Courant Avoiding Producing Documents In Watchdog’s Wrongful Termination Suit

My attorney Joseph Garrison of New Haven has filed documents in Hartford Superior Court notifying Judge Marshall Berger that the Courant “has furnished almost no discovery” despite legal requirements that it do so.

So far we have provided every available document in our possession to Courant lawyers in answer to their interrogatories and I have sat through two days where their lawyers were able to ask me any question while I was under oath.

So the question one might want to ask is what is the Courant trying to hide? As you recall the Courant insists that I wasn’t fired, my position was simply eliminated and a new DIFFERENT kind of consumer reporter position was created.

One would think that there might be an email or two between the managers and executives discussing the elimination of the most visible position the Courant had created or of what to do with a 40-year veteran investigative reporter and editor, or perhaps an email from someone suggesting a new position? Well if there is it has not been provided to us. Nor have any notes that people took at meeting (notes that I saw being taken at least in meetings that I attended).

Garrison’s Friday documents also defend our right to bring the lawsuit and asks Judge Berger to reject The Courant’s request that my amended lawsuit be thrown out.

All the juicy details are contained in these filings here: Plaintiff’s Memo in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 8-20-10

And the following is a letter (part of the filing to the Judge) to The Courant’s attorney outlining what information has NOT been provided us:

Victoria Woodin Chavey, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP

90 State House Square, 8th floor Hartford, CT 06103-3708

Re: George Gornbossy v. Hartford Courant Dear Tory:

I am writing to attempt to resolve pending discovery issues without involving the court. Presently, the amended complaint contains one count which is active, i.e., the count alleging promissory estoppel. However, virtually all of the factual allegations of the free speech count were incorporated into the promissory estoppel count. If discovery is relevant to any of the factual allegations, it should be produced. With that in mind, I will review your objections item by item.

1.  Production request 1 only asks for termination or job elimination policies or guidelines for 2008 and 2009. I would be willing to narrow that request to the policies or guidelines in effect during 2009. The Courant has claimed that George’s job was eliminated, which makes job elimination policies or guidelines relevant. We claim that his employment was involuntarily terminated, which makes termination policies or guidelines relevant.

2.  What the Courant produced as George’s personnel file cannot possibly be complete, since there are no documents relating to the end of his employment, whether by job elimination or by termination. This response should be supplemented to include all documents which fall within the statutory definition of “personnel file.”

3.  For the period of time requested, George served as Business Editor and as Consumer Columnist, Reporter III. It is not burdensome or overly broad to request the job descriptions for those jobs. They are not contained in the personnel file which was produced. If there are no job descriptions, the Courant should say so.

4. It is not burdensome or overly broad to request compensation records for 2005­2009, because George claims damages and one element of damages is lost wages and other compensation. A record of compensation over 5 years can allow a jury to calculate both back and future losses at the time of trial. Documents requested were not included in the personnel file.

5. I would be willing to limit this request to only cover the period from January 1, 2005 through George’s last date of employment. The documents in the personnel file that cover that time period appear to be only partial compliance, but if the Courant claims that those documents are a complete response, it should say so.

1. For the same reasons noted in number 4 above, this material should be supplied.
2. Because all of George’s performance reviews have been produced, I believe that the response to this request is sufficient.
3. Most of the documents requested here are included in the statutory definition of “personnel file.” The request would encompass documents created after George’s termination if they concerned the decision to terminate and incorporated substantive commentary about the decision. Those documents are relevant because they may provide evidence about motive or relate to the alleged reasons for termination, as they may support the truth or falsity of the various reasons given by the Courant. The documents that were supplied in Exhibit 2 contained unexplained redactions, e.g., most are not dated, some are almost or completely blank such as Nos. 184 and 186, and there is no indication of senders or receivers on any of them. Although there is a privilege objection, no privilege log has been supplied so we have no way of evaluating the objection. Please supply a privilege log. Finally, we have strong reason to believe that Lynne deLucia, Jeff Levine and Naedine Hazell made, at least, handwritten notes concerning George’s proposed or actual termination. Ms. deLucia often carried a spiral notebook that she used for note-taking. It is not at all credible that there are no writings to and from Mr. Graziano and Mr. Levine on this topic.
   1. For the reasons stated in number 8, these materials should be produced or a privilege log should be created.
   2. “Recommendation” means the act of presenting something as deserving of acceptance. Otherwise, for the same reasons stated in number 8, these materials should be produced or a privilege log should be created.
      1. If it is the Courant’s position that the personnel file produced contains all of the documents responsive to number 11, then the response is sufficient. Please let me know if that is the Courant’s position.

12.  “Complaint” means an expression of dissatisfaction or a formal accusation against Mr. Gombossy. The time period is properly restricted from January 2007 up to and including the date of his termination. Please produce a privilege log for items claimed to be privileged that would be responsive to this request. If it is the Courant’s position that the personnel file produced contains all of the documents responsive to number 12, then the response is sufficient. Please let me know if that is the Courant’s position.

1. These documents are discoverable for all of the reasons stated in number 8, above. There is no privilege objection, however.
   1. For the purposes of this request, “executive” means a person having managerial responsibility. The corporations are the Courant and the Tribune. The time period in question is from the date that the Watchdog column began, and the documents sought are defined in the request. With these clarifications, please let me know if documents will be produced.
   2. Again, a privilege log must be produced. Exhibit 3 contains no documents sent or received by Richard Graziano, Eugene Mazur, Kevin Hunt, Nancy Meyer, Hillary Patz, Dan Haar, Cliff Teutsch or Robert Gremillion. If there are documents responsive to the request within the short time period requested, please provide them.
      1. This narrow request relates only to documents involving the persons named in request 15 as well as two other persons who were significantly involved. The objection regarding no temporal limitation has no merit; this position was created very close to the end of Mr. Gombossy’s employment. If privilege is claimed, a privilege log must be produced. Because the Courant states that Mr. Gombossy was offered this position, the request for documents is completely relevant.
      2. Although there is an objection, there were documents produced. Please indicate if these documents completely respond to the request. If they do, we would not be required to move to compel anything further.
         1. This request directly relates to claims made by Mr. Levine about the level of advertising, and will show either the truth or falsity of his statements. The request is not requiring anything from remote time periods, and is easily accessible. Please produce these documents.
         2. These documents should be produced for the reasons stated in 18, above.
            1. Mr. Gombossy was a member of the 2002 Mission Statement Committee. If the Courant will stipulate that any testimony he provides relating to the documents produced or utilized by that committee is accurate, there will be no need for the Courant to produce any documents. if the Courant intends to contradict any of his testimony by using documents produced by or utilized by the committee, however, then those documents are relevant and should be produced.

21.  1 will not pursue this request at this time.

22.  I will not pursue this request at this time.

23.  The obvious “temporal limitation” is from the date of Mr. Gombossy’s termination through March, 2010, the date of the request for production. Since it is doubtful that a large number of public statements were made by these three people, the request is hardly burdensome or overly broad. One statement was provided, and if that is the only statement responsive to the request please let me know. We believe at least one statement was made to the Courant staff. A privilege log must be provided for any claim of privilege.

24.  We believe that Ms. deLucia was given a script for Mr. Gombossy’s termination and/or offering a new position to him. Please make a further request of her for this material. Again, please produce a privilege log for any claim of privilege.

25.  The time period in this request is very limited, and at least some communications have been produced. As stated above, we believe that handwritten notes exist. Please make a further request of Ms. deLucia for these documents. Please produce a privilege log for any claim of privilege.

1. We agreed to a protective order to deal with privacy issues, so that objection no longer has merit. We are not requesting full production of any personnel files, only documents in those files which may reference Mr. Gombossy. These documents should be produced.
   1. I believe there was a typographical error in the request. It should say “relating to positive or controlled news coverage in exchange for advertising.” It refers to documents sent to or from the two named executives, from advertisers or others, discussing if, how, or whether news coverage would be affected if companies became advertisers, or if their present advertising changed. With that clarification, please produce any documents which exist.
      1. Please state if Exhibit 3 contains all responsive documents. Otherwise, please supplement the response.
      2. I don’t understand how 28 could result in production of some documents and 29 could be subject to objection. Please produce documents that are responsive.
      3. The time period for this request extends only for one year, and presumably is quite limited because the Connecticut Attorney General’s office could not have notified the two people named in the request of too many investigations. The subject matter is relevant to the events involving Mr. Gombossy. Please produce the documents.

The response to the request to produce was really disappointingly minimal, and I hope that we can quickly resolve the issues stated above. Please let me know your position no later than August 12. If I have heard nothing by that date, I will file a motion to compel with the court and attach this letter as my attempt to reach a good faith resolution of the issues.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

MG/cam

cc: George Gombossy