UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

THERESA BAILEY
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-CV-04283(ER)
Against Hon. Edgardo Ramos

NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL, ANTHONY CROWELL,

BARBARA GRAVES-POLLER, DAVID SCHOENBROD,
ELLA MAE ESTRADA Jury Trial Demanded

Defendants,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 46 and 47 of the Civil
Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiff
Theresa Bailey hereby requests that defendants New York Law School, Anthony Crowell,
Barbara Graves-Poller, David Schoenbrod and Ella Mae Estrada answer the following
interrogatories and produce the requested documents under oath by April 9, 2018.
Definitions and Instructions

1. Incident means the events as described in the complaint that took place beginning on
October 6, 2014 at New York Law School approximately 7pm.
2. Refer or relate to means, in whole or in part, referring to, constituting, containing,
embodying, discussing, reflecting, dealing with, analyzing, pertaining to or in any way relevant
within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Defendants are instructed to provide information and documents in their custody,
possession or control, and that came within their custody, possession or control related to the
subject matter of this case.
4. The answers to these interrogatories and document requests shall be promptly
supplemented and amended as required by Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. Where a claim of privilege is asserted in objecting to an interrogatory or document
requests, or a sub-part thereof, and an answer is not provided on the basis of such assertion,
identify the nature of the privilege which is being claimed, and if the privilege is being asserted
in connection with a claim or defense governed by law, indicate the privilege rule being invoked
and provide the relevant information that is not being challenged.
6. In the event that any document responsive to an interrogatory herein has been destroyed,
discarded or otherwise disposed of, identify that document as completely as possible, including
its: author, addressees, carbon or blind copies, date, subject matter, date of disposal, reason for
disposal, person authorizing the disposal and person disposing of the document.
7. In the event that an answer to any interrogatory is made by reference to records from
which the answer may be derived or ascertained, as permitted by Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, make the documents referred to available for inspection and copying within
ten days after the service of answers to these interrogatories.
8. If precise information cannot be supplied, state the best estimate or approximation
(including the best approximation of dates by references to other events, when necessary)
designated as such.
9. If defendants have no information about the subject of a particular interrogatory or
document requests, or if for some other reason defendants are unable to answer it, the response
should specifically so state, and should not be without some response. If defendants have some
information now available which would also be responsive, defendants should provide the
information they now have and should specifically state when the balance of the information will
be provided. The fact that a full answer cannot be given is not a basis for defendants to fail to
provide such information as is available to them at the time of the response to these
interrogatories.
10. Any objection to any interrogatory or document requests, or subpart thereof, shall state
with specificity all grounds.
11. No part of an interrogatory shall be left unanswered merely because an objection is
interposed to another part of the interrogatory.
12. These definitions and instructions supplement and do not replace relevant law and
accepted legal guidelines.
13. These interrogatories first and foremost seek answers and the production requests seek
production—not a referral to a stack of documents. A response should comply with lawful
burden requirements, including the specification requirement, even if the relevant applicable law
has not been explicitly cited.
14. Responses should separately identify persons, dates, incidents, and all sub-categories.
This document does not seek a summary by year or any other cumulative grouping of acts or
events.
15. References to terms and years identify parameters for the information sought. This is not
an invitation to group responses by identifying parameters.
16. This document should be interpreted as not asking for or seeking information protected
by privilege. Therefore, if there is a question or ambiguity relating to whether this document
seeks information protected by a privilege, it should be interpreted or construed as not asking for
information that would give rise to an objection of privilege.

Production of Documents Requests

1. Produce all documents concerning the Incident and related proceedings, including: reports of
infraction and misconduct; notices of infraction; misbehavior reports; any record of informal
interviews with individuals related to the Incident, proceedings, or activities related to the

1
 claims of this case regardless of whether such has been explicitly referenced in these
interrogatories and document requests.
2. Production must specifically include but is not limited to all related documents concerning all
individuals named or described in the case file, including: New York Law School, Anthony
Crowell, Deborah Archer, Howard Meyers, Erika Wood, Jefferey Becherer, Victoria Eastus,
Oral Hope, David Schoenbrod, Barbara Graves-Poller, Ella Mae Estrada, Stephen Nesbit,
Jason Singer, NYLS security personnel, witnesses, complainants, and beneficiaries of
favorable treatment as described in case documents.
3. Produce documents and receipts for engaging outside persons and entities related to these
matters (redact any diagnosis or information that would make the requests objectionable).
Dates of encounter, engagement, and service cannot be redacted.
4. Produce the description of job duties provided to defendants at the time of their hiring and
engagement, including all negotiations impacting performance of such duties. For example, if
an individual was exempted at the time of hiring from specified duties contained in the job
description.
5. Produce all documents relied upon or consulted in preparing your answers to defendant’s
interrogatories.
6. Produce all documents evidencing or related to written communications with any defendant
(including emails, correspondence, memoranda, and faxes).
7. Produce all notes, memoranda, correspondence, computer files, tape recordings, videotape
recordings, or similar materials evidencing or relating to all verbal communications with any
agent, servant, employee, or representative of any of the defendants.
8. Produce all documentation, including electronic data, relating to or evidencing documents
sent by you to a defendant or sent by a defendant to you.

Interrogatories

9. Identify individuals and entities who investigated, received noticed of, contributed to, were
assigned to, were on duty, or made inquiry about the Incident prior to the commencement of
this litigation, including discretionary acts, and for each state:
a. the name(s), date(s), and the extent of the participation or interaction,
b. how or who was approached, approved, addressed, or responded (include such
information even if it was not answered).
10. Identify the location and nature of any evidence related to the Incident, including the date
collected, how it was and is stored, and who has access to and has accessed it (including but
not limited to documents, recordings, reproductions and images regardless of authentication).
11. Identify complaints, allegations, surveys, reports, inquiries and notices related to legal
compliance, misconduct, and illegality between 2012-2015, and for each state:
a. the name, subject, the NYLS-affiliated person or department named or targeted,
b. date(s), relief sought, response, and whether the matter is closed or ongoing.
12. Identify persons accused of having an inappropriate relationship with any NYLS student
2012-2016 (e.g. favorable, unfavorable, and treatment identified as distinct from others,
including sexual, intimate, or romantic relationships); state the nature of the notice (e.g.
complaint, report, picture, text or voicemail evidence), the date, and any consequence (e.g.
investigation, employment action, settled), including for security and maintenance staff—this

2
 encompasses all persons who are not students, regardless of status as hired through a third
party of volunteer.
13. Identify adverse or corrective employment action, the wrong conduct or violation, how the
bad conduct was discovered, and the person(s) named between 2012-2016.
14. Identify obligated or mandatory award or relief made under a finding of bad conduct or
violation (including when named as a party to a lawsuit) and the person or department named
between 2006-2016, for each state:
a. the specific finding, the case number, adjudicating court or agency,
b. the relief or award, date, and any follow-up action.
15. Identify accommodations, exceptions, special treatment, and discretionary acts related to
hiring and employment of individuals (including students) between 2012-2016, including
waivers requested or granted, and for each state:
a. the name of the person being granted the consideration and the name(s) granting,
b. date(s), benefit conveyed, also how many others were granted and denied the same
benefit (e.g. staff that personally hired a student, regardless of whether school funds
were used, should be disclosed as it shows a special relationship not shared by
students generally).
16. Identify promotions, raises, and position changes between 2012-2016, and for each state, the
effective date, race, department, hire date, criteria used, and how many others were in the
running/considered (include students).
17. Identify protocols and practices in hiring and continuing employment, including those used
to avoid or discern past acts or likelihood of abuse related to race and gender discrimination,
and retaliation, in relation to performance of duties hired to perform. (The lack of such
processes should also be noted.)
18. Identify discretionary financial aid awarded 2012-2015, and the amounts granted by students’
name, race, gender, and date of award; identify the name(s) and title of the person(s)
contributing to the decision to grant awards.
19. Identify miscellaneous relief sought, specified reason or circumstance, the date sought and
acted on, and the race and gender of the recipient 2012-2015 (i.e. review or change of grades,
reschedule exam date, turn in late assignment, make-up assignment, extra credit work, come
to class late/leave early, view recorded lecture in lieu of attending class); for each instance
identify the person(s) who granted/denied/responded.
20. Identify the race and gender of students who transferred from NYLS to another law school
between 2012-2015, and any assistance provided by NYLS the entity or individuals (if a
faculty called a school on behalf of that student seeking to transfer, this should be noted).
21. Identify recommendations granted—other than through the NYLS career office or office of
student life—the date, race and gender of the recipient between 2012-2015, and the person(s)
who were involved.
22. Identify any other person not named in the lawsuit who has information related to this matter,
the substance or subject matter of that information, and the date such was made known to
defendants.
23. State the names and addresses of each person that the defendants expect to call as a witness
at trial in this action, and for each witness identify the subject matter and substance of the
facts on which that person is expected to testify.
24. State the names of any expert defendants expected to testify at the trial of this matter. Please
provide that person’s name, employer, address, and telephone number.

3
25. List the education and employment history for Anthony Crowell, Deborah Archer, Howard
Meyers, Barbara Graves-Poller, David Schoenbrod, Oral Hope, Victoria Eastus, Ella Mae
Estrada, Erika Wood, Jefferey Becherer, and Stephen Nesbit, starting with law school to
present day.

March 9, 2018

By: _______________________
Theresa Bailey
232 West 116th St.
New York, NY 10026
Tbailey.nylaw@gmail.com