EXHIBIT 3

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/14/2016 10:59 PM INDEX NO. 156005/2015

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/14/2016

Marc Wegner, Esq. Kimberly Dobson, Esq. May 24, 2016 Page 2 of 5 v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137356, 2011 WL 5979650 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2011) (in a wage and employment discrimination case brought under federal and New York law, court ordered production of personnel files of supervisors alleged by the plaintiff to have engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory misconduct; Ladson v. Ulltra E. Parking Corp., 164 F.R.D. 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (same). Indeed, you agreed to produce the individual Defendants’ personnel records during the May 2nd Meet and Confer but have failed to produce them to date1, which is the reason why the previously noticed depositions of Defendants Joe DeRosa and Kenneth Primiano did not go forward last week on May 19, 2016 as planned. Plaintiff is of the position that negotiation of the confidentiality stipulation should not delay production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 14 since the alleged confidential information relates to each of the witnesses to be deposed and will be used for no other reason until the confidentiality stipulation is agreed to. Moreover, to the extent the parties cannot agree to language for the confidentiality stipulation, Plaintiff will request that the Court impose an agreement on the parties at the appearance on June 15th, in an effort to resolve this matter in a timely way if we cannot agree to an agreement before that date. Second, provide adjournment dates for the depositions of Defendants Joe DeRosa and Kenneth Primiano to be completed before June 15, 2016. Please note that I am unavailable on June 6-8, 2016. Please also confirm the availability of Defendant Dudley Eisser, Gary Winsper and Matthew Settanni2 for deposition on June 20, 2016. If deposition dates for all of these witnesses are not confirmed by Defendants by next Tuesday, Plaintiff will move to compel production of these witnesses for deposition. Third, produce the personnel files for each of the six (6) individuals alleged to have been dismissed pursuant to the same so-called reduction in force that Defendants’ 1 To the extent any of the Defendants maintain the position that they cannot produce the personnel files of the individually-named Defendants, or any documents noted herein, because of the failure of the parties to agree to the terms of a confidentiality stipulation, please note that Plaintiff only received Defendants’ proposed confidentiality agreement on Friday, May 13, 2016 at 4:18 p.m. Plaintiff provided Defendants’ counsel with edits on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 and urged Defendants’ counsel to respond to or incorporate the proposed edits quickly so as not to further delay discovery in this matter. Seven days later, there has been no response from Defendants regarding the edits to the confidentiality stipulation, nor have Defendants produced any documents promised to Plaintiff’s counsel during the meet and confer on May 2nd. 2 Although you have previously claimed that Skanska could not locate any supervisor named Matthew Settanni (identified previously with the name spelled differently), Skanska’s in-house counsel, Waiel Hussein, who was present at Plaintiff’s deposition on May 17, 2016 and stated that Mr. Settanni is a current Skanska employee. Accordingly, please find attached a deposition notice for Mr. Settanni.

Marc Wegner, Esq. Kimberly Dobson, Esq. May 24, 2016 Page 3 of 5 claim led to Plaintiff’s termination of employment. See Phoenix/Skanska’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Request No. 11. This information is requested in Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 9. During the May 2nd Meet and Confer, we discussed the relevance of the requested comparator information, and recent caselaw that supports Plaintiff’s position that the requested information must be produced. For example, in McMahon v New York Organ Donor Network, Inc, 28 N.Y.S.3d 282, 285-86 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016), Justice Bluth recently ordered production of the personnel files of all similarly situated employees to afford the plaintiff the evidence he needs to test the defendants’ alleged justification for the plaintiff’s termination. In the instant case, Plaintiff requires production of the personnel files for all the employees listed by Phoenix/Skanska in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11 to test Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff was terminated pursuant to a bona fide reduction in force. Fourth, produce copies of any agreement relating to any insurance coverage that Defendants believe is relevant to this proceeding. Any relevant documents regarding insurance coverage should have been produced pursuant to the Pretrial Conference Order, dated July 30, 2015 by September 2015. Plaintiff also requested copies of any relevant insurance agreements pursuant to Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 49. If the requested information is not produced by next Tuesday, Plaintiff will move to compel production. Fifth, produce all documents that support Defendants’ position that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey made the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment at the World Trace Center site as alleged in responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 10 from Phoenix/Skanska. These documents are responsive to Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 8 propounded on all Defendants. Moreover, as discussed during the May 2nd Meet and Confer, please produce the name of the individual employed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who Defendants allege made the specific decision to terminate the employment of Plaintiff. This information is specifically requested by Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 10. Sixth, produce all documents obtained by Defendants in this litigation from third-parties pursuant to Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 24. In response to this Document Request, Phoenix/Skanska claimed, without any citation for support, that Defendants would produce medical records if Plaintiff paid half the cost. Given the amount of discovery that has been produced by Plaintiff, which is three times as much information as that produced by Defendants in this litigation to date, as well as Defendants’ failure to cite to any authority in the CPLR or elsewhere regarding Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for half of Defendants’ costs of production, the documents should be produced by next week or production will be compelled pursuant to Court order. Seventh, identify by Bates stamp range the documents that are responsive to Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 6 seeking all documents regarding Defendants’ policies to prevent discrimination and retaliation, which was propounded on all