IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-2133

)

JENNIFER TAYLOR, FAIRHAVEN WEALTH )

MANAGEMENT, LLC, )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

)

JENNIFER TAYLOR, FAIRHAVEN WEALTH )

MANAGEMENT, LLC, )

)

Counter-Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, )

)

Counter-Defendant. )

STATUS REPORT ON DISCOVERY

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, Jennifer Taylor (“Taylor”) and Fairhaven Wealth 

Management, LLC (“Fairhaven”), through their counsel, submit the following Status Report on 

Discovery pursuant to the Court’s November 2, 2020 Order. (Dkt. 60).

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Fairhaven and Taylor are mindful of the Court’s request for a “joint” status report on 

discovery. After several weeks of discussion concerning potential mediation, the undersigned 

engaged Fidelity’s lead trial counsel, Susan Guerette, in a telephonic conference to discuss 

discovery. Following that call, the undersigned submitted a draft “joint status report” to Ms. 

Guerette, asking her to review and please send any proposed revisions by 12:00 pm today. When 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1061
2

Ms. Guerette failed to do so, the undersigned sent a follow-up e-mail with a revised draft, to which 

Ms. Guerette responded, “[u]nless you are willing to address the issues that the Court directed, we 

believe that we will have to submit a separate report so we do not agree to your version.” (Ex. A) 

Minutes later, the undersigned replied to Ms. Guerette, advising her that the Court’s Order –

entered on November 2, 2020, before the parties had filed their non-arbitrable counterclaims –

“requires the parties to submit a joint report on the status of discovery. Our draft accurately reports 

on the status of discovery. If you have different language that you want to include, please send 

it.” (Id.) Ms. Guerette, however, declined to do so, and instead insisted that the parties file separate

reports. (Id.).

II. CASE SUMMARY

A. Brief Summary of the Parties’ Allegations

Fidelity’s Claims: Fidelity alleges Ms. Taylor and Fairhaven have misappropriated 

Fidelity confidential and trade secret information, and have been using that information to solicit 

Fidelity clients to transfer their accounts to Fairhaven. Fidelity has asserted claims for:

• Injunctive relief;

• Breach of contract (against Taylor only);

• Violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Illinois Trade Secrets Act;

• Unfair competition;

• Breach of fiduciary duty (against Taylor only);

• Tortious interference with business relations; 

• Unjust enrichment; and

• Civil conspiracy. (Dkt. No. 61).

Taylor’s Counterclaims: In 2018, Fidelity assigned a new branch manager to the Oak 

Brook branch of Fidelity. Ms. Taylor alleges that he discriminated against her and harassed her

on the basis of her sex/gender (female) and age (over 40). When Ms. Taylor complained about 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:1062
3

this discrimination and harassment to Fidelity’s management, her branch manager began 

retaliating against her and, in early 2020, constructively discharged her. After she joined 

Fairhaven, Fidelity continued its campaign of retaliation against Ms. Taylor by, among other 

things, refusing to provide her contact information to former clients (in violation of its own policies 

and FINRA rules); cutting off Ms. Taylor’s access to “Wealthscape” (a Fidelity application that 

helps manage Fairhaven client accounts custodied through Fidelity); filing this lawsuit and 

ancillary FINRA action; and otherwise tortiously interfering with her employment relationship 

with Fairhaven. 

On November 18, 2020, the EEOC provided Ms. Taylor with a Notice of Right to Sue, 

and she filed her counterclaims for:

• Sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and the IHRA; 

• Age discrimination in violation of the ADEA, Title VII and IHRA;

• Retaliation (pre- and post-termination) under the ADEA, Title VII and IHRA;

• Wrongful termination – constructive discharge; and

• Tortious interference with:

o Her employment relationship with Fairhaven; 

o Her business relationships with her existing clients; and

o Her prospective business/economic advantage with new-and-prospective 

clients. (Dkt. No. 71).

Fairhaven’s Counterclaims: Fairhaven is a registered investment advisor that custodies 

its client accounts through Fidelity. During the course of this lawsuit, before Fidelity sued 

Fairhaven, Fidelity engaged in an unlawful extortion scheme against Fairhaven. More specifically, 

Fidelity threatened that if Ms. Taylor defended herself in this lawsuit and refused to agree to an 

injunction against her, Fidelity would (i) kick Fairhaven off of Fidelity’s investment platform,

forcing Fairhaven to re-custody all of its client accounts with another brokerage firm; (ii) solicit 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:1063
4

all of Fairhaven’s clients to cease doing business with Fairhaven; and (iii) sue Fairhaven. Ms. 

Taylor refused to agree to an injunction. On November 4, 2020, Fidelity followed through on its 

threats. It added Fairhaven to this lawsuit, provided a 60-day notice of termination, and informed 

Fairhaven that it would be soliciting Fairhaven’s clients to cease working with Fairhaven. 

On November 18, 2020, Fairhaven filed its counterclaims for:

• Breach of contract;

• Violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Illinois Trade Secrets Act;

• Unfair competition; 

• Breach of fiduciary duty; 

• Tortious interference with existing business relationships; 

• Unjust enrichment; 

• Civil conspiracy; and

• Injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 72).

B. Jury Trial Requested: Ms. Taylor and Fairhaven have requested a jury trial on their

claims, which cannot be arbitrated before FINRA. Ms. Taylor’s employment discrimination and 

retaliation claims (which encompass and include tortious interference) are not subject to 

arbitration, and cannot proceed in the ancillary arbitration action. See, FINRA Rule 13201(a) (“A 

claim alleging employment discrimination, including sexual harassment, in violation of a statute, 

is not required to be arbitrated under the Code.”). Similarly, Fairhaven is not a FINRA-member 

firm (and thus cannot arbitrate in that forum) and has no arbitration agreement with Fidelity. 

Counter-plaintiffs estimate that a jury trial will last approximately 8-10 days. During the 

parties’ call, counsel for Fidelity declined to offer any estimate as to the length of the jury trial on 

the Counterclaims.

C. Potential for Alternative Dispute Resolution: The parties are generally in favor of 

mediation, though they disagree as to the format and timing.

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:1064
5

III. DISCOVERY STATUS

The parties have largely completed the initial written discovery they served in or around 

May 2020. However, Ms. Taylor takes the position that Fidelity is withholding calendar entries 

dated after March 6, 2020, which Fidelity agreed to produce during a July 28, 2020, Rule 37.2 

conference. The depositions of Fidelity employees Scott Marshall and Charles Meyers are 

currently noticed for December 28 and 29, 2020. Counter-plaintiffs are willing to conduct those 

depositions remotely via “zoom,” if Fidelity will stipulate under FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) 

that Mr. Marshall and Mr. Meyers may be deposed twice in this lawsuit, so Ms. Taylor can exercise 

her right to attend the deposition of her sexual harasser – Mr. Marshall – in person. (Ex. A). 

Ms. Taylor has provided Fidelity with a series of her earliest available dates for her 

deposition in December and January. [Unfortunately, the undersigned will be taking and 

defending a series of six (6) depositions in Roanoke, Virginia, from December 7-11, 2020, 

followed by a mediation and summary judgment filing (based on the aforementioned depositions), 

and is not available until after December 18th]. We are waiting for Fidelity’s counsel to confer 

with her client and advise us on her availability.

Based on the counterclaims that have been filed, the parties require discovery concerning, 

among other things, the circumstances surrounding Fidelity’s alleged sex/gender discrimination, 

harassment, and retaliation. This will include oral and written discovery concerning workplace 

complaints, disciplinary records, Fidelity’s investigation into discriminatory conduct, comparative 

performance, compensation, and personnel files, the restriction of Ms. Taylor’s access to Fidelity’s 

platform, Fidelity’s decision to threaten Fairhaven, Fidelity’s decision to kick Fairhaven off 

Fidelity’s platform and Fidelity’s breach of fiduciary duties and interference with clients. The 

parties will also require oral and written discovery on the issue of “pre-text” concerning any 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:1065
6

legitimate non-retaliatory reasons proffered by Fidelity concerning its actions, which will include 

the facts and circumstances of other financial consultants who left Fidelity and engaged in conduct 

that is similar to (or worse than) the conduct allegedly engaged in by Taylor, including Fidelity’s 

post-employment conduct vis-à-vis those financial consultants.

A. Parties’ Divergent Views on Discovery: 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant: Fidelity believes that all discovery – with the exception of 

limited discovery concerning its motion for preliminary injunction – should be stayed until it has 

fully litigated its pending FINRA arbitration action against Ms. Taylor to completion. Fidelity 

bases its position on comments made by Judge Tharp before any counterclaims had been filed. 

More specifically, on November 2, 2020, when Fidelity was the only party pursuing claims in this 

lawsuit, Judge Tharp indicated he was not inclined to allow Fidelity to simultaneously purse its 

claims against Fairhaven in this lawsuit in parallel with its arbitration claims against Ms. Taylor

before FINRA:

So the fact that I’m allowing the amended complaint does not mean 

we're going to be going forward on two separate tracks 

simultaneously. We’re not going to have rush to judgment or race 

to judgment in a dueling arbitration and lawsuit in this case. Fidelity 

chose to sue Ms. Taylor originally. It chose to file the complaint

originally that sought only preliminary injunctive relief. And we’ve 

been embarked now for seven months on a course to pursuing that 

plan of attack, and that's how we’re going to continue to proceed.

(Dkt. 68, Nov. 2, 2020, Hrg. Tr., pp. 13-14).

Since that time, both Fairhaven and Taylor have filed counterclaims, which cannot be 

arbitrated and must proceed in this Court. 

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs: It is the Counter-plaintiffs’ position that the Court’s 

intention to avoid a “race to judgment in the arbitration versus a race to judgment in this lawsuit”

made sense when Fidelity was the only “runner” (plaintiff) participating in the “race.” Based on 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:1066
7

the fact that: (a) Fidelity had a pending FINRA arbitration action against Ms. Taylor, and 

(b) Fidelity had now chosen to sue Ms. Taylor’s employer (Fairhaven) in court based on claims 

that were derivative of those alleged in the pending FINRA arbitration, judicial economy arguably

supported a stay of Fidelity’s derivative claims against Fairhaven until after its original claims 

against Ms. Taylor had played out before a panel of FINRA arbitrators. But that was before

Fairhaven and Ms. Taylor joined the “race” as counter-plaintiffs. 

On November 18, 2020, the scope of this lawsuit changed dramatically, when Fairhaven 

and Ms. Taylor filed independent counterclaims that cannot be arbitrated before FINRA, and 

which must be litigated in this Court. Those counterclaims will be decided by a jury (not a panel 

of arbitrators), and it would be unfair and prejudicial to both Ms. Taylor and Fairhaven to delay 

their right to discovery on those non-arbitrable claims. Accordingly, on November 19, 2020:

• Fairhaven served written discovery requests (Rule 33 interrogatories and Rule 34 

requests), along with a Rule 30 deposition notice. Fairhaven seeks to cooperate 

with Fidelity concerning discovery deadlines and deposition dates, but is not 

willing to stay discovery.

• Ms. Taylor served written served written discovery requests (Rule 33 

interrogatories and Rule 34 requests), along with a Rule 30 deposition notice, 

focused solely on her non-arbitrable counterclaims against Fidelity. Ms. Taylor 

seeks to cooperate with Fidelity concerning discovery deadlines and deposition 

dates, but is not willing to stay discovery on her counterclaims pending the 

resolution of Fidelity’s arbitration action against her. In particular (and although

Fidelity is unlikely to prevail on its arbitration claims), the relief to which Ms. 

Taylor is entitled under Title VII would be a set-off against any award entered by 

FINRA. This is particularly important, because FINRA requires all arbitration 

awards to be fully paid within 30 days, under penalty of suspension of an advisor’s 

securities license. See, FINRA Rule 13904(j).

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:1067
8

B. Proposal for Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures, Discovery Cut-Off: Counter-plaintiffs 

propose that the parties exchange the information required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1) by 

December 18, 2020, and further propose a fact discovery deadline of June 30, 2021. During the 

parties’ call, counsel for Fidelity declined to offer any proposed discovery deadlines.

Dated: December 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

JENNIFER TAYLOR and FAIRHAVEN 

WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Christopher S. Griesmeyer 

One if Their Attorneys

GREIMAN, ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC

205 West Randolph Street, Suite 2300

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 428-2750

cgriesmeyer@grglegal.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:1068
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 2, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing Status Report

on Discovery, with the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF System, which will send notification 

of such filing to those registered to receive electronic notices via email transmission at the email 

addresses provided by them including Plaintiff’s counsel listed below:

Joel W. Rice

Franklin Z. Wolf

FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLC

10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450

Chicago, Illinois 60606

jrice@fisherphillips.com

fwolf@fisherphillips.com

Susan M. Guerette

FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLC

Two Logan Square, 12th Floor

 100 N. 18th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

sguerette@fisherphillips.com

/s/ Christopher S. Griesmeyer 

Christopher S. Griesmeyer (# 6269851)

GREIMAN, ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC

205 West Randolph Street, Suite 2300 

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Bus: (312) 428-2750

Fax: (312) 332-2781

cgriesmeyer@grglegal.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:1069
EXHIBIT A

TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS’

STATUS REPORT ON DISCOVERY

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:1070
1

Chris Griesmeyer

From: Guerette, Susan <sguerette@fisherphillips.com>

Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 3:09 PM

To: Chris Griesmeyer

Cc: Rice, Joel; Zachary Mulcrone

Subject: Re: Draft Status Report

Chris, it probably makes sense for us to each file our own since it is due today. 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Dec 2, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Chris Griesmeyer <cgriesmeyer@grglegal.com> wrote: 

  

Hi, Susan.  Following up on my voicemail message, please let me know: 

A. Are you sending me a revised draft of (or additional language that you would like me to include 

in) the joint status report? 

‐OR‐ 

B. Are you going to proceed with your plan to file a separate report (and want us to submit our 

report separately)? 

  

If I could please hear back from you within the next hour or so, that would be appreciated. 

  

Regards, 

  

Christopher S. Griesmeyer

GREIMAN, ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC

205 W. Randolph Street | Suite 2300

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 428-2741 (Direct)

(312) 339-7439 (Mobile)

<image001.png> 

<image002.png> 

  

From: Chris Griesmeyer  

Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 12:32 PM 

To: Guerette, Susan <sguerette@fisherphillips.com> 

Cc: Rice, Joel <jrice@fisherphillips.com>; Zachary Mulcrone <zmulcrone@grglegal.com> 

Subject: RE: Draft Status Report 

  

The order requires the parties to submit a joint report on the status of discovery.  Our draft accurately 

reports on the status of discovery.  If you have different language that you want to include, please send 

it.  

  

Christopher S. Griesmeyer

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:1071
2

GREIMAN, ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC

205 W. Randolph Street | Suite 2300

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 428-2741 (Direct)

(312) 339-7439 (Mobile)

<image003.png> 

<image004.png> 

  

From: Guerette, Susan <sguerette@fisherphillips.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 12:26 PM 

To: Chris Griesmeyer <cgriesmeyer@grglegal.com> 

Cc: Rice, Joel <jrice@fisherphillips.com>; Zachary Mulcrone <zmulcrone@grglegal.com> 

Subject: RE: Draft Status Report 

  

Chris, as we discussed earlier today, your report goes well beyond what we believe the Court was asking 

us to report on today.  Unless you are willing to address the issues that the Court directed, we believe 

that we will have to submit a separate report so we do not agree to your version. 

  

From: Chris Griesmeyer <cgriesmeyer@grglegal.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 1:23 PM 

To: Guerette, Susan <sguerette@fisherphillips.com> 

Cc: Rice, Joel <jrice@fisherphillips.com>; Zachary Mulcrone <zmulcrone@grglegal.com> 

Subject: RE: Draft Status Report 

  

Susan, attached is a revised draft of the parties’ status report.  (The original draft mistakenly stated that 

Fidelity had not yet noticed Ms. Taylor’s deposition).  Please let me know if you have any proposed 

comments or revisions; otherwise, I’ll understand that you are OK with our submitting the report. 

  

Also, with respect to the depositions of Marshall & Meyers, if Fidelity is willing to stipulate in writing 

that we can depose them multiple times in this case, then we will reconsider taking their depositions via 

“zoom.”  

  

Thanks. 

  

Christopher S. Griesmeyer

GREIMAN, ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC

205 W. Randolph Street | Suite 2300

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 428-2741 (Direct)

(312) 339-7439 (Mobile)

<image003.png> 

<image004.png> 

  

From: Chris Griesmeyer  

Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 9:19 AM 

To: 'Guerette, Susan' <sguerette@fisherphillips.com> 

Cc: Rice, Joel <jrice@fisherphillips.com>; Zach Mulcrone (zmulcrone@grglegal.com) 

<zmulcrone@grglegal.com> 

Subject: Draft Status Report 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:1072
3

  

Susan, following our call this morning, attached is a draft report.  Please send me any proposed 

comments or revisions before 12pm (CST) today. 

  

Thank you, 

  

Christopher S. Griesmeyer

GREIMAN, ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC

205 W. Randolph Street		|		Suite 2300

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 428-2741 (Direct)

(312) 428-2750 (Main)

(312) 332-2781 (Fax)

(312) 339-7439 (Mobile)

cgriesmeyer@grglegal.com

www.grglegal.com

<image003.png> 

<image004.png> 

This message (and any attachments) may contain information that is privileged and confidential.  If you have 

received this message in error, please reply to notify us of the error and then immediately delete the message and 

any attached files.

  

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:1073
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-2133

)

JENNIFER TAYLOR, FAIRHAVEN WEALTH )

MANAGEMENT, LLC, )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

)

JENNIFER TAYLOR, FAIRHAVEN WEALTH )

MANAGEMENT, LLC, )

)

Counter-Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, )

)

Counter-Defendant. )

JOINT STATUS REPORT

The parties, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC (“Fidelity”), 

and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, Jennifer Taylor (“Taylor”) and Fairhaven Wealth 

Management, LLC (“Fairhaven”), through their counsel, submit the following Joint Status Report 

pursuant to the Court’s November 2, 2020 Order. (Dkt. 60).

I. CASE SUMMARY

A. Brief Summary of the Parties’ Allegations

Fidelity’s Claims: Fidelity alleges Ms. Taylor and Fairhaven have misappropriated 

Fidelity confidential and trade secret information, and have been using that information to solicit 

Fidelity clients to transfer their accounts to Fairhaven. Fidelity has asserted claims for:

• Injunctive relief;

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:1074
2

• Breach of contract (against Taylor only);

• Violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Illinois Trade Secrets Act;

• Unfair competition;

• Breach of fiduciary duty (against Taylor only);

• Tortious interference with business relations; 

• Unjust enrichment; and

• Civil conspiracy. (Dkt. No. 61).

Taylor’s Counterclaims: In 2018, Fidelity assigned a new branch manager to the Oak 

Brook branch of Fidelity. Ms. Taylor alleges that he discriminated against her and harassed her

on the basis of her sex/gender (female) and age (over 40). When Ms. Taylor complained about 

this discrimination and harassment to Fidelity’s management, her branch manager began 

retaliating against her and, in early 2020, constructively discharged her. After she joined 

Fairhaven, Fidelity continued its campaign of retaliation against Ms. Taylor by, among other 

things, refusing to provide her contact information to former clients (in violation of its own policies 

and FINRA rules); cutting off Ms. Taylor’s access to “Wealthscape” (a Fidelity application that 

helps manage Fairhaven client accounts custodied through Fidelity); filing this lawsuit and 

ancillary FINRA action; and otherwise tortiously interfering with her employment relationship 

with Fairhaven. On November 18, 2020, the EEOC provided Ms. Taylor with a Notice of Right 

to Sue, and she filed her counterclaims for:

• Sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and the IHRA; 

• Age discrimination in violation of the ADEA, Title VII and IHRA;

• Retaliation (pre- and post-termination) under the ADEA, Title VII and IHRA;

• Wrongful termination – constructive discharge; and

• Tortious interference with:

o Her employment relationship with Fairhaven; 

o Her business relationships with her existing clients; and

o Her prospective business/economic advantage with new-and-prospective 

clients. (Dkt. No. 71).

Fairhaven’s Counterclaims: Fairhaven is a registered investment advisor that custodies 

its client accounts through Fidelity. During the course of this lawsuit, before Fidelity sued 

Fairhaven, Fidelity engaged in an unlawful extortion scheme against Fairhaven. More specifically, 

Fidelity threatened that if Ms. Taylor defended herself in this lawsuit and refused to agree to an 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:1075
3

injunction against her, Fidelity would (i) kick Fairhaven off of Fidelity’s investment platform,

forcing Fairhaven to re-custody all of its client accounts with another brokerage firm; (ii) solicit 

all of Fairhaven’s clients to cease doing business with Fairhaven; and (iii) sue Fairhaven. Ms. 

Taylor refused to agree to an injunction. On November 4, 2020, Fidelity followed through on its 

threats. It added Fairhaven to this lawsuit, provided a 60-day notice of termination, and informed 

Fairhaven that it would be soliciting Fairhaven’s clients to cease working with Fairhaven. On 

November 18, 2020, Fairhaven filed its counterclaims for:

• Breach of contract;

• Violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Illinois Trade Secrets Act;

• Unfair competition; 

• Breach of fiduciary duty; 

• Tortious interference with existing business relationships; 

• Unjust enrichment; 

• Civil conspiracy; and

• Injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 72).

B. Jury Trial: Ms. Taylor and Fairhaven have requested a jury trial on their claims, which 

cannot be arbitrated before FINRA. Ms. Taylor’s employment discrimination and retaliation 

claims (which encompass and include tortious interference) are not subject to arbitration, and 

cannot proceed in the ancillary arbitration action. See, FINRA Rule 13201(a) (“A claim alleging 

employment discrimination, including sexual harassment, in violation of a statute, is not required 

to be arbitrated under the Code.”). Similarly, Fairhaven is not a FINRA-member firm (and thus 

cannot arbitrate in that forum) and has no arbitration agreement with Fidelity. The parties estimate 

that a jury trial will last approximately 8-10 days.

C. Potential for Alternative Dispute Resolution: The parties are generally in favor of 

mediation, though they disagree as to the format and timing.

II. DISCOVERY STATUS

The parties have largely completed the initial written discovery they served in or around 

May 2020. However, Ms. Taylor takes the position that Fidelity is withholding calendar entries 

dated after March 6, 2020, which Fidelity agreed to produce during a July 28, 2020, Rule 37.2 

conference. The depositions of Fidelity employees Scott Marshall and Charles Meyers are 

scheduled for December 28 and 29, 2020. Fidelity has not yet noticed Ms. Taylor’s deposition, 

and is seeking additional deposition(s) of Fairhaven employee(s). In addition, with respect to the 

pending Counterclaims:

A. The General Type of Discovery Needed: The parties require discovery concerning, 

among other things, the circumstances surrounding Fidelity’s alleged sex/gender discrimination, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:1076
4

harassment, and retaliation. This will include oral and written discovery concerning workplace 

complaints, disciplinary records, Fidelity’s investigation into discriminatory conduct, comparative 

performance, compensation, and personnel files, the restriction of Ms. Taylor’s access to Fidelity’s 

platform, Fidelity’s decision to threaten Fairhaven, Fidelity’s decision to kick Fairhaven off 

Fidelity’s platform and Fidelity’s breach of fiduciary duties and interference with clients. The 

parties will also require oral and written discovery on the issue of “pre-text” concerning any 

legitimate non-retaliatory reasons proffered by Fidelity concerning its actions, which will include 

the facts and circumstances of other financial consultants who left Fidelity and engaged in conduct 

that is similar to (or worse than) that alleged against Taylor, including Fidelity’s post-employment 

conduct vis-à-vis those financial consultants.

B. Plan for Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures: The parties will exchange the information 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) by December 18, 2020. 

C. Fact Discovery Completion Date: The parties propose a deadline of June 30, 2021, 

for the completion of fact discovery (oral and written).

D. Parties’ Divergent Views on Discovery: 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant: Fidelity believes that all discovery (with the exception of 

limited discovery concerning its motion for preliminary injunction) should be stayed until its 

pending FINRA arbitration action against Ms. Taylor is complete. 

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs: The counterclaims asserted by Fairhaven and Ms. Taylor 

are not subject to FINRA arbitration. Accordingly, Fairhaven is entitled to pursue discovery 

related to: (a) Fidelity’s claims against Fairhaven, and (b) Fairhaven’s counterclaims. Similarly, 

Ms. Taylor is entitled to pursue discovery related to her statutory employment discrimination 

counterclaims. Accordingly, on November 19, 2020:

• Fairhaven served written discovery requests (Rule 33 interrogatories and Rule 34 

requests), along with a Rule 30 deposition notice. Fairhaven seeks to cooperate 

with Fidelity concerning discovery deadlines and deposition dates, but is not 

willing to stay discovery.

• Ms. Taylor served written served written discovery requests (Rule 33 

interrogatories and Rule 34 requests), along with a Rule 30 deposition notice, 

focused solely on her non-arbitrable counterclaims against Fidelity. Ms. Taylor 

seeks to cooperate with Fidelity concerning discovery deadlines and deposition 

dates, but is not willing to stay discovery on her counterclaims pending the 

resolution of Fidelity’s arbitration action against her.

III. OTHER ISSUES

A. Clawback: With regard to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation 

material asserted after production, the parties have agreed to an order containing “clawback” 

language as follows:

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:1077
5

• Due to the volume of electronic and hard copy data in the possession, custody, or 

control of the parties and concerns regarding attorney-client privilege and work 

product protection, the Court enters this “Clawback” Provision to expedite and 

facilitate the production of electronic and hard copy data, information and 

documents, and to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client 

privileged communications or work product materials.

• The inadvertent disclosure or production of any information or document that is 

subject to an objection on the basis of attorney-client privilege or work- product 

protection, including but not limited to information or documents that may be 

considered or contain Confidential Information under any Protective Order entered 

in this case, will not be deemed to waive a party’s claim to its privileged or 

protected nature or estop that party or the privilege-holder from designating the 

information or document as attorney-client privileged or subject to the work 

product doctrine at a later date.

• Any party receiving any such information or document shall return it upon request 

from the producing party. Upon receiving such a request as to specific information 

or documents, the receiving party shall return the information or documents to the 

producing party within five (5) business days, regardless of whether the receiving 

party agrees with the claim of privilege and/or work- product protection. 

Disclosure of the information or document by the other party prior to such later 

designation shall not be deemed a violation of the provisions of this Order.

• This Order and Clawback Provision shall be governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 

502(d) and is entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1).

B. Discovery Procedures: To encourage cooperation, efficiency, and economy in 

discovery, and also to limit discovery disputes, the following procedures have been agreed to in 

this case:

• Production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) will follow the existing 

protocols utilized in Fairhaven’s subpoena response;

• Documents will be produced on a rolling basis;

• The Parties consent to electronic service of disclosures and discovery requests and 

responses, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b);

• The Parties will endeavor to use the same court reporter for depositions;

• Exhibits used during depositions will be numbered sequentially, and carry forward 

to subsequent depositions.

C. Interrogatories: There will be a maximum of 30 interrogatories, including all discrete 

subparts, served by any party on another party.

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:1078
6

D. Physical Examinations: The parties agree that physical or mental examinations 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 are not appropriate in this case.

E. Supplementation: Supplementations of disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) shall 

be served at such times and under such circumstances as required by that rule. In addition, such 

supplemental disclosures shall be served 60 days before the deadline for completion of all 

discovery.

Dated: December 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, 

LLC, Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant

JENNIFER TAYLOR and FAIRHAVEN 

WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs

By: /s/ DRAFT: 12/2/2020 9:18 AM 

One if Its Attorneys

FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLC

Two Logan Square, 12th Floor

100 N. 18th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

sguerette@fisherphillips.com

By: /s/ DRAFT: 12/2/2020 9:18 AM 

One if Their Attorneys

GREIMAN, ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC

205 West Randolph Street, Suite 2300

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 428-2750

cgriesmeyer@grglegal.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:1079
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 2, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing Joint Status 

Report, with the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF System, which will send notification of such 

filing to those registered to receive electronic notices via email transmission at the email addresses 

provided by them including Plaintiff’s counsel listed below:

Joel W. Rice

Franklin Z. Wolf

FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLC

10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450

Chicago, Illinois 60606

jrice@fisherphillips.com

fwolf@fisherphillips.com

Susan M. Guerette

FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLC

Two Logan Square, 12th Floor

 100 N. 18th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

sguerette@fisherphillips.com

/s/ DRAFT: 12/2/2020 9:18 AM 

Christopher S. Griesmeyer (# 6269851)

GREIMAN, ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC

205 West Randolph Street, Suite 2300 

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Bus: (312) 428-2750

Fax: (312) 332-2781

cgriesmeyer@grglegal.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 73 Filed: 12/02/20 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:1080