20071-20071-00001\JXS\JXS\3211928.1

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

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602.248.1000

Kraig J. Marton (003816)

kjm@jaburgwilk.com

Jeffrey A. Silence (029143)

jxs@jaburgwilk.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Thacker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeremy Thacker,

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert Donat, 

individually,,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00063-DJH

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEIFNG RE 

UNRESOLVED DISCOVERY ISSUES 

ARISING FROM COURT-ORDERED 

MEET AND CONFER

(Assigned to Honorable Diana J. 

Humetewa)

In a minute entry (Doc. 69), the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to 

discuss Plaintiff, Jeremy Thacker’s (“Jeremy”) requests for documents that he deemed 

relevant in his June 2018 letter to Defendants. The Court’s minute entry stated that if the 

parties were unable to resolve reach an agreement as to any of those 45 requests, 

Plaintiff may submit briefing addressing those unresolved requests. The Court then 

entered a minute entry (Doc. 87) denying Plaintiff’s Motion to File One Consolidated 

Discovery Motion and granting Plaintiff until August 20, 2018 to submit this Briefing. 

Plaintiff hereby submits that briefing. 

I. Background 

Defendant Robert Donat (“Donat”), the CEO and owner of Jeremy’s former 

employer, Defendant GPS Insight (“GPSI”), terminated Jeremy because he was jealous 
2

141296755.1

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

of Jeremy’s romantic relationship with a female employee (Kristin Lisson) with whom 

Donat previously had a romantic relationship. When Ms. Lisson made it clear to Donat 

that she was not interested in rekindling her romantic relationship, Donat retaliated 

against Jeremy and Ms. Lisson and ultimately directed that they be terminated (within 

about a week from each other). Defendants claim that Donat was not involved in the 

termination decision and that Jeremy’s two managers terminated him because of alleged 

performance issues. 

Jeremy has asserted claims for sex discrimination and unlawful retaliation under 

Title VII. Jeremy has also asserted a defamation and false light claim against Donat 

based on statements that Donat made about Jeremy in his angry fits of jealousy before 

and after terminating him including that he is a “felon” who “stole” money from GPSI 

and that he has “herpes.” 

Jeremy seeks lost wages and front pay in the amount of $2,838,720. He also 

seeks punitive damages, emotional distress damages, damages for harm to reputation, 

and attorney fees. One of the factors in determining the amount of his lost wages is 

Amerisure, which is a business relationship that Jeremy was responsible for nurturing 

for over 2.5 years, beginning early on his employment with GPSI in 2013. In January 

2016, Jeremy was informed that Amerisure may refer up to 9,000 units over the next 3 

years. This would have resulted in Jeremy receiving a commission of as much as 

$648,000. 

During that same week, Jeremy was offered a promotion to the Government 

Sales Team. Jason Walker, VP of Sales (and one of Jeremy’s managers), told Jeremy 

that he wanted him to concentrate on the Government Sales Team, but he would work 

out something “fair” on Amerisure, like he had for David Pope with Epicor and Josh 

Schwartz with Wheels. Epicor and Wheels are large non-governmental referral sources 

that Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Pope had worked on for years before moving to the 

Government Sales Team. 
3

141296755.1

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

Back in January 2015, Mr. Walker sent a company‐wide email stating that Mr. 

Pope and Mr. Schwartz would be allowed to service their large non‐governmental 

clients (Epicor and Wheels) and receive full commission while working in the 

Government Team. Mr. Walker then confirmed in an email to Jeremy immediately 

afterward that he too would be afforded the same opportunity, by being allowed to 

continue to service Amerisure’s referrals and receive full commissions on those 

referrals. 

Based on Mr. Walker’s oral and written promises and GPSI's pattern and practice 

of allowing Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Pope to continue to service their large nongovernmental clients while working on the Government Team, Jeremy believed that if 

Amerisure actually referred a sizable number of units (i.e., approximately 500+ units), 

he would be allowed to continue to service Amerisure and receive full commission for 

those sales. Instead, Jeremy was paid nothing for Amerisure, despite the oral and written 

assurances he would be treated the same as Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Pope. Jeremy 

maintains that but for the unlawful retaliation and discrimination, he would have been 

allowed to service Amerisure’s referrals and receive full commissions, just like Mr. 

Schwartz and Mr. Pope. 

In deciding issues of relevance and proportionality with respect to Jeremy’s 

remaining requests, the Court should consider that Jeremy has produced roughly 95% of 

the unique documents and has spent hundreds of hours searching and producing 

responsive information. He disclosed the entirety of his medical records and 

prescription history for the last ten years. He produced thousands of text messages with 

Ms. Lisson and GPSI employees. There is nothing Defendants have asked for that he 

has not produced, except (i) to subject himself to a harassing IME, which this Court 

rejected and (ii) Defendants’ request that he ask his current employer to produce any 

and all “HR or interview notes” that it may have on him, if any. The case law is clear 

that this kind of request is harassing and improper because it could jeopardize the 

party’s employment. Jeremy, however, produced all of his pre-employment 
4

141296755.1

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

communications with his current employer and every document, in his possession,

related to his current employment that Defendants requested. 

Defense counsel, Stefan Palys, represented to this Court at the telephonic 

conference on July 26, 2018 that Defendants produced more than 30,000 items (Doc. 

82-1 7:23). 29,597 of those items are comprised of Jeremy’s entire GPSI email account, 

which are chock full of useless information that has no relevance to this case. The truth 

is that Defendants have disclosed only a total of around 250 unique items (excluding 

the documents they received in response to their subpoenas and excluding the unusable 

Slack messages provided August 16, 2018), whereas Plaintiff produced almost 5,000 

unique items. “Unique” means an individual document that neither Jeremy nor Ms. 

Lisson had already disclosed. Many of these documents were company policies that 

were not even in place during Jeremy’s employment. 

Jeremy will be seeking sanctions for these and other discovery violations in 

separate motions. The purpose of this briefing is to have the Court decide whether 

Jeremy’s unresolved discovery requests are relevant and proportional now that 

Defendants have participated in the court-ordered meet and confer and refused to 

produce many of the requested documents. Jeremy, however, wanted to provide the 

Court with at least some high-level statistics about Defendants’ production in deciding 

issues of proportionality. 

Jeremy also requests that the Court decide whether Defendants should be 

sanctioned for refusing to produce these requested documents. Jeremy has incurred 

significant fees seeking these documents and has been ignored at every step. Also, 

depositions for GPSI’s five key employees will be taking placed between August 22, 

2018 and September 5, 2018. Defendants have refused to allow Jeremy to reschedule 

these depositions pending the Court’s ruling on these requests, so Jeremy has no choice 

but to proceed as scheduled because the deadline for taking depositions is August 24, 

2018. 
5

141296755.1

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

Assuming the Court agrees with Jeremy that his requests are relevant and 

proportional and orders Defendants to produce these documents, Jeremy will have to 

retake these five depositions. Jeremy will have also been denied the opportunity to send 

written discovery requests to follow up on the documents he receives because the 

deadline for written discovery has already passed. The wasted attorney fees and denial 

of access to key information throughout the close of discovery has been highly 

prejudicial to Jeremy. 

Footnote 1 of the Court’s Scheduling Order states, “General Order 17-08 

implements the MIDP and should be reviewed carefully. It requires parties to timely 

supplement their MIDP responses as new information is discovered. Parties who fail to 

timely disclose relevant information will be precluded from using it in the case and 

may be subject to other sanctions. Parties who unreasonably postpone disclosure of 

relevant information to the end of the discovery period will also be subject to 

sanctions.” (Doc. 23) (emphasis ours). 

Jeremy seeks sanctions for Defendants’ refusal to produce these highly relevant 

documents at the outset of the case. 

II. Unresolved Issues From Meet and Confer

Attached is a spreadsheet in PDF form that shows Jeremy’s position on each of 

the unresolved requests. Simply copying and pasting the unresolved requests into this 

Briefing would have taken up all 7 pages granted to Plaintiff for this Briefing, so there 

was no other viable means of providing the information to the Court within the page 

limit. 

III. LRCiv 7.2(j) Certification 

Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Scheduling Order, LRCiv 7.2(j), and this Court’s 

minute entry (Doc. 87), Jeremy certifies that despite sincere efforts, the parties have 

reached an impasse as to these issues. Specifically, counsel met and conferred 

telephonically on July 27, 2018 and July 31, 2018. Counsel also exchanged numerous 

emails before, during, and after those meet and confers. Defense counsel sent an email 
6

141296755.1

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

to undersigned counsel on August 16, 2018 confirming that “We conferred at length 

about the 45 requests contained within your June 19th letter.” 

IV. Conclusion 

Jeremy has been denied access to these documents for long enough. They are 

highly relevant and should have been produced at the outset of the case pursuant to the 

MIDP and Scheduling Order. 

DATED this 20th day of August, 2018.

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

s/ Jeffrey A. Silence Kraig J. Marton

Jeffrey A. Silence

3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Attorneys for Plaintiff Thacker

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 20th day of August, 2018, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Carrie M. Francis

Stefan M. Palys

Michael A. Vincent

Stinson Leonard Street, LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584

Carrie.francis@stinson.com

Stefan.palys@stinson.com

Michael.vincent@stinson.com

Attorneys for Defendants GPS Insight, LLC

Timothy B. O’Connor

Schneider & Onofry, PC

365 East Coronado Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

toconnor@soarizonalaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Donat 

s/ Kim Rogers
EXHIBIT 1 
# Request Status Plaintiff's Position

1 Most recent commission workbook provided to each GPSI 

salesperson reflecting all sales data including all tabs from 

January 1, 2015 to present in native format. We are sending you 

concurrently herewith an example of the Commission 

Worksheet.

Incomplete - < 50% A “commission workbook” is an Excel spreadsheet showing what each sales agent generated in sales and what they were paid for those sales along with 

the supporting sales data details on separate tabs. The master commission workbook contains all of the individual commission workbooks. Defendants 

agreed to provide the commission workbooks for only 4 of the 25 sales agents and only for the year 2016. In addition, the commission workbooks 

produced by Defendants only contained the summary data with none of the supporting data. Without that supporting data, Plaintiff has no way of 

verifying any of the information provided. The two sales agents included were David Pope and Josh Schwartz, who worked with Jeremy in the 

Government Sales Team. Jeremy requested the commission workbooks for all sales agents for 3 reasons: (i) At the beginning of each year, Donat gives 

each sales agent a profit-sharing bonus based on the employee’s sales performance from the previous year. Jeremy contends that the profit-sharing 

bonus Donat awarded him in 2017 (for his performance in 2016) was far less than other sales agents because Donat was jealous of his relationship with 

Kristin. Jeremy requested the profit-sharing bonus information in Request # 2 below. He needs the commission workbooks to measure against the profitsharing bonus. If he is only given the profit-sharing bonus for each employee (and no information about each sales agent’s sales performance), it 

renders the profit-sharing bonus information useless. (ii) Jeremy needs the commission workbook (for more than just the year 2016 for Mr. Schwartz 

and Mr. Pope) to confirm that they were being paid a full commission for their large non-governmental clients (like Amerisure) for a period of years. The 

workbook is needed to show during what years they were allowed to service these clients and whether they were paid full commissions for each of 

those years. Defendants claim that they were not paid a full commission for their large non-governmetal clients. This is directly relevant to Defendants’ 

claim that Jeremy is not owed any compensation for Amerisure, which is a key issue with respect to proving retaliation and calculating his lost wages 

and future lost wages. (iii) Although the profit-sharing bonus award was subject to Donat’s discretion, Jeremy believes there must have been some 

established metrics that Donat relied on in awarding the profit-sharing bonus. For example, Jeremy believes the profit-sharing bonus for all employees 

could have ranged from 4% to 20% of the agent’s overall pay depending on each employee’s gross sales and length of employment. Jeremy needs the 

workbook for all employees to see what kind of historical averages Donat awarded to his sales agents. Jeremy knows for certain that it will only take 

Defendants a total of ten minutes to produce the commission workbook for a period of years, which consists of one Excel spreadsheet. The burden to 

produce all salespeople is less than producing some as anything other than all requires the spreadsheet to be broken apart.

2 Profit-sharing/Compensation Summary letters for each 

salesperson at GPSI for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018 which 

represents the prior year’s performance. i.e. 2017 ProfitSharing/Compensation Summary represents 2016 performance.

Incomplete - 0% The “profit-sharing compensation letters” contain the amount of the profit-sharing bonus given to a particular sales agent, which includes the 

percentage of their overall pay that the bonus is based on. In other words, it shows whether the employee received a bonus based on 5% or 15% of their 

overall pay. Jeremy needs this information to show that the percentage of his profit-sharing bonus for 2016 was a significantly lesser percentage of his 

overall pay than others because Donat was jealous of his relationship with Ms. Lisson. He also needs to know whether Donat paid a historical average of 

5% or 15% of an employee’s overall pay when awarding these bonuses. This historical average will be used to calculate Jeremy’s lost wages from now 

through the date of trial, including any award of front pay. The difference between being awarded a 5% bonus versus a 15% bonus (for a period of 

years) affects his lost wage and future lost wage calculations by hundreds of thousands of dollars. As of now, we have no comparative data. 

3 Spreadsheet used by Mr. Donat to calculate Profitsharing/Compensation Summary for each salesperson for years 

2016, 2017, and 2018 in native format. 

Incomplete - 0% This is relevant for the reasons stated above. The underlying spreadsheet that Donat used will provide insight into the metrics and information he used 

to determine the amount (and percentage of overall pay) for the profit-sharing bonuses. Defendants produced a document intended to represent the 

spreadsheet used by Mr. Donat but it was not. It contained data from only 4 other salespeople and did not contain the formulas used to calculate the 

data. Defendants had copied and pasted values only into another spreadsheet for the purposes of not showing the formulas.

4 GPSI Sales Policy for each year from 2014-2018. Incomplete - < 50% The sales policies reflect the terms and conditions in which sales agents are entitled to a commission. In August, Defendants produced the 2012 and 

2018 Sales Policy of which neither apply to Jeremy. Defendants have failed to produce the Sales Policy(s) that were in place for 2015, 2016 and 2017. 

Jeremy needs the sales policies because they are relevant to his lost wage claim including his claim that he is owed a commission for Amerisure. 

Defendants need to produce all Sales Policies that were active during Mr. Thacker's termination along with the dates they were effective. Plaintiff first 

requested this information in February 2018 and is astounded that Defendants have refused to produce this and then 6 months later produced a Sales 

Policy that says it was updated in 2018 a year after Mr. Thacker's termination.

5 All documents and presentation materials included in companywide meeting presentations from January 1, 2014 to present in 

native format

Withdrawn

6 All documents and presentation materials included in All Sales 

Meetings from January 1, 2015 to present in native format.

Incomplete - 0% All Sales Meetings took place on a monthly basis (with some exceptions) and included presentations showing stats and metrics for individual salespeople 

and the sales teams. These presenations contain important information on accolades, awards, and other important information regarding Mr. Thacker's 

performance individually and comparitively.

7 All documents related to Sagemount, equity investment in GPSI 

and/or change in stock and/or ownership, including but not 

limited to contracts, terms and conditions, evaluations, and 

financials. 

Incomplete - 0% Bregal Sagemount recently acquired a minority interest in GPSI that is estimated to have cost between $8 million and $150 million. Mr. Donat was the 

sole owner of GPS Insight and this would be a huge impact to his income and worth which are discussed in more detail in request # 12. In addition, 

Jeremy has a right to know whether employees were given any stock options or other form of compensation including any kind of bonus (or promise of 

a bonus) because it is relevant to his lost wage calculation. If employees were not given (or promised) any form of compensation, he has a right to 

documentation confirming who was (and was not) awarded stocks. 

Page 1 of 7
# Request Status Plaintiff's Position

8 All documents related to stock options and/or bonuses related 

to Sagemount and/or equity investment for all GPSI employees, 

including but not limited to any spreadsheets used to calculate 

bonuses/commissions and documents verifying/substantiating 

the data used to calculate the bonuses/commissions in native 

format

Incomplete - 0% Plaintiff needs this information from the date of Jeremy’s termination through the present because Bregal Sagemount recently acquired a minority 

interest in GPSI that is estimated to have cost between $8 million and $150 million. According to the Phoenix Business Journal, Donat is on record having 

stated, “The investment will allow me to take some chips off the table for me personally, to take equity ownership into the hands of employees for stock 

options and to engage with Sagemount with their program to assist and energize our company from sales and HR to support.” Based on Donat’s own 

admission, Donat may have awarded a larger profit-sharing bonus than in previous years, especially to long term employees like Jeremy. Jeremy has a 

right to know whether GPSI employees received a larger than average profit-sharing bonus. Defense counsel has stated that GPSI did not award any 

stock options. Jeremy needs proof to support that claim. Also, Jeremy’s requests all documents related to “stock options and/or bonuses.” A bonus 

would include any form of additional compensation (or document promising additional compensation) to sales agents arising out of this purchase. 

Defense counsl only referenced stock options and did not comment on bonuses. 

9 All Lexis Nexis reports for Mr. Thacker, Ms. Lisson, and/or Mr. 

Dennis in native format including any communications reflecting 

when or why those reports were generated and to whom they 

were sent.

Incomplete - < 50% Donat pulled a background report on Mr. Thacker after his termination that pulled GLBA information until false pretense. During 30(b)(6), Mr. Walker 

said that Mr. Donat had emailed him a copy of the background report on Jeremy showing all of his personal information including among other things 

his criminal history, addresses, email accounts, and partial DOB, partial social security number and other information under the protection of GLBA . 

Defendants, however, have not disclosed any emails or other communications showing when or how Donat requested or obtained this credit report or 

to whom else it may have been sent. Jeremy has reason to believe Donat shared the report with others, which, if true, is an act of retaliation and 

demonstrative of Donat’s hatred for Jeremy. Defense counsel has stated (without any proof) that Donat obtained a copy of the report from his other 

attorney and that this communication is privileged. Jeremy disputes that this email would be considered privileged, and even if it was, these so-called 

privileged communications should be identified on a privilege log. 

10 All documents that support Defendants’ contention that Mr. 

Thacker was “written up” and/or counseled regarding any 

alleged behavioral issues including being “caustic and abrasive” 

and a “disruptive” employee.

Complete - Limited

11 All expense reports for all employees from 2014 through present 

in native format including any document that reflects which 

employees were given access to use GPSI’s company credit card 

and on what terms they were allowed to use the card

Incomplete - 0% Defendants claim that Jeremy used his GPSI company credit card for personal expenses in the amount of approximately $4,500 without their knowledge 

or express or implied consent. Jeremy denies that all of these were personal expenses. More importantly, Jeremy will testify that his managers (Mr. 

Mortensen and Mr. Walker) gave him express and implied permission to use his company card for personal expenses so long as he repaid GPSI. Indeed, 

they gave Jeremy express permission to use the credit card in 2015. The expenses reports for other employees will reflect that Jeremys’ credit card 

expenses pale in comparison to many others who submitted credit card expenses for extravagant personal expenses, which Mr. Mortensen and Mr. 

Walker knowingly approved. Jeremy agreed to limit this request to the expense reports for certain employees whose expense reports will show a 

pattern and practice of allowing employees to charge personal expenses on their company credit cards: Josh Schwartz, Mike Maccomiskey, Joe Vidmar, 

Ryan Driscoll, Harry Leitner, Elliot Batcheller, and Ryan Hill. Jeremy knows that these expense reports are already organized and collected in a common 

location easily accessible by Accounting. 

12 The last five years’ worth of tax returns for GPSI and Mr. Donat. 

Tax returns are a standard and common practice in civil case like 

this. 

Incomplete - 0% In federal court, discovery of a defendant’s tax returns may be sought and obtained without any preliminary proof of a prima facie claim for punitive 

damages or evidence which would support such an award. EEOC v. California Psychiatric Transitions, 258 F.R.D. 391, 394-395 (E.D. Cal., 2009). EEOC v. 

AN Luxury Imports of Tucson, 2013 WL 12040009 (D. Ariz., 2013). Lopez v. Mauisun Computer Systems, Inc., 2016 WL 524659 (D. Ariz., 2016). Oakes v. 

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 286 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Carrasco v. Campagna, 2007 WL 81909 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Southern California Housing Rights 

Center v. Krug, 2006 WL 4122148 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2005 WL 1030218 (N.D. Cal,. 2005). Even if such proof 

was required, the Complaint contains exhaustive detail about Donat’s shocking and outrageous behavior that would easily support an award of punitive 

damages. Jeremy will of course agree to maintain confidentiality pursuant to the protective order. He simply wants to know Donat’s net wealth because 

that is a factor that is relevant in deciding the amount of punitive damages under Jeremy’s claims including discrimination and retaliation, defamation, 

intentional interference with contract, and false light.

13 Any insurance or other agreements under which another person 

or entity may be liable to satisfy all or part of the judgment or to 

indemnify or reimburse a party for payments made by the party 

to satisfy the judgement. MDIP # 6. Defendant’s provided no 

detail in their disclosures. Mr. Thacker seeks the details of the 

arrangement with all insurance companies involved.

Complete - 100%

Page 2 of 7
# Request Status Plaintiff's Position

14 All communications between, on the one hand, Mr. Donat and, 

on the other hand, Mr. Thacker from January 1, 2017 to the 

present, including but not limited to texts, emails, iMessages, 

Slack messages, cards, letters, notes, and messages on any social 

media or messaging application

Incomplete - > 50% Defendants state in the Joint Status Report that they have produced all relevant text messages. Jeremy, however, produced numerous text messages 

between he and Donat that are clearly relevant. Jeremy will be seeking sanctions based on Donat's failure to preserve and/or produce these messages. 

15 All communications between, on the one hand, Mr. Donat and, 

on the other hand, Ms. Lisson from January 1, 2016 to the 

present, including but not limited to texts, emails, iMessages, 

Slack messages, cards, letters, notes, and messages on any social 

media or messaging application. 

Incomplete - > 50% Defendants state in the Joint Status Report that they have produced all relevant text messages. Ms. Lisson, however, produced hundreds of text 

messages between she and Donat that are clearly relevant. Jeremy will be seeking sanctions based on Donat's failure to preserve and/or produce these 

messages. As for Slack, Defendants initially testified at their 30(b)(6) depositions that they did not preserve any direct Slack messages. "Direct" message 

means any message between a limited number of people and that is not designated by the sender as "public." "Public" means anyone in the company 

can view it. On August 16, 2018, Defendants produced Slack messages in an unusbale format. It looks like the messages are between employees that 

have nothing to do with this lawsuit. We will be filing a separate motion regarding this issue but wanted to inform the Court of the status of this request. 

16 All communications sent by or to Mr. Donat, Mr. Walker, Mr. 

Mortensen, Mr. Batcheller, Mr. Fitzgerald and Kristi Donat from 

February 22, 2017 to April 15, 2017, including but not limited to 

texts, emails, iMessages, Slack messages, or messages sent 

through any social media or messaging application.

Withdrawn

17 All communications between, on the one hand, Mr. Donat and, 

on the other hand, Kate Wells regarding Mr. Thacker, Ms. Lisson, 

and/or any topic related to a workplace romance from January 

1, 2017 to the present, including but not limited to texts, emails, 

iMessages, Slack messages, cards, letters, notes, and messages 

on any social media or messaging application

Withdrawn

18 Any document that you contend reflects that GPSI provided a 

copy of any employee policy to any of its employees including 

the company-wide email referred to in 30(b)(6) deposition of 

Mr. Fitzgerald in which he claims that all GPSI employees were 

made aware of the new policies available on Knowledge Base 

sometime in 2017

Complete - 100%

19 Slack Weekly Summary email for every week in the months of 

February 2017, March 2017 and June 2018.

Incomplete - 0% Defendants claim in the Joint Status Report that "there are no responsive documents." Jeremy will be seeking sanctions for Defendants' failure to 

preserve Slack messages. Slack is the primary form of communication that GPSI employees use. Defendants are refusing to provide statistics on their 

Slack usage in hopes of downplaying the importance and prevelance of the tool for internal communications. According to credible online sources, 

organizations that use Slack for internal messaging typically reduce email usage by over 40%. If the number of Slack messages are as high as Plaintiff 

suspects, Defendants have allowed for the deletion of hundreds of thousands of messages since Mr. Thacker's termination. Defendants have an 

obligation to provide any information available to them regarding the number of Slack messages sent since March 2017. In a worst case scenario, 

Defendants are absolutely able to prouduce reports for June and July 2018 showing a total number of messages sent along with the number of 

messages sent by each individual user. 

Page 3 of 7
# Request Status Plaintiff's Position

20 Any email that was sent or received by any GPSI employee 

between March 6, 2017 and April 15, 2017 which contains any 

of the following words: Kristin; Lisson; KL; “K.L.”; Jeremy; 

Thacker; JT; “J.T.”

Incomplete - < 50% Defendants have produced almost no emails regarding the internal communications about Jeremy or Ms. Lisson, even though Defense counsel stated 

that in the meet and confer that there are several thousand documents responsive to many of these search terms. On August 2, 2018, undersigned 

counsel informed defense counsel in an email that he could significantly reduce the number of hits by removing all emails to or from 

SalesOperations@GPSI.com, which is the operations team. All remaining emails are highly likely to be relevant because they would not encompass the 

day-to-day activities of emailing the operations team. Given that Defendants have produced almost no emails, it is not overly burdensome for them to 

review these emails. Jeremy produced tens of thousands of texts and emails (and the entirety of his medical history for the last ten years) at GPSI’s 

insistence. Defendants should have to put in some effort to locate and produce responsive information that is directly related to conversations about 

Jeremy and Ms. Lisson. Again, Defendants claim that there are a large number of responsive documents for each search term, but defense counsel 

would not tell us, in writing, how many "hits" there were for each search term. Instead, he told us the figures over the phone and provided no 

supporting documentation. We did not agree to limit the search terms because each is likely to produce relevant information. Defendants apparently 

believe that just because there are, for example, 5,000 "hits" for a search term, they are not required to review any of those documets. Plaintiff has a 

very different view of a party's review and production obligations. 

21 Any email that was sent or received by David Pope, Mr. Walker, 

Joe Vidmar, Josh Schwartz, Nathan Washington, Phil Eatman, or 

Mr. Mortensen at any time which contains any of the following 

words and/or phrases: “earn out”; “ear out”; “referral fee”

Withdrawn

22 Any email that was sent or received by Mr. Batcheller, Mr. 

Fitzgerald, Mr. Walker, Mr. Donat, Mr. Mortensen, or Wayne 

Holder at any time which contains any of the following words 

and/or phrases: “discrimination charge”; devil; asshole; “witch”; 

“cult”; “piece of shit”; “reference” & “job offer”; “sexual 

harassment”; EEOC; “trail of bodies”

Incomplete - 0% These disparaging term have either appeared in emails and text messages sent by Donat or were statements made by Donat in conversations about 

Jeremy or directly to Jeremy. The search terms related to the EEOC and discrimination are relevant to Jeremy’s discrimination and retaliation claims. The 

“reference” & “job offer” search term is relevant to Jeremy’s claim for intentional interference with prospective business relations and his retaliation 

and discrimination claims because Jeremy believes that Donat may have made disparaging statements to prospective employers when called for a 

reference about Jeremy. These search terms are necessary to determine whether Donat did indeed make any disparaging statements about Jeremy that 

sabotaged his ability to find other employment. If they refuse to conduct these searches, Jeremy will have no way of verifying what may have been said 

about him to prospective employers. Defendants also claim that there are a large number of responsive documents for each search term, but defense 

counsel would not tell us, in writing, how many "hits" there were for each search term. Instead, he told us the figures over the phone and provided no 

supporting documentation. We did not agree to limit the search terms because each is likely to produce relevant information. Defendants apparently 

believe that just because there are, for example, 5,000 "hits" for a search term, they are not required to review any of those documents. Plaintiff has a 

very different view of a party's review and production obligations. 

23 Any email that was sent or received by Mr. Batcheller, Mr. 

Walker, Phil Eatman, Mr. Donat, or Mr. Mortensen at any time 

which contains any of the following words and/or phrases: 

Amerisure; “Fleet Connect”; “call records”; “activity tracking”

Incomplete - 0% Jeremy believes that he would have been allowed to service Amerisure and been paid a full commission for all sales referred by Amersiure but for the 

unlawful retaliation and discrimination. Defendants claim that Jeremy is not entitled to any compensation for Amerisure. That is why we want all 

communications about Amerisure. The other two search terms (“call records” and activity tracking”) are relevant to Donat’s claim that Jeremy deserved 

to be terminated because he was always absent from work and his call records showed that he hardly made any calls during one of the final weeks of his 

employment. Information about “call records” relates to Donat’s claim that he was rarely calling enough customers. Any information about “activity 

tracking” relates to Donat’s claim that Jeremy was never working and was never in his office. Jeremy agreed to limit this request to all emails sent or 

received by these individuals between January 1, 2016 and the present. Jeremy also does not seek any emails to or from SalesOperation.@GPSI.com, 

which is the email associated with the operations team and should drastically the number of responsive documents for each of these search terms. He 

just wants emails between these key employees (his managers) discussing Amerisure and his alleged performance issues. Again, Defendants claim that 

there are a large number of responsive documents for each search term, but defense counsel would not tell us, in writing, how many "hits" there were 

for each search term. Instead, he told us the figures over the phone and provided no supporting documentation. We did not agree to limit the search 

terms because each is likely to produce relevant information. Defendants apparently believe that just because there are, for example, 5,000 "hits" for a 

search term, they are not required to review any of those documnets. Plaintiff has a very different view of a party's review and production obligations. 

24 Any email that was sent or received by Mr. Walker, Josh 

Schwartz, Nathan Washington, or Mr. Mortensen at any time 

which contains any of the following words and/or phrases: 

‘State of Oklahoma”; “Oklahoma” & “commission”

Withdrawn

Page 4 of 7
# Request Status Plaintiff's Position

25 Any email that was sent or received by Mr. Walker, Phil Eatman, 

Mr. Donat, or Mr. Mortensen at any time which contains any of 

the following words and/or phrases: “profit sharing”; “profitsharing”; “profit” & “bonus”; “sales commission plans”; “rep 

commission plans”; “Sales Policy 2014”; “Sales Policy 2015”; 

“Sales Policy 2016”; “Sales Policy 2017”; “Sales Policy 2018”; 

“Sales Awards”; “sales team expenses”; “commission eligibility”; 

“territory exception”; reassigned; “taking away”; “keep list”; 

“back to GPS Insight”; Holdovers

Withdrawn

26 Any email that was sent or received by Mr. Walker or Mr. 

Mortensen at any time which contains any of the following 

words and/or phrases: CalCartage; CMI; "Container Freight"; 

"California Multimodal"; "K&R Transportation"; "Epicor"; 

Glassdoor; "best places to work"

Withdrawn

27 Every email thread which was sent or received by Barbara 

Somerside, Carrie Race-Simms, Ray Kosick, or Mr. Donat from 

October 1, 2016 to present which contains any of the following 

words and/or phrases: Jeremy; Thacker; JT; "J.T."

Withdrawn

28 Any email that was sent or received by Mr. Batcheller, Mr. 

Fitzgerald, Mr. Walker, or Mr. Mortensen from December 15, 

2016 to present which contains any of the following words 

and/or phrases: Jeremy; Thacker; JT; “J.T.”; Kristin; Lisson; KL; 

“K.L”; “Rob”; “Donat”; Robert; “RD”; “R.D.”; “Gob”

Withdrawn These are the four key players in management, and any discussion about Kristin, Jeremy, or Donat during the relevant time period are highly likely to be 

relevant. Defendants sought (and were given) all of Jeremy's post-lawsuit communications with Ms. Lisson. Defendants should be required to do the 

same. At a minimum, their emails through Jeremy's termination on March 6, 2018 should be disclosed. 

29 Any email that was sent or received by Mr. Donat from January 

1, 2016 to present which contains any of the following words 

and/or phrases: Kristin; Lisson; KL; "K.L."

Incomplete - < 50% Donat found out about Ms. Lisson’s relationship with Jeremy in early January 2016 and immediately began retaliating against her and Jeremy. Any 

emails that Donat sent or received that refer to Ms. Lisson (or her initials) from January 2016 to the present are directly relevant to Jeremy’s claims 

because they reflect his anger and jealousy toward Jeremy. Mr. Palys claimed in his portion of the Joint Motion Regarding Discovery Dispute that 

Plaintiff requested ALL emails regarding Ms. Lisson while leaving out the request was for limited dates and from limited Custodians. Mr. Palys can 

automatically filter out any privileged emails with his firm, so the burden in producing these is minimal. Defendants also claim that there are a large 

number of responsive documents for each search term, but defense counsel would not tell us, in writing, how many "hits" there were for each search 

term. Instead, he told us the figures over the phone and provided no supporting documentation. We did not agree to limit the search terms because 

each is likely to produce relevant information. Defendants apparently believe that just because there are, for example, 5,000 "hits" for a search term, 

they are not required to review any of those documets. Plaintiff has a very different view of a party's review and production obligations. 

Page 5 of 7
# Request Status Plaintiff's Position

30 Every text message or instant message sent or received, 

including all messages sent or received 48 hours before and 

after any such message, from the following individuals: Mr. 

Donat, Mr. Walker, Mr. Mortensen, Mr. Batcheller, Mr. 

Fitzgerald, Kristi Donat, or Phil Eatman between the dates of 

January 1, 2017 to present, including but not limited to texts, 

iMessages, messages on any social media or messaging 

application containing any of the following terms: Jeremy; 

Thacker; JT; “J.T.”; Kristin; Lisson; KL; “K.L.”; “Rob”; Donat; “RD”; 

“R.D.”; “Gob”; lawyer; legal; attorney; fired; firing; terminated; 

Incomplete - < 50% Defense counsel has stated that this request is overly burdensome but was unable to tell undersigned counsel how many responsive documents there 

were for each of the above search terms. He claims that his text message downloading program is unable to provide that information, which is very 

surprising because this kind of information is readily available on every text message program that we are familiar with. He should be required to use 

one of the many programs (that are very inexpensive) to provide this information or else be required to produce the responsive documents. He should 

not be allowed to claim that it is too burdensome to respond without providing specific information to support his objection. Defense counsel also 

claims that the terms lawyer, attorney, and legal are likely to produce privileged information. While these terms may produce some privileged 

communications, Jeremy and Ms. Lisson have produced text messages involving themselves and either Donat or members of GPSI management that 

contain these search terms. Examples are 2nd tab below. In addition, this request is for TEXTS not emails. Defendants claim these terms are harassing 

because they will produce privileged information but this argument holds no wait as all that is required is to filter out Defendants' Counsels' phone 

numbers. If they choose to do so, Defendants will need to produce a Privilege Log. Again, Defendants claim that there are a large number of responsive 

documents for each search term, but defense counsel would not tell us, in writing, how many "hits" there were for each search term. Instead, he told us 

the figures over the phone and provided no supporting documentation, despite requets. We did not agree to limit the search terms because each is 

likely to produce relevant information. Defendants apparently believe that just because there are, for example, 5,000 "hits" for a search term, they are 

not required to review any of those documets. Plaintiff has a very different view of a party's review and production obligations. 

31 NetSuite report containing status of all Government leads, 

prospects, opportunities, and customers in Southwest Territory 

(AZ, CO, KS, MO, NM, OK, TX, UT) to present.

Withdrawn

32 NetSuite report containing status of all leads, prospects, 

opportunities, and customers previously assigned to Mr. 

Thacker, from March 1, 2017 to present.

Withdrawn

33 NetSuite report containing status of all leads, prospects, 

opportunities, and customers associated with Amerisure, 

including but not limited to companies referred by Amerisure, 

customers of Amerisure and/or any opportunities where 

Amerisure was a reference from June 1, 2013 to the present.

Withdrawn

34 NetSuite report containing status of all leads, prospects, 

opportunities, and customers associated with Epicor, including 

but not limited to companies referred by Epicor, customers of 

Epicor and/or any opportunities where Epicor was a reference 

from January 1, 2010 to the present.

Withdrawn

35 NetSuite report containing status of all leads, prospects, 

opportunities, and customers associated with “Wheels” (the 

company), including but not limited to companies referred by 

Wheels, customers of Wheels and/or any opportunities where 

Wheels was a reference from January 1, 2010 to the present. 

Withdrawn

36 Report and/or documentation of acknowledgement of policies 

on Knowledge Base by employees containing the status of 

acknowledgment for each policy on KB by each employee for the 

following dates of March 6, 2017, one day prior to date of 

companywide email notifying employees of policies on KB and 

45 days after the same email as referenced by Mr. Fitzgerald in 

30(b)(6) deposition.

Complete - 100%

37 Daily attendance records for all salespeople from January 1, 

2014 to present, including but not limited to time of arrival and 

departure each day.

Withdrawn

Page 6 of 7
# Request Status Plaintiff's Position

38 Summary report of phone calls and phone time for all 

salespeople from January 1, 2014 to present, including but not 

limited to calls made from each salesperson’s extension, all workrelated calls made from each salesperson’s mobile phone, all 

time using Clearslide’s Soft Phone for communication during 

presentations.

Withdrawn

39 The Exchange calendars of Mr. Donat, Mr. Batcheller, Mr. 

Walker, and Mr. Mortensen for the time period of January 10, 

2017 to March 6, 2017. Mr. Donat, Mr. Walker, and Mr. 

Mortensen have all made claims about the timing of certain 

events as it relates to this case.

Incomplete - 0% Defendants have made several statements regarding the timing of events as it relates to Mr. Thacker's termination. Plaintiff has the right to evidence 

supporting their claims of when and where certain events took place. 

40 All mobile phone records and/or logs for Mr. Donat, Mr. 

Batcheller, Mr. Mortensen, Mr. Walker and/or Kristi Donat 

between January 1, 2017 and March 30, 2017.

Incomplete - < 50% Donat claims that he was not involved in the decision to terminate and that his management team (Mr. Batcheller, Mr. Mortensen, and Mr. Walker) 

made the decision on their own. Jeremy believes the phone records for these individuals will show that Donat was actively communicating with his 

management team. Given that Jeremy (the top sales agent) and Ms. Lisson (a key employee) were the only employees terminated during this this time, 

these phone calls are instrumental in disproving Donat’s claim that he was not involved in their termination. Kristi Donat is Donat’s ex-wife. Jeremy has a 

text message from Donat to him stating that Kristi told him that he should “fire his ass.” Although Kristi is not a GPSI employee, Jeremy believes that 

Kristi uses a phone and that GPSI pays for the monthly service for that phone. In other words, GPSI has access to the information on the phone. Defense 

counsel stated that it not true. If it is not true, GPSI should have to produce supporting documentation showing that GPSI does not pay her monthly bill. 

In 7th Supplemental, Defendants have turned over mobile phone records of Mr. Donat which contain redacted phone numbers with no explanation for 

the redaction. If redactions were due to privilege, Defendants need to produce a privilege log for these and any other items per the MIDP. In addition, 

Defendants turned over some type of phone records for Mr. Mortensen and Mr. Walker but from what Plaintiff can determine it seems like they only 

produced records of Face-Time calls not all mobile phone calls. Mr. Thacker knows he spoke with Mr. Mortensen on his mobile phone during the time 

period submitted and yet that phone call is not reported in the documents produced by Defendants. Mr. Walker's phone record showed only 2 phone 

calls over a matter of months which is clearly not accurate. They submitted no phone records for Mr. Batcheller.

41 All phone system records and/or logs of calls (internal and/or 

external) for Mr. Donat, Mr. Batcheller, Mr. Mortensen, and/or 

Mr. Walker from March 2, 2017 to March 6, 2017.

Incomplete - 0% Defendants have made several statements about when certain phone calls were made in relation to events surrounding Mr. Thacker's termination. For 

instance, Defendants claimed that they accessed recordings of Mr. Thacker's phone calls at certain dates and times as well as the times of certain 

internal phone calls surrounding Plaintiff's termination. Defendants did not think it was burdensome to pull phone records of Mr. Thacker's phone logs 

to try and prove he was not working. Defendants own their own phone system server and have easy admin access to the logs. They should be able to 

run the reports with little effort. If Defendants are unwilling to perform the action, Mr. Thacker worked for the company that supplies Defendants phone 

system and would happy to pull the logs.

42 Produce all images embedded in GPSI_00108130,136-17 in 

native format.

Complete - 100%

43 All items not containing a Custodian need to be produced with 

correct Custodian assigned. 

Incomplete - > 50% Defendants have produced a plethora of items with no custodian attached. This is a violation of the MIDP, which requires that the parties “[i]nclude in 

your response the names and, if known, the addresses and telephone numbers of the custodians of the documents, ESI, or tangible things, land, or other 

property that are not in your possession, custody, or control.” (Doc. 3 p. 5:20-23). Defense counsel stated that even though the MIDP expressly requires 

this, he is not going to address this issue. Defense counsel was also unable to explain how it was even possible that documents could be disclosed with 

no custodian assigned. [Update: Defendants provided an overlay in their 7th Supplemental, but much of that information was incorrect. Documents 

were assigned to Jeremy Thacker as custodian, but Jeremy's entire GPSI email account has already been produced. Thus, the emails that Defendants 

produced in this Disclosure where Jeremy is a party were clearly provided by the other GPSI employee that is a party to the email.]

44 All items with a Custodian of “General” should be assigned to 

the correct Custodian. Produce all group text messages 

identifiable as group text messages, and all parties included in 

the group identified as well.

Incomplete - > 50% In many cases, the custodian was listed as “general.” This is a violation of the MIDP, as discussed immediately above. Jeremy has a right to know from 

whom each document came from. This is particularly disturbing given Defendants’ abysmal disclosures and the inability of their 30(b)(6) witnesses to 

testify about what devices and accounts were imaged and searched, when they were imaged and searched, and what search terms were used. Defense 

counsel that even though the MIDP requires this, he is not going to address the issue. 

45 Produce GPSI_00103218-7847 in native format. Defendants 

produced a 4,000 page spreadsheet in TIFF format without the 

native despite the agreed upon format for spreadsheets.

Complete - 100%

Page 7 of 7
Text Messages Referred to in #30

Jeremy; what are you even talking about? I know better what? Why don't you just coMe out and say what you're 

not saying? No one understands but you; Jeremy. And no one cares. There are 20 non negotiable iron-clad 

reasons we finally after 3 years pulled your plug before it got worse and worse and worse. And we are looking 

for/finding:docuMenting more. Just go out and work your magic for soMe other company and succeed like you 

clearly can. I like reasonably good; kind; (non-creepy-girlfriend-phone-hacking) positive people who aren't total 

Seawards so we needed to part ways. Jason and Tyler more than Me. They agreed before I brought them the 

recording you were so considerate to make. I didn't even know how on the bubble you were after the Meeting 

Thursday. I love the money you bring in. But not the constant bitching about you I hear and morale issues. 

Money isn't worth it. Sorry. It's done. Move on. Good luck with the suit. I suggest you keep your money as I will 

defend it trivially; using LCRA residuals. Nothing we have let you go over is a protected category. Stop being a 

baby and just go out and get a job. I'm sure this wasn't your first. I got fired once and it was transformative. I 

hope it is for you. Don't reply I'm done. Sticking you on block since lawyers insist everything go through them. 

Since you aren't iOS you won't know I'm not receiving your texts. Good night and thank you for checking on KL. 

She's a different person in 2017 and I'm worried; that's all. Worried about others this and last year as well. [From 

Mr. Donat to Jeremy - NOT Produced by Defendants]

If you are able physically and emotionally to talk please call me this morning before you get to work. If you're 

not please call in sick. I don't know if it was nerves or alcohol or drugs or you trying to record me which got you 

so completely incoherent/unable to speak last night but I am very worried for you. Jeremy got there within 2 

minutes to tell me you were OK which I was both glad and skeptical to hear. Again if you want my help I want to 

give it. If you don't you're on your own because you've painted yourself into a very small corner mostly because 

if Jeremy's legal and other threats and the mystery of how he found out about my texts regarding the 

recording/if he stole it from you why haven't you reacted differently. Please call me Kristin. It's not just me who 

is worried but I'm the one trying to keep what is best for you in mind vs. what seems best for the company. 

[From Mr. Donat to Kristin - NOT Produced by Defendants]

I was instructed not to reach out. And was okay with that because I was on vacation. I bottled it up and chose 

not to let it ruin my vacation. I got back Friday morning and talked with Jason and got the okay to reach out. I'm 

being delicate and respectful to my employer because I've been advised legal is involved. I was so upset I went 

out to diner with Terry Friday night and ugly cried in public. I was going to reach out Saturday morning to you but 

Jeremy beat me to it with a guilt trip. I was hoping for a more organic connection. I'm still processing this. I don't 

want to be put in position to have to choose sides. [From James Adamthwaite to Kristin - NOT Produced by 

Defendants]