MOTION - Pltf's 1st Mot. Compel and App.

Case 4:19-cv-00150-P Document 26 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID 176
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
LAM VAN “TOMMY” NGUYEN,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00150-P
QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL

AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
TO THE HONORABLE MARK T. PITTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Lam Van “Tommy” Nguyen his First Motion to Compel and Brief in
Support (“Motion”) against Defendant Quality Sausage Company, LLC.
I. AN ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION
This Motion presents an issue of first impression concerning the scope of protected
activity under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act’s (“FSMA”) antiretaliation
provision. An important part of Mr. Nguyen’s FSMA protected activity is his complaint
about Quality Sausage’s alleged use (and dangers associated with the use) of illegal aliens
in the production of food.1 Mr. Nguyen’s position is that the plain text of the FSMA’s
antiretaliation provision protects Mr. Nguyen (and all other persons covered by the

1Plaintiff will use the term “illegal aliens” because it is the term used in federal immigration
statutes and in opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States and other courts. See, e.g., 8
U.S.C. § 1365; Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387 (2012); Maria S. as Next Friend for E.H.F. v. Garza,
912 F.3d 778, 784 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 81, 205 L. Ed. 2d 27 (2019); Crane v.
Napolitano, 3:12-CV-03247-O, 2013 WL 1744422, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2013) (using the term
“illegal alien”).
Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel

and Brief in Support - Page 1

FSMA) from retaliation when opposing the use of illegal aliens in connection with the
production or service of food in the United States. Therefore, Mr. Nguyen argues that the
immigration status of certain Quality Sausage workers falls within the scope of federal
discovery. Quality Sausage believes the immigration status of workers in the food industry
can never be within the scope of protected activity under the FSMA. Therefore, Quality
Sausage takes the position that discovery concerning the immigration status of Quality
Sausage’s workers (or any other entity covered by the FSMA) is forbidden, because it is
outside the scope of discovery.
When an FSMA-covered employee (like Mr. Nguyen) risks his job by raising
concerns to his employer about food safety in connection with the employer’s use of illegal
alien workers, has that employee, as a matter of law, stepped outside the scope of FSMA
protected activity? The Court’s determination of this issue will impact, not only Mr.
Nguyen, but all those engaged in the food production and service industry in the United
States.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
August 29, 2019 - Mr. Nguyen served his “First Set of Written Discovery to
Defendant.” See Appendix Item (“App.” hereafter) A at 02–13.
September 30, 2019 - Quality Sausage served its “Objections and Responses to
Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions” (App. B) at 16–17,
“Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories”
(App. C) at 19–22, and “Objections and Responses to
Plaintiff’s First Request for Production” (App. D) at 26–33.


III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
A. The Broad Scope of Federal Discovery.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets forth the scope of discovery as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is

relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of
discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In this context, courts construe relevance broadly. See, e.g.,
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (information is relevant if
it bears on, or “reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on, any issue that
is or may be in the case.”); Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Yang Kun Chung, 321 F.R.D. 250,
280 (N.D. Tex. 2017); Gray v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., 3:18-CV-1654-N, 2019 WL
5789327, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2019) (“Courts construe relevance broadly, as a
document need not, by itself, prove or disprove a claim or defense or have strong
probative force to be relevant.”) (citing Samsung Elecs. Inc.).
B. This Case’s Claims and Defenses.
As noted above, this is a wrongful termination case under the antiretaliation
provision of the FSMA. See 21 U.S.C. § 399d; see generally Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
(ECF Doc. 1) (“Complaint”). Quality Sausage has put in dispute the great majority of Mr.
Nguyen’s factual averments. See generally, Defendant’s “Original Answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint” (ECF Doc. 7) (“Answer”).


1. The importance of the issues at stake in this action.
Critically important to a Rule 26(b)(1) analysis of the scope of discovery is an
analysis of the importance of the issues at stake in the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The importance of the issues at stake in this action would be difficult to overstate.
a. The importance of food safety to the United States.
The United States Congress has found that the safety and integrity of the United
States food supply are vital to public health, public confidence in the food supply, and the
success of the food sector of our Nation’s economy. See 21 U.S.C. § 2101 (1). Congress has
further found that the task of preserving the safety of our Nation’s food supply faces
tremendous pressures including “emerging pathogens and other contaminants and the
ability to detect all forms of contamination.” Id. at (2). There is also a growing concern
about the vulnerability of our food supplies to terrorist attacks. See App. E at 37–53.
Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States observed long ago that the “public interest
in the purity of its food is so great as to warrant the imposition of the highest standard of
care on distributors.” U.S. v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 671 (1975).
In view of the importance of the safety and integrity, the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”) was enacted and signed into law. See 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.
Relevant to the instant Motion, the FFDCA prohibits the following acts: “The introduction
or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food . . . that is adulterated
or misbranded” and/or [t]he adulteration or misbranding of any food . . . in interstate
commerce.” 21 U.S.C. § 331 (a), (b). Importantly, a food is adulterated under the FFDCA
under any of the following circumstances:


• “if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed

substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food”; or
• “if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed

therewith so as to . . . make [the quality of the food] appear better . . .
than it is”; or
• “damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner”; or
• “if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions

whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it
may have been rendered injurious to health.”
Id. at § 342(a)(3), (4), (b)(3), (4) (emphasis added).
The “highest standard of care” is imposed on those persons and businesses charged
with FFDCA compliance. U.S. v. Park, 421 U.S. at 676. Individuals face criminal
prosecution for failing to take steps to ensure FFDCA compliance. Id. at 667–78 (“We are
satisfied that the [FFDCA] imposes the highest standard of care and permits conviction
of responsible corporate officials who, in light of this standard of care, have the power to
prevent or correct violations of its provisions.”). Indeed, under the FFDCA an individual
is criminally liable without regard to whether he or she was personally aware of
wrongdoing, as long as it is established that the individual had, by reason of his or her
position in the corporation, responsibility and authority either to prevent in the first
instance, or promptly to correct, a violation of the FFDCA, and failed to do so. Id. at 672–
74. Thus, the FFDCA is designed “to make ‘distributors of food the strictest censors of
their merchandise’” by “punish[ing] ‘neglect where the law requires care, or inaction
where it imposes a duty.’” Id. at 671 (quoting Morissette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246, 255 (1952).
b. The importance of the FSMA to food safety.
Given the congressionally recognized importance of food safety to the health and
prosperity of the United States, combined with the highest standard of food safety care


imposed by the FFDCA, it is unsurprising that Congress has also enacted the FSMA’s anti-
retaliation protections for, inter alia, food-industry personnel who blow (or are perceived
by the employer as being about to blow) the whistle on non-compliance with the FFDCA.
See 21 U.S.C. § 399d.2 Neither is it shocking that the scope of FSMA protected activity is
broad and encompasses any covered employee who—“whether at the employee’s initiative
or in the ordinary course of the employee’s duties”—
• provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be

provided to the employer, [or] the Federal Government . . .
information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the
employee reasonably believes to be a violation of any provision of this
chapter or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under this
chapter, or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under this
chapter; or
• objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice,

or assigned task that the employee (or other such person) reasonably
believed to be in violation of any provision of this chapter, or any
order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under this chapter.
21 U.S.C. § 399d-(a)-(1), (4). A suit (like this one), that involves the interpretation and
enforcement of the FSMA’s antiretaliation provision—especially the scope of protected
activity under the FSMA—is a suit that carries with it the importance of the FFDCA and
food safety itself.
2. Plaintiff’s FSMA protected activity and Defendant’s retaliation.
Quality Sausage has judicially admitted that, at all times relevant, both it and Mr.
Nguyen were covered under the FSMA. Compare Complaint at 4–5 (Mr. Nguyen alleging,
in paragraphs 5 and 6, that both Quality Sausage and he were covered under the FSMA)
with Answer at 2 (Quality Sausage admitting the averments in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the

2The FSMA’s antiretaliation provision covers any person employed by an entity “engaged in the
manufacture, processing, packing, transporting, distribution, reception, holding, or importation
of food.” See 21 U.S.C. § 399d. (a).


Complaint). Relevant to the instant Motion, Mr. Nguyen’s pleading also contains a
detailed description of FSMA protected activity, and Quality Sausage denies Mr. Nguyen
engaged in FSMA protected activity. Compare Complaint at 5–15 (Mr. Nguyen
describing, in paragraph 7, his FSMA protected activity) with Answer at 2–3 (Quality
Sausage mostly denying the factual averments of paragraph 7).
Important to his FSMA protected activity, Mr. Nguyen alleges that he reported
about, objected to, and was perceived as about to report about, Quality Sausage’s alleged
use of illegal aliens supplied by a “temp service,” Archer Services. Complaint at 6–15 (Mr.
Nguyen directly or indirectly referring to illegal aliens in paragraphs 7.B.(3), (5)–(15),
(17), (19) in connection with his FSMA protected activity). While Quality Sausage admits
that Archer services supplies workers to Quality Sausage, it mostly denies Mr. Nguyen’s
allegations, including the allegation that illegal aliens are among the workers supplied to
Quality Sausage by Archer Services. See Answer at 2–3; see also App. F at 55–56.
Mr. Nguyen’s pleading also contains detailed allegations connecting his protected
activity with Quality Sausage’s retaliation (including termination) against him because of
his protected activity. Complaint at 15–22 (Mr. Nguyen describing, in paragraph 8,
Quality Sausage’s retaliation). Unsurprisingly, Quality Sausage denies that it retaliated
against Mr. Nguyen because of FSMA protected activity, and further denies that its reason
for terminating Mr. Nguyen was pretextual. Answer at 3–5 (Quality Sausage mostly
denying the factual averments of paragraph 8).
3. Mr. Nguyen’s Discovery Requests.
While admitting that it and Mr. Nguyen were covered by the FSMA’s antiretaliation
provision, Quality Sausage disputes just about every other issue. Thus, Mr. Nguyen served


discovery requests designed to obtain discovery relevant to these disputed issues. See,
e.g., Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (information is
relevant if it bears on, or “reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on, any
issue that is or may be in the case.”)
a. Discovery concerning the immigration status of workers

supplied by Archer Services.
Mr. Nguyen served requests exploring the true immigration status of Quality
Sausage’s workers supplied by Archer Services: Requests for Admission 1 and 2,
Interrogatory 3, and Requests for Production 22, 26, and 27. App. A at 11–12. Quality
Sausage has stonewalled these discovery requests with boilerplate objections, including
boilerplate relevancy objections. App. B at 16–17; App. C at 21–22; and App. D at 31–32.
Though Quality Sausage intends to dispute any suggestion that any of its Archer Services
workers are illegal aliens, it refuses to allow Mr. Nguyen to explore this issue in any
meaningful way. Why? Quality Sausage believes that the immigration status of food
industry workers can never be a part of protected activity under the FMSA—hence Quality
Sausage’s relevancy objections.
b. Discovery concerning the facts surrounding Mr. Nguyen’s

termination.
Quality Sausage admits that prior to March 2, 2018 (the day of the meeting that
resulted in Mr. Nguyen’s termination) Quality Sausage believed Mr. Nguyen was
adequately performing all his assigned job duties. Compare Complaint at 21 (paragraph
8. B. (31)) with Answer at 4 (Quality Sausage answering paragraph 8. B. (31), “Admitted”).
But on March 2, 2018 Angel Alva, a Quality Sausage employee subordinate to Mr. Nguyen,
accused Mr. Nguyen of two things: (1) treating Mr. Alva unfairly by not allowing him to


log overtime hours; and (2) asking Mr. Alva where he (Nguyen) could purchase an
unregistered handgun. Compare Complaint at 18–19 (paragraphs 8. B. (20), (21)) with
Answer at 4 (Quality Sausage answering paragraphs 8. B. (20), (21), “Admitted”). Mr.
Nguyen denied these accusations made by his subordinate employee. Compare
Complaint at 19 (paragraph 8. B. (25)) with Answer at 4 (Quality Sausage answering
paragraph 8. B. (25) “Admitted”).
Is Mr. Alva a truthful person? Quality Sausage admits that it was aware that Angel
Alva had made false statements in the past. Compare Complaint at 17 (paragraph 8. B.
(9)) with Answer at 3 (Quality Sausage answering paragraph 8. B. (9) “Admitted”). Yet,
Quality Sausage sent Mr. Nguyen home on March 2 and fired him on March 5, 2018.
Compare Complaint at 20 (paragraphs 8. B. (32), (35)) with Answer at 4–5 (Quality
Sausage answering paragraphs 8. B. (32), (35) and admitting such facts).
What was Quality Sausage’s stated reason for firing Mr. Nguyen? Quality Sausage
admits that the position it took before the Texas Workforce Commission was that it fired
Mr. Nguyen because of misconduct consisting of Mr. Nguyen asking co-employee Angel
Alva “where he (Nguyen) could obtain an unregistered handgun.” Compare Complaint at
21 (paragraphs 8. B. (39), (41)) with Answer at 5 (Quality Sausage answering paragraphs
8. B. (39), (41) “Admitted”). Quality Sausage’s new termination excuse is that “decision-
makers were aware of allegations about Plaintiff’s conduct and past issues with his
performance, but the sole reason that they made the decision to terminate his
employment was because when [Mr. Nguyen] was directly asked whether he would treat
all employees fairly, he did not answer, indicating that he did not agree to that basic
standard.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added). Quality Sausage identifies its “decision-makers” as


Todd Gilbert (the person to whom Mr. Nguyen made his FSMA complaints), Steve
O’Brien, Gene Eisen, Fred Koelweyn, and Ida Jimenez.” App. C at 16.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Nguyen’s discovery requests seek information relevant to his
performance as a Quality Sausage employee, his protected activity, the nexus between his
protected activity and his termination, and the falsity of Quality Sausage’s shifting excuses
for terminating him: Requests for Production 14–18, and 23. App. A at 10–11. Mr. Nguyen
seeks to discover relevant communications between and received by the Quality Sausage’s
“decision-makers.” Id. at 10 (requests 14–18). Mr. Nguyen also seeks the overtime hours
logged by Angel Alva since November 1, 2016, the day Mr. Nguyen started work for
Quality Sausage, to determine the average of Mr. Alva’s overtime hours during and after
Mr. Nguyen’s employment at Quality Sausage. Id. at 11 (request 23). However, Quality
Sausage has lodged unmeritorious, boilerplate objections to each of these discovery
requests as well and has either refused to respond or has responded in violation of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4). App. D at 29–31 (requests 14–18, 23).
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
The discovery sought by Mr. Nguyen falls squarely within the broad scope of
federal discovery. Mr. Nguyen respectfully submits that Quality Sausage’s objections
should be overruled and it should be ordered to fully respond to the discovery requests
that are the subject of this Motion. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv), Mr. Nguyen requests the Court for an order
compelling full and complete responses (including production) to the interrogatories and
requests for production specified above. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure


36(a)(6), Mr. Nguyen requests the Court to overrule Quality Sausage’s objections to the
requests for admission, and require it to re-answer those requests.
V. CONCLUSION
The Court should grant Mr. Nguyen’s First Motion to Compel.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ H. Dustin Fillmore III and

H. Dustin Fillmore III
State Bar No. 06996010 Jonathan F. Mitchell
Charles W. Fillmore Texas Bar No. 24075463
State Bar No. 00785861 MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, LLC Austin, Texas 78701
1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860 (512) 686-3940 (office)
Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (512) 686-3941 (fax)
(817) 332-2351 (office) jonathan@mitchell.law
(817) 870-1859 (fax)
dusty@fillmorefirm.com
chad@fillmorefirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Pursuant to and in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), the
undersigned counsel, in good faith, conferred with Defendant’s counsel (Allyn Lowell) in
an effort to obtain the discovery without court action. More specifically, on October 29,
2019, the undersigned counsel and Ms. Lowell conferred over the phone for
approximately one hour. Thereafter, on November 8, 2019, the undersigned counsel sent
to Ms. Lowell a letter in further attempt to avoid the necessity of this Motion. See App. G.
Ms. Lowell responded to the letter on November 19, 2020. Id. A review of such letter will
reveal that the undersigned counsel and Ms. Lowell were able to reach agreements that
narrowed the scope of the discovery dispute. However, the undersigned counsel and Ms.
Lowell were unable to reach agreement concerning the issues presented to the Court in
this Motion. Accordingly, this Motion is presented to the Court for determination.
/s/ H. Dustin Fillmore III


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 29, 2020, this Motion was served on Defendant, in compliance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(1),(2)(E), by filing it with the Court’s electronic-filing
system.



FORT WORTH DIVISION
LAM VAN “TOMMY” NGUYEN,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00150-P
QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.
APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S

FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
TO THE HONORABLE MARK T. PITTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Lam Van “Tommy” Nguyen files this Appendix in Support of Plaintiff’s
First Motion to Compel and Brief in Support Thereof:
Appendix Item A: Plaintiff’s First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant.
Appendix Item B: Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First

Request for Admissions.
Appendix Item C: Defendant’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s First

Interrogatories.
Appendix Item D: Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First

Request for Production.
Appendix Item E: Papers/article addressing the terrorist threat to food in the

United States:
• Targets for Terrorism: Food and Agriculture

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/targets-terrorism-
food-and-agriculture (last visited on 1-29-20);
Appendix in Support of Plaintiff’s First

Motion to Compel and Brief in Support - Page 1

• FBI Says Terrorists May Target Food Sector

https://foodsafetytech.com/news_article/fbi-says-
terrorists-may-target-food-sector/ (last visited on 1-29-
20);
• Protecting the Food Supply Chain from Terrorist Attack,

http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/ifip11-
10/iccip2010/AlvarezAMOTS10.pdf (last visited on 1-29-
20).
Appendix Item F: Archer Services Contract with Quality Sausage.
Appendix Item G: Correspondence between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s

counsel relevant to the Certificate of Conference.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ H. Dustin Fillmore III and

State Bar No. 06996010 Jonathan F. Mitchell
Charles W. Fillmore Texas Bar No. 24075463
State Bar No. 00785861 MITCHELL LAW PLLC
THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, LLC Austin, Texas 78701
1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860 (512) 686-3940 (office)
Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (512) 686-3941 (fax)
(817) 332-2351 (office) jonathan@mitchell.law
(817) 870-1859 (fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

On January 29, 2020, this Motion was served on Defendant, in compliance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(1),(2)(E), by filing it with the Court’s electronic-filing
system.
Appendix in Support of Plaintiff’s First

Motion to Compel and Brief in Support - Page 2

App. A
App. 01
The Fillmore Law Firm, L.L.P.
1200 SUMMIT AVE., SUITE 860 TELEPHONE: 817/332-2351

FORTVVORTH,TEXAS76102 FAX: 817/870-1859
August 29, 2019
Allyn Jaqua Lowell Via Email: allyn.lowell@meadslaw.com

Meaders & Lanagan Via First Class Mail
2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3625
Dallas, Texas 75201-3068
Re: Lam Van "Tommy" Nguyen v. Quality Sausage Company, LLC; Civil No. 4:19-Cv-
150-Y; pending in the United States Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort
Worth Division.
Dear Allyn
I enclose herewith the following set of written discovery served on your client this day:
Plaintiff's First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant.
I am also writing to request the depositions of the following people (in the following order)
in October of 2019:
Todd Gilbert;
Ida Jimenez; and
Angel Alva.
Please provide me dates during October of 2019 upon which I may depose the foregoing people. I
look forward to working with you to schedule these depositions.
I appreciate your attention to these matters.
App. 02
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WORTH DIVISION
Lam Van ''Tommy'' Nguyen,
Plaintiff,
V. CIVIL NO. 4:19-cV-150-Y
Quality Sausage Company, LLC,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY TO DEFENDANT
TO: Defendant Quality Sausage Company, LLC by and through its counsel of record
Allyn Jaqua Lowell, Meaders & Lanagan, 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3625, Dallas,
Texas 75201-3068.
I. Instructions
A. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff is, herewith, serving written Interrogatories
to Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Defendant is
instructed to respond in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.
B. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff is, herewith, serving Requests for Production
of Documents, Electronically Stored Information and Tangible Things pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Defendant is instructed to respond in
compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 34. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(1)(B),
Plaintiff specifies the following reasonable time and place for the inspection and
other related acts:
Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
The Fillmore Law Firm, LLP
1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
C. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff is, herewith, serving Requests for Admission
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Defendant is instructed to respond
Plaintiff's First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant - Page 1
App. 03
in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 36.
II. Definitions
Certain terms or phrases used in the following discovery requests have been
defined as follows:
A. The term "Defendant" means and refers to Quality Sausage Company, LLC.
B. The term "Plaintiff' means and refers to Plaintiff Lam Van "Tommy" Nguyen. Such
term would also include any means employed by Defendant to indirectly reference
Lam Van "Tommy" Nguyen, including a nickname and/or "Nguyen, Lam" and/or
an employee identification number and/or any other sequence of numbers or
numbers in combination with one or more letters used to refer to Lam Van
"Tommy" Nguyen.
C. The term "Alva" means and refers to Angel Alva, who has been employed by
Defendant and who is identified and discussed in Plaintiffs Original Complaint.
Such term would also include any means employed by Defendant to indirectly
reference Angel Alva, including a nickname and/or "Alva, Angel" and/or an
employee identification number and/or any other sequence of numbers or
numbers in combination with one or more letters used to refer to Angel Alva.
D. The phrase "Archer Services" means and refers to Archer Services, LLC, the local
office of which is or has been located at 1619 W. Irving Blvd, Suite #4, Irving, Texas
75061.
E. The terms "person" or "persons" means and refers to one or more natural persons.
The term does not include an "entity" as such term is defined below.
F. The term "entity" means any legal entity inquired about (other than a natural
person) including a partnership, professional association, joint venture,
corporation, governmental agency, or other form of legal entity including a
predecessor and/or successor entity of an entity.
G. The term "identify" when used in a request to identify a person means to state such
person's name and last known residential address and telephone number.
H. The term "documents" or "documented" means and refers to the notation and/or
recording and/or preservation of information or communication, without regard
to the method of notation/recording and without regard to the method, format, or
medium used to preserve such notation/recording. The term also includes any
metadata created during the notation/recording of information and/or
communication associated with the native format document.
Plaintiffs First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant - Page 2
App. 04
I. The terms "communication" or "communications" means and refers to the oral,

written, and/or electronic transmittal of any type of information from one person
to another person. Such term includes email and! or text communication.
J. The term "information" refers to one or more ideas, thoughts, concepts, facts,
opinions, notations, data (including metadata), and/or statements created,
preserved and! or conveyed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, using one or
more words, sounds, numbers, symbols, photographs, slides, video recordings,
audio recordings, electronic recordings, or any other method.
K. The term "record" means information and! or communications created, received

and! or preserved by or at the behest of Defendant by:
(1) handwriting;
(2) typewriting;
(3) printing;
(4) photostat;
(5) photograph;
(6) magnetic impulse;
(7) mechanical or electronic recording;
(8) digitized optical image;
(9) another form of data compilation;
(10) filing or storing (physically or electronically); or
(n) any form of documented communication between two or more persons.
Such term also includes any communication, including an email and/or text
message communication.
1. The term "reproduction" means an accurate and complete counterpart of an
original record that contains all documented information available from the
original record produced by:
(1) production from the same impression or the same matrix as the original;
(2) photograph, including an enlargement or miniature;
(3) mechanical or electronic re-recording;
(4) chemical reproduction;
(5) digitized optical image;
App. 05
(6) native records which disclose the metadata for such record, if such record
was originally produced by or at the behest of Defendant; and/or
(7) another technique that accurately reproduces the original.
M. The terms "discharge" and/or "discharged" as used herein means the termination,
by the employer, of an employment (employer/employee) relationship without
regard to the reason/motivation for the decision to terminate the employment
relationship.
N. The term "misconduct" as used herein refers to conduct which is considered by the
Defendant to constitute a violation of work rules, a violation of safety rules, a
violation of a policy, and/or any conduct which would and/or could subject an
employee of Defendant to any form of disciplinary action, including an oral and/or
written reprimand and/or discharge.
O. The phrase "employment record" as used herein refers to any record maintained by
Defendant as a part of a personnel file and/or other file compiled specifically for
use in the context of a person's employment at and/or for Defendant. The phrase
does not include routine records created in Defendant's business operations unless
such record has been preserved, stored and/or set aside in the context of compiling
and/or creating a personnel record and/or employment history concerning a
specific employee.
P. The term "FLSA" as used herein refers to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title 29
U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. For purposes of a request for production, the term FLSA also
includes phrases used by Defendant to directly or indirectly refer to FLSA or FLSA
issues such as, for example, "maximum hours," "overtime," "overtime pay,"
"exempt employee," "salaried employee," "non-exempt," "travel time," "hourly
employee," "misclassified employee," and/or "misclassification."
Q. The phrase "Time Card Report" means and refers to the "Time Card Report" that is
discussed in paragraph 7. B. (6) of Plaintiff's Original Complaint filed in the above
styled and numbered cause.
R. The term "Alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
The phrase "Unauthorized Alien" has the same meaning as that set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324a(h)(3)·
S. As used herein, "and/or" means both conjunctive and disjunctive.
III. Discovery Requests
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1: A reproduction of the entire personnel file and each
employment record, including time records and payroll records, concerning the Plaintiff
and/ or any record signed by Plaintiff.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff's First Set of Written Discovery to Defendant - Page 4
App. 06
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2: A reproduction of each record that constitutes or

documents an evaluation of Plaintiffs performance as an employee of Defendant and/or
other record that was generated by or at the behest of Defendant for the purpose of
evaluating Plaintiffs performance.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: A reproduction of Defendant's job description for the

positions of Director of Operations, Human Resource Manager, Plant Superintendent
that was in effect during Plaintiffs employment with Defendant.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: A reproduction of each record that (a) references

Plaintiff, (b) was obtained and/or created by or at the behest of Defendant prior to July
20, 2018 (the date of Plaintiffs Original Complaint filed with OSHA), and (c) relates to
any investigation of Plaintiff in connection with his employment for Defendant.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5: A reproduction of each record that constitutes and/or

refers to a video and/or audio recording of any conversation wherein Plaintiff is
mentioned and/or referred to.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6: A reproduction of all images, including photographs

and/ or videotapes, of Plaintiff and/ or a portion of his body.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: A reproduction of all recordings, including analog and

electronically stored recordings, of Plaintiffs voice.
RESPONSE:
App. 07
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8: A reproduction of each record constituting and/or

evidencing the existence of a witness statement of Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(C)
("Previous Statement").
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 9: A reproduction of each record constituting a witness

statement (regardless of how recorded or documented) that discusses and/or references
Plaintiff or any conduct on the part of or claim made by Plaintiff.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: A reproduction of each record that refers, relates,
and/ or pertains to Plaintiff that Defendant has obtained by and/or with:
A. a subpoena;
B. an authorization Oimited or otherwise); or
C. a deposition upon written questions.
RESPONSE:
INTERROGATORY 1: With regard to Defendant's decision to discharge Plaintiff on or

about March 5, 2018, please provide the following information:
A. Identify each person who participated in making the decision to discharge Plaintiff
and identify the person(s) who made the final/ultimate decision to discharge
Plaintiff.
ANSWER:
B. Identify each record, including employment record, that was reviewed and/or
considered in connection with making the decision to discharge Plaintiff.
ANSWER:
C. Identify each reason and/or fact that formed any part of the decision to discharge
Plaintiff and, if any misconduct on the part of Plaintiff formed any part of the basis
for discharging Plaintiff, include in such answer an identification of any law and/or
work rule, safety rule, policy, procedure, protocol, and/or guideline that Defendant
believed to have been breached by Plaintiff and a reasonable description of
Plaintiffs acts or omissions that constituted misconduct in Defendant's view.
ANSWER:
App. 08
INTERROGATORY NO.2: Was Plaintiff guilty of any act of misconduct that was not used
as a basis for the decision to discharge Plaintiff on or about March 5, 2018 but supports
your affirmative defense of "the after-acquired evidence doctrine"? Ifyour answer is "no,"
then you do not need to answer this interrogatory. But if you believe Plaintiff was guilty
of misconduct-other than any misconduct described in response to Interrogatory 1 C
(above)-then for each incident of misconduct provide the following information:
A. Describe in full and complete detail such incident of misconduct.
ANSWER:
B. State the date upon which such incident of misconduct occurred.
ANSWER:
C. Identify each record in which such act of misconduct was documented.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11: A reproduction of each record that Defendant believes
and/ or contends evidences that Plaintiff was guilty of misconduct while employed by
Defendant, including all records that support Defendant's answer to Interrogatory 1
and/or 2.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12: A reproduction of each record that constitutes and/ or
documents a communication between Defendant and the Texas Workforce Commission
in connection with Plaintiffs application for unemployment compensation. Note: the
scope of this request includes each record Defendant provided to and received from the
Texas Workforce Commission in connection with Plaintiff and/or Claim ID.: 03-04-18
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13: A reproduction of each record that (a) Defendant
provided to the United States Department of Labor and/or the Occupational Health and
Safety Administration (OSHA) and/or Justin Williams, and (b) pertains to Plaintiff
and/or his complaint against Defendant, 6-1730-18-151.
RESPONSE:
App. 09
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14: A reproduction of each record that (a) constitutes or
documents a communication about Plaintiff, (b) was created after November 1,2016, and
(c) was created and/or received by any of the following persons: Anne Smalling, Todd
Gilbert, Ida Jimenez, Angel Alva, Gene Eisen, Fred Koelewyn, Shawn West, and/or Steve
O'Brien.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: A reproduction of each record that constitutes a

communication from Plaintiff to Todd Gilbert, Ida Jimenez, Alva, Gene Eisen, Fred
Koelewyn, Shawn West, and/or Steve O'Brien.
RESPONSE:
employment record concerning Alva.
RESPONSE:
documents a communication about Alva, (b) was created after November 1,2016, and (c)
was created and/or received by any of the following persons: Todd Gilbert, Ida Jimenez,
Gene Eisen, Fred Koelewyn, Anne Smalling, Shawn West, and/or Steve O'Brien.
RESPONSE:

documents a communication between Alva and any of the following persons: Todd
Gilbert, Ida Jimenez, Gene Eisen, Fred Koelewn, Steve O'Brien, Anne Smalling, Shawn
West, and/or Erica Perez.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 19: A reproduction of each record (a) constituting any
policy and/or procedure of Defendant, (b) referencing the FLSA and/or overtime
compensation, and (c) that was in effect at any time during Plaintiffs employment with
Defendant.
RESPONSE:
App. 10
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20: In paragraph 8. B. (14) of Plaintiffs Original

Complaint in the above styled and numbered cause, Plaintiff makes the following factual
assertion: "No Quality Sausage rule or policy required Nguyen to allow Alva to log or work
overtime hours." Defendant's response to such factual assertion is as follows: "Denied."
Please produce a reproduction of each rule or policy of Defendant's that required Nguyen
to allow Alva to log or work overtime hours.
RESPONSE:
progressive disciplinary policy and/or procedure of Defendant and any forms associated
with such progressive disciplinary policy (i.e., oral reprimand forms, written reprimand
forms, termination forms), and (b) that was in effect at any time during Plaintiffs
employment with Defendant.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22: A reproduction of each Time Card Report (a)
documenting the names of persons supplied to Defendant by Archer Services, and (b) that
was created between November 1, 2016 and March 5, 2018.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 23: A reproduction of each Time Card Report concerning
Alva since November 1, 2016.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff since November 1, 2016.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 25: A reproduction of each record that constitutes and/ or
documents a contract and/or agreement between Defendant and Archer Services.
RESPONSE:

communication between Defendant (including Anne Smalling, Ida Jimenez, Todd
App. 11
Gilbert, Gene Eisen, Fred Koelewyn, and/or Steve O'Brien) and Archer Services
(including Ruben Lozano and/or Elva Lisa Lozano) since Archer Services began supplying
persons (workers) to Defendant.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27: For each person supplied by Archer Services to
Defendant between November 1, 2016 and March 5, 2018, produce a reproduction of each
original Form 1-9 and all supporting documentation for verifying employment
authorization and identity for such person.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 1: With regard to the persons supplied by Archer Services
to Defendant between November 1, 2016 and March 5, 2018, one or more of such persons
were Aliens during such time.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2: With regard to the persons supplied by Archer Services
to Defendant between November 1, 2016 and March 5, 2018, one or more of such persons
were Unauthorized Aliens during such time.
RESPONSE:
INTERROGATORY NO.3: With regard to the persons supplied by Archer Services to

Defendant between November 1, 2016 and March 5,2018, please provide the following
information:
A. Identify each person who was an Alien at any point during such time.
ANSWER:
B. Identify each person who was an Unauthorized Alien at any point during such time.
ANSWER:
C. Identify the records Defendant reviewed in order to answer Interrogatory 3 A. and
3B.
ANSWER:
App. 12
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: An electronic reproduction of the following

records produced in a format that preserves and reproduces all metadata associated with
each record, including such electronic data as the identification of the computer(s) used
in connection with the drafting and/or revisions of the record, the person(s) responsible
for drafting and/ or revising the loan documents, the dates (timestamps) the records were
created and/or revised, and the revisions made by such person(s).
A. The record an image of which has been made and produced with bate stamped QSC
181.
RESPONSE:
B. The record bate stamped QSC 177.
RESPONSE:
C. The record bate stamped QSC 175-176.
RESPONSE:
D. The record bate stamped QSC 160.
RESPONSE:
App. 13
Respectfully submitted.
Texas Bar No. 0 996010

CHARLES W. FILLMORE
Texas Bar No. 00785861
The Fillmore Law Firm, LLP
(817) 332-2351 (office)
(817) 870-1859 (fax)
JONATHAN F. MITCHELL
Texas Bar No. 24075463
Mitchell Law PLLC
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 686-3940 (office)
(512) 686-3941 (fax)
ionathan@mitchell.law
Counsellor Plaintiff
I certify that on August 29, 2019, I served Plaintiffs First Set of Written Discovery
to Defendant upon Defendant in compliance with Federal Rille of Civil Procedure 5 (b) by
emailing (to the email address shown below) and mailing (to the address shown below)_
such document to Defendant's lead counsel of record as follows:
ALLYN JAQUA LoWELL

Meaders & Lanagan
Dallas, Texas 75201-3068
allyn.lowell@meaderslaw.com
App. 14
App. B
App. 15

FORT WORTH DIVISION
LAM VAN "TOMMY" NGUYEN, §

§
Plaintiff, §
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
VS. § 4: 19-cv-001S0-Y
§
QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC, §
§
Defendant. §
DEFENDANT QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC'S OBJECTIONS

AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
TO: Lam Van "Tommy" Nguyen, Plaintiff, by through his attorney of record, H. Dustin
Fillmore III, The Fillmore Law Firm, LLC, 1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860, Fort Worth,
Texas 76102.
Defendant Quality Sausage Company, LLC ("Defendant" and/or Quality Sausage")
provides the following objections and answers to Plaintiffs First Request for Admissions in
compliance with Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 1: With regard to the persons supplied by Archer Services to
Defendant between November 1, 2016 and March 5, 2018, one or more of such persons were
Aliens during such time.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Request because it is not relevant and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this
Request because it is not proportional to the needs of the case, in that it would require Defendant
to review hard copy files of hundreds of temporary employees to determine the citizenship
statuses listed on each valid work authorization.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 2: With regard to the persons supplied by Archer Services to
Defendant between November 1, 2016 and March 5, 2018, one or more of such persons were
Unauthorized Aliens during such time.
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS - Page 1
App. 16
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Request because it is not relevant and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving these
objections, denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
ALLYN JAQUA LOWELL

State Bar No. 24064143
PAUL M. LANAGAN
MEADERS & LANAGAN
Dallas, TX 75201-3068
Telephone: (214) 754-8233 / Facsimile: (214) 721-6289
Email: allyn.lowell@meaderslaw.com
Eservice: eservice@meaderslaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC
This is to certify that a true copy of Defendant Quality Sausage Company, LLC's
Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions have been forwarded via
email to Plaintiffs counsel on this the 30th day of September 2019, as follows:

Charles W. Fillmore
The Fillmore Law Firm, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALLYN JAQUA LOWELL
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS - Page 2
App. 17
App. C
App. 18

FORT WORTH DIVISION

§
Plaintiff, §
§ CIVIL ACTION NO
VS. § 4: 19-cv-00150-Y
§
§
Defendant. §
DEFENDANT QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC'S 0 JECTIONS

AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGAlTORIES
Fillmore Ill, The Fillmore Law Firm, LLC, 1200 Summit Avenue, uite 860, Fort Worth,
Texas 76102.
Defendant Quality Sausage Company, LLC ("Defendant" and/or "QSC") provides the
following objections and answers to Plaintiffs First Inten-ogatories in compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I.
OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO FIRST INTERROGA ORIES
INTERROGATORY 1: With regard to Defendant's decision to discharg Plaintiff on or about

March 5,2018, please provide the following information:
A. Identify each person who participated in making the decision to discharge Plaintiff
and identify the person(s) who made the final/ultimate ecision to discharge
Plaintiff.
ANSWER:
Todd Gilbert, Steve O'Brien, Gene Eisen, Fred Koelewyn, and Ida Jimenez participated
in the decision to discharge Plaintiff, and they collectively made the [mal de ision.
B. Identify each record, including employment record, that as reviewed and/or

considered in connection with making the decision to discharg Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 1
App. 19
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory insofar as its multiple, d screte parts constitute
multiple interrogatories.
Subject to and without waiving this objection, the individuals i entified in answer to
Interrogatory IA did not review documents when discussing and then deciding to terminate
Plaintiff's employment.
C. Identify each reason andlor fact that formed any part of th decision to discharge
Plaintiff and, if any misconduct on the part of Plaintiff form d any part of the basis
for discharging Plaintiff, include in such answer an identific tion of any law andlor
work rule, safety rule, policy, procedure, protocol, andlor g ideline that Defendant
believed to have been breached by Plaintiff and a rea onable description of
Plaintiffs acts or omissions that constituted misconduct in De endant's view.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory insofar as its multiple, di crete parts constitute
mUltiple interrogatories.
Subject to and without waiving this objection, the individuals i entified in answer to
Interrogatory IA decided to terminate Plaintiffs employment because f his misconduct in
refusing to agree to treat subordinate employees fairly. The decision- akers were aware of
allegations about Plaintiff's conduct and past issues with his performanc , but the sole reason
that they made the decision to terminate his employment was because whe Plaintiff was directly
asked whether he would h'eat all employees fairly, he did not answer, ind eating that he did not
agree to that basic standard. See Defendant's employee handbook, produce in patt as QSC 146.
I
INTERROGATORY NO.2: Was Plaintiff guilty of any act of misconduct hat was not used as a
basis for the decision to discharge Plaintiff on or about March 5, 20 8 but supports your
affirmative defense of "the after-acquired evidence doctrine"? If your answe is "no," then you do
not need to answer this interrogatory. But if you believe Plaintiff was guil of misconduct-other
than any misconduct described in response to Interrogatory lC (above)-the for each incident of
misconduct provide the following information:
A. Describe in full and complete detail such incident of miscondu t.
ANSWER:
Plaintiff requested and received personal loans from his sUbordin~te employee Hemant
Golwala (Maintenance Supervisor, 2nd Shift) in 2017. By Chrishnas of 2017, Golwala had lent
Plaintiff $10,000, when Plaintiff asked for another $5000 to bring his tota to $15,000. Plaintiff
told Golwala he would repay him by the end of February, approximately wo months later. To
date, he has not repaid Golwala.
Plaintiff requested and received personal loans from his subord nate employee Luis
Montero (Lead Person). Approximately two or three months after Plaint ff began working at
Quality Sausage Company (February 2017), he asked Montero for $300, hich Montero gave

PLAINTIFF'S FmST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 2
App. 20
him. Plaintiff later repaid this amount. In March 2017, Plaintiff requested and received a loan of
$500 from Montero, which he later repaid. Montero gave Plaintiff a ditional loans that he
requested, $50 in April 2017 and $60 in May 2017, which Plaintiff neve , repaid. In May 2017,
Plaintiff asked Montero for a loan of $2000, but Montero told him that he did not have that kind
of money.
In July 2017, Plaintiff asked Jorge Lopez (Production Supervisor to co-sign a car loan
with him. After Plaintiffs termination from Quality Sausage Comp ny, Lopez contacted
Plaintiff and asked him to remove him from the loan, but Plaintiff refu ed, saying he did not
have any money. Lopez remains subject to financial risk if Plaintiff defaul on his payments.
In October 2017, Plaintiff requested a loan of$10,000.00 from MeI'ssa Lozano, whom he
knew through his employment at Quality Sausage Company, because ' ozano works for its
temporary employee provider, Archer Services. Lozano told Plaintiff th t she could only loan
him $1500.00, which he accepted. He told her he would repay her when h received his bonus in
2018. To date, Plaintiff has not contacted Lozano to repay her.
B. State the date upon which such incident of misconduct occUrI'd.
ANSWER:
Defendant incorporates by reference its answer to Interrogatory 2A which includes dates

of the misconduct therein described.
C. Identify each record in which such act of misconduct was doc mented.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory insofar as its multiple, di crete parts constitute
multiple interrogatories.
Subject to and without waiving this objection, Defendant becam aware of Plaintiffs
misconduct verbally after his termination. To the extent documents e 'st which reflect the
misconduct described in answer to Interrogatory 2A, Plaintiff has possessi n, custody, or control
of those documents.
INTERROGATORY NO.3: With regard to the persons supplied b Archer Services to

Defendant between November 1, 2016 and March 5, 2018, please provide the ollowing information:
A. Identify each person who was an Alien at any point during sue time.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this mterrogatory because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence, and it seeks information that is neither relevant nor
proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant further objects to this Inte ogatory because it is
overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and invasive of the privacy rights of individuals
who are not parties to this suit.

PIJAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES - Page 3
App. 21
B. Identify each person who was an Unauthorized Alien at any oint during such time.
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this IntelTogatory insofar as its multiple, d~ crete parts constitute
multiple interrogatories. Defendant further objects to this IntelTogato. y because it is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, a it seeks information
that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. Defendan further objects to this
IntelTogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassin and invasive of the
privacy rights of individuals who are not parties to this suit.
C. Identify the records Defendant reviewed in order to answer nterrogatory 3A. and
3B.
ANSWER:
Defendant incorporates by reference each and every of its object" ns to Interrogatories

3A and 3B.
ALLYN JAQUA LOWELL

PAUL M. LANAGAN
MEADERS & LANAGAN
Dallas, TX 75201-3068
Telephone: (214) 754-8233/ Facsi iIe: (214) 721-6289
Email: allyn.lowell@meaderslaw.om
Eservice: eservice@meaderslaw.c m
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDAN

QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPA , LLC

App. 22
This is to certifY that a true copy of Defendant Quality Saus ge Company, LLC's
Objections And Answers to Plaintiffs First Interrogatories have been fi rwarded via email to
Plaintiffs counsel on this the 30th day of September 2019, as follows:
H. Dustin Fillmore III Jonathan F. Mitchell

Charles W. Fillmore Mitchell Law PLLC
The Fillmore Law Firm, LLC 111 Congress Avenue Suite 400
1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860 Austin, Texas 78701
Fort Worth, Texas 76102 jonathan@mitchell.lm
Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Plaintiff
ALLYN JAQUA LOWELL

App. 23
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally ppem"ed Ida Jimenez
who, being by me duly sworn, stated that she is Human Resource Mrager for Defendant
Quality Sausage Company, LLC and thus has personal knowledge of tie above-entitled and
numbered cause and that she is in all respects authorized and qualified tf. make and sign this
Verification; that she has read the above and foregoing Defendant's Objections and Answers to
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, and that the fuets stated in these ans~ers to Interrogatories
are true and correct, and as to those matters which are based on inform6tion and belief, she
believes them to be true.
QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPAN ,LLC
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by the said -'(;\Y6'l~~=n--=-'--'----'--~~
on this the ;J17L day of J,~, 2019, to certifY which witness my hand and seal of
office.
JANETT M 8 LLMAN
Notary ID.;l S024136
My Comm,s5; n ExpIrE'S
October 2 2021

App. 24
App. D
App. 25

FORT WORTH DIVISION

§
Plaintiff, §
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
VS. § 4: 19-cv-001S0-Y
§
§
Defendant. §
DEFENDANT QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC'S OBJECTIONS

AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Fillmore III, The Fillmore Law Firm, LLC, 1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860, Fort Worth,
Texas 76102.
Defendant Quality Sausage Company, LLC ("Defendant" and/or "QSC") provides the
following objections and answers to Plaintiffs First Request for Production in compliance with
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
employment record, including time records and payroll records, concerning the Plaintiff and/or
any record signed by Plaintiff.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad and insufficiently limited in
time and scope as to "any record signed by Plaintiff."
Subject to and without waiving these objections, see Defendant's production of

documents. 1
I Defendant's response that it has produced or will produce documents in response to any of Plaintiffs requests for
production indicates Defendant's intent to produce copies or electronically stored information instead of permitting
inspection, as permitted under Rule 24(b)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR

PRODUCTION - Page 1
App. 26

documents an evaluation of Plaintiffs performance as an employee of Defendant and/or other
record that was generated by or at the behest of Defendant for the purpose of evaluating
Plaintiffs performance.
RESPONSE:
See Defendant's production of documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: A reproduction of Defendant's job description for the

positions of Director of Operations, Human Resource Manager, Plant Superintendent that was in
effect during Plaintiffs employment with Defendant.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: A reproduction of each record that (a) references

Plaintiff, (b) was obtained and/or created by or at the behest of Defendant prior to July 20, 2018
(the date of Plaintiffs Original Complaint filed with OSHA), and (c) relates to any investigation
of Plaintiff in connection with his employment for Defendant.
RESPONSE:

refers to a video and/or audio recording of any conversation wherein Plaintiff is mentioned
and/or referred to.
RESPONSE:
Defendant has no responsive documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6: A reproduction of all images, including photographs

and/or videotapes, of Plaintiff and/or a portion of his body.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: A reproduction of all recordings, including analog and

electronically stored recordings, of Plaintiffs voice.
RESPONSE:

PRODUCTION - Page 2
App. 27
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8: A reproduction of each record constituting and/or

evidencing the existence of a witness statement of Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(C)
("Previous Statement").
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 9: A reproduction of each record constituting a witness

statement (regardless of how recorded or documented) that discusses and/or references Plaintiff
or any conduct on the part of or claim made by Plaintiff.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: A reproduction of each record that refers, relates, and/or
pertains to Plaintiff that Defendant has obtained by and/or with:
A. a subpoena;
B. an authorization (limited or otherwise); or
C. a deposition upon written questions.
RESPONSE:
Defendant has no responsive documents at this time.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11: A reproduction of each record that Defendant believes
and/or contends evidences that Plaintiff was guilty of misconduct while employed by Defendant,
including all records that support Defendant's answer to Interrogatory 1 and/or 2.
RESPONSE:
documents a communication between Defendant and the Texas Workforce Commission in
connection with Plaintiffs application for unemployment compensation. Note: the scope of this
request includes each record Defendant provided to and received from the Texas Workforce
Commission in connection with Plaintiff and/or Claim ID.: 03-04-18
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13: A reproduction of each record that (a) Defendant
provided to the United States Department of Labor and/or the Occupational Health and Safety

PRODUCTION - Page 3
App. 28
Administration (OSHA) and/or Justin Williams, and (b) pertains to Plaintiff and/or his complaint
against Defendant, 6-1730-18-151.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Request because it seeks information accessible to Plaintiff by

submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to OSHA.
documents a communication about Plaintiff, (b) was created after November 1, 2016, and (c)
was created and/or received by any of the following persons: Anne Smalling, Todd Gilbert, Ida
Jimenez, Angel Alva, Gene Eisen, Fred Koelewyn, Shawn West, and/or Steve O'Brien.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad, insufficiently limited in time
and scope, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not proportional to
the needs of this case. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
not in the custody, control, or possession of Defendant, like, for example, any records of Angel
Alva, who does not have an email address or cell phone through Quality Sausage Company,
LLC.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant will produce communications
between and among Gilbert, Jimenez, Eisen, Koelewyn, West, and/or O'Brien created between
March 5, 2017 and July 19, 2018 that discuss Plaintiffs job performance, discipline, or
termination.

communication from Plaintiff to Todd Gilbert, Ida Jimenez, Alva, Gene Eisen, Fred Koelewyn,
Shawn West, and/or Steve O'Brien.
RESPONSE:
LLC.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant will produce emails from
Plaintiff to the above named individuals if Plaintiff more narrowly tailors his request in time and
scope.
employment record concerning Alva.

PRODUCTION - Page 4
App. 29
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence and because it seeks a non-party individual's confidential
information in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, see Defendant's September 30, 2019
production of documents, including the personnel file of Angel Alva with his sensitive personal
identifying information redacted.
documents a communication about Alva, (b) was created after November 1, 2016, and (c) was
created andlor received by any of the following persons: Todd Gilbert, Ida Jimenez, Gene Eisen,
Fred Koelewyn, Anne Smalling, Shawn West, andlor Steve O'Brien.
RESPONSE:
admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client communication privilege.

documents a communication between Alva and any of the following persons: Todd Gilbert, Ida
Jimenez, Gene Eisen, Fred Koelewn, Steve O'Brien, Anne Smalling, Shawn West, andlor Erica
Perez.
RESPONSE:
LLC.
policy andlor procedure of Defendant, (b) referencing the FLSA andlor overtime compensation,
and (c) that was in effect at any time during Plaintiff s employment with Defendant.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Request because it is not relevant andlor reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving this objection, see Defendant's production of documents.

PRODUCTION - Page 5
App. 30
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20: In paragraph 8. B. (14) of Plaintiffs Original Complaint

in the above styled and numbered cause, Plaintiff makes the following factual assertion: "No
Quality Sausage rule or policy required Nguyen to allow Alva to log or work overtime hours."
Defendant's response to such factual assertion is as follows: "Denied." Please produce a
reproduction of each rule or policy of Defendant's that required Nguyen to allow Alva to log or
work overtime hours.
RESPONSE:
progressive disciplinary policy and/or procedure of Defendant and any forms associated with
such progressive disciplinary policy (i.e., oral reprimand forms, written reprimand forms,
termination forms), and (b) that was in effect at any time during Plaintiffs employment with
Defendant.
RESPONSE:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22: A reproduction of each Time Card Report (a)
documenting the names of persons supplied to Defendant by Archer Services, and (b) that was
created between November 1,2016 and March 5, 2018.
RESPONSE:
the needs of this case. Defendant fmiher objects to this Request because it seeks non-party
individuals' identifying information in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Alva since November 1, 2016.
RESPONSE:
admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Request because it seeks a non-party
individual's identifying information in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, see Defendant's production of

documents.
Plaintiff since November 1,2016.

PRODUCTION - Page 6
App. 31
RESPONSE:
Defendant has no responsive documents as salaried employees do not have time card
reports.
documents a contract and/or agreement between Defendant and Archer Services.
RESPONSE:

communication between Defendant (including Anne Smalling, Ida Jimenez, Todd Gilbert, Gene
Eisen, Fred Koelewyn, and/or Steve O'Brien) and Archer Services (including Ruben Lozano
and/or Elva Lisa Lozano) since Archer Services began supplying persons (workers) to
Defendant.
RESPONSE:
the needs of this case.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27: For each person supplied by Archer Services to
Defendant between November 1, 2016 and March 5, 2018, produce a reproduction of each
original Form 1-9 and all supporting documentation for verifying employment authorization and
identity for such person.
RESPONSE:
admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Request because it is not propOliional to
the needs of this case.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states that Archer Services,
not Defendant, has possession, custody, and control of reproductions of Form 1-9 of temporary
employees it places with Defendant. Archer Services utilizes E-Verify to confirm employment
authorization for each such temporary employee it supplies to Defendant, and Defendant stores
those confirmations in hard copy in individual files for each such temporary employee.

PRODUCTION - Page 7
App. 32
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: An electronic reproduction of the following records
produced in a format that preserves and reproduces all metadata associated with each record,
including such electronic data as the identification of the computer(s) used in connection with the
drafting and/or revisions of the record, the person(s) responsible for drafting and/or revising the
loan documents, the dates (timestamps) the records were created and/or revised, and the
revisions made by such person(s).
A. The record an image of which has been made and produced with bate stamped
QSC 181.
RESPONSE:
discovery of admissible evidence, is unduly burdensome, and is not proportional to the needs of
this case. Defendant further objects to this Request because it is vague and fails to identify with
reasonable particularity the format of the electronically stored information sought.
B. The record bate stamped QSC 177.
RESPONSE:
C. The record bate stamped QSC 175- 176.
RESPONSE:
D. The record bate stamped QSC 160.
RESPONSE:

PRODUCTION - Page 8
App. 33
ALLYN JAQUA LOWELL

PAUL M. LANAGAN
MEADERS & LANAGAN
Dallas, TX 75201-3068
Telephone: (214) 754-8233 / Facsimile: (214) 721-6289
Email: allyn.lowell@meaderslaw.com
Eservice: eservice@meaderslaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC

PRODUCTION - Page 9
App. 34
This is to certify that a true copy of Defendant Quality Sausage Company, LLC's
Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Request for Production have been forwarded via
email to Plaintiffs counsel on this the 30th day of September 2019, in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
ALLYN JAQUA LOWELL

PRODUCTION - Page 10
App. 35
App. E
App. 36
1/27/2020 Targets for Terrorism: Food and Agriculture I Council on Foreign Relations
co UN elL On.,
FOREIGN
RELATIONS
Targets for Terrorism: Food and Agriculture

Backgrounder by dr.org editorial staff Editorial Staff
Last updated January 1) 2006
This publication is now archived.
Is America's food su pply safe from terrorist attacks?
No. The United States spends more than $1 billion every year to keep America's food
supply safe, but even without terrorism, food-borne diseases cause about 5,000 deaths
and 325,000 hospitalizations each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson
told a congressional terrorism panel in November 2001 that he was "particularly
concerned" about food-related terrorism, which could involve either attempts to
introduce poisons into the food supply or attacks that would ruin domestically
cultivated crops or livestock.
Have there been past terrorist attacks in the United

States involving food?
Yes. In 1984, members of an Oregon religious commune-followers of an Indian-born

guru named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh-tried to influence a local election by poisoning
salad bars with salmonella bacteria to sicken voters. Although no one died, 751 people
hUps://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/targets-terrorism-food-and-agriculture 1/4
App. 37
became ill. There have been a couple of other attempts to deliberately contaminate
food with biological agents since World War II, but these have been criminal acts, not
terrorism.
There have been no documented terrorist attacks on U.S. agriculture. But the number
and variety of food-borne illnesses and crop and livestock diseases make it hard to
distinguish terrorist attacks from natural events. It took a year for U.S. officials to
conclude that the Oregon attack was deliberate.
How might terrorists attack the food supply?
The Oregon attack took place at local restaurants, near the end of the food-distribution
chain, but an attack could occur at any point between farm and table. Imported food
could be tainted with biological or chemical agents before entering the United States,
or toxins could be introduced at a domestic food-processing plant. Crops or livestock
raised on American soil could also be targeted. Experts also worry that terrorists might
try to spread false rumors about unsafe foods via the mass media or the Internet.
How much damage could an attack on the u.s. food

supply cause?
Some attacks could cause illnesses and deaths, depending upon how quickly the
contamination was detected. But even attacks that don't directly affect human health
could cause panic, undermine the economy, and even erode confidence in the U.S.
government, experts say. Agriculture exports amount to about $140 billion a year, and
many American jobs have at least an indirect connection to food and agriculture. A
1970S plot by Palestinian terrorists to inject mercury into Jaffa oranges reduced Israel's
exports of citrus fruit to Europe by 40 percent, and a 1989 incident in which a shipment
of Chilean grapes to the United States tested positive for cyanide led to international
trade suspensions that cost Chile $200 million. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/targets-terrorism-food-and-agriculture 2/4
App. 38
estimates that an attack on livestock-a successful attempt to infect American cattle

with a contagious disease such as foot-and-mouth, for example-could cause between
$10 billion and $30 billion in damage to the u.s. economy.
What kinds of terrorists might mount a food-related

attack?
We don't know. Concerns about such attacks have grown since September 11. Some
forms of attack wouldn't require a large or highly skilled organization and could come
from foreign groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, domestic terrorists, eco-
terrorists, a cult-like group such as Oregon's Rajneeshees, or an unaffiliated individual-
anyone who wanted to undermine the economy and spread panic. Elsewhere, groups
that have threatened agroterrorist attacks include Tamil militants in Sri Lanka and
British activists opposed to chemical and biological warfare.
Who is in charge of food safety?
The two main agencies are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is part of
the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), a part of the Department of Agriculture. The FSIS handles meat,
poultry, and egg inspections, and the FDA inspects everything else. State and local
agencies, other federal bodies, and foreign inspection services are also sometimes
involved in food safety.
Many experts have long favored consolidating food-safety programs in a single agency,
and calls for a consolidation have been repeated since September 11. But food
manufacturers and some members of Congress have grown accustomed to the current
system and oppose its overhaul.
https:/Iwww.cfr.org/backgrounder/targets-terrorism-food-and-agriculture 3/4
App. 39
Food
Safet Tech [fl ~_--'
searC_h_fo_r_: _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Comllilance Food Labs Food Manufacturing Foodservlce & Retalr---FSMA GFSI Sustalnablllb' Resource Centers
Events & Weblnars FOODFlix Food SafetY. Consortium
Food Labs
December 1.4, 201.6
FBI Says Terrorists May Target

Food Sector
By Marla Fontanazza 2 Comments
Much vulnerability exists within the food indus!I}"

How can your company mitigate the risk?
Many people associateShare thiS:! Facebook I! Linkedln ] [ TWitter] [ G~

terrorism with spectacular~
Email
attacks such as those that
occurred on September II.
However, lone wolf attacks are far more likely to happen in what has unfortunately
become the new normal. "The last thing on your mind is a terrorist being interested in
food. It does exist, and bad guys do have an interest in this area," said Special Agent
Scott Mahloch, weapons of mass destruction coordinator for the Chicago division of
the FBI during the Food SafetY. Consortiumlast week. What does this mean tor the
food industry?
According to the
Department of Homeland
SA Scott Malt/oeft will
Security, with 2.2 million
farms and 900,000 present FBI's Role in Food
restaurants in the United
Defense on November 29 at the
States, the food and
agricultural sector 2017 Food Safety Consortium
accounts tor 115 of the
national economic
I Learn more
activity. There are
App. 40
several industry targets for terrorism: Food processing facilities; food storage and
distribution; restaurants, grocery stores and markets; commercial facilities; and cruise
lines.
While Mahloch emphasized that there is no imminent threat to the food sector, one of
the biggest areas of concern for this particular industry is the insider threat. 'The
insider threat is that person [who] knows the facilities, processes, distribution network
and can cause the greatest impact," said Mahloch. This can be in the form of a
disgruntled employee who has or can gain access to equipment or other areas of a
facility that would otherwise be secure and then introduce contaminants into food
products. Mahloch stressed the important role that a food company plays in
monitoring employees and reporting any deviation from normal behavior. This is not
an easy task-in fact, it is the most difficult threat to detect, and the most difficult
threat to protect against, Mahloch pointed out.
Insider Threat: The threat posed by an individual who exploits his/het

position, credentials or employment to achieve trusted access to the
means, processes, equipment, material, location, facility and/or targe
necessary to carry out a terrorist action.
The likelihood of an employee becoming an insider threat increases with a variety of

personal factors, including financial need, feelings of anger or revenge, being a
sympathizer with terrorist ideology, having problems at work, compulsive and
destructive behavior, ego and family issues. Food organizations also open themselves
up to vulnerabilities via the following:
• Allowing easy access to restricted or sensitive areas within a facility (i.e., not
limiting personnel access to certain areas or clearly labeling access controls)
• Failure to have physical security controls over personal items that are either
brought into or taken from the workplace
• Vague security policieslLax security perception
• High employee turnover
• Lack of proper employee vetting
• Failure to train employees in proper security protocols
• Failure to have consequences for violating security policy
Surveillance
When assessing the insider threat, what should food companies look for in an eff'Oli to
protect their facility and products? "You're the first line of defense," said Mahloch.
"We get a lot of phone calls where people run things by us. If something doesn't seem
right, say something." He provided several key behaviors that may be characterized as
suspicious in some instances:
• Someone taking a photograph or video, or notes/sketches, of food processing

operations or sensitive areas
• Someone attempting to gain information about company operations, especially
related to security and personnel, in person, or by phone or email
• Someone conducting surveillance of self services areas such as salad bars,
condiment stands or open bulk containers
• Shipping area: Unscheduled deliveries, driver who is unfamiliar with facility
delivery protocols, items left on dock at unusual hours, illegally parked or
App. 41
unattended vehicles, or shipping documents that don't match
Be Proactive
Companies can take several preventive steps to protect their facilities, products and
personnel. Proactive measures include:
• Monitoring products for evidence of tampering, resealing or damage

• Securing open containers of food or ingredients in storage areas
• Controlling access to specific areas offacility by delivety persOlUlel , employees,
vendors and contractors, and general visitors
• Securing loading dock area, and standardize delivery and pickup protocol
• Developing a written food defense plan
• Training employees, contractors and vendors to recognize suspicious activity and
report it accordingly
Take Action
It's important to stay alert and be aware-employee observations are critical, said
Mahloch. Once suspicious activity is observed, the facility security officer or manager
should be notified, and fi'om there a decision can be made on whether external parties
need to be involved. In general, state and local partners investigate an incident before
the FBI gets involved.
"When it comes to intentional contamination [or a] terrorist incident-that's an area

that we investigate and ultimately prosecute," said Mahloch. He emphasized the FBI
is not a regulatory agency, so it would not show up at a facility due to a company's
lack of compliance to FSMA, for example. The agency is interested in food defense
and intentional contamination that has the purpose of causing harm.
For more information about the FBI's role in food defense, the agency has a document
on its website that summarizes food defense for the industry', including some of the
above-mentioned factors to look for when trying to identifying suspicious behavior. If
a company wants to report suspicious activity that is not an emergency, it can call 1-
855-TELL-FBI (1-855-835-5324) .
App. 42
Chapter 11
PROTECTING THE FOOD SUPPLY

CHAIN FROM TERRORIST ATTACK
Maria Jesus Alvarez, Ainara Alvarez, Maria Carla De Maggio, Ainhoa

Oses, Marcella Ttombetta and Roberto Setola
Abstract The food supply chain is a critical infrastructure that is an attractive

target for terrorist attacks. Despite its importance, relatively little re-
search has focused on improving the security of the food supply chain
infrastructure. This is largely due to a lack of awareness on the part of
food supply chain stakeholders and authorities about the threats. This
paper describes a methodology for assessing the risk associated with
threats to the food supply chain, with the goal of enhancing awareness
and helping develop appropriate security measures.
Keywords: Food supply chain, threats, food defense, risk assessment
1. Introduction
The food supply chain is an attractive target for terrorist attacks. In the
aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the World Health Organization
(WHO) stressed the risks due to food terrorism. Of particular concern is "an
act or threat of deliberate contamination of food for human consumption with
biological, chemical or physical agents or radionuclear materials for the purpose
of causing injury or death to civilian populations and/or disrupting social,
economic or political stability" [8]. The need to protect the food supply chain
was also underscored by Resolution WHA 55.16 [24] at the Fifty-Fifth World
Health Assembly, which stressed that food is a likely and highly effective way
to disseminate biological, chemical or radionuclear agents and materials.
The protection of the food supply chain - termed "food defense" - has
attracted considerable attention in the United States [15]. Agriculture and food
is recognized as one of the seventeen national critical sectors [4, 5] and a specific
work plan [20] was released in 2007. Despite the efforts, many instances of
salmonella and E. coli contamination have been reported in the United States.
These outbreaks large and small mostly led to hospitalization and, in some
T. Moore and S. Shenoi (Eds.): Critical Infrastructure Protection IV, IFIP AICT 342, pp. 157-167, 2010.
© IFIP Internationa1 Federation for Inforlllatioll Processing 2010
App. 43
158 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION IV
cases, death. Interestingly, the authorities were unable to determine the causes
of the outbreaks in the majority of cases [3].
The U.S. incidents demonstrate that compromises of the food supply chain
can have a significant impact on public health. The food infrastructure is
massive and highly distributed. As emphasized by the U.K. Centre for the
Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) [6] and the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Counter Terrorism Task Force (CTTF) [2], every country
and geographic region is exposed to a wide range of threats.
The European Commission's Green Paper on Bio-Preparedness [9] highlights
efforts for reducing biological risks and enhancing preparedness and response
with regard to the food supply chain. Nevertheless, few comprehensive initia-
tives are underway to secure the European food supply chain from attack. One
example is the Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed (RASFF) [10], but it
focuses on food safety warnings, not on preventing malicious contamination.
The U.K. CPNI and British Standard Institute (BSI) define food defense as
"the security of food and drink and their supply chains from all forms of mali-
cious attack including ideologically motivated attacks leading to contamination
or supply failure" [6]. As explained in [8], the potential effects of a terrorist
attack on the food supply chain are many, the most significant of which are
human disease and death. Terrorist acts are also designed to create fear and
anxiety in the population and reduce confidence in the government, which can
lead to political instability.
Dalziel [7] has conducted a systematic examination of incidents involving the
intentional and malicious contamination of food from 1950 to 2008. The anal-
ysis reveals that almost 98% of the incidents occurred downstream in the food
supply chain (e.g., at retail outlets, food service establishments, homes and the
workplace). Typically, the incidents involved commonly-available household,
agricultural or industrial chemicals. When more esoteric chemicals were used,
the perpetrators often had access to these agents at work and also possessed
the knowledge to use them. Incidents involving biological or radiological agents
typically occurred at the retailer or at the consumer and had little impact on
public health.
Analysis of the data indicates that the most common reason for the de-
liberate contamination of food was to disrupt business or tourism and cause
economic loss rather than injure people. Thus, a distinction should be made
between actions aimed at spreading pathogens in large populations and "sym-
bolic" attacks designed to provoke social anxiety and economic loss. Contami-
nated food products often spread panic in the population. The mad cow disease
and avian flu scares modified consumer behavior in a very significant manner,
creating negative effects on the market and massive losses for producers.
Symbolic attacks on the food supply are both efficient and effective. These
attacks are easy to perpetrate, and can target any aspect of the food sup-
ply chain, especially the least controlled and protected portions of the chain.
Widespread monitoring of contamination is complicated by food imports. Most
countries import significant quantities of food; the figure for the United States
App. 44
AlvaTez, et al. 159
is about 15%. Illegally-imported food poses additional problems because it

bypasses government testing.
This paper presents an approach for analyzing the risk to the food supply
chain in terms of potential threats, system vulnerabilities and countermeasures.
The research, which has been performed under the SecuFood Project [17], has
considered a broad sampling of foods consumed in Europe (e.g., milk, yoghurt,
juice, bread, oil, salads, fish and baby food). However, this paper specifically
examines the major issues related to securing the European milk supply chain.
2. SecuFood Methodology
Ezell and von Winterfeldt [11] have noted that estimating the probabilities
of an attack on the food supply chain is a hard task, requiring knowledge
about the motivation, intent and capabilities of attackers. In addition, these
probabilities change with the defensive measures that are implemented. For
these reasons, we focus our attention on food supply chain vulnerabilities with
the goal of identifying them in order to implement preventive measures.
To estimate the risk posed by terrorist attacks, and more generally, criminal
attacks, we consider the threats posed by the availability of various biological
and chemical agents and their potential consequences. This is because any
attack on the food supply chain requires the introduction of a dangerous agent.
The agent can be added during harvest, storage, processing, preparation, retail
or food service.
To conduct a more effective analysis, we decomposed the food supply chain
into its main macroscopic steps, taking into account the peculiarities of each
step in terms of vulnerabilities and countermeasures. To this end, we assume
that a generic food supply chain can be decomposed into the five macroscopic
steps shown in Figure 1. A typical workflow starts with a large set of production
sites that supply one 01' more industries. The food is processed, transformed
and packaged at these sites, and is then sent, via a logistic system, to whole-
salers. The wholesalers distribute the food items to retailers and food service
establishments who pass them on to consumers. Note that the decomposition
in Figure 1 represents an abstraction; the actual process is very complex and
includes numerous sources, processes and exchanges of raw materials between
various entities.
We identified specific threats at each macroscopic step for each food type
in terms of contamination by chemical and biological agents and by other in-
struments [18]. Our analysis revealed that the types of threats at the different
steps are essentially the same, although the impact and the ability to detect and
neutralize the threats can be very different. In fact, the impact of a contam-
inant is greater when the agent is introduced early in the supply chain. This
complicates and delays the localization of the contamination, especially when
the adverse effects are not immediate. Also, a contaminant that is introduced
in an early step of the food supply chain is difficult to identify and isolate,
especially if the problem is discovered after processing and delivery. However,
some agents can be detected by quality control testing and neutralized during
App. 45
Public
'" Authorities
~
::l
'"
«l
Ql Food
~ Operators
C
::l
o
o Supranational
Authorities
Figure 1. Food supply chain decomposition.
processing. On the other hand , as reported by Lee, et al. [14], the most proba-
ble targets in the supply chain are food vendors, which includes food producers,
retailers, restaurants and other food service establishments. This is because,
even if the overall impact is limited in terms of the concrete consequences, the
attacker would obtain a large "return on investment."
We also considered the "likelihood" of attacks. The likelihood takes into
account the availability and manageability of the agents, the vulnerability of
the specific product supply chain, and the possible effects in terms of causalities,
economic loss and psychological impact. Specifically we considered:
• Processes in terms of their ability to neutralize agents and product ac-

cessibility.
• Company policies regarding employees and visits (e.g., monitoring and

access control).
• Security measures adopted (e.g., alarms, cameras and guards).
• Quality control mechanisms implemented (e.g., number and types of con-

trols and hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP)).
App. 46
Alvarez, et al. 161
Consequences
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Almost Certain M H H I· e
".,-~.~~~
: ,':--
likely L M H H
..- .Ii
."
o
o '. ~:,
,
:E
]
:::; Possible L L M H H
Unlikely T L L M H
Rare T T L L M
Figure 2. Risk assessment matrix [21] .
Next, for each of the eight types of food items (milk, yoghurt, juice, bread,
oil, salads, fish and baby food), we performed a risk analysis based on the
research literature and interviews with principal stakeholders and public au-
thorities. We collected about 40 questionnaires and performed inspections of
several food processing facilities. Also, we analyzed all the incidents reported
by Dalziel [7) and others, amounting to more than 450 cases of malicious con-
tamination of food. Finally, we evaluated and classified about 50 biological
and chemical agents in terms of their availability, manageability and possible
pathological effects.
These activities enabled us to collect a large quantity of qualitative and quan-
titative data about threats to the food supply chain. The data was analyzed
with the help of experts from a specialized police corps [1). An operational
risk management (ORM) approach [21) was used to classify the attacks from
extreme to tolerable. We also identified the degree of likelihood for each agent
with respect to each food item and step in the supply chain. The likelihood
was evaluated in terms of the availability of the agent and the vulnerability
of the corresponding supply chain step. vVe created a risk matrix taking into
consideration the ability to detect the attack and the possible consequences
(Figure 2). The risk matrix employs the following risk categories:
• Extreme (E): Causes a large number of injuries, several deaths and

catastrophic economic consequences.
• High (H): Causes severe injuries, some deaths and severe economic con-
sequences.
• Moderate (M): Causes some injuries that may require medical atten-
tion, and significant economic consequences.
App. 47

1.00 ........ ................ ...•.. -.
' .00
0.80
0.40
11.20
0.00
Who!!.n l! RttlliVfood
Service
(a) Significant contamination; (b) Effectiveness of surveillance.

LOO ,.··········· ·· ·········· ··· ···· ········· ··· · ··· ····· . .. .•....... ' .00
.... i·························· ···· 0." ---~""' ................................................ .
0.'"
0.40 0.40
0.10
0.00
Procewn,
(c) Symbolic contamination; (d) Effectiveness of countermeasures.
Figul'e 3. Risks related to different steps in the food supply chain.
• Limited (L): Causes no injuries, but some economic consequences.
• Tolerable (T): Causes no health effects, but has a limited impact on

reputation and some economic consequences.
Figure 3 summarizes the results obtained by averaging the behavior cor-

responding to each of the 50 contaminating agents with respect to the eight
classes of food considered in our analysis. Figure 3(a) illustrates how the risk
due to an exposure to significant contamination increases from the farm to the
processing phase, reaching a maximum just before the packaging operation.
After this, it reduces monotonically due to the decreasing sizes of the lots in
the subsequent steps.
In contrast, the graph in Figure 3(c) shows that the risk due to symbolic con-
tamination reaches its maximum close to the consumer. This happens because,
as seen in Figures 3(b) (effectiveness of surveillance) and 3(d) (effectiveness of
countermeasures), the last steps in the food supply chain are less controlled
and less secure. Indeed, most of the controls and countermeasures in the food
supply chain are intended to guarantee the safe production of food. Therefore,
they are largely concentrated in the production step, where tests are conducted
on raw materials, semi-processed goods and final products. After the produc-
tion step, security-related activities are mostly focused on preventing theft and
only minimally on preventing food tampering.
App. 48
Alvarez, et al. 163
Table 1. Biological and chemical agents [13, 16, 19].
Agent Lethality Availability

Biological Agents
E. coli 3-5% Easy
Yersinia 100% (pneumonic) Easy
50% (bubonic)
Salmonella <5% (S. enteritidis) Easy
12-30% (S. typhi)
Staphylococcus aureus <5% Easy
Brucella Low Easy
Prancisella tularensis 30--40% Difficult
Coxiella burnetii <5% Difficult
Chemical Agents
Abrin Fatal (no antidote) Very Easy
Aflatoxin Fatal (no antidote) Easy
Tetrahydrocannabinoids Toxic at high levels Easy
Safrol Carcinogen Moderately Easy
Diphosgene Lewisite Fatal at high levels
Nicotine Fatal
Ricin Fatal (no antidote) Very Easy
Tetrodotoxin Fatal at low levels Difficult
Saxitoxin Fatal at low levels Moderately Easy
Shigatoxin Fatal at low levels Easy
Nitrogen Mustard Gas Fatal at high levels Difficult
Cadmium Fatal Moderately Difficult
Chromium VI Fatal Easy
Mercury Fatal at high levels Easy
Red Phosphorus Fatal Easy
Thallium Fatal at high levels Difficult
Titanium Fatal at high levels
White phosphorus Fatal Easy
Arsenic Fatal Very Easy
3. Milk Case Study

This section focuses on a case study of the milk sector. Milk was selected
because it is a basic component of the European diet; as such, it is consumed in
large quantities either directly or indirectly in other food products. Moreover,
it has been the target of malicious attacks [23].
Table 1 lists the main biological and chemical agents that can be used to
contaminate milk. Information is also provided about the lethality and ease of
availability of these agents.
In the case of milk, it is important to distinguish between biological and
chemical agents. Most processed milk goes through a pasteurization (thermal)
process that kills biological agents. The subsequent cooling of milk to 4°0
App. 49
Consequences
Almost Certain
Aflatoxin
Possible Mercury
Titanium
Phosphorus
Nicoline
'0
g
:5 Aureus
~ Brucella
Bacillus Anlhracls
:J E-Coli
Lis/eria monocytogenes
Shigella
Salmonella Yersinia
Unlikely Campylobae/er
Tetrodotoxin
Salrol
Tetrahydrocannabinoids
Thallium
Franeisella Tularensis
Rare
Nitrogen Mustard
Lewisite
Figure 4. ORM matrix for the milk supply chain.
makes it very difficult for most biological agents to grow. On the other hand,
the heating and cooling process does not affect chemical agents, enabling them
to be added at any time during milk production.
Milk producers perform several tests on raw milk to check its quality and
detect the presence of biological agents. However, these tests are not compre-
hensive and tests for dangerous agents such as botulinum are not performed_
In general, the deliberate contamination of milk at the output stage is much
more complicated than at the input stage because the product is packaged in
small lots. However, Blasco and Bledsoe [16] observe that with the appropriate
technical knowledge and access, any product can be tampered with during
the distribution or retail steps. Indeed, packaged food can be sabotaged by
terrorists or criminals with a relatively low degree of sophistication.
The ORM matrix in Figure 4 demonstrates that, in the case of milk, the
adverse consequences of chemical agents (bold) are much higher than those
due to biological agents (italics). This is because few , if any, controls are in
place for chemical agents. Furthermore, detecting some chemical agents is very
difficult because they are colorless and odorless. However, the most important
factor is that chemical agents, unlike biological agents, are not destroyed by
the heating and cooling processes involved in milk production.
In summary, the milk sector is prepared to prevent spontaneous contamina-
tion via the implementation of controls against zoonosis ruld other health risks
of a microbiological origin. However, it is woefully unprepru'ed to deal with
malicious contamination using chemical agents.
App. 50
AlvaTez, et al. 165
4. Conclusions
Food is an unconventional weapon in the hands of terrorists. Despite the
worldwide attention paid to the malicious tampering of food products, the ma-
jority of the stakeholders in the food supply sector have little understanding of
the risks related to deliberate contamination. In general, they believe that their
production processes are secure and that their controls and countermeasures
are adequate. However, they concede that malicious entities can target food
products almost anywhere in the supply chain. This means that they admit
that many vulnerabilities exist in food production and distribution.
The consequences of contamination vary according to the specific step in
the supply chain that is targeted. An attack that targets a step closer to the
consumer has a greater probability of success but affects fewer people. On the
other hand, an attack in the early steps of the supply chain affects many more
people, but has to evade many controls and countermeasures to be successful.
The transportation and storage steps are, in general, more vulnerable that
the manufacturing step. Raw materials are more vulnerable than packaged
products, but it is difficult to successfully target raw materials because of strong
quality controls. Packaged products are more susceptible to contamination
during transportation and storage. The risk is high and the probability of
detection is very low until consumers are affected.
'With regard to the milk supply chain, pasteurization and quality control
processes reduce the likelihood of a successful attack involving biological agents.
However, because ofthe absence of controls and countermeasures, attacks using
chemical agents have a high probability of success.
The absence of major food contamination events leads us to believe that the
food supply is relatively safe, but. we cannot afford to be complacent. All the
entities in the food supply chain should develop security plans for managing
the risk. The hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) approach is
an effective technique as it focuses on proactive (preventive) measures instead
of reactive measures, which is prudent in any critical infrastructure sector.
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by the European Commission Direc-
torate General for Justice, Freedom and Security under the SecuFood - Security
of European Food Supply Chain Project (Grant No. JLS/2008/CIPS/022).
References
[1] Arum dei Carabinieri, Comando Carabinieri per la Tut.ela della Salute,
Rome, Italy (www .carabinierLit /Interuet / Cittadino /Informazioni/Tutela
/Salute).
[2] Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC to increase protection of the
food supply from terrorist attack, News Release, APEC Secretariat, Da
Nang, Vietnam, September 15, 2006.
App. 51
[3] W. Boddie and L. Kun, Health care, public health and the food and agri-
culture critical infrastructures, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology,
vol. 27(6), pp. 54-58, 2008.
[4] G. Bush, Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization and Protec-
tion, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7), The White
House, Washington, DC, December 17, 2003.
[5] G. Bush, Defense of United States Agriculture and Food, Homeland Se-
curity Presidential Directive 9 (HSPD-9), The White House, Washington,
DC, January 30, 2004.
[6] Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure and British Standards
Institute, Defending Food and Drink: Guidance for the Deterrence, De-
tection and Defeat of Ideologically Motivated and Other Forms of Mali-
cious Attack on Food and Drink and their Supply Arrangements, Report
PAS 96:2010, London, United Kingdom (www.cpni.gov.uk/Docs/PAS96
_vis14.pdf), 2010.
[7] G. Dalziel, Food Defense Incidents 1950-2008: A Chronology and Analysis
of Incidents Involving the Malicious Contamination of the Food Supply
Chain, Technical Report, Centre of Excellence for National Security, S.
Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological Uni-
versity, Singapore, 2009.
[8] Department of Food Safety, Terrorist Threats to Food: Guidance for Es-
tablishing and Strengthening Prevention and Response Systems, World
Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
[9] European Commission, Green Paper on Bio-Preparedness, COM (2007)
399 Final, Brussels, Belgium (ec.europa.eu/food/resources/gp_bio_prepar
edness_en.pdf), 2007.
[10] European Commission, Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF),
Brussels, Belgium (ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/index_en.htm).
[11] B. Ezell and D. von Winterfeldt, Probabilistic risk analysis and bioterror-
ism risk, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice and
Science, vol. 7(1), pp. 108-110,2009.
[12] A. Khan, D. Swerdlow and D. Juranek, Precautions against biological and
chemical terrorism directed at food and water supplies, Public Health Re-
poris, vol. 116(1), pp. 3-14, 2001.
[13] R. Lawley, L. Curtis and J. Davis, Food Safety Hazard G1lidebook, Royal
Society of Chemistry, London, United Kingdom, 2008.
[14] R. Lee, R. Harbison and F. Draughon, Food as a weapon, Food Protection
Trends, vol. 23(8), pp. 664-674, 2003.
[15] J. Monke, Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness, CRS Report for
Congress RL32521, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC
(www.fas.org/irpjcrsjRL32521.pdf), 2004.
[16] B. Rasco and G. Bledsoe, Bioterrorism and Food Safety, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida, 2005.
App. 52
Alvarez, et al. 167
[17] SecuFood Project Secretariat, SecuFood: Security of the European Food

Supply Chain, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy (secufood.uni
campus.it).
[18] M. Sekheta, A. Sahtout, F. Sekheta, N. Pantovic and A. AlOmari, Ter-
rorist threats to food and water supplies and the role of HACCP imple-
mentation as one of the major effective and preventive measures, Interrwt
Journal of Food Safety, vol. 8, pp. 30-34, 2006.
[19] D. Shea and F. Gottron, Small-Scale Terrorist Attacks Using Chemical and
Biological Agents: An Assessment Framework and Preliminary Compar-
isons, CRS Report for Congress RL32391, Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC (www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32391.pdf), 2004.
[20] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Agriculture
and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Agriculture and Food: Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources Sector-Specific Plan as Input to the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Washington, DC (www.dhs.gov
/xlibrary / assets/nipp-ssp-ag-food.pdf), 2007.
[21] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CARVER Software, Washington, DC
(www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/CARVER/default.htm#whatis ).
[22] P. Valle, A. Girard and O. Saldate, Defensa alimentaria, Mundo Lacteo y
Garnico, pp. 12-19, September/October 2007.
[23] L. Wein and Y. Liu, Analyzing a bioterror attack on the food supply: The
case of botulinum toxin in milk, Fmceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, vol. 102(28), pp. 9984-9989,2005.
[24] World Health Organization, Global Public Health Response to Natu-
ral Occurrence, Accidental Release or Deliberate Use of Biological and
Chemical Agents or Radionuclear Material that Affect Health, Resolu-
tion WHA 55.16, Fifty-Fifth World Health Assembly, Geneva, Switzerland
(apps .who.int/gb/archive/pdLfiles/WHA55/ewha5516.pclf), 2002.
App. 53
App. F
App. 54
PERSONNE~ SERVICES, LLC f"

''Aiming for a betiter Staffing Solution"
Staffing Agreement - Quality Sausage Company LLC and Archer Servics LLC
This agreement is made and entered into on March 02, 2017 by Archer Services, LLC (Archerl and Quality Sausage
Company, LLC (Quality Sausage).
1. Services Archer shall provide temporary employee(s) for Quality Sausage at suph times and in such
number as Quality Sausage may in its sole discretion, request, and subject to the t~nns and conditions set
fot1h herein. I
2 . Compensation Quality Sausage shall pay Archer, as consideration for the services to be provided at the
following amounts:
a. Mark-up rate - 34.5% with discounted over time bill rate .

b. Holiday and vacation benefits will be grand fathered for all transferred temporary employees.
c. All time worked after fOliy (40) hours for a seven (7) day work week ill be paid at one and
a halftimes the employee's regular hourly rate.
d. Archer will not bill Quality Sausage for newly hired temporary emplo ees who do not work
over 3 days on the first work week.
e. Any increase in the compensation levels in the future will be agreed to by Archer and Quality
Sausage in advance.
ro
f. If Quality Sausage Company has an exceptional employee and wishes compensate that
employee, Quality Sausage has the option to decide the hourly pay and a rate that will be
agreed upon such time.
g. All invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt:
Payable to:
Archer Services, LLC
326 S. Texas Suite 2-A
Mercedes, TX 78570
3. Archer shall pay all appropriate federal, state and local taxes.
4. Archer shall distribute payroll checks according to Quality Sausage's scheduling prpference.
5. Quality Sausage has the right to hire the temporary employee(s) after 480 hours of dontinuous service to
Quality Sausage. If Quality Sausage hires the temporaJY employee(s) before 480 ht urs of continuous
service a placement fee will be incurred to Quality Sausage.
6. Archer shall provide General Liability and Workers Compensation insurance with \y avier of Subrogation
issued in favor of Quality Sausage. Quality Sausage will be named as Additionall f ured .
7. Part!es agree that the person(s) executing this Agreement have the legal authority to bind the respective
patites.
8. By ordering temporaty personnel from Archer, it is expressly understood that Quali Sausage has
accepted this agreement as is; even if this agreement is not signed by both parties. \
9. Quality Sausage agrees to provide Archer with appropriate and calculated time card no later than
Monday of the following week by 5 pm.
10. Archer affirms that all temporaty employees have provided proper documentation from Department of
Homeland Security US Citizenship and lmmigration Services Form (1-9) (Rev 3/8/1 ) for eligibility to
work in the United States. Archer further agrees to utilize the E-VerifY (An intel11et based system to
verify employment eligibility). Current and updated 1-9 forms are properly complet , d and maintained on
file (Archer'S location) and maintained on file on each employee.
328 S . TEXAS AvE., SUITE 2-B • MERCEDES, TX 78570 • OFFICE 95s.5'4.53l' · FAX 956.565.2994
QSC 313
App. 55
PERSONNE~ SERVICES, LLC f"

"Aiming for a better Staffing Solution"
II. Archer and Quality Sausage agree to be Joint or Co-employers of all employee(sj furnished pursuant
hereto, and any sums payable to Archer pursuant hereto shall deemed wages paid for the benefits of the
employees furnished pursuant hereto, whether paid before or after Archer paid th employee.
12. Archer shall pay (5) holidays to field employees employed a period of 1040 hOurt of continuous
employment and a (l) week 40 hour vacation pay after 2080 hours of continuousf mPlOyment.
13. Quality Sausage agrees to renegotiate invoice bill rate every twelve (12) months ,ased on perfonnance of
Archer.
14. Quality Sausage acknowledges that Archer has incurred substantial recruitment, sf reening, training,
administrative, and marketing expense with respect to its temporary employees. t ccordingly, Quality
Sausage agrees not to directly or indirectly offer to hire, or engage as an indepen~ent contractor for any
temporary employee assigned to Quality Sausage by Archer for a period of90 days after competition of
the temporary employee' s assignment, or permit or cause any such temporary em ~ loyee to be placed on
the payroll of any other finn for a like period, without the express written permislon of Archer. In the
event that Quality Sausage violates this paragraph. Quality Sausage agrees to pro ptly pay Archer as
liquidated damages and not as a penalty, the sum of twenty five (25%) of the tem orary employee's
annualized compensation and to reimburse Archer for its reasonable attorney's fe 's incurred to enforce its
right hereunder.
15 . Affordable Care Act

a) Archer agrees that it is the common-law employer of all employees furnished ursuant to this
Agreement for purposes of any I iabi lity that may arise under the Affordable C re Act ("ACA") and
Intemal Revenue Code ("Code") Section 49801-1 to provide minimum essentia coverage under an
employer-sponsored group health plan ("coverage") to certain employees.
b) Archer acknowledges that it has the sole duty to provide an offer of coverage 0 all employees
furnished pursuant to th is Agreement who are full-time employees, as defined !by the ACA and Code
Section 49801-1, and their dependent children. Any penalties assessed against Archer pursuant to
Code Section 4980H as a result of Archer's failure to offer minimum essential coverage, or if such
coverage is offered but is not affordable or does not provide minimum value a defined by the ACA
and Code Section 4980H, will be the sole responsibility of Archer.
c) Archer will indemnify Quality Sausage for any such penalties assessed agains Quality Sausage as a
result of Archer's failure to offer coverage as described above.
d) Archer agrees that it has the duty to timely file information returns with the IR regarding the
coverage offered to all employees furnished pursuant to this Agreement, as reJiuired by Code Sections
6055 and 6056.
e) Archer will invoice Quality Sausage on a monthly basis, as a separate charge lfi l'
the agreed portion of
medical coverage as required under ACA for Archer temporary employees at l uality Sausage.
Quality Sausage Company, LC

Ida Jimenez
_~d
Signature
5-7- 11
Date Date I
326 S . TEXAS AVE., SUITE 2-8 • MERCEDES, TX 78570 • OFRCE 956 514 53~1 • FAX 956.565.2994
QSC 314
I
App. 56
App. G
App. 57
Dusty Fillmore
From: Slaten, Rita E <rslaten@meaderslaw.com> on behalf of Slaten, Rita E

Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:02 AM
To: 'Dusty Fillmore'
Cc: Slaten, Rita E; Lowell, Allyn J
Subject: Nguyen v. Quality Sausage Company LLC (Litigation)
Attachments: Dusty Fillmore Ltr re Written Discovery.pdf
Good morning Dusty, please find attached your letter re written discovery. Thank you. Rita Slaten
Rita E. Slaten
p
Meaders & Lanagan

Attorneys at Law
Dallas, Texas 75201
Office: 214-721-6239
Fax: 214-721-6289
rslaten@meaderslaw.com
This email (which includes any attachments) is intended to be read only by the person(s) to whom it is
addressed. This email may contain confidential, proprietary information and may be a confidential attorney-
client communication, exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Ifyou have received this email in error,
do not print it, forward it or disseminate or use it or its contents. In such event, please notify the sender by
return email (or by phone at the number shown above) and delete the emailfile immediately thereafter.
Thankyoufor your cooperation
This email (including any attachments) is intended for the designated recipient(s) only, and may be confidential, non-
public, proprietary, and/or protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. Unauthorized reading, distribution,
copying or other use of this communication is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) should not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or protection. If you are not the intended recipient
or if you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies
from your computer system without reading, saving, printing, forwarding or using it in any manner. Although it has been
checked for viruses and other malicious software ("malware"), we do not warrant, represent or guarantee in any way
that this communication is free of malware or potentially damaging defects. All liability for any actual or alleged loss,
damage, or injury arising out of or resulting in any way from the receipt, opening or use of this email is expressly
disclaimed.
App. 58
The Fillmore Law Firm, L.L.P.
1200 SUMMIT AVENUE, SUITE 860 TELEPHONE: 817/332-2351

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102 FAJ(:817/870-1859
November 8,2019
Ms. Allyn Jaqua Lowell Via Email

Meaders & Lanagan
Dallas, TX 75201-3068
Re: Lam Van "Tommy" Nguyen v. Quality Sausage Company, LLC; civil action
no. 4:19-cv-00150-P; pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division
Dear Allyn:
I am writing to follow-up on our hour (plus) telephone conference that occurred

on October 29, 2019, concerning your client's objections to written discovery. With this
letter, I am making an additional effort to resolve our differences, or, at least, narrow the
scope of our discovery dispute.
Plaintiffs Interrogatories
With regard to interrogatories IB and C, and 2 C, I requested you to withdraw your

objection "insofar as its multiple, discrete parts constitute multiple interrogatories." My
position was and remains that this is not a valid objection under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. To illustrate, if I were to agree that interrogatories 1 B, 1 C, and 2 C each
constitute discrete, independent (and therefore "multiple") interrogatories, there is
nothing in the rules that prohibits this practice. However, in the spirit of compromise,
would you be willing to agree to the following: 1. the method used by you to determine
discrete subparts that constitute independent (and therefore "multiple) interrogatories
shall apply to interrogatories served on my client by defendant; and 2. no responsive
information has been or will be withheld pursuant to such objections to interrogatories
IB, lC, and 2C?
Please check &J Agreed or 0 Not Agreed
With regard to interrogatory 3, will you agree to withdraw your objections and
comply with such interrogatory (including subparts)?
Please check 0 Agreed or ~Not Agreed
App. 59
Allyn Jaqua Lowell

Nguyen v. QSC
November 8,2019
Page 2
Plaintiff's Requests for Production
With regard to request for production 1, during our conference I agreed to

withdraw the following portion of such request: "and/or any record signed by Plaintiff'
and you agreed to withdraw all objections to such request. Agreed?
Please check ~ Agreed or 0 Not Agreed
With regard to request for production 12, your current response is "Defendant has
no responsive documents." I expressed my grave doubts about the truthfulness of your
client's answer given the fact that my client did make a claim for unemployment
compensation that was opposed by your client. You indicated that you would check with
your client and produce any responsive documents. Is this agreed?
With regard to request for production 13, you agreed to withdraw your client's
objections and comply with the request. Is this still your agreement?
Please check tItl Agreed or 0 Not Agreed
With regard to request for production 14, will you agree to withdraw your client's
objections and comply with the request?
Please check 0 Agreed or 0 Not Agreed
With regard to request for production 15, I will agree to limit the request to the
time period of November 1, 2016 through July 19, 2018. With that limitation, will you
agree to withdraw your client's objections and comply with the request?
With regard to request for production 16, I agree that the scope of the request
excludes Mr. Alva's social security number, and driver's license number, as well as bank
routing numbers and that such information may be redacted. With that limitation, will
you agree to withdraw your client's objections and comply with the request?
Please check 0 Agreed or 0 Not Agreed .Af~ UY\,.\pllcd - Qf':C, I ~ 3 -llP I
App. 60
Allyn Jaqua Lowell

Nguyen v. QSC
November 8, 2019
Page 3
With regard to request for production 20, you stated to me that your client's
employee handbook is the only record responsive to this request. Is that statement
accurate?
With regard to request for production 21, I stated to you that I believe your client
does have progressive disciplinary policies and forms. I also stated that your client's
current answer ("See Defendant's production of documents") is inadequate because there
are no responsive documents in "Defendant's production of documents." You told me that
you would check with your client and get back with me about these issues. Are you going
to produce your client's records that are responsive to this request?
Please check 0 Agreed or on Not Agreed
. .With regard to re~uest for production 23, will you a~ree to withdraw y~ur client'.~ •. H.J..c.
.It • W
objections and comply WIth the request? w.nd.ultA W. ~'{J~\\It ~~\tN~
Please check 0 Agreed or 0 Not Agreed ~Jt '1tJ)J1
~ . U~ fitUMll ffr
te¥4tU, - c.. ? /PZ - 312-
With regard to request for production 25, you stated t at the recor s you b ate
stamped QSC 313 through 314 are all the responsive records to such request; in other
words, there are no responsive records other than QSC 313 through 314. Is your statement
accurate and will you agree to withdraw your client's objections? (
Please check 0 Agreed or 0 Not Agreed 1VUHZt ~t (l.UJb
~~.
App. 61
Allyn Jaqua Lowell

Nguyen v. QSC
November 8,2019
Page 4
Please check 0 Agreed or a Not Agreed
Please check 0 Agreed or g) Not Agreed
Plaintiff's Requests for Admission
With regard to request for admission 1, will you agree to withdraw your client's
Please check 0 Agreed or ~ Not Agreed
With regard to request for admission 2, will you agree to withdraw your client's
Please check D Agreed or ~ Not Agreed
**************
Allyn, please give due consideration to the foregoing. Please narrow the dispute
between us by checking as many of the "Agreed" boxes you can and return the document
tome.
Very truly yours,
H. Dustin Fillmore, III
App. 62

MOTION - Pltf&#39;s 1st Mot. Compel and App.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOTION - Pltf&#39;s 1st Mot. Compel and App.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:19-cv-00150-P Document 26 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID 176

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LAM VAN “TOMMY” NGUYEN,

vs. Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00150-P

QUALITY SAUSAGE COMPANY, LLC,

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL

TO THE HONORABLE MARK T. PITTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Support (“Motion”) against Defendant Quality Sausage Company, LLC.

I. AN ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel

outside the scope of discovery.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant.” See Appendix Item (“App.” hereafter) A at 02–13.

Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions” (App. B) at 16–17,

“Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories”

(App. C) at 19–22, and “Objections and Responses to

Plaintiff’s First Request for Production” (App. D) at 26–33.

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel

III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

A. The Broad Scope of Federal Discovery.

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is

5789327, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2019) (“Courts construe relevance broadly, as a

probative force to be relevant.”) (citing Samsung Elecs. Inc.).

B. This Case’s Claims and Defenses.

As noted above, this is a wrongful termination case under the antiretaliation

Nguyen’s factual averments. See generally, Defendant’s “Original Answer to Plaintiff’s

Complaint” (ECF Doc. 7) (“Answer”).

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel

1. The importance of the issues at stake in this action.

Critically important to a Rule 26(b)(1) analysis of the scope of discovery is an

a. The importance of food safety to the United States.

care on distributors.” U.S. v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 671 (1975).

or misbranded” and/or [t]he adulteration or misbranding of any food . . . in interstate

under any of the following circumstances:

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel

• “if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed

• “if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed

• “damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner”; or

• “if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions

Id. at § 342(a)(3), (4), (b)(3), (4) (emphasis added).

is criminally liable without regard to whether he or she was personally aware of

b. The importance of the FSMA to food safety.

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel

or in the ordinary course of the employee’s duties”—

• provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be

• objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice,

enforcement of the FSMA’s antiretaliation provision—especially the scope of protected

food safety itself.

2. Plaintiff’s FSMA protected activity and Defendant’s retaliation.

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel

engaged in FSMA protected activity. Compare Complaint at 5–15 (Mr. Nguyen

Sausage mostly denying the factual averments of paragraph 7).

Nguyen directly or indirectly referring to illegal aliens in paragraphs 7.B.(3), (5)–(15),

his protected activity. Complaint at 15–22 (Mr. Nguyen describing, in paragraph 8,

Quality Sausage’s retaliation). Unsurprisingly, Quality Sausage denies that it retaliated

denying the factual averments of paragraph 8).

3. Mr. Nguyen’s Discovery Requests.

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel

issue that is or may be in the case.”)

a. Discovery concerning the immigration status of workers

Sausage’s workers supplied by Archer Services: Requests for Admission 1 and 2,

Sausage’s relevancy objections.

b. Discovery concerning the facts surrounding Mr. Nguyen’s

MOTION - Pltf's 1st Mot. Compel and App.

MOTION - Pltf's 1st Mot. Compel and App.