The Parties Engaged in Substantial Discovery Sample Clauses

The Parties Engaged in Substantial Discovery. Plaintiffs conducted an extensive pre-filing investigation and, after the commencement of the Action, both parties conducted broad, extensive, and thorough discovery related to class and collective action certification between 2010 and April 2013. Plaintiffs conducted extensive data analysis of more than 173 Terabytes of personnel and compensation-related data as well as discovery regarding key policies and practices including, without limitation, account distributions, teaming, leads and referrals, and compensation. The written class and collective action certification discovery conducted in this case included four formal sets of document requests (totaling more than 50 distinct categories of documents, and more than 200 separate requests) propounded by Plaintiffs, innumerable discovery-related letters and informal requests, and interrogatories. Defendants propounded requests for production and interrogatories toward each of the five Named Plaintiffs, and three sets of requests for admissions. Between the parties, more than 900,000 pages (and over 100,000 documents) of materials were exchanged and reviewed (Defendants produced over 100,000 documents consisting of nearly 890,000 pages of material for Plaintiffs to review) against the backdrop of extensive negotiations over the scope of discovery, including ESI (such as email) discovery. The production included documents over many years and across the Defendants related to the challenged policies and practices in this Action (including, without limitation, policies and practices relating to compensation, account distributions, teaming and pooling, and leads and referrals), emails, internal complaints, audits, documents related to the Plaintiffs, and other materials. The parties also litigated discovery disputes, including over whether Defendants were required to turn over their human resources, compensation, and account data and, if so, the scope of the production. Following briefing and two rounds of oral arguments, resulting in a telephonic Order on March 4, 2011, requiring the production of data, Defendants began producing data. Due to the complexity of the data, among other reasons, numerous supplemental productions occurred, with the last production in April 2013. Based on extensive work with their data experts, Plaintiffs conducted three formal data depositions and numerous informal interviews of Defendants’ employees to understand the data, and issued numerous informal written questions to Defense co...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
The Parties Engaged in Substantial Discovery. The parties engaged in substantial discovery relevant to the class claims in this Action and to resolving the case. The parties conducted discovery related to the merits, damages and class action certification. The parties exchanged discovery regarding key policies and practices including, without limitation, compensation, account transfers, teaming, and leads distribution. The written discovery conducted in this case included formal sets of document requests and interrogatories. The production (including ESI) included 5 years of information related to the policies and practices challenged in this Action. Among other things, MetLife produced workforce and compensation data, including substantial data regarding employment and job history (title and office), earnings, team participation, industry registration, and relevant compensation plans. The parties retained consultants to conduct statistical analyses of MetLife’s workforce data.

Related to The Parties Engaged in Substantial Discovery

  • Selection of Subcontractors, Procurement of Materials and Leasing of Equipment The contractor shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure nondiscrimination in the administration of this contract.

  • Contractor Certification regarding Business with Certain Countries and Organizations Pursuant to Subchapter F, Chapter 2252, Texas Government Code], Contractor certifies Contractor is not engaged in business with Iran, Sudan, or a foreign terrorist organization. Contractor acknowledges this Agreement may be terminated and payment withheld if this certification is inaccurate.

  • Certification Regarding Business with Certain Countries and Organizations Pursuant to Subchapter F, Chapter 2252, Texas Government Code, PROVIDER certifies it is not engaged in business with Iran, Sudan, or a foreign terrorist organization. PROVIDER acknowledges this Purchase Order may be terminated if this certification is or becomes inaccurate.

  • Responsibility for Quality of Materials and Installation Contractor acknowledges that he has full, total, and complete responsibility for providing materials, labor, and all other items necessary for providing the level of quality specified in the Contract Documents. He agrees that this responsibility is indivisible, non-delegable, non- transferable, and not diminished by any inspections provided by the Design Professional or his consulting engineers, nor by any inspections provided by the Owner. In recognition of this, Contractor will prepare for submission and review by the Design Professional, a written program describing the efforts that will be taken to insure the proper quality level is achieved. The program shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Proceed Order.

  • Foreign-Owned Companies in Connection with Critical Infrastructure If Texas Government Code, Section 2274.0102(a)(1) (relating to prohibition on contracts with certain foreign-owned companies in connection with critical infrastructure) is applicable to this Contract, pursuant to Government Code Section 2274.0102, Contractor certifies that neither it nor its parent company, nor any affiliate of Contractor or its parent company, is: (1) majority owned or controlled by citizens or governmental entities of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or any other country designated by the Governor under Government Code Section 2274.0103, or (2) headquartered in any of those countries.

  • Project-Related Investments The term “investment” or “invest” as used herein shall include not only investments made by the Company and any Sponsor Affiliates, but also to the fullest extent permitted by law, those investments made by or for the benefit of the Company or any Sponsor Affiliate with respect to the Project through federal, state, or local grants, to the extent such investments are subject to ad valorem taxes or FILOT payments by the Company. [End of Article I] ARTICLE II

  • CERTIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES IN CONNECTION WITH CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE (Texas law as of September 1, 2021) By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree to the following required by Texas law as of September 1, 2021: Proposing Company is prohibited from entering into a contract or other agreement relating to critical infrastructure that would grant to the company direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure in this state, excluding access specifically allowed by the Proposing Company for product warranty and support purposes. Company, certifies that neither it nor its parent company nor any affiliate of company or its parent company, is (1) owned by or the majority of stock or other ownership interest of the company is held or controlled by individuals who are citizens of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; (2) a company or other entity, including governmental entity, that is owned or controlled by citizens of or is directly controlled by the government of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; or (3) headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country. For purposes of this contract, “critical infrastructure” means “a communication infrastructure system, cybersecurity system, electric grid, hazardous waste treatment system, or water treatment facility.” See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2274.0101(2) of SB 1226 (87th leg.). The company verifies and certifies that company will not grant direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure, except for product warranty and support purposes, to prohibited individuals, companies, or entities, including governmental entities, owned, controlled, or headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country, as determined by the Governor.

  • Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions (a) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency.

  • Evaluation of Contractor Performance of the Contractor under this Agreement will be evaluated. The evaluation shall be prepared on Contract/Contractor Evaluation Sheet (STD 4), and maintained in the Agreement file. For consultant agreements, a copy of the evaluation will be sent to the Department of General Services, Office of Legal Services, if it is negative and over $5,000.

  • Status Substantial Compliance Analysis The Compliance Officer found that PPB is in substantial compliance with Paragraph 80. See Sections IV and VII Report, p. 17. COCL carefully outlines the steps PPB has taken—and we, too, have observed—to do so. Id. We agree with the Compliance Officer’s assessment. In 2018, the Training Division provided an extensive, separate analysis of data concerning ECIT training. See Evaluation Report: 2018 Enhanced Crisis Intervention Training, Training usefulness, on-the-job applications, and reinforcing training objectives, February 2019. The Training Division assessed survey data showing broad officer support for the 2018 ECIT training. The survey data also showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of officers who strongly agree that their supervisors are very supportive of the ECIT program, reaching 64.3% in 2018, compared to only 14.3% in 2015: The Training Division analyzed the survey results of the police vehicle operator training and supervisory in-service training, as well. These analyses were helpful in understanding attendees’ impressions of training and its application to their jobs, though the analyses did not reach as far as the ECIT’s analysis of post-training on- the-job assessment. In all three training analyses, Training Division applied a feedback model to shape future training. This feedback loop was the intended purpose of Paragraph 80. PPB’s utilization of feedback shows PPB’s internalization of the remedy. We reviewed surveys of Advanced Academy attendees, as well. Attendees were overwhelmingly positive in response to the content of most classes. Though most respondents agreed on the positive aspects of keeping the selected course in the curriculum, a handful of attendees chose options like “redundant” and “slightly disagree,” indicating that the survey tools could be used for critical assessment and not merely PPB self-validation. We directly observed PPB training and evaluations since our last report. PPB provided training materials to the Compliance Officer and DOJ in advance of training. Where either identified issues, PPB worked through those issues and honed its materials. As Paragraph 80 requires, PPB’s training included competency-based evaluations, namely: knowledge checks (i.e., quizzes on directives), in-class responsive quizzes (using clickers to respond to questions presented to the group); knowledge tests (examinations via links PPB sent to each student’s Bureau-issued iPhone); demonstrated skills and oral examination (officers had to show proficiency in first aid skills, weapons use, and defensive tactics); and scenario evaluations (officers had to explain their reasoning for choices after acting through scenarios). These were the same sort of competency-based evaluations we commended in our last report. In this monitoring period, PPB applied the same type of evaluations to supervisory-level training as well as in-service training for all sworn members. PPB successfully has used the surveys, testing, and the training audit.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.