Counsel

ISG's Request for Production No. 1 (Second Set)

Provide a copy of all Documents reflecting, concerning, or relating to communications between Matt Welborn and Jason Yates referencing, concerning, or relating to ISG (including, but not limited to, communications in or about early 2021 relating to the contract from Jefferson Parish to ISG for the Causeway Lighting Project and contract from Boone Construction to ISG for the Baton Rouge Airport Lighting Project).

Response

MMR objects to this request because it is overbroad and because—apart from the parenthetical contained therein—it fails to identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity. MMR further objects to this request as requiring time and effort to respond that is not proportional to the needs of the case, particularly because Mr. Yates himself (and thus ISG) is in possession of any responsive communications. Subject to and without waiving this objection, MMR will search for communications between Mr. Yates and Mr. Welborn concerning ISG's involvement in the two referenced projects and will produce (if located) responsive documents on a rolling basis.

ISG's Request for Production No. 13 (First Set)

Produce the Documents and Communications that John Clouatre exchanged with MMR employees that relate to Your allegations in the Lawsuit.

Response

MMR objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Further, MMR objects to this request as overbroad in not seeking specified allegations. Subject to and without waiving these objections, any communications that Mr. Clouatre would have exchanged with MMR employees would have been with counsel or at the direction of counsel in anticipation of, or to further, this litigation. However, MMR will conduct a search to determine whether there are relevant communications not protected by a privilege.

ISG's Request for Production No. 14 (First Set)

Produce the Documents and Communications that James B. “Pepper” Rutland exchanged with MMR employees that relate to Your allegations in the Lawsuit.

Response

MMR objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Further, MMR objects to this request as overbroad in not seeking specified allegations. Subject to and without waiving these objections, any communications that Mr. Rutland would have exchanged with MMR employees would have been with counsel or at the direction of counsel in anticipation of, or to further, this litigation. However, MMR will conduct a search to determine whether there are relevant communications not protected by a privilege.

ISG's Request for Production No. 1 (Sixth Set)

Forensic copies of the cellphone and computers used by Kevin Alexander during his employment with MMR.

Response

MMR objects to this request because it seeks irrelevant information and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Forensic copies of the cellphone and computer that Kevin Alexander used during his employment with MMR would include every document and piece of information that is available on those devices, regardless of whether the documents and information had any connection to the claims and defenses in this case. Specifically, the only claims in this case relate to the misappropriation of MMR's protected information, but this request is not tailored in any way to those claims (or defenses to those claims). In fact, even for the devices that are subject to the Forensic Protocol that is geared toward discovering the actual misappropriated documents and information, forensic copies of the devices are not discoverable and have not been exchanged. Ultimately, this request does not seek relevant documents from these devices in a manner that is proportional to the needs of the case.

ISG's Request for Production No. 5 (Second Set)

Provide a copy of all Documents referencing, concerning, or relating to National Electrical Contractors Association (“NECA”) unit rates and/or NECA labor rates.

*6 Response

MMR objects to this request because it is overbroad, including in temporal scope, and because it fails to identify the documents sought with reasonable particularity and instead asks for any and all Documents that have ever mentioned NECA rates, no matter how tangential to the claims and defenses at issue in the above-captioned lawsuit. MMR further objects to this request as requiring time and effort to respond that is not proportional to the needs of the case. MMR currently has nearly 5,000 employees and has had several thousand employees since it began. The burden for MMR to search through repositories relating to thousands of potential custodians, without any date limitation, outweighs the probative value of discovering documents that reference a trade association's rates. MMR is withholding a search based on these objections.

ISG's Request for Production No. 14 (Second Set):[3]

Provide a copy of all Documents reflecting or relating to the disclosure outside of MMR of any overhead top sheets, labor and material sheets, estimates, change logs, job analyses, contracts, change orders, s-curves, timekeeping documents, Quality Assurance/Quality Control manuals, employee handbooks, safety manuals, and/or customer proposals from the date when any of the Defendants commenced employment with MMR, through the present.

Response

MMR objects to this request for the same reasons that it objected to Amended Interrogatory Nos. 5-10. This request, though, is even broader and is not specifically tied to the documents that MMR has identified as its trade secrets and confidential business information. MMR explained when the broad categories of documents included in this request would be shared (if ever) within the context of a confidential business relationship. But this request would require MMR to produce every “contract,” “estimate,” “customer proposal,” and “change order” that it ever provided to a customer since its inception in 1991. The expense and burden to undertake such a search to locate “all” responsive documents far outweighs the probative value associated with the documents that ISG and the other named defendants have misappropriated in this case. MMR is withholding a search for responsive documents based on these objections.

Yates’ Interrogatory No. 10:

Identify and describe in detail each instance in which MMR (including but not limited to Jason Templet, Vance Mitchell, Wayne Radley, John Clouatre, Mike Kee, and/or Pepper Rutland) possessed, used, and/or disclosed documents of a competitor of MMR (including, but not limited to, ISC Constructors) documents or information (including, but not limited to, to bid on any project or contract), including the Identity of the MMR individuals involved in such possession, use, and/or disclosure, the type of information possessed, used, and/or disclosed, and how.

Answer:

MMR objects to this request as not proportional to the needs of the case, as MMR [sic] there is no cause of action or allegation against MMR. Further, the defendants in this case continue to ask for information in discovery relating to some perceived issue with ISC Constructors, but MMR did not use, possess, or receive any documents of ISC Constructors.

ISG's Request for Production No. 34 (First Set):

Provide a copy of all Documents reflecting or relating to the disclosure outside of MMR of any Greensheets.

Response

MMR objects to this request as being not proportional to the needs of the case. “MMR” is defined as “all present or former directors, owners, attorneys, employees, agents, accountants, contractors, consultants, successors, assigns, or representatives,” and the request contains no limitation on the custodians or otherwise contain a reasonable limitation to the MMR's inquiry. Subject to and without waiving these objections, MMR does not disclose its Greensheets outside of MMR as a matter of course, and to the extent Defendants believe otherwise or have information suggesting otherwise, MMR will conduct an inquiry and supplement this response.

ISG's Amended Interrogatory No. 5 (Amended First Set):

Identify all persons and/or entities, outside of MMR, with whom any MMR Officer, Manager, Project Manager, Salesperson, or Estimator (or anyone else with the knowledge of any such individual) have at any time shared or divulged information and/or Documents you identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 4.

Answer:

MMR incorporates its prior response to the original Interrogatory No. 5. This interrogatory, as amended, still requires time and expense to respond that is not proportional to the needs of the case. Forensic examinations have demonstrated that the Defendants misappropriated several thousand documents containing MMR's confidential information and trade secrets. Those documents are identified on remediation lists, as well as in response to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 8, and these documents fall within general categories, including estimating tools, financial documents, customer information, customer contact lists, customer proposals, internal procedures and safety-related documents, and customer specific documents. The time and expense of trying to track down, without any date limitation, whether each individual file was shared with a person or entity outside of MMR far outweighs the probative value of such information.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, MMR states that its estimating tools, price build-ups, project tracking tools, and financial documents were not, to MMR's knowledge, shared with third parties and that, if any such document was ever shared with a third party, it was done within a confidential business relationship for MMR's benefit, not a third-party competitor's benefit or future use. Further, the customer proposals and customer-specific documents were, to MMR's knowledge, shared with the identified customers in the context of a confidential business relationship and expectations of privacy. These documents were shared exclusively for MMR's benefit and were not made public for the general public's consumption or use. The same is true for MMR's internal procedures and safety-related documents. In sum, if any misappropriated file was shared with a third-party in the ordinary course of MMR's business and with authorization, the legitimate business expectation would have been—and remains—that the information be used solely for the benefit of MMR's relationship with that third party.

ISG's Request for Production No. 19 (Fourth Set)[4]

Documents or communications concerning any exit interview of the Former MMR Employees.

Response

MMR objects to this request as not proportional to the needs of the case. The definition of “Former MMR Employees” includes thirty-seven individuals (some of whom were never MMR employees), many of whom did not depart under suspicious circumstances. As MMR answered in response to Amended Interrogatory No. 13, MMR manages the exit process for departing employees on a case-by-case basis, by the departing employees’ supervisors and/or managers, and varies across departments. Thus, MMR does not deploy a standard exit interview form, but instead entrusts supervisor and/or manager to handle the final communications with a departing employee. For instance, Ben Huffman testified in this case about the conversation he had with his supervisor after he notified MMR that he was resigning: the contents of this conversation were not documented but the participants to the conversation can provide testimony about what was discussed. However, under circumstances where MMR learns about suspicious pre-separation computing activity or knows that an employee is leaving to join a direct competitor, MMR has reminded such departing employees about their obligation to return company property and abide by post-employment contractual obligations (even though MMR's policies require them to do so without this additional notice), including those related to confidentiality and non-disclosure of information. Under those circumstances, MMR has also sent formal letters to departing employees, through counsel, and/or initiated legal proceedings to protect its rights. Some examples, in addition to the individual defendants (like David Heroman and Kasey Kasey) here, include Tyler Freeman, Michael Buchanan, Mitchell White, and James Jarwin. These individuals are not, however, listed in the definition of “MMR Former Employees.”

*10 Subject to and without waiving these objections, MMR refers Defendants to the personnel files that it has produced in this case. If a document exists that summarized the contents of an exit interview, it would likely have been included in those files. MMR also refers Defendants to the testimony of Ben Huffman. Further, MMR will continue to search for documents that may have captured the contents of an exit interview with a named defendant.

Yates’ Interrogatory No. 7

Please Identify any employees who have left MMR's employment, from 2021 forward, by the employee position, employee name, and date, the stated reasons for leaving, and the individual's next employer(s) after MMR.

Answer:

MMR objects to this interrogatory as not proportional to the needs of the case. The names, position, termination date, and reason for leaving of individuals whose employment ended during a three-year period has no probative value, as it does not tend to prove or disprove any relevant facts in this case.

ISG's Amended Interrogatory No. 18

Identify and Describe each instance in which MMR ensured that MMR information was deleted from any employee-owned device such as mobile phones, external hard drives, and/or other storage devices for any who left anytime after 2017.

Answer:

MMR incorporates its prior objections and response to the original Interrogatory No. 18. MMR further objects because the time period added to this interrogatory, as amended, is overbroad and therefore seeks irrelevant information. MMR further objects because this interrogatory, even as amended, continues to impose a burden that is not proportional to the needs of the case, particularly considering MMR has, at this time, over 4,700 employees, which gives insight into how many employees could be at issue over nearly a six-year period.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, MMR states that it has policies in place against misusing its protected information, which includes prohibiting the disclosure and/or use of protected information—regardless of whether it resides on a personal device [or] MMR-issued device—for anything other than the benefit of MMR. Former employees are required to ensure that all MMR information in their possession is returned to MMR, which includes returning any external storage devices that they have used during their employment with MMR and that contains MMR information. Further, upon an employee's departure, MMR removes access to the email accounts from employee-owned cellphones, such that those employees can no longer access the emails or data that resides in those accounts, and MMR's IT personnel monitors “active accounts” against “inactive” personnel in MMR's HR platform to ensure that departing employees’ access has been timely removed.

ISG's Request for Production No. 8 (Fifth Set)

The contract or engagement letter with the HR Firm, or documents reflecting the scope of the HR Firm’ engagement.

ISG's Request for Production No. 9 (Fifth Set)

Any reports or documents reflecting the results of the HR Firm's engagement.

Response:

MMR objects to this request because it does not seek relevant information. The requested documents have zero relevance here, as there is no claim or defense in this case that in any way relates to a purported “outside firm that MMR retained after January 1, 2020 to advise on employee retention related issues.” This is a theft-of-information case that has nothing to do with a purported outside consultant on employee retention. Further, MMR did hire such an outside consultant.