| SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK PETER ZUCKER, Plaintiff, CITY DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY py AINTIFF’S FIRS against DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DR. ALISON COVIELLO, PRINCIPAL OF P8154, IN HER COMBINAD SHOP OFFICIAL’ AND INDIVIDUAL ‘CAPACITY: REQUEST FOR YOLANDA TORRES, SUPERINTENDENT OF — HoCUMENT REQUESTS DISTRICT 7; MICHAEL AGONA, CONSULTANT TO NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, adox No, 157549/2014 Defendants. Pursuant to Sections 3101, 3122, 3133 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education, Superintendent Yolanda Torres, and Principal Alison Coviello, in her official and individual capacity (collectively “City defendants”), by their attomey, Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, respond and object to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and document production requests (collectively the “requests”) as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1, By responding to a request, City defendants do not concede the materiality of the subject to which it refers. City defendants’ responses are made expressly subject to, and without waiving or intending to waive, any questions, or objections as to the competency, relevaney, materiality, privilege, or admissibility as evidence or for any other purpose, of any of the documents or information produced, or of the subject matter thereof, in any proceeding including the trial of this action or any subsequent proceeding.2. City defendants object in the entirety to any interrogatory or document request that is not limited in time. 3. City defendants object to each request to the extent that it demands documents or information which are protected by privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client, work -product, or deliberative process privilege, or which constitute material prepared for litigation purposes. 4, Inadvertent production of any document or information that is privileged, was prepared in anticipation of litigation, or is otherwise immune from discovery, shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to that document or any other document, or its subject matter, or the information contained therein, or of City defendants’ right to object to the use of any such document or the information contained therein during any proceeding in this litigation or otherwise. 5. City defendants object in the entirety to these requests to the extent that, they seek the home addresses of, or personal information of, individuals identified by the City defendants in response to these requests. 6. City defendants object in the entirety to any request for information or production from entities not represented by the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York and any request for information or production of documents not in City City defendants’ possession or control. 7. The fact that City defendants object to any particular request should not be construed to mean that information or a document responsive to such request exists. Similarly, the statement that City defendants will undertake to search for information or documents in response to a particular request should not be construed to mean that documents or informationof a type in a category described in the request in fact exist. Furthermore, the production of any documents or information that are otherwise subject to an objection does not waive any objection as to any other information or document not produced 8. City defendants object to the requests to the extent they purport to impose obligations on City defendants beyond those required by the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and the individual rules of the presiding Ju 9. Al individuals identified, other than plaintiff and co-defendant Michael Agona, who are or were employed by the City of New York should be contacted only through the Office of the Corporation Counsel. 10. City. defendants hereby reserve the right to amend, modify, correct and supplement their responses hereto in a manner consistent with the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. 11, These general objections apply to all of the requests in addition to City defendants’ specific objections, and are incorporated by reference into each and every response set forth below. 12, City defendants continue to search for information responsive to plaintiff's requests and therefore reserve the right to supplement their response to each request with additional ‘information, if and when such information becomes available to City defendants’ counsel. City defendants also reserve the right to object to the future disclosure of any such information.INTERROGATORIES RROGATORY N' Identify the full name and address of the City defendants. City defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Reasonably construing this request to seek contact information for the individually- named City defendants who are represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, City defendants state that Yolanda Torres and Alison Coviello should be contacted by plaintiff's counsel only through the undersigned attomey. INTERROGATORY NO. Identify the person or persons answering these interrogatories under oath on behalf of Defendant. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: City defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERRO! TORY NO. Identify each and every person having knowledge of any facts relevant to the subject matter of this action. ERROGATORY NO. 3: OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-produet doctrine, the privilege protecting material <4.prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. ‘As to each person listed in response to the preceding interrogatory, provide a description of the facts that the City defendants contend such person has knowledge of, and set forth separately for each, the source or basis of such knowledge. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is better obtained through, deposition, City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attomey-client privilege and attorney work-produet doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. INTERROGATORY N Identify each person whom City defendants intend to call as a witness at the trial of this matter and set forth for each witness a description of each and every fact as to which said witness will testify. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, premature, and assumes facts not admitted or established. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and altomey work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation oflitigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants state that they will identify their trial wimesses in this matter, if any, at the appropriate time in accord with the pretrial orders of the Court. INTERROGATORY NO. State whether City defendants have obtained or have knowledge of any statement or admission from Plaintiff relevant to the allegations in the Complaint and/or Answer in this action. Ifthe answer is in the affirmative: a, Identify the date, place and circumstances under which such statement or admission was made, the person to whom given, and all witnesses thereto; b. Ifthe statement or admission is written, identify each and every document constituting the statement or admission, and provide a copy thereof, ¢. Ifthe statement or admission is oral, but recorded, identify the recording or transcript, and identify the person who has custody of such items, and provide a copy thereof; and 4d. If the statement or admission is oral, but not recorded, identify and set forth a complete verbatim recitation of the statement or admission. If a verbatim recitation is not recalled, set forth the substance of the statement or admission. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks information that is better obtained through deposition. City defendants further object to request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material Geprotected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. ‘TERROGATORY Nt State whether any admission or statement relevant to the allegations of the Complaint and/or Answer in this action was made by City defendants. If the answer is in the affirmative: a, Identify the date, place and circumstances under which such statement or admission was made, the person to whom given, and all witnesses thereto; b. Ifthe statement or admission is written, identify each and every document constituting the statement or admission, and provide a copy thereof; ¢. If the statement or admission is oral, but recorded, identify the recording or transcript, and identify the person who has custody of such items, and provide a copy thereof; and d. If the statement or admission is oral, but not recorded, identify and set forth a recitation of the statement or admission. If’a verbatim recitation is not complete verb recalled, set forth the substance of the statement or admission. RROGATORY NO. 0 OBJECTION AND. PONS! City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, City defendants further object to this seeks production of privileged information, including material request to the extent that protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilegeprotecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. State whether City defendants have obtained or have any knowledge of any admission or statement from any person, not a party to this action, relevant to the allegations of the Complaint and/or Answer in this action. If the answer is in the affirmative: a, Identify the date, place and circumstances under which such statement or admission was made, the person to whom given, and all witnesses thereto; b. If the statement or admission is written, identify each and every document constituting the statement or admission, and provide a copy thereof; ¢. If the statement or admission is oral, but recorded, identify the recording or transcript, and identify the person who has custody of such items, and provide a copy thereof; and d. If the statement or admission is oral, but not recorded, identify and set forth a complete verbatim recitation of the statement or admission, If a verbatim recitation is not recalled, set forth the substance of the statement or admission. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks information that is better obtained through deposition. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-produet doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and secks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants.INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify the dates and times of any training(s) and contacts of Plaintiff's supervisors regarding personnel policies or practices of City defendants, including, but not limited to, any training regarding discrimination, retaliation or harassment, performance evaluations, job security, discipline, termination, compensation, or other benefits for the period from September 2005 to the present. For any such training listed, identify who conducted the training, what materials were used or distributed at the training, as well as all the names and last known addresses of all City defendants’ supervisors who attended the training(s). OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, too garbled to be capable of a reasoned response, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify any complaints of discrimination, retaliation or harassment, including but not limited to complaints by NYCDOE’s employees, directed at City defendants from 2005 to the present. For each such complaint, identify the date, location of the incident, persons involved and discipline imposed, if any. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, secks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City -9-defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attomey-client privilege and attorney work- product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify each and every person who supervised or assisted the work of City defendants within the NYCDOE from 2005 to the present, and the dates of meetings by each supervisor. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: City defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad; vague and ambiguous; too garbled to be capable of a reasoned response; and seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (TERROGATORY NO. 12: State in full factual detail City defendants version of the events leading up to the incidents, occurrences, breach, damage, injury or loss described in the Complaint, identifying these events or occurrences by dates, places and persons involved. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, secks information that is better obtained through deposition, City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilege -10-protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify the dates of any discussions, meetings, trainings or monitoring held or arranged by City defendants with regard to any of City defendants’ policies regarding discrimination or retaliation, the persons who conducted such discussions, meetings, trainings or monitoring, any documents provided at such discussions, meetings, trainings or monitoring and the persons present at such discussions, meetings, trainings or monitoring. . OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and. ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify the dates of any discussions, meetings, trainings or monitoring held or arranged by City defendants with regard to any of City defendants’ policies regarding assistance and/or information provide to administrators in issuing teachers negative performance evaluations, the persons who conducted such discussions, meetings, trainings or monitoring, any documents provided at such discussions, meetings, trainings or monitoring and the persons present at such discussions, meetings, trainings or monitoring. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or Tedefense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify every other claim, charge or complaint of discrimination, retaliation, harassment (including internal complaints) brought against City defendants at all teaching, security, and administrative positions any time from 2005 to the present, including but not limited to; a, The name of the individual(s) bringing each such claim, charge or complaint; . The nature of each such claim, charge or complaint; c. The date each such claim, charge or complaint was brought; 4d. The type of proceeding in which each such claim, charge or complaint was brought, including the case caption and docket number, if any; ec. The identity of any attorney or union representative who represented each such individual who raised any claim, charge or complaint; and £ The manner in which each such claim, charge or complaint was resolved. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is duplicative of Interrogatory No. 10, vague and ambiguous, overbroad, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this request fo the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. 126INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify all lawsuits or other court actions to which City defendants have been @ party since 2005 to the present. OBJECTION AND RESPO! E TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify all teachers issued negative evaluations by NYCDOE administrators with ‘whom Defendant Michael Agona consulted, including teachers at PS 153 and other schools. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, All interrogatories related to Defendant Michael Agona’s knowledge or actions should be directed to his counsel INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify all administrators, including, but not limited to principals, assistant principals, superintendents, and network leaders, that Defendant Michael Agona has worked with with during his time as a consultant for the NYCDOE’s Teacher Performance Unit -13-£ TO INTERROGATORY NO. OBJECTION AND RESPONS City defendants abject to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, secks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel. All interrogatories related to Defendant Michael Agona’s knowledge or actions should be directed to his counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify all schools in which Defendant Michael Agona has assisted administrators with issuing negative performance evaluations, ERROGATORY NO. | IN OBJECTION AND RESPONSE City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this, action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is, not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel. All interrogatories related to Defendant Michael Agona’s knowledge or actions should be directed to his counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify all administrative hearings, including grievances, appeals before the Chancellor's Committee, and Education Law Section 3020-a hearings that Defendant Michael Agona has participated in, either has a witness or party, as well as those who participate in said hearings with Defendant Agona. -14-OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and. ambiguous, too garbled to be capable of a reasoned response, overbroad, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel. All interrogatories related to Defendant Michael Agona’s knowledge or actions should be directed to his counsel. Identify the outcome of each and every administrative hearing, including grievances, appeals before the Chancellor's Committee, and Education Law Section 3020-a hearings, that Defendant Michael Agona has participated in, either as a witness or party. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel. All interrogatories related to Defendant Michael Agona’s knowledge or actions should be directed to his counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Identify and list all phone numbers that City defendants Michael Agona uses for business purposes,| ! ! OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: City defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, nor is he an employee of the Office of the Corporation Counsel. All interrogatories related to Defendant Michael Agona’s knowledge, actions, or contact information should be directed to his counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Identify all communications between City defendants Michael Agona and Defendant Alison Coviello, from April 1, 2010 to present. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify all colleges, universities and institutions of higher learning where Defendant Michael Agona has taught. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. City defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, nor is he an employee of the DOE. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify all lectures, workshops, professional development, and discussions relating to teaching evaluations that Defendant Michael Agona has given or been involved in, since 1985, 6sERROGATORY NO. 25: OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IN’ City defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, nor is he an employee of the DOE. INTERROGATORY NO. Identify all written published works by the individual City defendants, including but not limited to: magazine articles, trade publications, coursework, handbooks, guidebooks, training manuals. SPONSE, IRROGATORY NO. 26: 1 OBJECTION AND. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Identify all personal notes, either electronic or handwritten, that the individual City defendants possess concerning teacher evaluation, since 1985. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. -17-RROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all notes, files, or documents, either electronic or handwritten, that the City defendants possess concerning the Plaintiff, either directly or indirectly. ‘© INTERROGATORY NO. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, seeks information that is better obtained through deposition, seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-produet doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and secks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUES” DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1: The complete personnel file(s) of City defendants and Plaintiff, including employment application, resume, acknowledgments of receipt of employment handbook and other documents, performance evaluations, written warnings, complaints, reprimands, and salary and benefit information. OBsECTI D RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably -18-calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and reasonably construing this document request as a demand for plaintiff's personnel file, as maintained by the DOE, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: Any and all documents not in Plaintiff's personnel file that relate or pertain to Plaintiff, OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: Any and all unofficial, supervisor, or "desk" files regarding Plaintiff. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably -19-calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and any additional non- privileged responsive documents, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any performance evaluations or job reviews of Plaintiff for every year of his employment with Defendant NYCDOE. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. City defendants object to this Document Request on the grounds that it is duplicative of Document Request No. 2. City defendants incorporate their responses, including objections, to Document Request No. 2 above as if set forth fully herein. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5: ‘Any and all written job descriptions or any other documents that relate or pertain to the work duties and/or responsibilities of each position held by Plaintiff for every year of his employment with Defendant since 1995 OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUES’ City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Consistent with and without waiving = 208the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and any additional non- privileged responsive documents, covering @ reasonable time frame, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located, DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any write-ups, complaints, comments, criticisms or warnings, oral or written, concerning Plaintiff's work performance. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and any additional non- privileged responsive documents, covering a reasonable time frame, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located. DOCUMENT REQUEST Any and all personnel manuals, employee handbooks, benefits manuals and salary schedules in effect since 2012 during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant NYCDOE. ailsOBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST N City defendants object to Document Request No. 7 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, and secks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and non-privileged responsive documents, covering a reasonable time frame, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: Any and all supervisors’ manuals in effect at any time during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant NYCDOE: OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: City defendants object to Document Request No. 8 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and non-privileged responsive documents, covering a reasonable time frame, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located, DOCUMENT REQUEST Any and all documents that relate or pertain to the policies of City defendants regarding health insurance, retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation pay, part-time work, per -22-session work, and/or other fringe benefits, including, but not limited to, all summary plan descriptions which are applicable to Plaintifi’s employment with Defendant NYCDOE. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. City defendants object to Document Request No. 9 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and non-privileged responsive documents, covering a reasonable time frame, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1 Any and all documents that directly or indirectly pertain to any policy within the NYCDOE on how to negatively evaluate teachers, including but not limited to any and all handbooks, memoranda, documents, and guidelines from the Teacher Performance Unit. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DO‘ [ENT REQUEST NO. 10: City defendants object to Document Request No. 10 on the grounds that it is ‘overbroad as to scope and time, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintif?’s, claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, incliding material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work- product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. -23-City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and non-privileged responsive documents, covering a reasonable time frame, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to Defendant NYCDOE policies, procedures and training regarding performance evaluations in effect at any time during Plaintiff's employment with Defendant NYCDOE. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11. City defendants object to Document Request No. 11 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work- product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and non-privileged responsive documents, covering a reasonable time frame, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located, DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. L Alll statements, affidavits, and/or declarations obtained from City defendants from employees, officers, and/or directors concerning the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's complaint. -24-Ne OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQU 12: City defendants object to Document Request No. 12 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and assumes facts not admitted or established. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including, material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13: All documents provided to any expert retained by City defendants and all expert reports concerning the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint, OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13: City defendants object to this document request on the grounds that it is premature, City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. City defendants will provide expert disclosure at the appropriate time, consistent with the Civil Practice Laws and Rules and the Individual Rules of the presiding Justice. DOCU! REQUEST NO. 14: All documents concerning any allegations of harassment by current or former employees of City defendants, other than Plaintiff, from 1985 to the present, -25-City defendants object to Document Request No. 14 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attomey-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15: All documents conceming any allegations of retaliation by current or former employees of City defendants other than Plaintiff from 1985 to the present. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15: City defendants object to Document Request No. 15 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks -26-production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-produet doctrine, the privilege protecting material’ prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16: Any and all photographs, negatives, recordings, videotapes, and video surveillance of Plaintiff. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16 City defendants object to Document Request No. 16 on the grounds that it i overbroad as to scope and time, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001 through 001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17: ‘Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any written statements or declarations (signed or unsigned), made by any person, which mention, discuss or refer to Plaintiff. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that itis vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not r easonably Siecalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001_ through 1001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any of City defendants’ policies, guidelines or procedures regarding discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation which were in effect at any time since 1985 to the present. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is duplicative and in response to this request, City defendants refer plaintiff to City defendants’ response, including objections, to plaintiff's Document Request No. 14 and 15. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any of Defendant NYCDOE policies, guidelines or procedures regarding the handling of employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, which were in effect at any time during Plaintiff's employment. -28-ND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQU! City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is duplicative and in response to this request, City defendants refer plaintiff to City defendants’ response, including objections, to plaintiff's Document Request No. 14 and 15. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any of Defendant NYCDOE, policies, guidelines or procedures regarding the investigation of employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, which were in effect during Plaintiff's employment, OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMI REQUI NO. 20: City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is duplicative and in response to this request, City defendants refer plaintiff to City defendants’ response, including objections, to plaintiff's Document Request No. 14 and 15. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21: Any and all documents that in any way relate or pertain to any allegations made by Plaintiff that he was being or had been harassed, discriminated against, retaliated against and/or otherwise unfairly treated at any time during his employment with Defendant NYCDOE. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21. City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is duplicative and in response to this request, City defendants refer plaintiff to City defendants” response, including objections, to plaintiff’s Document Request No. 14 and 15. -29-DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2 Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any conversations or communications by among or between Plaintiff and any past or present employee, officer, or agent of City defendants regarding any allegations made by Plaintiff that he was being or had been harassed, discriminated against, retaliated against and/or otherwise unfairly treated at any time during employment with City defendants. ‘TION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT RE‘ OBs City defendants object to Document Request No. 22 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. DOCUMENT REQUEST Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any conversations or communications by, among or between any past or present employees, officers, agents or City defendants regarding any allegations made by Plaintiff that he was being or had been harassed, discriminated against, retaliated against or otherwise unfairly treated at any time during his employment with Defendant. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23: City defendants object to Document Request No. 23 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged -30-information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work- product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants, DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any investigation conducted by City defendants of any charges, complaints, allegations and/or reports; formal or informal, of harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation made by Plaintiff against any of City defendants employees, officers, or agents. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24: City defendants object to Document Request No. 24 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and secks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. Consistent with and without waiving, the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. ealDOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any warnings, oral or written, given in connection with any complaints, charges, grievances or allegations of harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation, which were made by Plaintiff, OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25: City defendants object to Document Request No. 25 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous, too garbled to be capable of a reasoned response, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this ‘request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomney work- product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26: Any and all documents that relate or pertain to any harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation training which was conducted by City defendants. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26: City defendants object to Document Request No. 26 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. To the extent that this request is essentially duplicative of Document Request No. 11, City defendants refer plaintiff to their response, including objections, to Document Request No. 11. -32-DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27; Any and all documents that relate or pertain to Plaintiff's attendance at any harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation training conducted by or on behalf of City defendants. TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27: OBJECTION AND RESPO! City defendants object to Document Request No. 27 on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. To the extent that this request is essentially duplicative of Document Request No, 11, City defendants refer plaintiff to their response, including objections, to Document Request No. 11. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28: Any and all documents including notes that were taken in the course of City defendants’ investigation into any complaint of discrimination and/or retaliation by Plaintiff from 1995 to the present. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28: City defendants object to this Document Request on the grounds that it is to City defendants’ duplicative of Document Request No. 24. City defendants refer plai response, including objections, to Document Request No. 24. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29: Any and all documents including witness statements that were obtained in the course of City defendants’ investigation into any complaint of discrimination and/or retaliation by Plaintiff from 1995 to the present. -33-OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29: City defendants object to Document Request No. 29 on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not admitted or established, and secks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. To the extent not included by the preceding requests, all documents reflecting, referring, relating to, or comprising City defendants’ timekeeping, payroll, bookkeeping, accounting, administrative records, and personnel files-concerning Plaintiff since September 1, 1995. OBJECTION AND RI 01 City defendants object to this Document Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, and duplicative of Document Requests Nos. 1 and 2. In response to this request, City defendants refer plaintiff to City defendants’ response, including objections, to plaintifi’s Document Request Nos. 1 and 2. 34DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31: All documents reflecting, referring, or relating to job descriptions, duties, or responsibilities of Plaintiff. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31: City defendants object to this Document Request on the grounds that it is duplicative of Document Request No. 5. In response to this request, City defendants refer plaintiff to City defendants’ response, including objections, to plaintiff's Document Request No. 5. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32: All documents reflecting, referring, or relating to the organizational structure, management, and operation of City defendants including but not limited to any organizational chart or supervisory hierarchy in effect at PS 154 and District 7. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32: City defendants object to this Document Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33: All documents reflecting, referring, or relating to any filing system used by City defendants, including the location of personnel records. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33: City defendants object to this Document Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any -35-claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 34: All documents reflecting, refer 1g, or relating to any document retention of destruction policies of Defendant NYCDOE. OBJECTION AND RES City defendants object to this Document Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. . DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35: All communications, including but not limited to emails, memoranda, notes, and phone conversations between the NYCDOE, Alison Coviello, Yolanda Torres, and Michael Agona regarding Plaintiff. TO DOCUMENT REQUEST OB. ION AND RESPO! City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and secks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers D000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and any additional non- -36-privileged responsive documents, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located, DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36: All documents reflecting, referring, or relating to the intake of allegations against the Plaintiff. OB. ION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REt City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, City defendants refer plaintiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015, bearing Bates numbers 000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and any additional non- privileged responsive documents, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 37: All documents reflecting, referring, or relating to changing of the plaintiff's program to include literacy at PS 154. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT RE City defendants object to this discovery request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Consistent with and without waiving the foregoing general and specific -37-| | tiff to the documents produced on December 24, 2015 objections, City defendants refer pl bearing Bates numbers D000001 through D001772, as containing information which may be responsive to this request. City defendants further respond that they continue to search for potentially responsive documents and any additional responsive non-privileged documents, if found in a reasonable search, will be produced under separate cover after they are located. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33 All email correspondences received and sent from acoviello@jdhyatt.com and acoviello@schools.nyc.gov, agcoviello@aol.com, ageoviello@aol.com and any other accounts associated with Defendant Alison Coviello, from April 1, 2010 to present, with the following key words or phrases: Peter Zucker; Peter; Zucker; Mr, PZ; PAZ; Blue eyes; Character Education; Teachers College; TC; Literacy; Teachers College; 3020-a; “I changed the description of Zucker’s job description (per the advice of Agona) so that is more focused on literacy”; “we'll have a surer chance of winning a case when our observations detail incompetence”; southbronxschool.com (or any reference to this blog); theft of services; Westchester; West Harrison; Zuck; Munnings; Doyle; Green; Keith; Kosak; Cisse; Zapata; Tamburri OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38: City defendants object to Document Request No. 38 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seek personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attomey-client -38-privilege and attomey work-produet doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. A\ll email correspondence to and from ytorresS@schools.nyc.gov, and any other accounts associated with Defendant Yolanda ‘Torres, from January 1, 2007 to present, with the following key words or phrases: Peter Zucker; Peter; Zucker; Mr, PZ; PAZ; Blue eyes; Character Education; Teachers College; TC; Literacy; Teachers College; 3020-a; “I changed the description of Zucker’s job description (per the advice of Agona) so that is more focused on literacy”; “we'll have a surer chance of winning a case when our observations detail incompetence”; southbronxschool,com (or any reference to this blog); theft of services; Westchester; West Harrison; Zuck; Munnings; Doyle; Denise Green; Keith; Kosak; Cisse; Zapata; Tamburri; Stuart Schmelz, Greg Papadopoulos, IS 162, Maryann Manzolillo. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: City defendants object to Document Request No. 39 on the grounds that it is mn of documents that are overbroad as to. scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks produ neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-produet doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in arsanticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 40: All email correspondence to and from amb@schools.nye.gov, and any other accounts associated with Maverick Network Leader Debra Lamb, from April 1, 2010 to present, with the following key words or phrases: Peter Zucker; Peter; Zucker; Mr, PZ; PAZ; Blue eyes; Character Education; Teachers College; TC; Literacy; Teachers College; 3020-a; “I changed the description of Zucker’s job description (per the advice of Agona) so that is more focused on literacy”; “we'll have, a surer chance of winning a case when our observations detail incompetence”; southbronxschool.com (or any reference to this blog); theft of services; Westchester; West Harrison; Zuck; Munnings; Doyle; Denise Green; Keith; Kosak; Cisse; Zapata; Tamburri. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST Nt City defendants object to Document Request No. 40 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of idence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. -40-| DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 41: All email correspondence to and from —_jeruz@jdhyatt.org, icruz42@schools.nyc.gov; bailedancel@gmail.com and any other accounts associated with PS 154 Assistant Principal Jessica Cruz, from April1, 2010 to present, with the following key words or phrases: Peter Zucker; Peter; Zucker; Mr. PZ; PAZ; Blue eyes; Character Education; Teachers College; TC; Literacy; Teachers College; 3020-a; “I changed the description of Zucker’s job description (per the advice of Agona) so that is more focused on literacy”; “we'll have a surer chance of winning a case when our observations detail incompetence”; southbronxschol.com (or any reference to this blog); theft of services; Westchester; West Harrison; Zuck; Munnings; Doyle; Denise Green; Keith; Kosak; Cisse; Zapata; Tamburri. REQU. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMI NO. 4) City defendants object to Document Request No. 41 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-produet doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. -41-bocumi a2: REQUEST N All email correspondence to and from any members of the NYCDOE Teacher Performance Unit, from April 1, 2010 to present, with the following key words: Peter Zucker; Peter; Zucker; Mr, PZ; PAZ; Blue eyes; Character Education; Teachers College; TC; Literacy; Teachers College; 3020-a; “I changed the description of Zucker’s job description (per the advice of Agona) so that is more focused on literacy”; “we'll have a surer chance of winning a case when our observations detail incompetence”; southbronxschool.com (or any reference to this Green; blog); theft of services; Westchester; West Harrison; Zuck; Munnings; Doyle; Deni Keith; Kosak; Cisse; Zapata; Tamburt. OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 42; City defendants object to Document Request No. 42 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attomey work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. All email correspondence to and from; Magona@schools.nyc.gov and any other accounts associated with Michael Agona, from April 1, 2010 to present, with the following key Agewords or phrases: Peter Zucker; Peter; Zucker; Mr. PZ; PAZ; Blue eyes; Character Education; Teachers College; TC; Literacy; Teachers College; 3020-a; “I changed the description of Zucker’s job description (per the advice of Agona) so that is more focused on literacy”; “we'll have a surer chance of winning a case when our observations detail incompetence”; southbronxschool.com (or any reference to this blog); theft of services; Westchester; West Harrison; Zuck; Munnings; Doyle; Denise Green; Keith; Kosak; Cisse; Zapata; Tamburri. RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 43: OBJECTION A} City defendants object to Document Request No. 43 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prepared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of City defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. Alll phone and text records, including but not limited to Voice mail recordings and texts, of phone calls or fax messages between Defendant Michael Agona and any phones associated with PS 154, including the cell phone of Defendant Alison Coviello. Such numbers may include, but are not limited to, 718-292-4742 and 718-292-4721 from April 1, 2010 to present. -43-| OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 44 City defendants object to Document Request No. 44 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal invoivement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this document request on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, nor is he an employee of the DOE. DOCUME) ;QUEST NO. 45: All phone and text records including but not limited to voice mail recordings and texts, of phone calls or fax messages between City defendants Michacl Agona and Superintendent Yolanda Torres. Such numbers may include, but are not limited to 718-742- 6500, 718-742-6548 and 347-610-8122 from April 1, 2010 to present. City defendants object to Document Request No. 45 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy, City defendants further object to this document request on the groundsthat Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, nor is he an employee of the DOE. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. Alll phone and text records including but not limited to voice mail recordings and texts, of phone calls or fax messages between Defendant Michael Agona and former Maverick Network Leader Debra Lamb. Such numbers may include, but are not limited to 917-691-5770 from April 1, 2010 to present, OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 46: City defendants object to Document Request No. 46 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this document request on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, not is he an employee of the DOE. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. All phone and text records including but not limited to voice mail recordings and texts of phone calls or fax message s between Defendant Michael Agona and PS 154 Assistant Principal Jessica Cruz. Such numbers may include, but are not limited to 718-292-4742 and 718-292-4721 from April 1, 2010 to present. 45 -ION AND RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST Ni City defendants object to Document Request No. 47 on the grounds that it is overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. City defendants further object to this document request on the grounds that Defendant Michael Agona is not represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel, nor is he an employee of the DOE. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. All records of investigations, findings, discipline, per session time sheets, budgets, organizational charts, counseling memos, warning letters, vacations, sick days, personal days, attendance of former IS 162 Principal Maryann Manzolillo, former IS 162 Assistant Principal Greg Papadopoulos, and IS 162. City defendants object to Document Request No. 48 on the grounds that plaintiff never taught at IS 162, and neither the persons, nor school identified in the request are mentioned in the Complaint, and the request. City defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it is too garbled to be capable of a reasoned response. City defendants further object to this request as overbroad as to scope and time, vague and ambiguous, seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to plaintiff's claims, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, assumes facts not admitted or established, and seeks personal, confidential, and private information concerning non-parties to this action and/or individuals who did not have -46-personal involvement in the alleged events underlying this action, and constitutes an improper invasion of their privacy. ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY: Pursuant to the Court’s rules regarding Electronic Discovery, City defendants are required to perform a search and’ produce all emails concerning Plaintiff, and any and all claims in Plaintiff's claim for damages related to the claims asserted by Plaintiff herein. Subsequent to this demand, the parties are to agree upon keyword searches fo be performed by City defendants in furtherance of the Court’s rules. Such agreement must take place prior to depositions or shall otherwise require court intervention, 247-OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overbroad with respect to time and scope, unduly burdensome, not proportional to case, and seeks discovery that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to this request to the extent that it seeks production of privileged information, including material protected under the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, the privilege protecting material prépared in anticipation of litigation, and seeks disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Defendants. Defendants further object to this request on the grounds that it purports to impose obligations on Defendants beyond those required by the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. Dated: ‘New York, New York December 30, 2015 ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for City defendants 100 Church Street, Room 2-111 ‘New York, New York 10007 Assistant Corporation Counsel TO: — Bryan Glass (via mail) Attomey for Plaintiff 100 Church Street, 8" Floor ‘New York, NY 10007 Richard FX. Guay (via mail) Attorney for Defendant Michael Agona 1350 Broadway, Suite 501 ‘New York, New York 10018 -48-STATE OF NEW YORK. ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK —) ALISON COVIELLO, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal of P.S. 154, located at 333 East 135 Street, Bronx, NY 10454, which is a New York City Department of Education school. That the foregoing City defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests are true to his knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason why this verification is not made by The City of New York is that it is a corporation; that the grounds of his belief as to all matters not therein stated upon his knowledge are as follows: Information obtained from the books and records of the New York City Department of Education, and her own personal knowledge. SON COVIELLO. Sworn to before me this 12 day of January, 2016. fiaF fren. NOTARY, eranh @UNeRo PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK oy NEW YORK COUNTY xy LIC #01 RO6162717 COMM, EXP. 03/19/2019