PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS (Older Request July 24 2013
by Audrey's Case Files
Plaintiff reserves her right to allege affirmative complaints and request additional evidence as to incorporate as they should become apparent during discovery. As stated in the Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Request, Plaintiff also states that Pursuant to Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure (“ORCP”) 36 and 43, Plaintiff request the Defendants produce the documents described below. The term “documents” shall have the broadest meaning under ORCP 36 and include any recording of data or information in any form. This explicitly includes all data maintained in the following forms: computer data, sales sheets of employees former or current that completed or performed the same duties as the Plaintiff since January 2009. The Plaintiff requests production within (30) days of the date of service at the home of the Plaintiff 1929 NW Irving St. Suite #210 Portland, OR 97209. Please Notify Plaintiff with intent to deliver 1 day prior so that Plaintiff can make arrangements to be present.
These requests for production are directed to the Defendants: Elizabeth Vineyard, Kevin Denny, David Guilard, The Oregonian Publishing Company, The Defendants’ agents, attorneys,
accountants, consultants, representatives, private investigators, vendors and any who act and/or have acted on the Defendants behalf. These requests for production encompass all documents and tangible items of any nature which are now or have at any time been within the Defendants care, custody or control.
DEFINITIONS
1. “Documents” means without limitations any written, recorded, filmed, or graphic matter, whether produced, reproduced, or on paper, cards, tape film, electronic mail, or facsimile, computer storage device, or any other media, including but not limited to memoranda, notes, minutes, emails(groupwise),records, photographs correspondence, telegrams, diaries, bookkeeping entries, financial statements, tax returns, checks, check stubs, reports, studies, charts, graphs, statements, handwritten notes, applications, agreements, books, pamphlets, periodicals, appointment calendars, records or recording and of oral conversation and work papers, and also including but not limited to originals and all copies which are different in any way from the original , whether by interlineations, receipt stamp notation, indication of copies sent, received or otherwise circulated, and drafts that are or ever have been in the possession, custody, or control, of other individuals or entities known by the Defendants to exists.
2. “Defendants,” “them,” “they” means “Elizabeth Vineyard”, “Kevin Denny”, “Dave Guilard”, “ The Oregonian Publishing Company, the named Defendants in this action. And includes all present and former agents, servants, employees, representatives, private investigators, attorneys, vendors and all others acting or purporting to act on behalf of Defendants in this action.
3. “Plaintiff,” is and means Audrey Ivancie, the named Plaintiff in this action and is representing herself at this time Pro Se and has no one purporting to act on behalf of Plaintiff.
4. The words “and” “or” and “and/or” shall not be interpreted to exclude any information from the scope of discovery request.
INSTRUCTIONS
- The documents shall be organized and labeled to correspond with the category No. Requests to be produced in response IN NATIVE HARD COPY.
- If Defendants claim that any document required to be produced in response to these requests is protected from disclosure by any privilege or doctrine, Defendants shall set forth for each such document for both parties to determine relevance.
(a) the type of document, e.g. letter, memorandum, or object;
(b) the general subject matter of the document;
(c) the date of the document; and
(d) such other information as is sufficient to identify the document for a subpoena
duces tecum, including where appropriate the author, addressee(s), and other recipients(s) of the document, and (where not appropriate) the relationship between the author, addressee, and any other recipient. If the complete and exact information regarding the document it not known, including but information known and specify in what respect the response is or may be incomplete or inaccurate due to lack of knowledge on the part of the Defendants.
(e) Any and all such documented or information deemed proprietary should be
labeled as such any reasonable accommodation should be made to supply the
generation nature of the information requested if the actual content is unavailable,
or of a sensitive nature IN HARD COPY and labled.
3. These requests shall be deemed continuing in nature so that Defendants shall subsequently produce any additional responsive documents should such documents come to the Defendants’ attention rendering the earlier production incomplete.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
REQUEST NO. 15: All W-2 and Tax returns for Dave Guilard and Elizabeth Vineyard from 2002-2013.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 16: All stored back-ups tapes or any other digital back-up and what software is required to open them for Liberation systems and previous auto dialer records. Admin/ group username and password from the automated dialing systems from January 2004- January 2013.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 17: All DAT or DLT record back-up tapes or digital back-up software from 2004-2013 from Liberation Systems and the Other automated dialer system in use 2004 when the Plaintiff began her employment. The dates of any changes in software implementation. When did old systems switch over and/or conjoin with Liberation Systems.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 18: All medical and mental health records for the 2005-2013 for Elizabeth Vineyard. The names and addresses of all of her treating physicians.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO.19: What are the names of the IT directors that over saw back-up systems at the Oregonian from 2004-2013. A brief summary of employees technical, IT and management that are familiar and have access to Liberation software.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 20 The names of the automated dialer systems used by Inside Sales for conduct of telemarketing business in 2004? All documents, data and user manuals for the phone dialing system and operating system prior to Liberation. E.g. SALES FORCE
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 21: Who were the project leads/ managers/ Techs/Supervisors/ Oregonian staff for implementing and modifying the Liberation systems and other telemarketing dialing-campaign systems working for the Oregonian 2004-2013.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 22: Who are/were the Oregonian’s primary contacts at/in Liberation Sales and IT the Liberation systems. First and last name and current address and phone number.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO.23: All complete campaign profile reports for Liberation systems: Inventory Reports, Agent Reports, Campaign Reports, System Reports (See page 4-2, 4-3, & 4-4 of Liberation user manual) Only defined criteria by date for each complete day and entire shift for each agents to include all agents and all campaigns, and manual dial campaigns worked by agents between the implementation of Liberation Systems and the end of the Plaintiffs employment in April 2011.All same reports from pervious system in use from 2004- through Liberation systems. And all switches and logs and modifications for agents working during these times.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 24: All employees that worked with or during the Plaintiff’s employment service in Inside Sales 2004-2012–Including AM and PM shifts. And names and their dates of service.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 25: Current resumes for Defendants’ Vineyard, Guilard, and Denny including last ten years of employment history.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 26: Who were the employees that were hired internally from Inside Sales to be “Stop Savers”. Their first and last name and start date and end date of position as stop saver. If additional pay was given to this position or hourly rate change. This is an official request for this information.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 27: Who was the employee made ‘PIC’ person in charge appointed by Defendant Guilard and Vineyard to control and distribute leads to the Inside Sales agents in their absence. How much extra money was he paid for this duty? How long was he in this position start date – end date and pay rate change. E.g. Michael Thompson.
Why were female candidates not considered?
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 28: All Inside Sales Agents the received free lunches in exchange for making pre-lunch quotas in 2008-2010 as per Defendant Guilard. Names of these individuals and all dates they received lunches.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST NO. 29: All inside Sales agents recognized for Employee of the month Status. Their names and all dates of recognition. Also, any management personnel present at these reward lunches.
REQUEST NO. 30:All Inside Sales agents that were given additional hourly pay for contacting active subscribers doing customer service and route management for service and delivery issues This was a specific temporary position that began 7am M-F until 9 am. Which agents and how much additional pay. When did this voluntary position begin month and year and end month year.
REQUEST NO 31: Pat Perry was transferred to a customer service Position after she vocally complained to Defendant Guilard about the abuse to the automated dialer. I am requesting the date she complained, all notes and emails regarding this complaint, the date of her transfer. Her hourly pay-rate change and the date of her last day of employment at the Oregonian.
REQUEST NO. 32: All Inside Sales employees that received Oregon State unemployment or under employment benefits between 2004-2013 during their active employment and after buyouts and terminations.
7/24/2013 ______________________________
Audrey Ivancie—Plaintiff — Pro Se
audreyscasefiles 