EXHIBIT H

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:443
1

McGuire Law, P.C.

55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 893-7002

September 17, 2021

Via Electronic Mail

Thomas E. Ahlering

Paul J. Yovanic, Jr.

Brandon L. Dixon

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000

Chicago, IL 60606-6448

Tel: (312) 460-5000

Fax: (312) 460-7000

tahlering@seyfarth.com

pyovanic@seyfarth.com

bdixon@seyfarth.com

Re: Wordlaw v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc. et al., 20-cv-03200 (N.D. Ill.)

Mr. Ahlering:

This letter addresses a number of deficiencies in Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.’s (for 

purposes of this letter, “Defendant”) discovery responses (“Responses”) served in response to 

Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories (“Requests” and 

“Interrogatories”) propounded on April 27, 2021. While this letter does not cover all of the 

deficiencies in Defendant’s responses and document production, it focuses on the primary 

deficiencies in the interest of resolving these issues amicably and without court intervention 

pursuant to Local Rule 37.2 and Judge Shah’s standing orders.

To date, Defendant has produced no documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests, despite 

stating in its responses - served on July 21, nearly two months ago - that it would do so “upon 

entry of a protective order.” (Responses to Requests 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11.) After Plaintiff took it upon 

herself to draft one, the Court entered a protective order over a month ago, on August 12th. While 

Plaintiff has patiently accommodated Defendant’s extension requests, discovery deadlines are

approaching, and the Court has urged the Parties to complete discovery. (Dkt. 45.) As a result, 

Defendant’s foot-dragging and failure to abide by the representations in its discovery responses is 

concerning, and Plaintiff intends to move to compel document production in short order absent 

resolution of the issues identified herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:444
2

I. Defendant Relies On Improper Boilerplate Objections

In every single one of Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests, Defendant raises 

improper and unsupported boilerplate objections without any supporting explanation.

1 For 

example, in response to each Request, Defendant objects that Plaintiff’s Request is “overbroad and

unduly burdensome” etc. without any explanation whatsoever as to how that Request is overbroad

or burdensome. Defendant raises this same or a similar objection in its Responses to every

Interrogatory aside from No. 2. Similarly, Defendant objects in each Interrogatory aside from No. 

2 on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Interrogatories are “unlimited in temporal scope.”2 These 

objections are not only baseless, as Plaintiff limited each interrogatory to a defined “Relevant Time 

Period,” but confusing and inconsistent considering that Defendant generally objected to 

Plaintiff’s defined Relevant Time Period (General Objections to Requests ¶ 3; General Objections 

to Interrogatories ¶ 2), which tracks a five-year limitations period which, as you know, is the 

limitations period endorsed by state and federal courts in Illinois for years, including now by the 

Illinois First District Appellate Court. (See Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1).

These types of blanket, boilerplate objections are neither permissible nor effective. See, 

e.g., Hodgdon v. Northwestern Univ., 245 F.R.D. 337, 340 n.4 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (“boilerplate 

objections are meaningless and insufficient”); Kelley v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, No. 10 C 

7875, 2012 WL 1108135, at *2 (N.D. Ill. April 2, 2012) (“the defendant’s contention that a given 

request is overly broad, not relevant, or unduly burdensome is uninformative and unsatisfactory. . 

. . [S]uch responses are improper.”); Simpkins v. HSHS Medical Group, Inc., 2017 IL App (5th) 

160578 (2017) (“Parties who offer general objections or boilerplate objections run the risk of 

causing unnecessary delay in the orderly process of discovery, needlessly increasing costs of 

litigation . . . .”).

Accordingly, Defendant’s boilerplate objections do not justify its complete withholding of 

documents or a failure to respond to an interrogatory.

II. Defendant Has Improperly Withheld Class Discovery

In Responses 8, 12, and 13 to Plaintiff’s Requests, Defendant improperly objects on the 

grounds that the Requests seek “information relating to individuals beyond the named Plaintiffs”

[sic] because “the case has not been certified as a class action.” However, Plaintiff’s Requests and 

Interrogatories relate directly to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23’s requirements, as well as Defendant’s 

Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, 

and Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses, and Plaintiff is entitled to pre-certification discovery. 

Gebka v. Allstate Corp., No. 19-cv-06662, 2021 WL 825612, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021)

(“[P]recertification discovery is appropriate concerning Rule 23's threshold requirements of 

numerosity, common questions/commonality, and adequacy of representation.”). Accordingly, 

Defendant’s withholding of all class discovery is inexcusable.

1 The rote, copy-and-paste nature of Defendant’s objections is evidenced by the legacy error consistently referring to 

Plaintiff Dawon Wordlaw as “Plaintiffs.”

2 Defendant objects on the same baseless grounds to every Document Request except for No. 1.

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:445
3

III. Defendant Must Produce A Privilege Log

In response to Plaintiff’s Request No. 7, which unquestionably seeks relevant, discoverable 

information, Defendant states that it is withholding documents protected from disclosure by the 

attorney-client privilege. “When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming 

that the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party 

must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, 

or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing 

information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Acosta v. 

Target Corp., 281 F.R.D. 314, 319–20 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Accordingly, Defendant must produce a 

privilege log identifying the documents it believes are protected from disclosure.

IV. Defendant’s Refusal to Answer Interrogatories Nos. 18 and 19.

In addition to repeating its boilerplate objections from its Responses to other 

Interrogatories, Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 18 as “seeking information more 

appropriate for a deposition.” This is not a valid objection. New NGC, Inc. v. Alpinebay, Inc., No. 

19-cv-03978, 2020 WL 8257740, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2020) (overruling “more appropriate for 

a deposition” objections). 

Defendant flatly refused to respond to Interrogatory No. 19, in direct contravention of Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 33(b).

V. Defendant Must Sign Its Interrogatory Responses

Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories are not verified under oath, in 

violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. 

Prior to seeking court intervention, Plaintiff would like to schedule a meet and confer 

regarding these issues at your earliest convenience. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Timothy P. Kingsbury

cc: Brendan Duffner (via email)

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:446
EXHIBIT 1

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 5 of 31 PageID #:447
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 6 of 31 PageID #:448
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 7 of 31 PageID #:449
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 8 of 31 PageID #:450
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 9 of 31 PageID #:451
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:452
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:453
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:454
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:455
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:456
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 15 of 31 PageID #:457
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 16 of 31 PageID #:458
1

McGuire Law, P.C.

55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 893-7002

September 17, 2021

Via Electronic Mail

Thomas E. Ahlering

Paul J. Yovanic, Jr.

Brandon L. Dixon

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000

Chicago, IL 60606-6448

Tel: (312) 460-5000

Fax: (312) 460-7000

tahlering@seyfarth.com

pyovanic@seyfarth.com

bdixon@seyfarth.com

Re: Wordlaw v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC et al., 20-cv-03200 (N.D. Ill.)

Mr. Ahlering:

This letter addresses a number of deficiencies in Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company 

of Chicago, LLC’s (for purposes of this letter, “Defendant”) discovery responses (“Responses”) 

served in response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories 

(“Requests” and “Interrogatories”) propounded on April 27, 2021. While this letter does not cover

all of the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses and document production, it focuses on the primary 

deficiencies in the interest of resolving these issues amicably and without court intervention 

pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(k).

To date, Defendant has produced no documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests, despite 

stating in its responses - served on July 21, nearly two months ago - that it would do so “upon 

entry of a protective order.” (Responses to Requests 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11.) After Plaintiff took it upon 

herself to draft one, the Court entered a protective order over a month ago, on August 12th. While 

Plaintiff has patiently accommodated Defendant’s extension requests, discovery deadlines are

approaching, and the Court has urged the Parties to complete discovery. (Dkt. 45.) As a result, 

Defendant’s foot-dragging and failure to abide by the representations in its discovery responses is 

concerning, and Plaintiff intends to move to compel document production in short order absent 

resolution of the issues identified herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 17 of 31 PageID #:459
2

I. Defendant Relies On Improper Boilerplate Objections

In every single one of Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests, Defendant raises 

improper and unsupported boilerplate objections.1 For example, in response to each Request,

Defendant objects that Plaintiff’s Request is “overbroad and unduly burdensome” etc. without any

explanation whatsoever as to how that Request is overbroad or burdensome. Defendant raises this

same or a similar objection in its Responses to each Interrogatory aside from No. 2. Similarly, 

Defendant objects in each Interrogatory aside from No. 2 on the grounds that Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatories are “unlimited in temporal scope.”2 These objections are not only baseless, as 

Plaintiff limited each interrogatory to a defined “Relevant Time Period,” but confusing and 

inconsistent considering that Defendant generally objected to Plaintiff’s defined Relevant Time 

Period (General Objections to Requests ¶ 3; General Objections to Interrogatories ¶ 2), which 

tracks a five-year limitations period which, as you know, is the limitations period endorsed by state 

and federal courts in Illinois for years, including now by the Illinois First District Appellate Court. 

(See Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit 1).

These types of blanket, boilerplate objections are neither permissible nor effective. See, 

e.g., Hodgdon v. Northwestern Univ., 245 F.R.D. 337, 340 n.4 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (“boilerplate 

objections are meaningless and insufficient”); Kelley v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, No. 10 C 

7875, 2012 WL 1108135, at *2 (N.D. Ill. April 2, 2012) (“the defendant’s contention that a given 

request is overly broad, not relevant, or unduly burdensome is uninformative and unsatisfactory. . 

. . [S]uch responses are improper.”); Simpkins v. HSHS Medical Group, Inc., 2017 IL App (5th) 

160578 (2017) (“Parties who offer general objections or boilerplate objections run the risk of 

causing unnecessary delay in the orderly process of discovery, needlessly increasing costs of 

litigation . . . .”).

Accordingly, Defendant’s boilerplate objections do not justify its complete withholding of 

documents or a failure to respond to an interrogatory.

II. Defendant Has Improperly Withheld Class Discovery

In Responses 8 and 9 to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Defendant improperly objects 

on the grounds that the Requests seek “information relating to individuals beyond the named 

Plaintiffs” [sic] because “the case has not been certified as a class action.” However, Plaintiff’s 

Requests and Interrogatories relate directly to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23’s requirements, as well as 

Defendant’s Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, 

Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defenses, and Plaintiff is entitled to precertification discovery. Gebka v. Allstate Corp., No. 19-cv-06662, 2021 WL 825612, at *7 (N.D. 

Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (“[P]recertification discovery is appropriate concerning Rule 23's threshold 

requirements of numerosity, common questions/commonality, and adequacy of representation.”). 

Accordingly, Defendant’s withholding of all class discovery is inexcusable.

1 The rote, copy-and-paste nature of Defendant’s objections is evidenced by the legacy error consistently referring to 

Plaintiff Dawon Wordlaw as “Plaintiffs.” (Responses to Requests 2-9; Responses to Interrogatories 3-6, 17.)

2 Defendant objects on the same baseless grounds to every Document Request except for No. 1.

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 18 of 31 PageID #:460
3

III. Defendant Must Produce A Privilege Log

In response to Plaintiff’s Request No. 7 and Interrogatories 18 and 19, which 

unquestionably seeks relevant, discoverable information, Defendant states that it is withholding 

documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. “When a party withholds

information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to 

protection as trial preparation material, the party must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) 

describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or 

disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, 

will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Acosta v. Target Corp., 281 F.R.D. 314, 319–20 

(N.D. Ill. 2012). Accordingly, Defendant must produce a privilege log identifying the information 

and/or documents it believes are protected from disclosure.

IV. Defendant’s Refusal to Answer Interrogatory Nos. 7, 18, and 19.

Defendant flatly refused to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 18, and 19, in direct 

contravention of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b).

V. Defendant Must Sign Its Interrogatory Responses

Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories are not verified under oath, in 

violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. 

Prior to seeking court intervention, Plaintiff would like to schedule a meet and confer 

regarding these issues at your earliest convenience. We look forward to hearing from you

Sincerely,

Timothy P. Kingsbury

cc: Brendan Duffner (via email)

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:461
EXHIBIT 1

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:462
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:463
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:464
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 23 of 31 PageID #:465
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 24 of 31 PageID #:466
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 25 of 31 PageID #:467
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 26 of 31 PageID #:468
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 27 of 31 PageID #:469
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 28 of 31 PageID #:470
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 29 of 31 PageID #:471
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 30 of 31 PageID #:472
Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 56-8 Filed: 12/03/21 Page 31 of 31 PageID #:473