## STATEOF

## VERMONTSUPERIORCOURT

## CIVILDIVISIONWindsorUnitDocketNo.

### 22-CV-493

## GARYALIBOZEK,PlaintiffV.

## NORMANWATTSand

## WATTS

## LAWFIRM,P.C.,Defendants

## DECISIONSON

### PENDING

### MOTIONSPlaintifl'Gary

### Alibozekwasrepresented

### byDefendantNormanWattsinanage

### discriminationcase

### againsthis

### employer,

### General

### ElectricCompany.‘Mr.

### Alibozekappliedforanopen

### positionand

### youngeremployee

### whohad

### workedat

### GEforlesstime

### wasselected

### forthe

### job.Inthat

### UnderlyingCase,summary

### judgmentwasgrantedto

### General

### ElectricCompany.Mr.

### Alibozeknowbringsthissuit

### against

### Mr.WattsandWatts

### LawFirm,P.C.,

### allegingseveralcauses

### ofactionbasedon

### Mr.

### Watts’srepresentation

### ofhiminthe

### UnderlyingCaseagainst

### General

### Electric.TheAmended

### Complaintsetsforth

### fourcauses

### ofaction:

### Negligence/LegalMalpractice;Breach

### ofContract;ConsumerFraud;and

### NegligentMisrepresentation.

### Thereareseveral

### pendingmotionsinthecase,

### includingMotionfor

### Summary

### Judgmenton

### allcounts

### filedbyDefendantWatts.

### Themotionsareaddressedintheorderin

### whichthey

### were

### filed,exceptthatthe

### Motionfor

### Summary

### Judgmentisaddressedlast.

### Motion#7:

### Plaintiff’sMotionto

### Compel

## GEto

### respondto

### subpoena

### Plaintifl'sought

### discoverymaterialfrom

### GEby

### informallysendingsubpoenato

### GErepresentative

### whohad

### previouslyprovided

### discoveryinthe

### UnderlyingCasefrom

### GE’sfileswithoutformalservice.

### GEdeclinedto

### providetherequesteddocumentsdueto

### lack

### ofproper

### service

### ofthesubpoenaandalso

### claimedthattherequestwas

### undulyburdensome.

### Plaintiff’scounselseekstocompelproduction

### ofthedocuments

### withoutservice

### ofthesubpoena,

### claimingthatformal

### service

### wouldaddtimeandexpense.

### GEisnotpartytothis

### lawsuit,andany

### prioragreementinthe

### UnderlyingCaseregardingmodes

### ofmakingandrespondingto

### discoveryrequestsdoesnotapply.Alibozekv.GeneralElectricCompany,270-5-17Rdcv,hereinafterdescribedastheUnderlyingCase.HereinafterthetermWattswillrefertobothMr.NormanWattsandWattsLawFirm,P.C.

### Plaintiff’scounselalsosoughtpersonnelrecords

### ofemployees

### withoutrequestingtheaddresses

### ofthose

### employeesto

### givethem

### noticeasrequired

### by

### l6V.S.A.

### §l69la(c),andsoughtnumerousrecords

### goingbackseveralyearsin

### time,

### which

### GEclaimed

### wouldbe

### undulyburdensome.

### Plaintiffhasshortenedthe

### retroactivedateto10yearsbasedontheunderstandingthat

### GEkeepsrecords

### for10years.

### Thecourtdeniesthemotion

### forseveralreasons.

### Plaintiff’scounsel

### failedto

### properlyservethesubpoenaand

### seektheaddresses

### ofemployeesin

### timelymanner

### withinthepretrial

### schedulingorder.

### Moreover,thecourt

### concludesthatlarge

### volume

### ofmaterialwasrequestedthatconstitutedmuchmoreburdensomerequestthanthe

### singlepersonnel

### file

### thatGEhad

### previouslyagreedto

### providewithout

### service

### ofsubpoena.Perhapsmostimportantisthatthereisno

### showingthatthe

### significantvolume

### ofmaterialsought,some

### ofwhichis

### verydated,even

## ifithadbeen

### timelyrequested,

### wouldbe

### withinthescope

### ofdiscoverablematerialpursuantto

### V.R.C.P.26

### (b),which

### allows

### discovery“relevantto

### any

### party’s

### claimordefenseandproportionalt0theneeds

### ofthecase,

### consideringtheimportance

### oftheissuesatstake..-.andwhethertheburdenorexpense

### oftheproposed

### discoveryoutweighsits

### likelybenefit.”Mr.

### Alibozekwasdeniedpromotiontothe

### position

### for

### whichhe

### appliedin

### December

### of2014.

### Plaintiffhasnot

### explained

### howdocumentsfrom10years

### priortothatdate,

### relatingtoother

### employees,

### wouldbe

### relevanttothe

### criticalissue

### ofwhetherthereason

### givenforthe

### decisionnottopromote

### Mr.

### Alibozekwaspretext.

### Forthesereasons,themotionisdenied,and

### thereisnoreasonto

### delay

### rulingon

### Defendant’smotion

### forsummary

### judgment.

### Motion#9:

## GE’sMotion

### forProtective

### OrderThisrequestwas

### essentiallymotiontoquashmade

### by

### GEinits

### Oppositiontothe

### Motionto

### Compel

### GEto

### complywiththesubpoenadescribedabove.

### Forthereasonsstated

### above,the

### Plaintiff’smotionhasbeendenied.

### GE’smotionisthereforemoot.

### Motion#10:

### Plaintiff’sMotionto

### Compelthe

### AttorneyGeneral’sOfficeto

### AllowForensic

### AuditMr.

### Alibozekandhis

### wifecontendthattheylistenedtoaudio

### recordings

### provided

### bythe

### Attorney

### General’s

### Officeinthe

### UnderlyingCase,thatshe

### took

### notesonwhatwassaid,andthat_aportion

### ofwhattheylistenedtocontainedheatedargumentthatisno

### longerontheaudio

### file.

### Plaintiff’scounselseekstohave

### forensicexpertexaminethe

### original

### fileatthe

### Attorney

### General’s

### Office.TheattorneyfortheStatecontendsthat

### theyhadtheirown

### forensicauditdone

### whichshowedno

### missingportion

### ofthe

### interview.

### Thestarting

### point

### 0fthe

### analysisisthatthewrittennotes

### kept

### byMr.

### Alibozek’swifeasshelistenedtothe

### interview,in

### particulartheformatsheused

### ofidentifyingwhatwassaid

### bywhatspeakersas

### identified

### byinitials,suggestthe

### possibilitythattheremaybe

### missingsection

### ofthe

### interview.

### Thus,

## iftherewere

### showingthatthe

### alleged

### missingportion

### actuallycontainedmaterialpertinentto

### Plaintiff’sclaim

### ofpretext,thecourt

### wouldconsider

### grantingtherequest

### for

### Plaintifftoengageanindependent

### forensicaudit.

### Thecourtassumesthe

### accuracy

### ofthe

### Alibozeks’contention

### ofthecontent

### ofthe

### missingmaterial.

### However,therehasbeennoreasonable

### showingthatthe

### alleged

### missingportion

### ofthe

### interviewcontainedcontent

### relevantunderthestandard

### ofV.R.C.P.26

### (b)to

### Plaintiff’s

### claiminthis

### malpracticecase.

### Thus,the

### delay,use

### ofparties’time,andexpense

### oftherequested

### forensicauditisnot

### justified.Themotionisdenied.

### Motion#12:

### Plaintiff’sMotion

### for

### FinalProtective

### OrderPlaintiffpreviouslyfiled

### Motionfor

### ProtectiveOrder,

### Motion#5

### (correctedas

### Motion#6),inresponsetosubpoena

### Defendantservedonspecial

### disciplinarycounselforproduction

### ofcommunicationsfrom

### Plaintiff’scounselrelatedtoanindependent

### professional

### responsibility

### disciplinaryproceeding.

### Plaintiff’scounsel

### claimedthather

### communicationsto

### special

### disciplinarycounsel

### wereprotectedattorney

### workproduct.In

### rulingissued

### October17,

### 2023,thecourtdeniedthe

### motion

### withoutprejudiceto

### refile,

### specificallyprovidingthat

## “ifthemotion'is

### refiled,

### specificattentionisrequestedastothe

### provision

### ofanadequatebasis

### forgdetermination

### ofthe

### applicability

### ofthe

### privilege.”Motion#12is

### Plaintiff’srefiling

### oftherequest.Inthemotion,

### Plaintiffclaimsthatthe

### informationinthe

### communicationwas

### “matter

### ofcommoninterest”between

### herselfand

### special

### disciplinarycounselandthus

### couldbeshared

### withanattorney

### with'acommoninterest

### :whileretainingitscharacteras

### Plaintiff’sattorney

### workproduct.

### Thecourt

### concludesthatthepurposes,standards,andprocedures

### oftortcaseandprofessional

### responsibility

### disciplinaryproceedingare

### distinct,andattorneys

### workingonthe

### twodifferentcasesdonothavethe

### type

### of“commoninterest”that

### allowssharing

### ofinformation

### whileretainingthebenefits

### oftheattorney

### workproduct

### privilege.

### Thusthemotionisdenied.

### Motion#14:

### Plaintiff’sMotionto

### Approve

### ThirdAmended

## ADRSchedule

### Criticaldiscoverydeadlineshad

### alreadypassedbeforethismotionwas

### filed.See

### Order

### fof

### April18,

### 2023.

### Nojustificationhasbeen

### shownfor

### retroactivelyextending

### discoveryideadlines,norhasany

### validreasonbeen

### shownthatfurther

### discoveryisneededbeforeconsideration

### ofDefendant’s

### Motionfor

### SummaryJudgment.

### Themotionisdenied.

### Motion#15:

### Plaintiff’sMotion

### forSur—reply

### (to

### Defendants’

### Replyin

### Support

### ofSummary

### JudgmentMotion)Thecourt

### concludesthatthecontent

### ofDefendant’s

### Replydidnotraisenewissuesorargumentsnot

### previouslyidentified

### byDefendant,andthat

### Plaintiffwasthereforenot

### deprived

### ofchancetoaddresspertinentarguments.

### Thus,themotionisdenied.

### .Motion#8:

### Defendant’sMotion

### for

### Summary

### JudgmentBreach

## 0fContractClaim.In

### legalmalpracticecasebasedonattorneyrepresentationin

### litigation,inorderto

### prove

### negligenceanddamages,the

### plaintiffis

### obligedto

### provethat

## iftheattorneyhadnotbeen

### negligentin

### conductingthe

### UnderlyingCase,the

### plaintifiwouldhave

### prevailed.

### Thussuch

### plaintiffhasto

### prove

### “casewithin

### case.”Inthesummary

### judgment

### rulinginthe

### UnderlyingCase,thecourt

### dismissed

### Countforbreach

### ofimpliedcontractbecauseasmatter

### oflaw,no

### impliedcontract

### wascreatedthatwasbreached

### by

### GE,and

### dismissed

### CountII

### forbreach

### ofimpliedcovenant

### ofgoodfaithand

### fairdealingbecauseno

### conductwas

### allegedseparatefrombreach

### ofcontract.

### TheJudgmentwasnotappealed.

### Plaintiffconcedesthatthesameresult

### wouldberequiredinthiscaseonthoseissues.

### Thus,summary

### judgmentis,grantedto

### Defendantsonthe

### Breach

### ofContract

### claiminthiscase.

### ConsumerProtection

### Claim.Defendantsarguethat

### Plaintiffdoesnot

### haveconsumer

### fraudclaimunderthe

### Vermont

### ConsumerProtection

### Actbecause

### anyrepresentationsmade

### by

### .AttomeyWattswerenotmadetotheconsumer

### publicatlargeintheconsumer

### marketplace,butiwerepart

### ofprivaterepresentationagreementsbetween

### Mr.

### Alibozekand

### Mr.Watts,

### citing

### FotiiFuels,Inc.v.

### KurrleCorp,2013

## VT111.

### Plaintiff,inhis

### responsivememorandum

### oflaw,

### claims'thatmore

### discoveryisneeded.

### However,thereisno

### showing

### ofwhatmore

### discoveryisneeded.

### .Thecourt

### concludesthatthe

### analysisreliedon

### by

### Defendantbasedon

### FotiFuelsison

### pointandpersuasive.

### Thus,summaryjudgmentisgrantedto

### Defendantsonthe

### ConsumerFraud

### claim.

### NegligentMisrepresentation

### Claim.Defendantsarguethat

### Plaintiff’sallegationsastothis

### claimarethesameasthosefortheconsumerfraud

### claim,andthat

### theydonot

### satisfytherequiredelements

### ofnegligentmisrepresentation

### claimassetforthin

### Howardv.

### Usiak,172

### Vt.227,230-231

### (2001)because

### Plaintiffhasnot

### identified

### factual,actionablemisrepresentations.

### Plaintiffresponded

### simply,

### “AttorneyWattshaddutytoinform

### Plaintiff

### ofhis

### conflict

### ofinterest,asperthe

### Rules

### ofProfessional

### conduct.”

### Thisis

### insufficientto

### show

### specificfactsin

### support

### oftheelements

### ofnegligentmisrepresentation

### claimassetforthin

### Howardv.

### Usiak:One

### who,inthecourse

### ofhisbusiness,

### professionor

### employment,orinanyothertransactionin

### whichhehas

### pecuniaryinterest,suppliesfalse

### information

### forthe

### guidance

### ofothersintheirbusinesstransactions,issubjectto

### liabilityforpecuniarylosscausedtothem

### bytheir

### justifiablerelianceuponthe

### information,

## ifhe

### failsto

### exercisereasonablecareorcompetencein

### obtainingor

### communicatingthe

### information.Id.at

### 230-231.

### While

### Plaintiffhas

### identified

### failureto

### disclose

### conflict

### ofinterestasmisrepresentation,

### specificallylackingisany

### evidencethatthe

### identifiedmisrepresentation

### wasthecause

### ofpecuniarylossto

### Plaintiff.Withoutsuch

### evidence,

### summaryjudgmentmustbegrantedto

### Defendantsonthe

### NegligentMisrepresentation

### claim.

### AgeDiscriminationClaim.Theage

### discrimination

### claimistheheart

### ofthiscase,andisthe

### “case

### withincase”that

### Plaintiffwouldhaveto

### proveinorderto

### prevailinthis

### lawsuit.Inthesummary

### judgment

### rulinginthe

### UnderlyingCase,thecourt

### concludedthat

### Plaintiffhadmetthevburden

### ofestablishingprima

### faciecase

### ofage

### discriminationbasedonthe

### evidencethattheage

### differencebetween

### Mr.

### Alibozekandthepersonselected

### forthe

### positionwasenoughtomeettheburdenbecausethere

### wasnine

### yeardifferenceinageandthepersonselectedwasthe

### youngestcandidate

### ofthefour

### interviewed.

### Theburdenthenshiftedto

### GEto

### showlegitimate

### nondiscriminatoryreasonforits

### decisiontohirethe

### youngercandidate.

### Thecourtconcludedthat

### GEhadmetitsburdentoproduce

### legitimate

### nondiscriminatoryreason,

### whichwasthatthe

### youngercandidate’s

### joband

### interviewperformanceweresuperiorto

### Mr.

### Alibozek’s.Theburdenthenshiftedto

### Plaintiffto

### showthat

### GE’sreasonswerepretextforage

### discrimination.

### Thecourtinthe

### UnderlyingCaseconcludedthatthe

### allegations

### ofpretextwere

### allegationsonly,andthat

### Mr.

### Alibozek“failedtoproduceany

### credible

### evidencetendingto

### showthat

### GE’sreasonfornot

### hiringhimwas

### pretextual.”

### Thus,inthiscase

### oflegalmalpracticeagainst

### DefendantWatts,

### Plaintiffwouldneedto

### prove

### (a)thattherewas

### sufficientevidenceto

### showpretext,

### (b)that

### Mr.Watts

### failedto

### provideittothecourt,and

### (c)that

## ifhehad,

### Plaintiffwouldhave

### prevailedinthe

### UnderlyingCase.DefendantWatts

### allegesinthe

### Motionfor

### Summary

### Judgmentinthiscasethat

### Plaintifi“hasno

### relevantevidencebeyondthosesubmittedtothecourtinthe

### UnderlyingCasetosupporthis

### allegation

### ofpretext.”

### Defendant’sStatement

### ofUndisputed

### Facts,11

### 23.

### Plaintiffdenied

### thisparagraphandsubmitted

### “SupplementalStatement

### ofDisputed

### Facts(DisputedbyWattsand/or

### GE)”consisting

### of20paragraphs

### withreferencesto18supporting

### exhibits.

### Thecourthas

### examined

### Plaintiff’sproposeddisputedfactsand

### allsupporting

### exhibitst0determine

### whetherthereis

### admissibleevidencefrom

### whichjurorscouldinfer

### discriminationonthebasis

### ofage,

### keepinginmindthatsuch

### evidenceis

### likelytobe

### circumstantial.

### TheissueisWhetherthereis

### circumstantial(or

### direct)evidencefrom

### whichjurorscouldconcludethattheactualbasisfor

### GE’shiringdecisionwasage

### discrimination,andthatitsstatedreasonwas

### onlypretext.

### Thereis

### evidencethat

### Mr.

### Alibozekwasdescribed

### byonemember

### ofthe

### interviewpanelas

### “notleaderand

### scattered.”

### (Exhibit10to

### Plaintiff’sStatement

### ofDisputed

### Facts,Deposition

### ofMr.

### Alibozek,page

### 105.)

### Suchcharacteristics

### couldbe

### descriptive

### ofmanypeopleregardless

### ofage.

### Mr.

### Alibozektestifiedthathe

### “heardone

### ofthepeopleonthetapesaythat

### yougottorun

### allday

### longand

### Jim[chosencandidate]isthemanandthatsomethingtothe

### effectthat

### couldn’tdothat.

### .”

### (Exhibitto

### Plaintiff’sStatement

### ofDisputed

### Facts,Deposition

### ofMr.

### ‘5

### Alibozek,page

### 90.)Itappearsthatthis

### wouldbeofi'eredto

### provethatthe

### interviewpanelpassed

### Mr.

### Alibozekoverin

### favor

### ofyoungermanbecause

### Mr.

### Alibozekwouldnotbeableto

### “run

### allday

### long,”suggestingage

### discrimination.

### However,asoffered

### itis

### inadmissiblehearsayandthuscannotbe

### reliedonas

### admissibleevidence

### creatingdispute

### offactontheissue

### ofpretext.

### Mr.

### Alibozekclaimsthattherewasnoonefrom

## HRinthe

### interview,

### whichwasdeparture

### fromusual

### practice,andthatcorporate

### counselsat

### in,thereby

### intimidatingpeople.

### Even

## iftheseweredepartures

### fromusual

### practiceandtrue,theydonotconstitute

### sufficientbasisto

### inferthatage

### discriminationwasthereason

### forthe

### employment

### decision.

### Theseitems

### ofevidencearethemostpertinenttotheissue

### ofpretext.

### Lookedatinthe

### lightmost

### favorableto

### Mr.

### Alibozek,theydonotconstitute

### sufficientcircumstantialbasisupon:whichthe

### jurycould

### concludethatthereasonthatthe

### youngerman,another

### GEemployee

### whohad

### trainingsuitabletothe

### job,washired

### over

### Mr.

### Alibozekbasedonage

### discrimination.

### Aftercareful

### review

### ofthe

### Plaintiff’sproposed

### facts,thecourtisunableto

### concludethatthereis

### sufiicientevidencefrom

### which

### jurycouldfindthat

### GE’sstatedreason

### forits

### selectionwaspretext,andthattherealreasonwasage

### discrimination.Therefore,

### Plaintiffdoesnot

### have

### sufficientevidenceto

### provehis

### claim,andthe

### Defendant’ssummary

### judgmentmotionmustbegranted.

### Summaryand

### OrdersThe

### followingmotionsare

### denied:##7,10,12,14,and15.

### Motionismoot.

### Defendant’s

### MotionforSummary

### Judgment(#8)is

### granted,andthecourthasissued

### Judgmentthisday.

### Electronicallysigned

### February16,

### 2024pursuantto

### V.R.E.F.(d).

### MaryMilesTeachoutSuperior

### Judge

### (Ret.),SpeciallyAssigned

# ”“51VermontSuperiorCourtFiledo2/2o/_24WindsorUnit