throbber
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:06 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11
`
`INDEX NO. 811929/2023E
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF BRONX
`
`ALYSSA AMBER BONNET,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Index No. 811929/2023E
`
`v.
`
`DIG INN RESTAURANT GROUP LLC and
`DIG INN 2884 BROADWAY LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
`DISCOVERY REQUESTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Alyssa Amber Bonnet (Bonnet), by her undersigned attorney, serves
`the following first set of discovery requests on Defendants Dig Inn Restaurant
`Group LLC and Dig Inn 2884 Broadway LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3101, 3120, and
`3130, and in accordance with the Preliminary Conference Order and Case
`Scheduling Order entered January 19, 2024.
`
`
`Responses to these requests are due within 20 days of service hereof unless
`otherwise agreed in writing by the parties.
`
`
`In answering these requests, Defendants are required to produce responsive
`documents and information in their possession, custody, or control. Any objections
`must be stated with reasonable particularity.
`
`Each response to requests for production of documents must state:
`(i) whether the objection(s) interposed pertains to all or part of the request being
`challenged; (ii) whether any documents or categories of documents are being
`withheld, and if so, which of the stated objection(s) forms the basis for the
`responding party’s decision to withhold otherwise responsive documents or
`categories of documents; and (iii) the manner in which the responding party intends
`to limit the scope of its production.
`
`Each interrogatory must be answered separately and fully, under oath.
`These requests are continuing in nature and must be amended or supplemented in
`accordance with CPLR 3101(h).
`
`These discovery requests are intended, and should be construed, to demand
`disclosure of all matter that is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense
`of this action. Note: These discovery requests are not intended, and should not be
`construed, to demand disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications
`and/or attorney work product involving present defense counsel (Gordon Rees Scully
`Mansukhani, LLP).
`
`
`
`1
`
`1 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:06 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11
`
`INDEX NO. 811929/2023E
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024
`
`These requests are based upon, and assume familiarity with, the allegations
`set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint filed September 5, 2023, and in Defendants’
`Answer filed December 5, 2023.
`
`The term “concerning” as used herein means “relating to, referring to,
`describing, evidencing, or constituting.” The term “identify” as used herein means
`to provide the person’s full name, job title, and current or last known contact
`information (mailing address; home, work, and/or mobile telephone numbers; and
`personal and/or work email addresses).
`
`Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period for these discovery
`requests is August 16, 2021, to December 31, 2023.
`
`
`Request for the Production of Statements
`
`Request for the Production of Films, Photographs, Videotapes,
`Audiotapes
`
`Requests for the Production of Documents
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to CPLR 3101(e), Plaintiff demands the production of any
`
`statements by Bonnet.
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to CPLR 3101(i), Plaintiff demands the production of any films,
`
`photographs, videotapes, and/or audiotapes, including transcripts or memoranda
`thereof, and including out-takes, involving Bonnet.
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to CPLR 3120, Plaintiff demands the production of the following
`
`documents (defined to the fullest extent permissible under the Rule, including but
`not limited to paper and electronic documents, handwritten, typed, and word
`processed documents, computer forms, files, and databases, emails, text messages,
`instant messages, voice messages, photographs, audio recordings, video recordings):
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Bonnet’s complete personnel files and records.
`Bonnet’s job application (including online, email, and in-person
`submissions).
`
`Job posting and position description for position(s) applied for by
`Bonnet.
`
`2
`
`2 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:06 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11
`
`INDEX NO. 811929/2023E
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Documents describing pay and benefits for Dig employees in positions
`like the one(s) applied for by Bonnet.
`
`All documented communications with Bonnet concerning her job
`application (including telephone calls, emails, text messages, and
`attachments).
`
`All documented communications with Bonnet concerning her new
`employee orientation/training (including telephone calls, emails, text
`messages, and attachments).
`
`All documented communications with Bonnet concerning the COVID-
`19 vaccination requirement for employees (including telephone calls,
`emails, text messages, and attachments).
`
`All text messages and attachments between David “DC” Cooper and
`Bonnet (including the text messages referred to in Complaint ¶¶ 26,
`35, 37, 40).
`
`including
`communications,
`and
`documentation
`internal
`All
`handwritten notes, computer entries, memoranda, emails, and text
`messages, concerning Bonnet’s job application and/or her request for a
`religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement.
`
`10. Policies, procedures, and practices for protecting employees and
`customers from COVID-19 (including NY HERO Act safety and health
`plan, NY Forward written safety plan, posted signage).
`
`11. Policies, procedures, and practices for requiring COVID-19 vaccination
`for employees.
`
`12. Policies, procedures, and practices
`reasonable
`for providing
`accommodations based on religion and/or disability (medical) to the
`COVID-19 vaccination requirement for employees.
`
`13. All documents supporting Defendant’s Third Defense (documentary
`evidence).
`
`14. All documents supporting Defendant’s Fourth Defense (waiver).
`15. All documents supporting Defendant’s Fifth Defense (estoppel).
`16. All documents supporting Defendant’s Seventh Defense (laches).
`17. All documents supporting Defendant’s Eighth Defense (unclean
`hands).
`
`
`
`3
`
`3 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:06 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11
`
`INDEX NO. 811929/2023E
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024
`
`18. The “written administrative regulations, orders, ruling approvals,
`interpretations, and/or administrative practices or policies pursuant to
`federal, New York State, and New York City laws” referred to in
`Defendant’s Tenth Defense.
`19. All documents supporting Defendant’s Fifteenth Defense (after-
`acquired evidence).
`
`20. All documents supporting Defendant’s Twenty-Fifth Defense (frivolous
`and bad faith litigation).
`
`21. All other documents that Defendants rely upon in defense of this
`action.
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatories
`
`Pursuant to CPLR 3130, Plaintiff demands the production of the following
`information:
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Identify all persons who participated in, attended, and/or witnessed
`the interview of Bonnet on or about November 9, 2022, as alleged in
`Complaint ¶ 18.
`
`Identify all persons who participated in, attended, and/or witnessed
`the interview of Bonnet on or about November 15, 2022, as alleged in
`Complaint ¶ 21.
`
`“DC” Cooper
`persons with whom David
`all
`Identify
`communicated/consulted/conferred concerning Bonnet’s COVID-19
`vaccination status and/or request for a religious exemption.
`
`Identify all other persons with personal knowledge of the allegations,
`claims, and/or defenses in this action, including describing the
`knowledge each person possesses.
`
`If Defendants contend that Bonnet lacked a bona fide, good faith
`religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccines, identify, with as much
`specificity as possible, the basis for this contention.
`
`If Defendants contend that it would have caused an undue hardship to
`grant Bonnet a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccination
`requirement, identify, with as much specificity as possible, the nature,
`scope, and cost of this alleged undue hardship.
`
`
`
`4
`
`4 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:06 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11
`
`INDEX NO. 811929/2023E
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Identify each DIG restaurant in New York City that was open for
`business during any part of the relevant time period, including the
`location name, physical street address, and dates of operation.
`
`State whether and to what extent Defendants have records and
`information concerning the numbers of employees (full-time and/or
`part-time) working at each DIG restaurant in New York City, on a
`daily, weekly, and/or monthly basis.
`
`State whether and to what extent Defendants have records and
`information concerning any employees (full-time and/or part-time)
`working at each DIG restaurant in New York City, who were identified
`(on any basis) as having COVID-19.
`
`State whether and to what extent Defendants have records and
`information concerning the COVID-19 vaccination status of employees
`(full-time and/or part-time) working at each DIG restaurant in New
`York City.
`
`State whether and the manner in which Defendants checked the
`COVID-19 vaccination status of customers at each DIG restaurant in
`New York City, after March 7, 2022 (when New York City ended its
`vaccine mandate for retail businesses).
`
`State whether and to what extent Defendants have records and
`information concerning any job applicants for positions at any DIG
`restaurant in New York City, (a) who requested a reasonable
`accommodation based on religion to the COVID-19 vaccination
`requirement for employees and (b) whose requests were approved or
`denied.
`
`State whether and to what extent Defendants have records and
`information concerning any job applicants for positions at any DIG
`restaurant in New York City, (a) who requested a reasonable
`accommodation based on disability (medical) to the COVID-19
`vaccination requirement for employees and (b) whose requests were
`approved or denied.
`
`State whether and to what extent Defendants have records and
`information concerning any employees (full-time and/or part-time)
`working at each DIG restaurant in New York City, (a) who requested a
`reasonable accommodation based on religion to the COVID-19
`vaccination requirement for employees and (b) whose requests were
`approved or denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`5 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:06 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11
`
`INDEX NO. 811929/2023E
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024
`
`15.
`
`State whether and to what extent Defendants have records and
`information concerning any employees (full-time and/or part-time)
`working at each DIG restaurant in New York City, (a) who requested a
`reasonable accommodation based on disability (medical) to the COVID-
`19 vaccination requirement for employees and (b) whose requests were
`approved or denied.
`
`
`
`
`For Plaintiff Alyssa Amber Bonnet:
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Steven M. Warshawsky
`_____________________________________
`
`Steven M. Warshawsky, Esq.
`The Warshawsky Law Firm
`118 North Bedford Road, Suite 100
`Mount Kisco, NY 10549
`T: (914) 864-3353
`E: smw@warshawskylawfirm.com
`
`
` February 6, 2024
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To: David J. Grech, Esq.
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`One Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
`New York, NY 10004
`(212) 269-5500
`dgrech@grsm.com
`VIA NYSCEF AND EMAIL ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`6 of 6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket