Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories
Preliminary Statement
Defendant NovaStream Logistics, LLC ("NovaStream" or "Defendant"), by and through its attorneys, Dominguez-Park McCarthy LLP, responds to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories as follows.
NovaStream objects to Plaintiff's Definitions and Instructions to the extent they seek to impose obligations beyond those required by the New Jersey Court Rules. Subject to and without waiving these objections, NovaStream responds as follows.
General Objections
- NovaStream objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.
- NovaStream objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, or seeks information not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action.
- NovaStream objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential business information. NovaStream will produce such information subject to an appropriate protective order.
- NovaStream reserves the right to supplement these responses as discovery continues and additional information becomes available.
Interrogatory Responses
Interrogatory No. 1:
Identify all officers, directors, and managers of NovaStream from January 2024 to present...
Response:
NovaStream's officers and key managers are:
- Priya Sharma, CEO and Founder (August 2024 - present)
85 Edison Place, Newark, NJ 07102 - Marcus Chen, COO (October 2024 - present)
85 Edison Place, Newark, NJ 07102 - Diane Okonkwo, Head of Finance (November 2024 - present)
85 Edison Place, Newark, NJ 07102
NovaStream is a limited liability company and does not have a board of directors. Ownership information will be provided subject to a protective order.
Interrogatory No. 4:
Describe in detail the criteria NovaStream uses to determine whether an individual providing delivery services is classified as an "independent contractor" versus an "employee."
Response:
[DRAFT NOTE: This response needs partner review. I've drafted a response that describes the criteria but I'm concerned it may be too detailed and could be used against us. See highlighted concerns below.]
NovaStream classifies individuals who provide delivery services through its platform as independent contractors based on the following criteria:
1. Drivers control their own schedule and are not required to work any minimum hours
[CONCERN: The block priority system effectively penalizes cancellations - should we address this?]
2. Drivers may work for other delivery platforms or businesses
[CONCERN: The during-block exclusivity provision limits this - is this accurate?]
3. Drivers provide their own vehicles and equipment
4. Drivers are paid per delivery rather than an hourly wage
5. Drivers may designate substitutes to perform deliveries on their behalf
[CONCERN: Marcus admitted we don't really process sub requests - is this misleading?]
6. Drivers are free to determine their own delivery routes
[CONCERN: RouteGenius deviations affect efficiency scores - how do we address this?]
[ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: Should we simply state that NovaStream's classification is based on legal advice received from counsel and the structure of the Independent Contractor Agreement, without detailing specific criteria that can be attacked?]
Interrogatory No. 9:
Describe in detail the training that drivers are required to complete before providing delivery services...
Response:
Before providing delivery services, drivers complete a self-paced online onboarding module called "Delivery Excellence." The module takes approximately 90-120 minutes and covers:
- How to use the NovaStream Driver App
- Package handling best practices
- Customer service expectations
- Safety guidelines
- Legal compliance requirements (traffic laws, etc.)
Completion of the module is required before a driver can access delivery Blocks. The module is informational in nature and is designed to familiarize drivers with NovaStream's platform and customer expectations. It does not constitute job training or supervision of work methods.
[DRAFT NOTE: Plaintiff will argue this training suggests control. The "required" language is problematic. Should we emphasize the informational nature more strongly?]
Interrogatory No. 10:
Describe in detail how RouteGenius operates...
Response:
RouteGenius is a route optimization feature within the NovaStream Driver App that suggests delivery sequences based on factors including traffic conditions, delivery time windows, and geographic efficiency.
(a) RouteGenius considers the following factors: real-time traffic data, delivery time windows specified by retailers, geographic clustering of deliveries, and historical delivery time data.
(b) Drivers are not required to follow RouteGenius routes. The feature provides suggestions that drivers may accept or decline at their discretion. Drivers may take alternative routes based on their own knowledge of local conditions.
(c) [CRITICAL - NEED PARTNER GUIDANCE]
[DRAFT NOTE: This is the most dangerous interrogatory. The Slack logs show that Priya told Marcus to "act like they have autonomy even if practically speaking there are consequences." If we say there are no consequences for deviation, that's contradicted by the evidence. If we say there are consequences, we're admitting control.]
Option A (Deny consequences):
There are no penalties or consequences for drivers who choose alternative routes. Driver ratings reflect customer feedback, not route choices. Block allocation is based on multiple factors and is not directly tied to route compliance.
Option B (Acknowledge system effects):
While drivers are not penalized for route choices, the efficiency metrics that NovaStream tracks may reflect delivery times, which can be affected by route choices. These metrics are one of several factors considered in the Block allocation algorithm.
[RECOMMENDATION: Option B is more defensible given the evidence, but it essentially admits the control issue. Need partner input.]
Interrogatory No. 14:
Describe NovaStream's policy and process for drivers to designate substitutes...
Response:
[DRAFT NOTE: This response must be reconciled with Marcus's admission that 12 of 14 substitution requests went unanswered. We cannot misrepresent the facts.]
NovaStream's Independent Contractor Agreement permits drivers to designate substitutes subject to the conditions specified in Section 4.4 of the Agreement.
(a) Substitution requests are submitted via email or through the NovaStream Driver App.
(b) Substitution requests are reviewed by operations personnel.
(c) Approval criteria include completion of NovaStream's standard background check and agreement to confidentiality provisions.
(d) [PROBLEMATIC] NovaStream endeavors to respond to substitution requests within a reasonable timeframe.
[DRAFT NOTE: We cannot say this. Marcus admitted there's no real process and most requests go unanswered. Suggesting we "endeavor to respond" is misleading.]
[PROPOSED REVISION:]
(d) NovaStream acknowledges that its substitution review process was not fully developed during the relevant time period. The company is implementing improved procedures.
(e) From January 2024 to present, NovaStream received approximately 14 substitution requests. Two were approved. The remaining requests were not processed due to the lack of a formalized review procedure.
[DRAFT NOTE: This is honest but damaging. Need partner guidance on whether to be this forthcoming or assert objections.]
Interrogatory No. 18:
Describe in detail Plaintiff's July 2025 request to designate a substitute driver...
Response:
On or about July 17, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a request via Slack direct message to Marcus Chen, NovaStream's COO, to designate a substitute driver for a weekend delivery Block. Plaintiff stated that his mother was having surgery and he needed to be with her.
Mr. Chen acknowledged receipt of the request and indicated he would "check on the process."
[TRUTHFUL BUT DAMAGING:]
NovaStream did not approve or formally deny Plaintiff's request. The request was not processed due to the absence of a formalized substitution review procedure at that time. Plaintiff subsequently cancelled his Block.
[DRAFT NOTE: The Slack logs clearly show Marcus said "we just don't have a good process for subs right now." We have to be truthful. This answer supports Plaintiff's claim that the substitution right was illusory.]
Interrogatory No. 22:
Describe the basis for the $225.25 deduction from Plaintiff's final payment labeled "package value recovery"...
Response:
The $225.25 deduction represents the wholesale value of packages that were damaged during the September 15, 2025 accident while in Plaintiff's custody.
(a) The amount was calculated based on the wholesale cost of the damaged merchandise as reported by the affected retailers.
(b) Section __ of the Independent Contractor Agreement authorizes NovaStream to recover the value of goods damaged while in a driver's custody.
[DRAFT NOTE: I need to verify which section of the IC Agreement authorizes this. I reviewed the agreement and could not find a clear provision authorizing deductions for damage not caused by driver negligence.]
(c) [PROBLEMATIC] Similar deductions have been made for other drivers in accident situations.
[DRAFT NOTE: I don't know if this is true. Need to verify with Diane. If we have NOT made similar deductions in other accidents, this answer is misleading. If we HAVE made such deductions, it may expose us to additional claims.]
[ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE:]
NovaStream objects to subpart (c) as overbroad and seeking information about non-parties. Without waiving this objection, NovaStream states that it does not maintain a centralized database tracking deduction practices across all accident situations.
Interrogatory No. 24:
For each deduction made from Plaintiff's compensation, state: (a) the date; (b) the amount; (c) the category...
Response:
NovaStream refers Plaintiff to the payment records produced as NOVASTREAM_000001-000045, which detail all payments and deductions for Plaintiff during his tenure.
The deductions made from Plaintiff's compensation were as follows:
[See attached table - cross-referenced with C2 Payroll Records]
| Date | Amount | Category | Reason | Advance Notice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/19/2025 | $22.50 | Failed delivery | Customer not available (3 packages) | No |
| 5/10/2025 | $15.00 | Failed delivery | Incorrect address (2 packages) | No |
| 5/31/2025 | $30.00 | Block completion | Incomplete deliveries (4 packages) | No |
| 6/21/2025 | $22.50 | Failed delivery | Access code not provided (3 packages) | No |
| 7/19/2025 | $37.50 | Block completion | Late deliveries (5 packages) | No |
| 8/9/2025 | $52.50 | Route deviation | Excess mileage (7 deliveries) | No |
| 9/6/2025 | $7.50 | Failed delivery | Dog at location (1 package) | No |
| 9/15/2025 | $225.25 | Package recovery | Accident damage | No |
[DRAFT NOTE: The "Advance Notice" column is damaging - we didn't provide advance notice for any deduction. NJ Wage Payment Law may require written authorization. Also, the 8/9 "route deviation" deduction appears to have been calculated incorrectly per the payroll records - the formula notes indicate an error. Should we address this proactively?]
Verification
[TO BE SIGNED BY CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE AFTER REVIEW]
I, _________________, am the _________________ of NovaStream Logistics, LLC. I have read the foregoing Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. The factual statements contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, based upon reasonable inquiry.
Signature
Date
Outstanding Issues for Partner Review
- Interrogatory 4 (Classification Criteria): How detailed should we be? Every criterion we list can be attacked.
- Interrogatory 10(c) (RouteGenius Consequences): The Slack logs contradict a denial. How do we handle this?
- Interrogatory 14 (Substitution Process): Marcus admitted no real process exists. How forthcoming should we be?
- Interrogatory 22 (Package Recovery Deduction): I cannot find clear contractual authorization for this deduction. Is this a problem?
- Interrogatory 24 (Deduction Notice): No advance notice was provided for any deduction. Does this violate the Wage Payment Law?
- General: Several responses reveal facts that support Plaintiff's claims. Should we be more aggressive with objections, or is honesty the better approach given the documentary evidence?
END OF DRAFT