requests as a condition

of continued employment, or to avoid some other loss and offers of employment benefits in

return for sexual conduct;

● Verbal conduct such as epithets, derogatory jokes or comments, slurs or unwanted sexual

advances, invitations or comments;

● Visual displays such as derogatory and/or sexually-oriented posters, photography, cartoons,

drawings or gestures or similarly offensive emails, IM messages webpages, or other digital

communications;

● Physical conduct including assault, unwanted touching, intentionally blocking normal

movement or interfering with work because of sex, race or any other protected basis;

● Retaliation for reporting or threatening to report harassment.

Complaint Procedure. If you believe you have witnessed or experienced unlawful harassment,

discrimination or retaliation, it is your responsibility to report it to your manager, Human Resources or

any department head. Managers, in particular, who observe or have knowledge of conduct they believe

could be harassing are required to report the conduct or situation to Human Resources.

Investigation. Upon receipt of a complaint, Yelp will undertake a prompt, thorough and objective

investigation into such report. The investigation will be conducted by qualified personnel in good faith

and with appropriate due process for relevant parties. While Yelp and the investigator will keep the

details of the complaint and the investigation itself confidential to the extent possible, they cannot

guarantee confidentiality as it may be necessary to reveal some aspects of the complaint to pursue a

thorough investigation. Upon conclusion of the investigation, Yelp will provide a timely response

regarding its findings to the individual who submitted the complaint. Yelp will also appropriately

Yelp000080

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 9 of 25
document the receipt of the complaint, investigation, and findings to provide tracking and 

documentation of the process as well as to help ensure its timely resolution. 

Remedial Action. In the event Yelp determines that a violation of this policy has occurred, appropriate 

remedial will be taken. Any employee or independent contractor found to have violated this policy will 

be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 

No Retaliation. Yelp will not retaliate against anyone for protesting prohibited discrimination or 

harassment, reporting a complaint or assisting in an investigation process, and will not tolerate or 

permit retaliation by management, employees or co-workers. 

Other Resources. Finally, please be aware that the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and other state fair employment agencies 

investigate and prosecute complaints of prohibited harassment, discrimination and retaliation in 

employment. If you think you have been harassed or that you have been retaliated against for resisting 

or complaining, you may file a complaint with the appropriate agency. 

document the receipt of the complaint, investigation, and findings to provide tracking and

documentation of the process as well as to help ensure its timely resolution.

Remedial Action. In the event Yelp determines that a violation of this policy has occurred, appropriate

remedial will be taken. Any employee or independent contractor found to have violated this policy will

be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

No Retaliation. Yelp will not retaliate against anyone for protesting prohibited discrimination or

harassment, reporting a complaint or assisting in an investigation process, and will not tolerate or

permit retaliation by management, employees or co-workers.

Other Resources. Finally, please be aware that the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and other state fair employment agencies

investigate and prosecute complaints of prohibited harassment, discrimination and retaliation in

employment. If you think you have been harassed or that you have been retaliated against for resisting

or complaining, you may file a complaint with the appropriate agency.

Yelp000081

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 10 of 25
Exhibit C

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 11 of 25
yelp* 

Terminate: Joseph Sorge (Terminated) 

For: Joseph Sorge (Terminated) 

Overall Process: Terminate: Joseph Sorge (Terminated) 

Overall Status: Successfully Completed 

Event Details 

Reason 

Primary Reason 

Involuntary > Not a good Cultural Fit 

Secondary Reasons 

Details 

Termination Date 

06/17/2016 

Last Day of Work 

06/17/2016 

Pay Through Date 

06/17/2016 

Regrettable 

Regrettable 

View Terminate Employee Event: Terminate: 

Joseph Sorge (Terminated) 

08:56 AM 

10/10/2018 

Page 1 of 1 

Yelp000082

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 12 of 25
Exhibit D

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 13 of 25
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash

Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 364-7000

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Sorge,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Yelp, Inc.,

Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-04518-SMM

DEFENDANT YELP INC.’S THIRD 

SUPPLEMENTAL MANDATORY 

INITIAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Pursuant to General Order 17-08 and the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project, 

Defendant Yelp Inc. (“Defendant”), submits its Third Supplemental Mandatory Initial 

Discovery Responses. 

I. Witnesses with Relevant, Discoverable Information

Defendant discloses the following names and the addresses of the persons who are 

likely to have relevant, discoverable information about the claims and/or defenses in this 

matter. Defendant may or may not call the individuals listed below as witnesses at trial, 

and reserves the right to make that determination at a later time.

A. Plaintiff Joseph Sorge (“Plaintiff”), c/o Joshua Carden, Joshua Carden Law 

Firm, P.C., 16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 410, Scottsdale, Arizona 

85254. Defendant anticipates that Plaintiff will have knowledge and 

L. Eric Dowell, SBN 011458

Alexandra J. Gill, SBN 027506

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., SBN 00504800

2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 778-3700

Fax: (602) 778-3750

Eric.Dowell@OgletreeDeakins.com

Alexandra.Gill@OgletreeDeakins.com

Attorneys for Defendant Yelp Inc.

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 14 of 25
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,

Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

2415 East Camelback road, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 364-7000

information relevant to the allegations in his Complaint, and Defendant’s 

defenses thereto, including his employment with Defendant, his job 

performance, his interactions with coworkers and supervisors, and his 

disclosure statements and discovery responses in this matter.

B. Matthew Susa, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. Mr. 

Susa was Plaintiff’s manager, and Defendant anticipates that he will have 

knowledge and information relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses thereto, including Plaintiff’s job duties 

and responsibilities, his interactions with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s performance 

and employment, Plaintiff’s interactions with coworkers and supervisors, and 

Plaintiff’s termination.

C. Abby Kennedy, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. 

Defendant anticipates that Ms. Kennedy will have knowledge and 

information relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and 

Defendant’s defenses thereto, including Plaintiff’s job duties and 

responsibilities, her interactions with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s performance and 

employment, and Plaintiff’s termination.

D. Randall Meagher, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & 

Stewart, P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 

85016. Mr. Meagher is the Facilities Coordinator for Defendant and 

Defendant anticipates that he will have knowledge and information relevant 

to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses thereto, 

including his interaction with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s statement on April 16, 

2016.

E. Amber Sutton, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. Ms. 

Sutton is a Security Specialist for Defendant and Defendant anticipates that 

she will have knowledge and information relevant to the allegations in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses thereto, including her 

interaction with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s statement on April 16, 2016.

F. Heather Webb, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. Ms. 

Webb is the Receptionist for Defendant and Defendant anticipates that she 

will have knowledge and information relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses thereto, including her interaction with 

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s statement on April 16, 2016.

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 15 of 25
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,

Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

2415 East Camelback road, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 364-7000

G. Nicole Berger, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. 

Defendant anticipates that Ms. Berger will have knowledge and information 

relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses 

thereto, including Defendant’s Human Resources policies and procedures, 

Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities, her interactions with Plaintiff, and 

Plaintiff’s termination.

H. Katie Fleming, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. 

Defendant anticipates that Ms. Fleming will have knowledge and information 

relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses 

thereto, including Defendant’s Human Resources policies and procedures, 

Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities, her interactions with Plaintiff, and 

Plaintiff’s termination.

I. Lucy Salazar, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. 

Defendant anticipates that Ms. Salazar will have knowledge and information 

relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses 

thereto, including Defendant’s Human Resources policies and procedures, 

Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities, and Plaintiff’s termination.

J. Gordon Alkire, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. Mr. 

Alkire was a Physical Security Supervisor for Yelp. Defendant anticipates 

that he will have knowledge and information relevant to the allegations in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses thereto, including Plaintiff’s 

June 16, 2016 statement and the statements submitted by Randall Meagher, 

Amber Sutton, and heather Webb.

K. Heyward McAlpin, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & 

Stewart, P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 

85016. Mr. McAlpin is the Sales Director at the Phoenix, Arizona location 

for Defendant and Defendant anticipates that he will have knowledge and 

information relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and 

Defendant’s defenses thereto, including his interaction with Plaintiff and 

Plaintiff’s termination.

L. Dylan Buzzard, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. Mr. 

Buzzard is a Sales Manager for Defendant. Defendant anticipates that he 

will have knowledge and information relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses thereto, including Plaintiff’s job duties 

and responsibilities and his interactions with Plaintiff.

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 16 of 25
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,

Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

2415 East Camelback road, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 364-7000

M. Jonel Kejee, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. 

Defendant anticipates that Ms. Kejee will have knowledge and information 

relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses 

thereto, including Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities and her 

interactions with Plaintiff.

N. Hassan Aoufe, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. 

Defendant anticipates that Mr. Aoufe will have knowledge and information 

relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses 

thereto, including Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities and his 

interactions with Plaintiff.

O. Larson Thacker c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. 

Defendant anticipates that Mr. Thacker will have knowledge and information 

relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Defendant’s defenses 

thereto, including the Razz Daddies team.

P. Any custodian of records or other individual necessary to authenticate and 

establish foundation and admissibility of evidence. 

Q. All witnesses listed by Plaintiff.

II. Witnesses Who Have Provided Written or Recorded Statements

A. Randall Meagher, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & 

Stewart, P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 

85016. Mr. Meagher’s statement is produced herewith (Yelp000041).

B. Amber Sutton, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. Ms. 

Sutton’s statement is produced herewith (Yelp000039).

C. Heather Webb, c/o Eric Dowell, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

P.C., 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85016. Ms. 

Webb’s statement is produced herewith (Yelp000040).

III. Relevant Documents

A. Personnel File of Plaintiff (Yelp000001 – 43), previously produced via 

ShareFile FTP link on March 19, 2018 with Defendant’s MIDP Responses.

B. June 16, 2016 Video of Plaintiff (Yelp000044), previously produced via 

ShareFile FTP link on March 19, 2018 with Defendant’s MIDP Responses.

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 17 of 25
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,

Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

2415 East Camelback road, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 364-7000

V. Calculation of Damages

Defendant is not seeking damages in this case. However, Defendant may seek its 

attorneys’ fees and costs as authorized under applicable law.

VI. Insurance or Other Agreement

Insurance policy underwritten by National Union.

DATED this 22nd day of January 2019.

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

By: /s/ Alexandra J. Gill

L. Eric Dowell

Alexandra J. Gill

2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Attorneys for Defendant Yelp Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of January 2019, I served the attached 

document by electronic and U.S. Mail on:

Joshua W. Carden

Joshua Carden Law Firm, P.C.

16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 410

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254

joshua@cardenlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Sorge

 /s/ Robin McAdams

36548353.1

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 18 of 25
Exhibit E

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 19 of 25
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

L. Eric Dowell, SBN 011458 

Alexandra J. Gill, SBN 027506 

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., SBN 00504800 

2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 778-3700 

Fax: (602) 778-3750 

Eric.Dowell@OgletreeDeakins.corn 

Alexandra.Gill@OgletreeDeakins.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Yelp Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph Sorge, 

VS . 

Yelp, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:17-cv-04518-JJT 

DEFENDANT YELP INC.'S RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS, FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Pursuant to Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant 

Yelp Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through its undersigned counsel, respond to Plaintiff's 

First Requests for Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for 

Production as follows: 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

Defendant hereby makes the following answers and objections to Plaintiff's First 

Requests for Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production 

solely for purposes of this action. Each answer is subject to all objections as to 

competence, relevance, materiality, propriety and admissibility, and any and all other 

objections and grounds that would require the exclusion of any statement if any requests 

for admission or interrogatories were asked of, or any statement contained herein were 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 20 of 25
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

made by a witness present and testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds are 

reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. 

Additionally, the documents to be produced in response to these requests are 

produced solely for the purpose of this action. Each document is subject to all objections 

as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility and any and all other 

objections on any ground that would require the exclusion of any documents at the time of 

trial. These objections are expressly reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. 

Defendant has not fully completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not 

completed discovery, and has not completed its preparation for trial. The documents that 

will be produced are documents that presently are available and specifically located by 

Defendant and its attorneys. Defendant reserves the right to produce additional documents 

that may be discovered subsequent to the service of these responses. 

The following answers are based on information and documents presently available 

to Defendant and, except for explicit facts submitted herein, no incidental or implied 

admissions are intended hereby. The fact that Defendant has answered or objected to any 

discovery requests or part thereof should not be taken as an admission that Defendant 

accepts or admits the existence of any fact set forth or assumed by such requests and that 

such answer or objection constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that Defendant has 

answered part or all of any request is not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver 

by Defendant of all or any part of any objection to any request. 

To the extent that any or all of the requests call for information or documents which 

constitutes information or material prepared in anticipation of litigation or information or 

material covered by the work-product doctrine or which constitutes information which is 

privileged by virtue of the attorney-client privilege, Defendant objects to each and every 

such request and thus will not supply or render any information or material protected from 

discovery by the work-product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege. 

2 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 21 of 25
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

0 

co 11 

`

0 

11' 

. co 

u < • to 

o z in

12 

(4' 1-7 g co 13 

Z Ee 4 

< Z 

1/ 6 N_ 

0 F. co re 

w 

14 

Id Z - S4 1:4 < Z 

I- 0 UW 

15 

aL'i X F 

19 01 0_ 

0 < 41 16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. I: Admit that you employ more than 500 

employees. 

RESPONSE:

The request is admitted. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that the word "faggot" is a "slur" as that 

word is used in Yelp's Policy Against Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation 

produced as YELP00080-81. 

RESPONSE:

Defendant object to this Request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. To the 

extent a response is required, the Request is denied. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that the word "faggot" is an "epithet" as 

that word is used in Yelp's Policy Against Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation 

produced as YELP00080-81. 

RESPONSE:

Defendant object to this Request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. To the 

extent a response is required, the Request is denied. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that the word "faggot" is "derogatory" as 

that word is used in Yelp's Policy Against Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation 

produced as YELP00080-81. 

RESPONSE:

Defendant object to this Request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. To the 

extent a response is required, the Request is denied. 

3 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 22 of 25
. a) 

0 0 U)

< • o z a. ci• 

Z— Z 

X 0 

w 

< U N 

, 

5 

at w 

2

Z 

la 

i0 w

Un

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that Yelp's Policy Against Harassment, 

Discrimination and Retaliation produced as YELP00080-81 would forbid the use of the 

word "faggot" in the workplace. 

RESPONSE:

Defendant object to this Request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. To the 

extent a response is required, the Request is denied. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Yelp's Policy Against Harassment, 

Discrimination and Retaliation produced as YELP00080-81 would forbid sexualized 

references to female genitalia and menstrual cycles in the workplace. 

RESPONSE:

Defendant object to this Request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. To the 

extent a response is required, the Request is denied. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that Yelp did not distribute a paper copy 

of its Employee Handbook to Plaintiff 

RESPONSE:

The request is admitted. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that an employee of Yelp instructed 

Plaintiff to review a digital version of its Employee Handbook "on his own." 

RESPONSE:

Defendant object to this Request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous. To the 

extent a response is required, the Request is denied. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that Yelp's net revenue as reported to the 

SEC for the year ending December 31, 2017 exceeded $800,000,000.00. 

4 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 23 of 25
0 0 IDhi

▪ 01 U u)

z a: 6.

N" z 

W 6 

W di w w 

re 6 

'2; 

• N

o „, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

• 12 

O coco ▪ 13 

z 

0 

• 14 

• 15 

0 

o. • 16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

22 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Supplemental Mandatory Initial Discovery Responses, Pretrial Disclosure Statement and 

any supplements thereto. 

DATED this 19th day of November 2018. 

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

B 

is Dowell 

Alexandra J. Gill 

2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Attorneys for Defendant Yelp Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 19th day of November 2018, I served the attached 

document by electronic and U.S. Mail on: 

Joshua W. Carden 

Joshua Carden Law Firm, P.C. 

16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 410 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 

joshua@cardenlawfirm.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joseph Sorge 

—torah Yanazz 

36397294.1 

19 

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 24 of 25
^"

z &.

a

"w

I" 06 iip < lu 0

gi

<u

3 <D

w£

•O 10

TO co o

0 -. P a?^

-s Ie llfc

i.^i

§cw0 s

J3E£

UJ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION

On behalf of Defendant Yelp Inc., Lucy Salazar states that she has read the foregoing

Responses to Plaintiffs' First Requests for Admissions and Responses to Plaintiffs' First

Set of Interrogatories (collectively, "Responses") and knows the contents thereof; and that

she does not have personal knowledge of all the facts and information requested herein;

and that the Responses are based on and, therefore, necessarily limited by the records and

information still in existence, presently recollected, and thus far discovered in the course of

the preparation of these Responses; that the Responses are thus based upon her personal

knowledge, and that, subject to the limitations set forth above, the Responses are true to

the best of her knowledge, information, and belief.

I declare, and certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

\0l Executed on this) ( day of November, 2018.

tM^-4

36410958.1

Case 2:17-cv-04518-SMM Document 39-1 Filed 02/25/19 Page 25 of 25