MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT September 23, 2013

by Audrey's Case Files

MEMORANDUM

This memorandum is made in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint to allege additional claims. Plaintiff has asked to Move the court to allow her to amend her complaint because, during discovery, she found within the tens of thousan

ds of deliberately incomplete documents submitted, key support that have lead to discovery of new claims. Attached to this memorandum is a declaration of factual events supporting these arguments.

There is no prejudice to Defendant for allowing Plaintiff to Leave to Amend, instead Plaintiff is prejudiced by Defendants repeated failures in Discovery to move forward.

There has been a long history in this case of the Defendants: stonewalling, withholding, substituting, and sending incomplete documents that are missing requested and court ordered information. In each case, the missing data is specifically that which supports the Plaintiff’s claims and elements, and has led to other discoveries.

Defense has continually requested more time to confer with their clients after repeated conferences with exhibits supporting the Plaintiff’s request documents . Following these conferences, they deny they understood the requested for documents, send alternate represented attorneys to request additional time to confer to stall and drag out the process for the purpose of impeding the Plaintiff’s efforts for Discovery.

a. Defendants’ are not prejudiced by Plaintiff Amending Complaint. Plaintiff has been prejudiced by Defendants willful withholding requested documents and failures to cooperate, and delay discovery that would have allowed her to amend sooner. (See Ivancie, Declaration)

b. It is not the Plaintiff who has caused delay of discovery, it is the Defendants who are

at fault. See attached declaration of historical efforts to gain discovery requested through arbitration, arbiter, emails, phone calls, conferences, two motions to compel , judicial orders, hearings, supporting affidavits, and motions for sanctions on their continued failures. Despite all of these

extensive communication efforts, Defendants have still failed to turn over discoverable documents completely, and this resistance and non-compliance now totals 9 months, and 13 days. (Ivancie, Declaration) Plaintiff has continued to hold the Defendants accountable for the discovery by her repeated actions with the court to hold in check of their responsibilities to this legal process.

c. Defendants have attempted to game the system they have done this by scheduling premature arbitration dates to skirt their responsibilities to providing discovery. Delaying discovery, incompletely providing discovery, scheduling a Motion For Summary Judgment hearing after continued failure and delaying delivery of documents, asking the court for additional time to confer even after Plaintiff met in person and exhibited specific complete documents she expected them to produce per judicial order. After this, they delivered more incomplete documents.

Plaintiff had to seek motions for sanctions on two occasions because of Defendants’ failure to deliver court-ordered discovery. She had corresponded with Defense Counsel by more than 70 communications: email, phone, in person conferences and court hearings. Defendants dumped more than 36,000 documents in an alternative format 2 days before Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing. This disc containing more than 36,000 documents that were still incomplete and stated the remainder of the judicial order no longer exists in their possession of control after they had previously promised to deliver. Defendants’ have made excuses and stated they have changed computer vendors, changed email providers, and they have saved over requested documents, they claim they can’t find an employee handbook or that it doesn’t exist, contrary to what the Plaintiff once had in her possession.

On September 16, 2013 during a court hearing on discovery and sanctions the Plaintiff showed defense counsel and court the documents were still incomplete. Defense counsel promised to confer with his client and stated a new disc had been discovered with these documents. September 19, 2013 at another court hearing Plaintiff showed defense counsel where the documents are still incomplete before the Motions judge. Defense stated they found a disc in a box the defendants had given them(they hadn’t conducted a reasonable search ) This disc was suspiciously created in the year Y2K.

d. Defendants have intentionally not cooperated with discovery in this case, and have intentionally suppressed documents that support the Plaintiff claims and discovery off addition claims sooner.

e. Defense has deliberately delayed discovery so that Plaintiff would not have her documents to support her claim thus prejudicing the Plaintiff to amend sooner. However in the 50,000 documents there was some evidence that would support the elements of her claim and support the discovery of new claims.

The Plaintiff asks to file an amended complaint based on what she has discovered since her originally filed complain July 25, 2012 and in the news documents just provided by Defendants that are newly realized claims.

a. Plaintiff needs to Amend her complaint. In the vast pile of documents dumped on Plaintiff by defense counsel she found the little she needed that support her new claims. –she had a suspicion that she had new claims, and has newly realized there are claims that need to plead and proved, and would like to proceed on new claims.

b. Plaintiff understands she has a gender discrimination claim Title VII and EPA claim, because Defendants gave male employees more downtime which resulted in them being paid more in wages. She found this evidence in the small scattering of relevant documents Defendants did provided. Men also received more bonuses and recognition, and promotions including additional pay than women reflected in bonus awards given to men also found in the little relevant documents. (Ivancie, Dec.) Plaintiff just received a Right to Sue Letter From the EEOC, July 16, 2013 that she would like to allege in state court.

c. Plaintiff has newly realized after she filed her original complaint that she has breach of contract pay because Defendants withheld leads from Plaintiff that were to be provided to her based on their agreed work contract.

d. Plaintiff has newly realized after she filed her original complaint that she has a breach of contract for the Oregonian’s Job Protection Pledge –that she was supposed to be protected for termination by using supporting document from Defendants and conducting online research.

e. Plaintiff has newly realized and discovered she has a breach of contract for failure to pay PTO hours and amounts based on their employment contract for compensation.

f. Plaintiff has newly discovered she has an additional claim for breach of contract for terminating plaintiff while on an approved medical leave.

g. Plaintiff has had a suspicion that she had these other claims but was looking for the evidence in the documents from Defendants. The Plaintiff found some documents that support additional claims of relief.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has the right to move the court for leave to amend complaint to align with newly realized and discovered supporting documents to her claim, and this action to move the court to allow her to Amend will not prejudice the Defendants. Further, it was their fault they delayed discovery and prevented earlier advancements.

Instead, the Defendants have shown a distain for the court and have tried to game the system. For the foregoing reasons the Plaintiff Motion to Leave to Amend must be Granted.

SIGNED this date September 23 ,2013 __________________________________

Audrey A. Ivancie –Plaintiff Pro Se

audreyscasefiles