Sample Discovery Objections
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
IN
THE MATTER OF: ] Current
EEO File No.:
] EEOC
123-45-6789X
Ive Ben Wronged, ]
]
Complainant, ]
]
vs. ]
] AGENCY #1-H-234-4567-89
Secretary,
Department of the Navy, ] OFO Appeal #01234567
]
Agency. ]
COMPLAINANT’S OBJECTIONS
GENERAL
OBJECTIONS: Complainant hereby
OBJECTS to the Agency’s Discovery on the grounds that said Discovery is
overbroad, vague, overly burdensome, requests irrelevant, immaterial or
inadmissible information or information protected by privilege, and/or contains
multipart questions in violation of law, rule or regulation.
.
Interrogatory No. 1: Please
provide the name, location, address, and telephone numbers of any and all
witnesses who will testify in person and/or via affidavit or deposition on your
behalf at the EEOC hearing.
OBJECTIONS: Complainant reiterates his General Objections and
adds that he has not determined yet which witnesses “who will testify” and
therefore this Interrogatory is premature. The following individuals may testify and/or have
relevant information.
RESPONSE:
Complainant contends that the following persons will be called to testify in
person and/or via affidavit or deposition:
Dana Sweater
Rabbi Hillel Teeshirt
Dr. Robert Blouse
Ronald Cufflink
Keith Ringaround
David Buttonhole
Interrogatory No. 2: State the
relationship of each witness identified in Interrogatory No. 1 to your case and
how long you have known each witness.
OBJECTIONS: Relevance.
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that the following relationships to the Complainant are held for
persons identified in Interrogatory No. 1:
|
Name |
Relationship |
Known for how long |
|
|
Self |
N/A |
|
Dana Sweater |
Spouse |
15 yrs |
|
Rabbi Hillel Teeshirt |
Jewish Orthodox Rabbi |
12 yrs |
|
Dr. Robert Blouse |
Treating
physician/psychiatrist |
3 years |
|
Ronald Cufflink |
Colleague |
20 yrs |
|
Keith Ringaround |
Colleague |
22 yrs |
|
David Buttonhole |
Colleague |
21 yrs |
Interrogatory No. 3: Provide a
summary of the expected testimony of each witness identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 1.
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that the following is a summary of the expected testimony for persons
identified in Interrogatory No. 1:
|
Name |
Summary of testimony |
|
|
ABC
and DE Division management officials have created a hostile workplace
environment and have treated the Complainant adversely because of his
religion and have retaliated against him because of his prior EEO activity
and EEO related complaints. Complaints
include but are not limited to being treated differently with respect to the
terms and conditions of the Complainant’s employment, lower than deserved
performance ratings, restrictions on collaborations, slower than normal
purchase request approvals, more stringent work monitoring than applied to
others, and imposed work monitoring that is not mandated by the Complainant’s
job description. Official
requests for an adjusted work schedule to accommodate the Complainant’s
religious observances and family responsibilities due to the disabling and
chronic health condition of my spouse have not been approved even though they
would cause no undue hardship to the Agency. On
a continuous basis the Complainant has been denied reassignment to a more
productive work environment where hostility and discrimination do not exist. On
a continuous basis management officials have diminished and denigrated the
Complainant’s accomplishments and those of other Jews (or those perceived to
be Jewish) currently or formerly in the ABCDE Division. The
ABCDE Division has an ongoing pattern and practice of anti-Semitism and
prejudice. On
a continuous basis the Complainant has made his concerns known to Division
management officials, the IG Office, and EEO Office, about discrimination
and hostile work place environment.
However, management officials have been non-responsive and have failed
to act to correct the situation. The work place has contributed to
increased distress, frustration, impatience, anxiety, sleeplessness, strained
family relations, and a decrease in enjoyment of life (i.e., a depressed
outlook) for the Complainant. The
Complainant is tired and frustrated with the discrimination at
work. The Complainant has decreased
energy, impatience, and is drained from dealing with poor managers and too
few supportive colleagues at work. The
Complainant often desires to quit work due to unfair ratings and
reviews, continuous nit-picking and trivial fault-finding. Other examples of discrimination at
work are badgering of the Complainant and held up manuscripts. Examples
of damages this has caused the Complainant at home are difficult
relationships with his wife and children, etc. The
Complainant is a loyal, dedicated, and trustworthy Navy employee. |
|
Dana Sweater |
On
a continuous basis the Complainant worries about his livelihood because of
discrimination and a hostile work place environment. Work related problems have
contributed to adverse emotional and physical health effects, e.g.,
increased distress, frustration, impatience, anxiety, sleeplessness, and a
decrease in the Complainant’s enjoyment of life (i.e., a depressed
outlook). Difficult relationships at
home (with wife and children) have resulted from the discrimination and
mistreatment of the Complainant at work. The Complainant is a hardworking,
caring, and dedicated husband and father. |
|
Rabbi Hillel Teeshirt |
The
Complainant has daily religious and moral obligations, to include conducting
morning and afternoon prayers, caring for wife and family, earning a
livelihood, giving to charitable organizations, etc. The Complainant has frequently voiced his
concerns about discrimination and a hostile work place environment for
himself and other Jewish employees. The Complainant is a loyal, dedicated,
and trustworthy Jew. |
|
Dr. Robert Blouse |
The
Complainant has voiced concerns about discrimination and a hostile work
place environment for many years. The
Complainant has raised concerns about his increased distress, frustration,
impatience, anxiety, sleeplessness, strained family relations, and a decrease
in enjoyment of life (i.e., a depressed outlook). The Complainant has been concerned
about having decreased energy, impatience, and difficult relationships with
his wife and children. |
|
Ronald Cufflink |
The
Complainant’s scientific research for the Navy is very good. In the Navy organization there are good
managers and poor managers. No Jews, good scientific women, or Blacks were
put in management positions. Jewish scientists were not promoted despite
greater numbers of publications. Another Jewish employee in the Division has
also experienced vicious anti-Semitic attacks and a hostile work environment
in the Division. |
|
Keith Ringaround |
There
are cultural problems, a culture of anti-Semitism in the Division, wherein
employees and managers shun people and allege the Jews or those perceived to
be Jewish are not up to snuff. The
Complainant has voiced concerns about discrimination and a hostile work
place environment for many years. The
Complainant has had undue hardships from his supervisors in publishing,
collaborating with other top scientists of his choice, obtaining an approved
alternate work schedule, spending customer funds that he brought in to the
Laboratory, obtaining advanced leave for Jewish holidays, obtaining fair
performance ratings based on merit and achievement, and
obtaining a transfer to a more productive research group where no
discrimination or prejudice exists.
The Complainant is a loyal, dedicated, and trustworthy Navy employee. |
|
David Buttonhole |
The
ABCDE Division has an ongoing pattern and practice of anti-Semitism and
prejudice. The Complainant has voiced concerns about discrimination
and a hostile work place environment for many years. The Complainant has had undue hardships
from his supervisors in awarding his last promotion, publishing manuscripts,
collaborating with other Jewish scientists, obtaining an approved alternate
work schedule, borrowing leave for Jewish holidays, obtaining fair
performance ratings based on merit and achievement, and obtaining a transfer
to a more productive research group where no discrimination or prejudice exists.
Division employees and managers have been overheard to make virulent
anti-Semitic remarks and have brought false allegations against Jews and
those perceived to be Jewish regarding the value of their research work and
productivity. The Complainant is a
loyal, dedicated, and trustworthy Navy employee. |
Interrogatory No. 4: State the name,
location, address, and telephone number of any and all persons who have
information that is relevant to the issues in this appeal, but who are not
listed in the response to Interrogatory No. 1, and the nature of the
information that each of those persons possesses.
OBJECTIONS: Complainant reiterates and
restates each Objection from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests
information subject to privilege, including attorney work product, and calls
for speculation – i.e., how can Complainant know “all persons who have
information that is relevant?”
Complainant therefore reserves his right to object to this
Interrogatory, and to supplement it with further information.. Without waiving any privilege, Complainant
responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that one additional person has information that is relevant to the
issues in this case:
Mickey Mouse
Naval Base
Summary of relevant information: The Complainant and his colleagues have voiced
concerns about discrimination and a hostile work place in ABCDE Division
for many years. The Complainant is a
hard-working, loyal, dedicated, and trustworthy Navy employee. The Complainant has had undue hardships from
his supervisors in publishing, collaborating with other top scientists of his
choice, and obtaining a transfer to a more productive research group where no
discrimination or prejudice exists.
Interrogatory No. 5: Identify each
agency employee you believe committed an act of discrimination, reprisal or
other prohibited personnel action against you from
OBJECTIONS: Complainant reiterates and
restates each Objection from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests
information subject to privilege, including attorney work product. Further, the incidents are so numerous that
it is impossible to name them all; the main ones are related here, but
Complainant reserves the right to supplement this (and every other)
Response. Without waiving any privilege,
Complainant responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that the following Agency employees and managers have committed acts
of discrimination, reprisal, and prohibited personnel action against the
Complainant from
1.
Mickey Mouse
2.
Donald Duck
3.
Goofy
Interrogatory No. 6: Describe the
precise manner in which you allege each agency employee identified in
Interrogatory No. 5 committed a discriminatory act, reprisal or otherwise
engaged in a prohibited personnel practice.
OBJECTIONS: Complainant reiterates and
restates each Objection from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests
information subject to privilege, including attorney work product. Without waiving any privilege or objection,
Complainant responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that the following actions (or inactions) by Agency employees and
managers constituted acts of discrimination, reprisal, and prohibited personnel
practice against the Complainant:
1.
Mickey Mouse
a.
Selected Jon
Whitewash in 2001 as Division Chief after the Complainant and others had filed
EEO grievances and related complaints against them due to discrimination,
anti-Semitism, and/or harassment.
b.
Selected Doug
Nazi-in-disguise in 2003 as Division Chief after the Complainant and others had
filed EEO grievances and related complaints against them due to discrimination,
anti-Semitism, and/or harassment.
2.
Daffy Duck
a.
As the EEO Office
Chief, approved for the Director the appointment of Jon Whitewash in 2001 as
Division Chief after the Complainant and others had EEO and related complaints
against them due to discrimination, anti-Semitism, and/or harassment.
b.
As the EEO Office
Chief, approved for the Director the appointment of Doug Nazi-in-disguise in
2003 as Division Chief after the Complainant and others had EEO and related
complaints against them due to discrimination, anti-Semitism, and/or
harassment.
3.
Doug Goofy
a.
Assigned bogus
research objectives to the Complainant with the help of Dennis the Menace, Jon
Whitewash, and Ronald McDonald.
b.
Repeatedly made
false allegations against the Complainant regarding the value and quality of
the Complainants research and productivity.
c.
Explanations and
proof of the Complainant’s achievements were overruled, dismissed or ignored,
and were forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding. The
Complainant’s supervisors regularly expressed doubts over the Complainant’s
performance and standard of work, however, the doubts lacked substantive and
quantifiable evidence.
d.
Never offered the
Complainant the opportunity to earn religious comp time.
e.
Repeatedly, rated
the Complainant lower than deserved or recommended by other management
officials.
f.
Failed to respond
to the Complainant’s e-mails about concerns of hostile work place and
discrimination from the Complainant’s Branch supervisor and Team Leader.
g.
Previously made
the anti-Semitic comment, “The Navy doesn’t care if it has Nazis working for
it.”
h.
Previously,
promoted to high level Division management a vocal Holocaust denier.
i.
Repeatedly
harassed and discriminated against the Complainant’s Jewish or Jewish
sympathizer colleagues.
j.
Enabled and
fostered a hostile work environment in the Division for Jewish employees and
those perceived to be Jewish by failing to take any substantive corrective
actions with regard to numerous and repeated complaints by the Complainant and
his colleagues about anti-Semitism and discrimination and harassment.
Interrogatory No. 7: Describe how
each act of discrimination, reprisal and/or prohibited personnel practice
adversely affected a term or condition of your employment.
OBJECTIONS: Complainant reiterates and restates each Objection
from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests information subject to
privilege, including attorney work product.
Further, the incidents are so numerous that it is impossible to name
them all; the main ones are related here, but Complainant reserves the right to
supplement this (and every other) Response.
Further, Complainant alleges that this Interrogatory is in part
irrelevant, since reprisal claims do not have to prove a tangible employment
action. Without waiving any privilege,
Complainant responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that the following statements describe how the acts of discrimination,
reprisal, and prohibited personnel action given in Interrogatory No. 6
adversely affected the term or conditions of the Complainant’s employment:
1.
Lower than
deserved performance ratings
2.
Lower pay increases
and/or bonus payouts
3.
Delay in
publishing
4.
Degraded
communication and information exchange with other scientists
5.
Lower morale and
esprit de corps
6.
Personal
depressed outlook and undue stress
7.
Additional EEO
grievances, attorney’s costs and fees
8.
Additional use of
leave hours
9.
Expenditure of
additional effort and time to maintain or increase scientific productivity
10.
More stringent
work monitoring than applied to others
11.
Increased
ostracization from Team, Branch, and Division activities
12.
Endured harmful
reprisals and retaliations
13.
Personal agenda
and political ambition of managers resulted in continued harassment and
discriminatory behaviors encountered by the Complainant and his colleagues.
14.
Attempts to
impose research requirements and procedures not mandated by the Complainant’s
job description.
15.
Loss of faith in
management; managers showed a poor example of Navy leadership.
16.
Anti-Semitic
slurs and personal support for Holocaust deniers created a hostile work
environment for the Jewish Complainant
17.
The work and
scientific ethics of managers were sub-standard.
18.
Managers did not answer scientific inquiries
with integrity or sincerity. Instead
they answered with contradictions and personal complaints.
19.
Supporting and
encouraging the ostracization of the Complainant was considered continued
harassment and discriminatory behavior against the Complainant.
20.
Non-constructive
interference with the Complainant’s performance of his job duties was
unprofessional, not useful, and unethical.
Interrogatory No. 8: State the
name, address, and telephone number of each person to whom you have made any
statement or statements in any form, written, oral, typed, or by electronic
transmission regarding the allegations in your appeal.
OBJECTIONS: Complainant contends that all statements regarding
the allegations in his current EEO case made with his attorney are
privileged. In addition, the Complainant
contends that all statements regarding the allegations in his current EEO case
made with his parents are immaterial to the proceedings. Complainant reiterates and restates each
Objection from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests information
subject to privilege, including attorney work product. Further, the incidents are so numerous that
it is impossible to name them all; the main non-privileged ones are related
here, but Complainant reserves the right to supplement this (and every other)
Response. Without waiving any privilege,
Complainant responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that he made statements regarding the allegations in his current EEO
case with the following persons:
|
Name |
Location/Address |
Telephone |
|
Dana Sweater |
|
|
|
Mr. & Mrs. Robert
Sweater |
|
|
|
Michael J. Snider, Esq. |
Snider & Associates,
LLC |
|
Interrogatory No. 9: Provide the
date of each statement, the form of each statement, whether written, oral, or
by recording device, and the name, address, and telephone number of each person
having possession of statements identified in Interrogatory No. 8 above, and
provide a detailed summary of each oral statement;
OBJECTIONS: Complainant hereby OBJECTS to the Agency’s Discovery
on the grounds that said Discovery is overbroad, overly burdensome, and
requests irrelevant, immaterial or inadmissible information or information
protected by privilege, and/or contains multipart questions in violation of
law, rule or regulation.
Complainant
contends that all statements regarding the allegations in his current EEO case
made with his attorney are privileged. In
addition, the Complainant contends that all statements regarding the
allegations in his current EEO case made with his parents are immaterial to the
proceedings.
Complainant reiterates and restates each Objection
from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests information subject to
privilege, including attorney work product.
Further, the incidents are so numerous that it is impossible to name
them all; the main ones are related here, but Complainant reserves the right to
supplement this (and every other) Response.
Without waiving any privilege, Complainant responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that he made the following statements regarding the allegations in his
current EEO case with the following persons:
1.
Dana Sweater
a.
Oral statements
made at home from January 2001-present.
i.
The Complainant
told his wife that his managers were not treating him well in comparison to
others (non-Jews) and that he had filed formal EEO grievances against the
Agency.
ii.
The Complainant
said (as his wife was well aware from years earlier) that there was a pattern
and practice of anti-Semitism in the BE Division and that he was looking to get
a re-assignment to a better research group,
iii.
The Complainant
told his wife that his supervisors (P. and D.) were giving the Complainant
undue hardships in obtaining an alternate work schedule.
iv.
The Complainant
told his wife that his supervisors (P. and J.) were giving the Complainant
undue hardships in obtaining a re-assignment out of Division to a more
productive and less hostile work environment.
v.
The Complainant
told his wife that that his supervisors (P. and J.) were giving the Complainant
lower than deserved ratings.
vi.
The Complainant
told his wife that his supervisor (P.) was giving the Complainant undue
hardships in publishing.
vii.
The Complainant
told his wife that the EEOCCRA had rejected his claim of non-compliance of his
negotiated settlement agreement.
viii.
The Complainant
told his wife that the
Interrogatory No. 10: State whether
you, your attorneys, or anyone acting on your behalf obtained statements in any
form from any person regarding any of the facts alleged in your appeal. If so state the name, address, and telephone
number of each person from whom any such statement was taken, the date on which
each such statement was taken, the name(s) and address of the person(s) who
took such statements, name(s) and address of the person(s) having custody of
such statements, whether such statements were taken by writing, by recording
device, by court reporter or stenographer, and provide a detailed summary of
each oral statement.
OBJECTIONS: Complainant hereby OBJECTS to the Agency’s Discovery
on the grounds that said Discovery is overbroad, vague, overly burdensome,
requests irrelevant, immaterial or inadmissible information or information
protected by privilege, and/or contains multipart questions in violation of
law, rule or regulation. Complainant reiterates and restates each
Objection from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests information
subject to privilege, including attorney work product. Further, the incidents are so numerous that
it is impossible to name them all; the main ones are related here, but
Complainant reserves the right to supplement this (and every other)
Response. Without waiving any privilege,
Complainant responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that he obtained statements regarding the facts alleged in this EEO
case from the following persons:
See prior response.
Interrogatory No. 11: With respect
to each expert witness you intend to call at the hearing (if you intend to call
any experts) state the expert’s name and address, the area of his or her
expertise, the subject matter on which each such expert is expected to testify,
the substance of the facts and opinions to which each expert is expected to
testify, and provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion of each such
expert;
OBJECTIONS: Same as above.
RESPONSE: Complainant has
not determined whether or not to call any expert witnesses at this time; if a
determination is so made, this Interrogatory Response will be supplemented.
Interrogatory No. 12: If you are
claiming any physical or emotional harm, to include stress, as a result of any
action or failure to act by a government employee, state the name, business
address, and business telephone number of each physician, psychologist,
psychiatrist, or other medical practitioner you consulted during the period
beginning
OBJECTIONS: Complainant asserts and does not waive any
doctor-patient privilege and explicitly directs the Agency to not contact any
of his medical practitioners for any reason whatsoever connected with this
case.
RESPONSE: Complainant
consulted the following medical practitioners during the period beginning
Dr. A
Dr. B
C, LCSW-C
Dr. D
Interrogatory No. 13: For each such
medical practitioner identified in Interrogatory 11, summarize the treatment
and instructions you received from each practitioner.
OBJECTIONS: Complainant
reiterates and restates each Objection from above, and adds that this
Interrogatory requests information subject to privilege, including attorney
work product. Complainant reserves the
right to supplement this (and every other) Response. Without waiving any privilege, Complainant
responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that the following is a summary of the treatment and instructions
received from each practitioner identified in Interrogatory No. 11.
|
Dr. A |
Prescribes medication to
help alleviate symptoms aggravated by anxiety and stress. Provides medication management
counseling. Prescribes medication to
help alleviate sleeplessness. |
|
Dr. B |
Requires 3-5 month return
visits for medical exams. Checks
weight, heart, lungs, blood pressure, etc. Takes blood samples for
cholesterol screening. Provides medication management counseling. |
|
CLCSW-C |
Provided stress and anxiety
management counseling. Provided counseling on maintaining and improving
productivity in a hostile workplace environment. |
|
D |
Prescribed medication to
help alleviate symptoms aggravated by anxiety and stress. Provided medication management counseling. |
Interrogatory No. 14: Identify any diary, calendar, or other document in or
on which you recorded your activities during the period beginning in
OBJECTIONS:
See Standard Objections, above.
RESPONSE: Complainant contends that the following is a
list of documents recording his activities during the period
1.
Chronology (1
file)
2.
Time record (1
file)
3.
Meeting notes
(notepads)
4.
Lab notes
(multiple files)
Interrogatory No. 15: Identify by
name, position, grade, and religion each employee you allege was treated more
favorably than you from
OBJECTIONS: Complainant
reiterates and restates each Objection from above, and adds that this
Interrogatory requests information subject to privilege, including attorney
work product. Further, the incidents are
so numerous that it is impossible to name them all; the main ones are related
here, but Complainant reserves the right to supplement this (and every other)
Response. Without waiving any privilege,
Complainant responds as follows:
RESPONSE: Complainant
contends that the following is a list of Division employees that WERE NOT treated more favorably than the Complainant from
1.
A
2.
B
3.
C
4.
D
The
Complainant contends that
Interrogatory No. 16: State
precisely how each employee identified in Interrogatory 15 was treated more
favorably than you.
OBJECTIONS: Complainant reiterates and restates each
Objection from above, and adds that this Interrogatory requests information
subject to privilege, including attorney work product. Further, the incidents are so numerous that
it is impossible to name them all; the main ones are related here, but
Complainant reserves the right to supplement this (and every other)
Response. Without waiving any privilege,
Complainant responds as follows:
RESPONSE: The
Complainant contends that each employee and manager in the Division other than those specifically identified
in Interrogatory No. 15 was treated more favorably in one or more of the
following manners:
1.
Received higher
performance ratings
2.
Endured fewer (if
any) hardships in publishing
3.
Endured fewer (if
any) hardships in requesting or obtaining leave
4.
Endured fewer (if
any) hardships in requesting or obtaining software
5.
Endured fewer (if
any) hardships in spending their customer funds to support their mission
research objectives
6.
Endured less
stringent work monitoring
7.
Endured less
abuse, badgering, and false allegations regarding the quality, quantity, and
value of their work.
8.
Endured less
abuse of their intellectual property rights.