New York
New York lawyers serving the public good.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

 

x

 

 

 

 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

 

00 CTV. 1234 (XXX)

Plaintiff,

 

 

-- against --

 

 

ABC, INC.,

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

x

 

 

 

 

JANE DOE, JOHN SMITH and JANE SMITH,

 

 

Intervening Plaintiffs,

 

 

-- against--

 

 

ABC, INC.,

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

x

 

ABC, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Defendant, ABC, Inc. (“ABC”) responds to plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) First Set of Admissions as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1.                  ABC objects to the Requests to the extent they attempt to impose duties that are not provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or other applicable law.

2.                  ABC objects to the Requests to the extent they seek admissions pertaining
to legal conclusions.

3.                  ABC objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague.

4.                  ABC reserves the right to supplement each of its responses.

5.                  ABC reserves the right to object at trial to the admission into evidence of
any of the following responses on any ground.

RESPONSES

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

Admit that on June 8, 1999 ABC filed a lawsuit against Jane Doe, John Smith and Jane Smith (the Doe Lawsuit).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

ABC admits that the Doe Lawsuit was filed on June 8, 1999.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:

Admit that the document appended as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the Complaint filed by ABC against Jane Doe, John Smith and Jane Smith (the Doe Lawsuit).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:

ABC admits that the document appended as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the Verified Complaint filed by ABC against Jane Doe, John Smith and Jane Smith.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:

Admit that ¶¶14, 15, 20, 21, 30, and 31 of the Complaint filed by ABC against Jane Doe, John Smith and Jane Smith ABC (sic) explicitly cite to Ms. Doe’s, Mr. Smith’s, and Ms. Smith (sic) respective charges filed with the EEOC.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:

ABC responds that the document speaks for itself and respectfully refers the Court to the Verified Complaint.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:

Admit that each of the Counts asserted in the Complaint filed by ABC against Jane Doe, John Smith and Jane Smith incorporates ¶¶14, 15, 20, 21, 30, and 31 as a basis of liability (See ¶¶44, 52, 59, and 63).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:

ABC denies the assertion and states that the Verified Complaint did not allege that the filing of a Charge of Discrimination by Doe, Smith and Smith against ABC was a basis for liability.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:

Admit that prior to June 8, 1999 ABC had agreed to allow EEOC Investigator Lori-Ann Lytle to visit ABC’s New York facility and conduct interviews of ABC employees, beginning on June 11, 1999.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:

ABC denies the truth of the assertion but admits that prior to June 8, 1999, EEOC investigator Lori Ann Lytle requested an opportunity to conduct telephonic interviews of ABC’s employees and scheduled a site visit to ABC’s New York facility, and that date and time of such interviews and site visit were set by the EEOC, which arrangement ABC agreed to.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:

Admit that June 8, 1999 is three days before June 11, 1999.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:

ABC admits that June 8, 1999 is three days before June 11, 1999.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:

Admit that the only reason ABC filed the June 8, 1999 Complaint against Jane Doe, John Smith and Jane Smith was that they had accused ABC of discrimination.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:

ABC denies the truth of this assertion.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:

Admit that one of the reasons that ABC filed the June 8, 1999 Complaint against Jane Doe, John Smith and Jane Smith was that they had accused ABC of discrimination by filing a charge with the EEOC (see ¶¶14, 15, 20, 21, 30, and 31 of the Complaint filed by ABC against Jane Doe, John Smith and Jane Smith).

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:

ABC denies the truth of this assertion.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:

Addressing each of the following individuals in turn, admit that each of the following individuals executed an affidavit in the matter of the underlying charges, asserting that ABC did not discriminate against Muslims:

 

(a)        A

(b)        B

(c)        C

(d)        D

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:

(a)        A

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

(b)        B

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

(c)        C

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

(d)        D

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 (sic):

Addressing each of the following individuals in turn, admit that each of the following individuals were not terminated by ABC for failing to perform his or her job duties:

(a)        A

(b)        B

(c)        C

(d)        D

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:

(a)        A

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

(b)        B

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

(c)        C

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

(d)        D

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10 (sic):

Addressing each of the following individuals in turn, admit that ABC and/or counsel representing ABC requested that they sign an Affidavit regarding the underlying charges:

(a)        L

(b)        M

(c)        N

(d)        O

(e)        P

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:

(a)        L

ABC denies that counsel representing it requested the individual to sign an affidavit regarding the underlying charges.

(b)        M

ABC denies that counsel representing it requested the individual to sign an affidavit regarding the underlying charges.

(c)         N

ABC denies that counsel representing it requested the individual to sign an affidavit regarding the underlying charges.

(d)        O

ABC denies that counsel representing it requested the individual to sign an affidavit regarding the underlying charges.

(e)         P

ABC denies that counsel representing it requested the individual to sign an affidavit regarding the underlying charges.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 (sic):

Addressing each of the following individuals in turn admit that they did not sign an Affidavit in the matter of regarding (sic) the underlying charges:

(a)        Q

(b)        R

(c)        S

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:

(a)        Q

ABC denies the truth of the assertion but admits that the individual did not provide information from which an affidavit could be prepared.

(b)        R

ABC denies the truth of the assertion but admits that the individual did not provide information from which an affidavit could be prepared.

(c)         S

ABC denies the truth of the assertion but admits that the individual did not provide information from which an affidavit could be prepared.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 (sic):

Addressing each of the following individuals in turn, admit that they were terminated by ABC for failing to perform his or her job duties:

(a)        Jane Doe

(b)        John Smith

(c)        Jane Smith

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:

(a)        Jane Doe

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

(b)        John Smith

ABC admits the truth of the assertion and avers that Mr. Smith was terminated for failing to report to work when scheduled and attempted theft of merchandise belonging to ABC.

(c)        Jane Smith

ABC denies the truth of the assertion and avers that the individual voluntarily resigned his employment with ABC.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 (sic):

Admit that the affidavits submitted during the course of the EEOC investigations were prepared and typed by employees, including but not limited to attorneys, paralegals, and/or clerk/typists/secretaries, of the law firm XYZ.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:

ABC admits that attorneys and paralegals of the law firm of XYZ prepared affidavits based on information provided to them by employees; that the employees were given an opportunity to review the affidavits and make revisions before signing; and that the affidavits were typed by employees of XYZ.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14 (sic):

Admit that at the time the affidavits submitted during the course of the EEOC investigations were sent to the EEOC that ABC was represented in the investigation of the underlying charges by the law firm XYZ.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 (sic):

Admit that at the time the affidavits submitted during the course of the EEOC investigations were sent to the EEOC that John Doe was represented in the investigation of the underlying charges by the law firm XYZ.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16 (sic):

Admit that at the time the Doe Lawsuit was filed that ABC was represented in the investigation of the underlying charges by the law firm XYZ.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17 (sic):

Admit that at the time the Doe Lawsuit was filed that John Doe was represented in the investigation of the underlying charges by the law firm XYZ.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:

ABC admits the truth of the assertion.

Dated:  New York, New York
[Date]

[FIRM NAME]

 

By:                                                                  
[Attorney’s Name (XX-1234)]
[Firm Address & Telephone No.]

Attorneys for defendant
ABC, Inc.

 

© 1999-2014 Pro Bono Net. All rights reserved.