Pinero v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et al

Filing 172

MOTION for Protective Order, MOTION to Quash by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Jackson Hewitt Inc. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 9/9/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing, # 2 Affidavit Rule 37 Certificate, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M)(Jackson, Veronica) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/25/2009: # 17 Memorandum in Support) (rll, ). Modified on 8/25/2009 to attach complete copy of Memorandum in Support & edit hearing time (rll, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VICKI L. PINERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC.; JACKSON HEWITT INC.; and, CRESCENT CITY TAX SERVICE, INC. d/b/a JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE, Defendants. JUDGE SARAH VANCE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DANIEL E. KNOWLES

CASE NO.: 08-3535 SECTION R

FED. R. CIV. P. 37 AND L.R. 37.1 CERTIFICATE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 37.1, I, ANDREW S. WEIN declare as follows: I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the courts of the State of New York and the District of Columbia, and am admitted pro hac vice to represent Defendants Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. and Jackson Hewitt Inc. (collectively "Jackson Hewitt") in this matter before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the following based on my own true, personal knowledge: 1. I have, in good faith, conferred with counsel for Plaintiff in an effort to resolve

the discovery dispute without court involvement. 2. On August 10, 2009, I spoke with Bryan C. Shartle, counsel for Plaintiff, by

telephone regarding discovery demands and subpoenas seeking information regarding Jackson Hewitt's marketing practices and agreements with third parties.

3.

During the call, I requested that Mr. Shartle reconsider these discovery demands

and subpoenas in light of Jackson Hewitt's contention that such requests seek irrelevant information, are overbroad, and are unduly burdensome on non-parties. I also indicated that Jackson Hewitt would seek a protective order against these discovery demands and subpoenas if they were not withdrawn. 4. Mr. Shartle indicated that he had no intention to retract these discovery demands

and was willing to litigate the issue because, in his opinion, the information Plaintiff sought was relevant. 5. In light of this conversation with Mr. Shartle, I have concluded that it is not

possible to reach an amicable result with Plaintiff regarding this discovery dispute, thus necessitating the filing of the present motion. Date: August 24, 2009 By Attorneys: __/s/Andrew S. Wein Donna L. Wilson (Admitted pro hac vice) Andrew S. Wein (Admitted pro hac vice) Veronica D. Jackson (Admitted pro hac vice) KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3050 K Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: [phone] AND KEAN, MILLER, HAWTHORNE, D'ARMOND, McCOWAN & JARMAN, L.L.P. Glenn M. Farnet (#20185) Gina D. Banks (#27440) One American Place, 18th Floor Post Office Box 3513 (70821) Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. and Jackson Hewitt Inc.

-2-