EXHIBIT 4

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 79-4 Filed: 05/05/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:582
From: Kays, Danielle <DKays@seyfarth.com>

Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 3:04 PM

To: Yovanic, Jr., Paul J <PYovanic@seyfarth.com>, Timothy Kingsbury 

<tkingsbury@mcgpc.com>, Foley, Erin Dougherty <EDFoley@seyfarth.com>

Cc: Brendan Duffner <bduffner@mcgpc.com>, Evan Meyers <emeyers@mcgpc.com>

Subject: RE: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Defendants' Outstanding Discovery

Dear Counsel,

As you know, I recently appeared as counsel of record for Defendants in this case and will be 

working with Erin Dougherty Foley and Paul Yovanic.

I address a few points in response to your email from late last night:

• Paula Keller did not testify during deposition that there affirmatively were 

“communications between Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Enterprise Chicago about the 

Kronos timeclocks.” Instead, she speculated that she believed there was an email, but 

she did not receive it, and she did not know who received an email, if 

anyone. Defendants have searched for an email pursuant to your request, and while our 

former colleague Andrew Cockcroft agreed to supplement either Defendants’ production 

with responsive documents, if Defendants had any, Defendants since have confirmed 

they are not aware of any responsive documents in their possession.

• We are not refusing to produce a list of individuals that used the subject timekeeping 

system. Rather, Defendants do not have such a list, nor do they have information in 

order to create a list. The estimated number that Enterprise Leasing provided in the 

supplemental interrogatory responses does not equate to a list of employees that used 

the subject timekeeping system.

With respect to Plaintiff’s discovery, we have not yet received a new verification of Plaintiff’s 

original interrogatory responses, since Plaintiff testified during deposition that she did not read 

them before signing and verifying them under oath. Please provide a new verification to us.

We are available to meet and confer by telephone at 4:45 today, or the remainder of this week.

Thank you.

Danielle M. Kays | Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP

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

Direct: +1-312-460-5674 | Fax: +1-312-460-7674

dkays@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 79-4 Filed: 05/05/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:583
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: Yovanic, Jr., Paul J <PYovanic@seyfarth.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 8:52 AM

To: Timothy Kingsbury <tkingsbury@mcgpc.com>; Foley, Erin Dougherty <EDFoley@seyfarth.com>; 

Kays, Danielle <DKays@seyfarth.com>

Cc: Brendan Duffner <bduffner@mcgpc.com>; Evan Meyers <emeyers@mcgpc.com>

Subject: RE: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Defendants' Outstanding Discovery

Tim:

Attached please find a copy of the time clock agreement between Kronos and EHI.

With respect to the other issues raised in your email below, we are jammed up with court 

hearings, meetings and a deposition today. However, Danielle will respond later today, at her 

earliest convenience.

Thanks,

Paul

Paul J Yovanic Jr. | Associate

Chicago | Ext: 735898 (+1-312-460-5898)

pyovanic@seyfarth.com

From: Timothy Kingsbury <tkingsbury@mcgpc.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:48 PM

To: Yovanic, Jr., Paul J <PYovanic@seyfarth.com>; Foley, Erin Dougherty <EDFoley@seyfarth.com>; Kays, 

Danielle <DKays@seyfarth.com>

Cc: Brendan Duffner <bduffner@mcgpc.com>; Evan Meyers <emeyers@mcgpc.com>

Subject: Re: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Defendants' Outstanding Discovery

[EXT. Sender]

Paul,

Attached please find Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatory responses and document production. Thank 

you for forwarding the draft status report. We will circulate proposed edits tomorrow. 

Additionally, we would like to address your response to each of our discovery “bullet point” issues. Your 

assertion that Defendants lack responsive documents is quite confusing. Paula Keller testified under 

oath at her December deposition as to the existence of communications between Enterprise Holdings, 

Inc. and Enterprise Chicago about the Kronos timeclocks. And on January 11, 2022, Andrew Cockcroft 

informed us that Defendants intended to supplement their document production in accordance with 

Plaintiffs’ December 17, 2021 deficiency letters (reattached for your convenience), which explicitly 

referenced communications between Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries about Kronos 

timeclocks. Moreover, it also seems to defy common sense that Enterprise subsidiaries would have 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 79-4 Filed: 05/05/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:584
Kronos timeclock onboarding materials marked “Enterprise Holdings, Inc.,” but at the same time neither 

Enterprise Holdings, Inc. or Enterprise Chicago would have any related communications. Further we met 

and conferred about this information twice, on December 28, 2021 and January 21, 2022. We were 

explicitly told on the January 21 call this information would be produced.

With respect to the agreement(s) between Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Kronos, Plaintiff requested 

these documents well over a month ago, and we have been told several times that these would be 

produced. At this point, it is very difficult to understand how Enterprise could still be investigating the 

existence of such documents.

Finally, it appears you are saying Enterprise Chicago will refuse to produce the list of individuals subject 

to its timekeeping system, as requested in my February 4 email. Please confirm that is the case, and if it 

is, let us know your availability for a meet and confer tomorrow in advance of the deadline for our status 

report. As I said in my prior email, we unfortunately do not have time to accommodate any further delay 

in obtaining the documents and information we have sought and are entitled to. Thank 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]

From: "Yovanic, Jr., Paul J" <PYovanic@seyfarth.com>

Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:38 AM

To: 'Timothy Kingsbury' <tkingsbury@mcgpc.com>, "Foley, Erin Dougherty" 

<EDFoley@seyfarth.com>, "Kays, Danielle" <DKays@seyfarth.com>

Cc: Brendan Duffner <bduffner@mcgpc.com>, Evan Meyers <emeyers@mcgpc.com>

Subject: RE: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Defendants' Outstanding Discovery

Tim:

We have reviewed your email and provide the following responses for each bullet point set forth 

in your original email (our response is in red):

• Timeclock sales agreements with subsidiaries and any agreements between Enterprise 

Holdings, Inc. and Kronos. Enterprise Holdings does not have timeclock sales agreements with 

subsidiaries. We are looking into whether there is an agreement between Enterprise Holdings, 

Inc. and Kronos, and will produce if available.

• Communications (such as the emails from Enterprise Holdings, Inc. to subsidiaries 

referenced in Paula Keller’s deposition, or communications between Enterprise Holdings, Inc. 

and Kronos) concerning Enterprise Holdings, Inc.’s provision of Kronos timekeeping 

equipment. Neither Defendant has communications responsive to this request.

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 79-4 Filed: 05/05/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:585
• Documents concerning Enterprise Holdings, Inc.’s “Helpdesk” policies or directions for 

answering subsidiaries’ questions regarding technical support for the Kronos timeclocks or 

biometric timekeeping. Aside from the timeclock documents previously produced (DEF396-

DEF409), there are no additional responsive documents.

• Copies of any “Personnel Policies Summary” provided from Enterprise Holdings, Inc. to

Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC and Enterprise Leasing Company – Midwest 

LLC. The Personnel Policies Summary was produced by EHI on 2/4/22 (DEF2457).

• Manuals or user guides for the human resources IT system PeopleSoft. All manuals

and user guides relating to PeopleSoft were produced by EHI on 2/4/22 (DEF1634-DEF2444).

• Manuals or user guides for the human resources IT system Workday. Neither 

Defendant has documents responsive to this request.

• Manuals or user guides for the human resources IT system Workbrain. All manuals and 

user guides relating to Workbrain were produced by EHI on 2/4/22 (DEF2445-DEF2451).

Aside from the first bullet point, all of the issues listed by you above are resolved. Regarding 

responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 18 and Request for Production No. 9, Enterprise 

Leasing Chicago produced all consent forms of individuals that it is aware used a biometric time 

clock in Illinois, with the exception of a handful of individuals (though Enterprise Chicago 

remains confident that those individuals in fact signed a consent form, too, as consistent with 

Enterprise Leasing Chicago’s standard practices).

In contrast, we have not received any of Plaintiff’s supplemental information that you agreed to 

provide following our January 21, 2022 meet and confer, though you promised to provide the 

information by January 28, 2022. Specifically, we have not received Plaintiff’s supplemental 

answers to Defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3, and an accounting of individuals she spoke 

with regarding her allegations in the Amended Complaint. Nor have we received documents 

reflecting conversations between Plaintiff and potential class members. We ask you to provide 

this supplemental information to us promptly.

Finally, attached is a draft status report which is due to the court on Wednesday. We did not 

raise Plaintiff’s failure to supplement discovery in this status report to the Court, as we expect 

you will timely supplement Plaintiff’s discovery as agreed. However, defendants reserve the 

right to include such discussion if information is not produced before submitting the status 

report.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Paul

Paul J Yovanic Jr. | Associate | Seyfarth Shaw LLP

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

Direct: +1-312-460-5898 | Fax: +1-312-460-7095

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

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 79-4 Filed: 05/05/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:586
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: Friday, February 4, 2022 3:38 PM

To: Foley, Erin Dougherty <EDFoley@seyfarth.com>; Yovanic, Jr., Paul J <PYovanic@seyfarth.com>; Kays, 

Danielle <DKays@seyfarth.com>

Cc: Brendan Duffner <bduffner@mcgpc.com>; Evan Meyers <emeyers@mcgpc.com>

Subject: Wordlaw v. Enterprise - Defendants' Outstanding Discovery

[EXT. Sender]

Counsel,

On our January 21 meet and confer call, Andrew and Erin informed us that you would be producing the 

below documents:

• Timeclock sales agreements with subsidiaries and any agreements between Enterprise Holdings, 

Inc. and Kronos;

• Communications (such as the emails from Enterprise Holdings, Inc. to subsidiaries referenced in 

Paula Keller’s deposition, or communications between Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Kronos) 

concerning Enterprise Holdings, Inc.’s provision of Kronos timekeeping equipment;

• Documents concerning Enterprise Holdings, Inc.’s “Helpdesk” policies or directions for 

answering subsidiaries’ questions regarding technical support for the Kronos timeclocks or 

biometric timekeeping;

• Copies of any “Personnel Policies Summary” provided from Enterprise Holdings, Inc. to 

Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC and Enterprise Leasing Company – Midwest LLC;

• Manuals or user guides for the human resources IT system PeopleSoft;

• Manuals or user guides for the human resources IT system Workday;

• Manuals or user guides for the human resources IT system Workbrain.

We were informed that the top three category bullets would be produced at the latest by January 25, 

2022. We were informed that the bottom four category bullets would be produced shortly thereafter. 

As of today, we have received none of these documents. As you can appreciate, in light of the current 

February 28, 2022 fact discovery cutoff we are very short on time and need these to be produced. We 

would prefer not to have to go back to the Court on this.

In addition, Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company of Chicago, LLC’s supplemental response to 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 18 confirms that Enterprise Chicago knows the identities of individuals who 

utilized the timekeeping system at issue in this case since April 2015. Plaintiff’s Request for Production 

No. 9 requests all documents sufficient to identify such individuals, but no such documents have been 

Case: 1:20-cv-03200 Document #: 79-4 Filed: 05/05/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:587
produced. Thus, Enterprise Chicago must produce a list of all individuals (including first name, last name, 

and date of first use of the time clock) referenced in Enterprise Chicago’s supplemental response to 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 18. This list should not be burdensome or take long at all to produce 

considering Enterprise Chicago has already identified such individuals, and is clearly relevant for 

determining whether Enterprise Chicago satisfied its obligation to obtain individuals’ written consent 

under BIPA as it claims to have done.

Please let us know when we can expect to receive the above.

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 #: 79-4 Filed: 05/05/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:588