IBM opposed plaintiff's motion to preclude introduction of the internal investigation conducted by HR. IBM argued that the investigation was directly relevant to IBM's motive in deciding to terminate plaintiff and that the investigation report was admissible as a business record. IBM also argued that it needed the investigation report to defend itself against plaintiff's claim of "willfulness."

1. Case 3:09-cv-01145-TPS Document 157-1 Filed 11/29/13 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JAMES CASTELLUCCIO,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:09 CV 1145 (TPS)
– against –
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
November 29, 2013
Defendant.
AFFIRMATION OF ZACHARY D. FASMAN
Zachary D. Fasman, a member of the firm of Paul Hastings LLP, counsel for
Defendant, affirms and says:
1.
During a conversation with Plaintiff’s counsel, Mark Carta, I represented
to Mr. Carta that IBM would oppose any motion in limine filed outside of the permissible time
period that this Court had established for the raising of anticipated evidentiary issues. I further
stated that, if he did file such a motion, IBM preserved all rights to challenge the timeliness of
that motion in any subsequent response.
2.
Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a June 30, 2008 e-mail
from Russell Mandel to Keith Holmes.
3.
Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s November
14, 2013 letter to the Court requesting permission to file the instant motion.
4.
Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
April 21, 2010 Deposition of Patricia O’Malley.

2. Case 3:09-cv-01145-TPS Document 157-1 Filed 11/29/13 Page 2 of 2