EXHIBIT F

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-6 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:434
From: Timothy Kingsbury tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

Subject: Re: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Draft JSR and Notices of Deposition [SEYFARTH-SEY1.FID7905872]

Date: November 19, 2021 at 8:01 PM

To: Cockroft, Andrew R. ACockroft@seyfarth.com

Cc: Brendan Duffner bduffner@mcgpc.com, Yovanic, Jr., Paul J PYovanic@seyfarth.com, Dixon, Brandon L. bdixon@seyfarth.com,

Foley, Erin Dougherty EDFoley@seyfarth.com, Evan Meyers emeyers@mcgpc.com

Andrew,

Your colleague Paul’s October 25 email says: “[W]e managed to streamline the pool of former employees, and we are now at the

stage of looking through those personnel files and pulling the consent forms. Many of the personnel files are housed in offsite storage

facilities, which the client was unable to obtain until last week. Our client anticipates completing the review of those files by the end of

the month, if not earlier. We remain committed to getting you information by the end of the month, as promised.” Thus, as of October

25, you represented that your client had "obtained" the former employee records and, “as promised,” you would produce the

information by the end of October. No such information was produced, and your November 17 email says that the production of former

employee information is now, in your view, “unmanageable.” Your representation is entirely inconsistent with Paul's previous

representation.

I also disagree with you labeling Defendants’ current document production as “substantial compliance.” You have produced purported

consent forms for 247 individuals, and told us that your client has (but now apparently cannot produce) consent forms for over 4,000

more. Thus, your client has now been unwilling to produce more than 90% of the consent forms that it has admitted are in its

possession and that it promised to produce. That is hardly “substantial” compliance. 

With respect to the subjects of Plaintiff's forthcoming motion to compel, I have reattached for your convenience Plaintiff’s

correspondence from September 17, 2021, which addresses the deficiencies in (1) Defendants’ written responses to Plaintiff’s

discovery requests, (2) Defendants' document production (or lack thereof), and (3) Enterprise Leasing Company of STL’s failure to

comply with Plaintiff’s subpoena. Also attached is my September 17, 2021 email requesting a meet and confer on these subjects. To

the extent Defendants and Enterprise Leasing of STL intend to rectify the deficiencies identified in Plaintiff’s correspondence and

believe they can do so by December 1, 2021, please let us know. If that is the case, we would of course reevaluate whether a motion

to compel is necessary. We have no interest in having to involve the Court with a discovery dispute, but given the upcoming discovery

deadline (which was already extended from the previous deadline), we will have no choice but to move to compel if we cannot timely

get the discovery we seek and Defendants have admitted is in their possession.

Best regards, 

Tim

Tim Kingsbury

MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.

55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.

Chicago, Illinois 60601

tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

T: (312) 893-7002

D: (312) 820-9009 

F: (312) 275-7895

www.mcgpc.com

Wordlaw v. 

Enterpr...nc..pdf

Wordlaw v. 

Enterpr...LC.pdf

Wordlaw v. 

Enterpr...TL.pdf

Wordlaw v 

Enterpr...ce.pdf

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-6 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:435
Wordlaw v 

Enterpr...ce.pdf

On Nov 19, 2021, at 3:36 PM, Cockroft, Andrew R. <ACockroft@seyfarth.com> wrote:

Tim,

We believe you have again mischaracterized our position and mischaracterized our

previous meetings and correspondence. The reference to “unmanageability” below is

simply a description of written correspondence we have sent to Plaintiff and our phone

conferences regarding discovery. Despite your efforts to build a record for compelling

production, nothing in our prior correspondence was, by any means, new and has been

consistent with our position during our meet and confers.

We believe motion practice is a waste of the parties’ time considering that we have

been in substantial compliance with everything you have explicitly asked for since the

parties began meeting and conferring on these matters. 

Regardless, please let us know by Tuesday, November 23, 2021 what you seek in your

motion to compel so they we may continue our efforts to produce this information. To

the extent you are seeking anything other than the consent documents we have been

meeting and conferring on since September, please let us know when you initially

proposed meet and conferring on that production. 

We are working with our client on the dates you proposed and will let you know

availability soon. 

Best,

Andrew

Andrew R. Cockroft | Associate | Seyfarth Shaw LLP

233 S. Wacker Drive | Suite 8000 | Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448

Direct: +1-312-460-5987 | Fax: +1-312-460-7987

acockroft@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com

CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).

Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the

sender immediately and delete it from your system.

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-6 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:436
From: Timothy Kingsbury <tkingsbury@mcgpc.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 6:39 PM

To: Cockroft, Andrew R. <ACockroft@seyfarth.com>

Cc: Brendan Duffner <bduffner@mcgpc.com>; Yovanic, Jr., Paul J

<PYovanic@seyfarth.com>; Dixon, Brandon L. <bdixon@seyfarth.com>; Foley, Erin

Dougherty <EDFoley@seyfarth.com>; Evan Meyers <emeyers@mcgpc.com>

Subject: Re: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Draft JSR and Notices of Deposition [SEYFARTHSEY1.FID7905872]

[EXT. Sender]

Andrew,

Thanks for providing Defendants’ position in the status report, which we will file shortly.

Your description of our November 5 call, however, is not accurate. On our call, which I

requested in order to get the status on your client’s outstanding document production,

you raised the idea of providing a declaration to us for organizational purposes in order

to explain which groups of consent forms matched up with which Enterprise

subsidiaries, and I said that such a declaration should also identify the number of

individuals who used the timekeeping system at any particular subsidiary, since you

said the number of consent forms would be over-inclusive. We never discussed, and I

certainly never agreed to, your client providing a declaration in lieu of the documents

your colleague Paul, in his October 25 email, said your client had access to and

promised would be provided to us by the end of October. 

And now, your email below indicates that you’ve determined Paul’s promised production

would be “unmanageable” and will not be provided to us. Thus, we see little choice but

to move forward with a motion to compel. As for your suggestion that depositions

should have been discussed on our last call, I completely disagree. Obviously, as of our

last call we were trusting in your representation that your client would be producing

documents for former employees, so there was little point in discussing depositions

then. 

As I said in my email below, we are willing to work with you on the deposition dates and

times, so let us know if the dates I have noticed work for you. 

Best regards,

Tim

Tim Kingsbury

MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.

55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.

Chicago, Illinois 60601

tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

T: (312) 893-7002

D: (312) 820-9009 

F: (312) 275-7895

www.mcgpc.com [mcgpc.com]

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-6 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:437
From: Cockroft, Andrew R. <ACockroft@seyfarth.com>

Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 5:26 PM

To: Timothy Kingsbury <tkingsbury@mcgpc.com>

Cc: Brendan Duffner <bduffner@mcgpc.com>, Yovanic, Jr., Paul J

<PYovanic@seyfarth.com>, Dixon, Brandon L. <bdixon@seyfarth.com>, Foley,

Erin Dougherty <EDFoley@seyfarth.com>

Subject: RE: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Draft JSR and Notices of Deposition

[SEYFARTH-SEY1.FID7905872]

Counsel,

Your position in this status report is inconsistent with the understanding we reached

during our phone conference on November 5, 2021. We agreed to provide Plaintiffs with

signed consent forms for active employees, which we explained were more readily

ascertainable and available than those of the thousands of former employees who

worked at Enterprise locations in Illinois. We produced that information on November

10.

As we have previously explained on October 25, 2021 and on our November 5, 2021

phone call, while we initially anticipated being able to “produce all . . . written consents”

for individuals in the putative class, we realized after making several attempts to collect

written consent forms for more than 4000 former Enterprise employees that such efforts

would be unmanageable. Further, any information obtained through those efforts would

necessarily be over-inclusive given that many individuals signed forms despite never

using the at-issue timekeeping system. Thus, on the November 5, 2021 call, we

proposed that Defendants would provide declaration detailing the relevant timekeeping

practices at relevant locations, providing copies of the relevant policies and

acknowledgment forms, and verifying the Company obtained such signatures as a

matter of course. During that call, Plaintiff agreed that this course would satisfy the

outstanding requests for information. Crucially, Plaintiff never mentioned seeking

depositions of any witnesses for Defendant, something that surely should have been

discussed during the last meet and confer call. 

Defendants still intend to provide the declaration discussed during the November 5,

2021 meet and confer call and for that reason, we believe the depositions noticed below

and the motion to compel referenced in the joint status report are not a fruitful use of the

parties’ resources. 

Defendants’ position with respect to the joint status report is in the attached. 

Regards,

Andrew

Andrew R. Cockroft | Associate | Seyfarth Shaw LLP

233 S. Wacker Drive | Suite 8000 | Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448

Direct: +1-312-460-5987 | Fax: +1-312-460-7987

acockroft@seyfarth.com | http://www.seyfarth.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-6 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:438
acockroft@seyfarth.com | http://www.seyfarth.com

CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended

recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email

in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.

From: Timothy Kingsbury <tkingsbury@mcgpc.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 1:58 PM

To: Yovanic, Jr., Paul J <PYovanic@seyfarth.com>; Dixon, Brandon L.

<bdixon@seyfarth.com>; Cockroft, Andrew R. <ACockroft@seyfarth.com>; Foley, Erin

Dougherty <EDFoley@seyfarth.com>

Cc: Brendan Duffner <bduffner@mcgpc.com>

Subject: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Draft JSR and Notices of Deposition

[EXT. Sender]

Counsel,

Please see attached, we have prepared a draft joint status report in advance of today’s

filing deadline. I expect that you may want to include a separate section on Defendants’

position, but if not, please let us know and we’ll get the report on file.

Also, I have attached deposition notices for Paula Keller and Miranda Harrell. We are

willing to work with you on dates and times, so please let us know as soon as possible

whether December 7 and December 8 work on your end.

Thank you,

Tim

Tim Kingsbury

MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.

55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.

Chicago, Illinois 60601

tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

T: (312) 893-7002

D: (312) 820-9009 

F: (312) 275-7895

www.mcgpc.com [mcgpc.com]

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-6 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:439