EXHIBIT F

TO FAIRHAVEN WEALTH MANAGEMENT’S

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000, Chicago, IL 60606  (312) 819-1900

Atlanta Boston Chicago Dallas Denver Houston Kansas City Los Angeles Nashville New York Phoenix 

St. Louis San Francisco Washington, D.C. Wilmington 

Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California 

74870051.1 

September 25, 2020 Sohil M. Shah 

Direct: 312.463.6319 

sshah@polsinelli.com 

VIA E-MAIL 

Susan M. Guerette 

Fisher & Phillips LLP 

150 N. Radnor Chester Road, Suite C300 

Radnor, PA 19087 

sguerette@fisherphillips.com 

Re: Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Jennifer Taylor 

Case No. 1:20-cv-02133

Dear Counsel: 

We are in receipt of your letter dated September 14, 2020 and our response is below. 

Communications with Fidelity Customers

We disagree with your characterization that the email communications Fairhaven 

produced “show extensive solicitation by both Taylor and her assistant.” This appears to be an 

unsupported and unnecessary legal conclusion. Additionally, your use of the word “finally” 

suggests a delay on Fairhaven’s part. Again, we disagree with this mischaracterization. We 

politely request that you refrain from making such mischaracterizations in discovery 

communications. 

You appear to assume that additional documents exist but have provided no reasonable 

basis for the existence of such documents in Fairhaven’s possession. You state as follows: “Ms. 

Lyon must have had Customer information provided to her by Taylor in order to know who to 

call on Ms. Taylor’s and Fairhaven’s behalf. The Customer list and any communications 

regarding the list, any direction to Ms. Lyon as to what to say to Customers, and any notes of her 

calls with Customers are directly responsive to Document Requests 1, 2 and 3 and must be 

produced.” Please provide the basis for this assumption. To the extent you have deposed Ms. 

Taylor and she outlined this process as you have described it, please let us know. To clarify, Ms. 

Taylor provided Ms. Lyon a list of customers and their phone numbers when she joined 

Fairhaven. Ms. Lyon only made announcement phone calls and she had no business 

development responsibility. She had a purely administrative role. When Ms. Lyon finished her 

calls, she returned the list to Ms. Taylor, along with any handwritten notes on such a list. Ms. 

Taylor and Fairhaven do not have this list and it no longer remains in their possession, custody, 

or control. Only Ms. Taylor can provide this list to Fidelity. 
September 25, 2020 

74870051.1 

Notes of Communications with Fidelity Customers

Your assumption in this section again is incorrect. Information for individuals was only 

added to Fairhaven’s Salesforce system if individuals were Fairhaven customers or after 

individuals had become Fairhaven customers. Such notes were used for client retention only. 

Additionally, no information was added to Fairhaven’s Salesforce system for potential clients or 

customers. We disagree that entries in Fairhaven’s Salesforce system corresponding to 

Fairhaven’s customers must be produced as they are not responsive to any of Fidelity’s 

document requests. 

Phone Records of Calls to Fidelity Customers

The following statement is a legal conclusion unsupported by legal authority and we 

disagree with such a conclusion: “As an employee of Fairhaven, Ms. Lyon’s conduct was as an 

agent of the company and she undoubtedly used Fairhaven’s phone systems to make these calls.” 

The following statement is also a legal conclusion unsupported by legal authority and we 

disagree with such a conclusion: “Ms. Lyon’s notes leave no doubt that she was soliciting 

Fidelity Customers to move their business.” This is simply incorrect. 

Ms. Lyon did use Fairhaven’s office phone system to make announcement phone calls. 

Fairhaven will agree to produce phone records for office phones for Ms. Lyon and the other 

relevant custodians, and will produce these records no later than October 2, 2020. 

Your legal conclusions in this section also suggest the non-occurrence of the 2020 global 

COVID-19 pandemic which effectively temporarily shut down Fairhaven’s offices soon after 

Ms. Taylor began working for Fairhaven. Fairhaven does not issue company cell phones to its 

employees and does not control those cell phones. Accordingly, Fairhaven cannot provide cell 

phone records for individual employees. 

Emails to Fidelity Customers

We disagree with your numerous assumptions, which again are based on conjecture 

alone. Specifically, the following statement is incorrect: “The documents produced also make it 

clear that Taylor, Ms. Lyon and Fairhaven sent additional emails to Customers that do not appear 

to have been produced.” Again, we have produced all responsive email communications and 

have not withheld any email communications in an effort of good faith on the part of Fairhaven. 

If there are specific emails you believe have not been produced, please provide the dates of those 

emails, and the participants in those email communications. We can then review our prior 

document productions. We have not withheld any responsive emails as part of our previous 
September 25, 2020 

74870051.1 

document productions. These additional emails referenced were never sent or they would have 

been produced. 

Mailings and Text Messages to Fidelity Customers 

Any documents that were mailed to Fidelity customers and which Fairhaven retained a 

copy of were part of the electronic files that Mr. Horner previously and directly produced to 

Fidelity this summer. Accordingly, Fidelity already has such documents. Moreover, Fairhaven 

did not keep an electronic or hard copy of every document it sent to potential customers. 

Accordingly, Fairhaven does not have custody or control over any additional documents. To the 

extent you need these documents, you will need to subpoena the recipients of such documents. 

Additionally, as stated above, Fairhaven does not have custody of or control over 

individual employees’ cell phones, and does not have access to any employees’ text messages. 

Documents Regarding Taylor’s Hire

We again disagree with your characterization regarding Fairhaven’s production of 

documents related to Fairhaven’s hiring of Ms. Taylor. Fairhaven has produced all such 

responsive documents. You make several statements are false or incorrect. 

First, you state: “The documents Fairhaven produced in response to this request, 

however, consist only of marketing materials and an unsigned employee agreement that does not 

even include Taylor’s name. These materials are not responsive or comprehensive.” We have 

advised you previously that Ms. Taylor has not executed an employee agreement. Fairhaven 

cannot produce a document that does not exist. The marketing materials Fairhaven produced 

were copies of the exact same documents Fairhaven handed to Ms. Taylor. 

Second, you state: “Fidelity cannot believe that an experienced Financial Advisor was 

hired by Fairhaven and not a single document was generated as a result. Responsive documents 

would include phone records to set up interviews, notes of discussions, calendar entries, text 

message or email communications, an offer letter, new hire documents and regulatory clearance 

documents. Fairhaven produced an unsigned Employment Agreement and indicated that it had 

not yet been signed. However, it did not produce any documents relating to the agreement, 

including any documents indicating that it was sent to or discussed with Taylor. Fairhaven did 

not even produce an offer letter or any document indicating what it offered to pay Ms. Taylor. 

Again, it is hard to believe that Ms. Taylor accepted a job offer without being informed in 

writing what her compensation would be.” Again, much of this information is incorrect and 

based on assumptions about Fairhaven’s hiring practices. While Fidelity may believe something 

does not make it true and correct. There are no notes of discussions, calendar entries, email 
September 25, 2020 

74870051.1 

communications, or text messages that are responsive to your document requests. We disagree 

with your assertion that phone records to set up interviews with Ms. Taylor would be responsive 

or relevant to the litigation at hand. Ms. Taylor can provide any cell phone records of phone 

calls with Fairhaven prior to her hiring, and any such phone records from Fairhaven are 

irrelevant to your claims in the litigation. Please clarify why such phone records from Fairhaven 

are relevant, and why you cannot obtain them from Ms. Taylor. 

Additionally, you assume, without any reasonable basis, that there are documents related 

to the unsigned employment agreement. This is incorrect and appears to be based on pure 

conjecture. You also assert that there was an offer letter or document indicating what Fairhaven 

offered to pay Ms. Taylor. Again, this is incorrect. There was no offer letter. We have relayed 

this to you previously, and cannot invent a document that does not exist. 

Fairhaven and Fidelity are valued business partners, and Fairhaven remains committed to 

being a cooperative partner going forward. However, your September 14, 2020 letter assumes 

the existence of documents that do not exist and makes many incorrect assumptions. 

Additionally, Fidelity has indicated to Fairhaven that it may drag Fairhaven into the lawsuit 

between Fidelity and Ms. Taylor in an effort to threaten Fairhaven into forcing Ms. Taylor into a 

settlement. To the extent Fidelity is bringing Fairhaven in as a party to the existing litigation, 

please advise us immediately. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Sohil M. Shah 

Sohil M. Shah