GREGORY A. DEVERO (GAD 8910)

DEVERO TAUS LLC

211 Somerville Road, Suite B

Bedminster, New Jersey 07921

(908) 375-8142

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Mardell Stroud

SUZANNE M. CERRA (SMC 9492)

NUKK-FREEMAN & CERRA, P.C.

636 Morris Turnpike, Suite 2F

Short Hills, New Jersey 07078

(973) 564-9100

Attorneys for Defendants 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America,

Jeffrey Lenihan and Tony Calabrese

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARDELL STROUD, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA, a New Jersey Corporation, 

JEFFREY LENIHAN, an individual, 

ANTHONY CALABRESE, an individual, 

JOHN DOES 1-10, (said names being 

fictitious) and XYZ Corporations 1-10 (said 

names being fictitious),

 Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. 2:11-cv-01714-SRC-MAS

Civil Action

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN

Scheduling Conference:

June 20, 2011 – 4:00 p.m.

1. Set forth the name of each attorney appearing, the firm name, address and telephone 

number and facsimile number of each, designating the party represented.

On behalf of Plaintiff Mardell Stroud (“Plaintiff”): 

Gregory A. Devero, Esq.

Devero Taus LLC

Case 2:11-cv-01714-SRC -MAS Document 8 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 54
2

211 Somerville Road, Suite B

Bedminster, New Jersey 07921

(908) 375-8142 (p) - (908) 375-8151 (f)

On behalf of Defendants The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Jeffrey 

Lenihan and Tony Calabrese (improperly pled as “Anthony Calabrese”) (collectively 

“Defendants”): 

Holly English, Esq.

Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, P.C.

636 Morris Turnpike, Suite 2F

Short Hills, New Jersey 07078

(973) 564-9100 (p) - (973) 564-9112 (f)

2. Set forth a brief description of the case, including the causes of action and affirmative 

defenses asserted.

Plaintiff: 

Plaintiff, Mardell Stroud is a 43 year old, African American woman who claims she was 

subjected to systemic, pervasive and ongoing racial discrimination, hostile work 

environment and retaliation during the course of her eight year tenure allegedly 

culminating in her wrongful termination on March 6, 2009 in violation of the New 

Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et. seq. (“NJLAD”). Ms. Stroud 

claims that, despite an extensive job search, she has been unemployed for over two 

years since her March 6, 2009 termination and claims that she has sustained 

substantial economic and non-economic damages. 

Defendants:

Defendants vigorously dispute Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants contend that they acted 

lawfully with respect to their treatment of Plaintiff and did not commit any of the 

alleged unlawful conduct asserted in the Complaint. Defendants have asserted, 

among others, the following affirmative defenses: 

1. The Complaint, and each claim for relief alleged therein, fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. 

2. The Complaint, and each claim for relief alleged therein, fails to state a claim 

upon which an award of punitive damages can be granted.

Case 2:11-cv-01714-SRC -MAS Document 8 Filed 06/13/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 55
3

3. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants under the New Jersey 

Law Against Discrimination.

4. Plaintiff was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory 

reasons.

5. Defendants assert every defense available under the New Jersey Law Against 

Discrimination.

6. To the extent that Plaintiff has failed to mitigate, minimize or avoid any 

injuries, damages or losses allegedly sustained, any recovery against 

Defendants must be reduced. 

7. Plaintiff’s injuries, damages or losses, if any, were caused by the acts or 

omissions of Plaintiff. 

3. Has this action been: Settled: No. Discontinued: No.

4. If so, has there been a Stipulation/Dismissal Filed? No.

5. Have settlement discussions taken place? Yes X No . If so, when? 

For more detailed information on the parties’ ongoing settlement discussions, kindly 

refer to the joint letter dated June 13, 2011, which was faxed to Chambers under 

separate cover.

a) What was plaintiff’s last demand?

1) Monetary demand: Please see letter dated June 13, 2011

2) Non-monetary demand: 

b) What was Defendant’s last offer?

1) Monetary offer: Please see letter dated June 13, 2011

2) Non-monetary offer: 

Case 2:11-cv-01714-SRC -MAS Document 8 Filed 06/13/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 56
4

6. The parties [have have not X ] exchanged the information required by Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(a)(1). If not, state the reason therefor. 

The parties have not yet exchanged the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 

in an effort to conserve resources due to ongoing, productive settlement discussions. 

The parties fully intend to exchange the required information should this case not 

settle promptly.

7. Explain any problems in connection with completing the disclosures required by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(a)(1).

None.

8. The parties [have have not X ] conducted discovery other than the above 

disclosures. If so, describe.

9. The parties [have X have not ] met pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f):

a) If not, state the reason therefor. Not applicable.

b) If so, state the date of the meeting and the persons in attendance. 

The parties met pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) on June 7, 2011, with Gregory A. 

Devero, Esq., representing Plaintiff and Suzanne M. Cerra, Esq., representing 

Defendants.

10. The following [is X is not ] a proposed joint discovery plan.

a) Discovery is needed on the following subjects:

The parties will conduct factual and expert discovery, including discovery of all 

facts which Plaintiff contends support her claims and all facts Defendants contend 

support their defenses. The parties further expect to conduct fact and expert 

discovery regarding Plaintiff’s claims for damages, including but not limited to 

Plaintiff’s emotional distress claims and mitigation efforts.

Case 2:11-cv-01714-SRC -MAS Document 8 Filed 06/13/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 57
5

b) Discovery [should X should not ] be conducted in phases or limited to 

particular issues. Explain.

The parties respectfully request that expert discovery commence only after the 

completion of fact discovery.

c) Maximum of 25 Interrogatories by each party to each other party.

d) Maximum of 5 depositions to be taken by each party.

e) Plaintiff’s (or any affirmative) expert report due on April 6, 2012.

f) Defendants’ (or any rebuttal) expert report due on May 21, 2012.

g) Motions to amend or to add parties to be filed by August 12, 2011. 

h) Dispositive motions to be served within 120 days of completion of fact discovery.

i) Factual discovery to be completed by February 21, 2012.

j) Expert discovery to be completed after all summary judgment motions have 

been decided.

k) Set forth any special discovery mechanism or procedure requested, including 

data preservation orders or protective orders.

The parties may need a protective order, which will be sought in accordance with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. 

l) A pretrial conference may take place on June 21, 2012.

m) Trial date: October 2012 ( X Jury Trial; Non-Jury Trial).

Case 2:11-cv-01714-SRC -MAS Document 8 Filed 06/13/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 58
6

11. Do you anticipate any special discovery needs (i.e. videotape/telephone depositions, 

problems with out-of-state witnesses or documents, etc.)? Yes X No .

If so, please explain.

Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, elected to commence the pending action within the 

State of New Jersey. As such, Defendants submit that Plaintiff’s deposition should 

take place in New Jersey. Plaintiff consents to this request.

12. Do you anticipate any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored 

information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced?

Yes No X .

If so, how will electronic discovery or data be disclosed or produced? Describe any 

agreements reached by the parties regarding same, including costs of discovery, 

production, related software, licensing agreements, etc. Not applicable.

13. Do you anticipate any other discovery problem(s) not listed above?

Yes No X .

If so, please explain.

The parties are not aware of any other issues at this time.

14. State whether this case is appropriate for voluntary arbitration (pursuant to Local Civil 

Rule 201.1 or otherwise), mediation (pursuant to Local Civil Rule 301.1 or otherwise), 

appointment of a special master or other special procedure. If not, explain why and 

state whether any such procedure may be appropriate at a later time (i.e., after 

exchange of pretrial disclosures, after completion of depositions, after disposition or 

dispositive motions, etc.).

Plaintiff believes this case is appropriate for immediate voluntary mediation if the 

matter is not resolved by the Magistrate at an early settlement conference that has 

been jointly requested by the parties. Plaintiff concurs that this case would not be 

appropriate for arbitration for the reasons given by the defendants.

Case 2:11-cv-01714-SRC -MAS Document 8 Filed 06/13/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 59
7

Defendants believe this case may be appropriate for voluntary mediation once the 

parties have completed written discovery and taken Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants 

do not believe this case is appropriate for Rule 201.1 arbitration because (1) it involves 

complex or novel legal issues, and (2) the legal issues predominate over the factual 

issues.

15. Is this case appropriate for bifurcation? Yes No X_ * 

Defendants reserve their right to request that the punitive damages phase of this case 

be bifurcated for trial. However, the parties are not seeking to have discovery 

bifurcated.

16. An interim status/settlement conference (with clients in attendance), should be held as 

soon as practicable for the Court. Kindly refer to the parties’ correspondence to the 

Court dated June 13, 2011.

17. We [do do not X ] consent to the trial being conducted by a Magistrate Judge.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Gregory A. Devero

Gregory A. Devero, Esq. (GAD 8910)

Devero Taus LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Mardell Stroud

/s/ Suzanne M. Cerra

Suzanne M. Cerra, Esq. (SMC 9492)

Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendants 

The Prudential Insurance Company of 

America, Jeffrey Lenihan and Tony 

Calabrese

Case 2:11-cv-01714-SRC -MAS Document 8 Filed 06/13/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 60