CR_Opposition to Bausch and Lomb_Motion2STRIKE_1stBrief_Filled9_2015

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________________________
U.S.C.A APPEAL NO. 15-11914-BB
______________________________
CARLOS RAMIREZ, Pro Se
Appellant,
vs.
BAUSCH & LOMB, INC.,
Appellee.
_____________________________
APPELLANT CARLOS RAMIREZ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF APPELLANT’S APPENDIX AND
BRIEF
Pro Se - In Forma Pauperis
_______________________________________________
______________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TAMPA DIVISION
HONORABLE MARY S. SCRIVEN, PRESIDING DISTRICT COURT
CASE NO. 8:10-CV-02003-MSS-TGW
______________________
CARLOS RAMIREZ, Pro Se
General Delivery
Tampa, Fl. 33675
(813) 474 2038

Case: 15-11914 Page: 2
Carlos Ramirez vs. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
APPEAL No. 15-11914-BB
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules 26.1-1 through 26. 1-3, Appellant
Carlos Ramirez, certifies that the following is a complete list of the trial Judge, all
attorneys, persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporation that
have an interest in the outcome of the above case:
Ayers, Stephani., Esquire
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. a division of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(VRX)
Government Accountability Project
Guyer, Thad M., Esquire
Meyers, Richard F., Esquire
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Peppard, Lara J., Esquire
Ramirez, Carlos
Scriven, Mary S., United States District Judge

Case: 15-11914 Page: 3
T.M. Guyer and Ayers & Friends, P.C.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (VRX)
Wilson, Honorable Thomas G.
Zwetsch, Kevin D., Esquire
Respectfully submitted by,
Carlos Ramirez
General Delivery,
Tampa, FL, 33675
Telephone (813)474-2038

Case: 15-11914 Page: 4
CARLOS RAMIREZ, Pro Se
Plaintiff/Appellant,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
vs.
Appeal No. 15-11914-BB
BAUSCH & LOMB, INC.
Defendant/ Appellee.
APPELLANT CARLOS RAMIREZ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF APPELLANT’S
APPENDIX AND BRIEF
Appellant asks that these facts at issue do not be stricken because; they are part of
the truth which, Appellee has avoided by misleading the Judge with a bunch of
affidavits presented on its MSJ.
Since Appellant has moved as a Pro se Party, he stipulate not being schooled
on Law, he hasn’t, intentionally or disrespectfully intend to bypass the local
written rules and law related mandates and etiquette; he is just humbling
‘appealing’ a Motion for Summary Judgment granted to the Defendant party. I am
answering it with my clean conscious, truth, and evidence.
The seeking to trial Appellee Bausch & Lomb inc, at a Federal level has been an
uphill process in the quest for truth and justice, and since, I am handling it Pro Se,

Case: 15-11914 Page: 5
during appeal I am using this opportunity to set the record straight and in order to
attain that, Appellee’s motion to strike ought to be deny.
This Pro Se appeal endeavor was taken with the purpose of finding justice in your
Federal Judicial system, as it was, previously, the case at two (2) other instances as
it was the case at, the Florida Unemployment Compensation proceeding at which
Appelle, legal team of attorneys, produced evidence in the form of document
exhibits and, controversial and contradictory oral testimony offered by two of
Appellee’s employees; Gordon from Quality and, Callejas from Human Resources
which, (compared to their testimony at this litigation) .
The second instance it was, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
complaint that also produced evidence in the form of two written contradictory,
letters responses given by Appellee Bausch & Lomb corporate legal department, in
reply to the federal agency inquiries.
Appellee now seeks the windfall of excluding these well-known documents.
Appellee has known for years of these documents, has possession of them. Besides
the claims at: the State of Florida Unemployment Compensation and to the Equal
Employment Opportunities are public records or somehow accessible to this Court
of Appeals and its Judges.

Case: 15-11914 Page: 6
Appellee claims at its motion the following: “Appellant failed to request leave of
this Court or appended material to his brief without first filing a motion to
supplement.”
However, “A Pro Se complaint is held “to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers”
Whether to exclude relevant witnesses depositions and documented evidence; not
listed, considered or previously presented to the lower Court even though they are
mentioned at the Docket, is discretionary to the court.
Appellee, Bausch & Lomb inc., should not be granted its request to strike any
portion of Appellant’s brief and appendix because none of the materials in question
are redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous rather, are parts of the record
to which Appellant wishes to direct the court’s attention. By the contrary, the
presented materials are relevant to the decision at stake.
Moreover, the dispute portions of Appellant’s brief and the appendix have proper
relationship to the controversy and it will clarify the issues. This Pro Se - In Forma
Pauperis, Appellant will be otherwise prejudice.
This honorable court should conclude that the best course of action is to allow the
case to be decided on: the merits of and guided by the principle of, validly
gathered/interchanged between the parties at discovery and/or to answers given to
requests for production, pre trial list of exhibits. This case has had enough

Case: 15-11914 Page: 7
unnecessary secrecy through; seal of documents, sign of confidentiality agreements
which have always benefited Appellee’s quest to, demeanor the allegations and
walk out without a scratch.
The Appellees’s assertions and innuendo’s that it is prejudiced by surprise or
nondisclosure is meritless and it only seeks to obstruct justice.
It is nonsensical for Appellee to now argue that it did not have notice of these
portion records that they want this Court to strike. Further, given the clear notice of
years in this litigation and for Appellee to put in doubt the identity and existence
of; witnesses’ testimonies and evidence is just wrong. The evidence meets three
criteria: It is compelled, testimonial, and incriminating. Retaliatory animus was the
only cause of the challenged adverse employment action
In considering Appellee Motion to Strike, this Court should be guided by the well
settled principle that Motions to Strike are generally disfavored. For example, the
district court noted: Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the
Court to strike any “insufficient defense;” however it is well settled among courts
in this circuit that motions to strike are generally disfavored and will usually be
denied unless it is clear the pleading sought to be stricken is insufficient as a matter
of law. Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie Organiche S.A.S. v. Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 684 F.2d 776 (11thCir. 1982); Thompson v.
Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC, 211 F.Supp.2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2002); In re
Sunbeam Securities Litigation, 89 F.Supp.2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 1999)). A “court will
not exercise its discretion under the rule to strike a pleading unless the matter
sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse
the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Reyher v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. ,
881 F.Supp. 574 (M.D. Fla. 1995). 3 Blanc v. Safetouch, Inc., 2008 WL 4059786
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2008).
“Smith has not pointed to record evidence that any materially adverse employment
action was a matter of retaliation for her whistle-blowing”

Case: 15-11914 Page: 8
“because the only direct evidence of record was that plaintiff was terminated for a
legitimate reason, “[i]n order to avoid summary judgment, [he had to] show that
the record provide[d] circumstantial evidence that his termination was a matter of
reprisal.”) (Quotation and citations omitted)
Applying this standard to the present case should lead this Court to deny
Appellee’s Motion.
Contrary to what Bausch & Lomb asserts from The Motion (Dkt. 189) that,
the Middle District of Florida “…dismissed all issues in the case”, this one states
that, Appellant/Plaintiff case missed to: ‘probe but for – pretext’ hence, Appellant
Ramirez bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
B&L’s reason is merely pretext.
following;
Judge Scriven’s causation analysis motion (Dkt. 189) she established the
(Dkt. 189 p.4)
a. Whether Ramirez’s Remarks at the November 3, 2008 Meeting Constituted
Protected Activity Sufficiently Close in Time to Establish a Causal Connection
(Dkt. 189 p.8) “Thus, Ramirez has presented evidence demonstrating a close
temporal proximity between his employer’s knowledge of his protected activity
and his termination, which is sufficient to satisfy the causal connection prong.”
Accordingly, Ramirez has presented enough evidence to establish a prima facie
case of retaliation under the FWA according to the McDonnell-Douglas burdenshifting
analysis.”
(Dkt. 189 P. 10) “………..the burden shifts back to Ramirez to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that B&L’s reason is merely pretext. Crawford, 529
F.3d at 970. To establish pretext, Ramirez must rebut B&L’s proffered reason for
terminating him by demonstrating that “the proffered reason was not the true

Case: 15-11914 Page: 9
reason for the employment decision.” Jackson v. Ala. State Tenure Comm'n, 405
F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir. 2005)
Additionally, under the Supreme Court’s holding in University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013), Ramirez has the
ultimate burden of proving that “but for” his protected activity he would not have
been terminated.
In this appeal case, Appellant submitted information in his Appendix and Brief that
is listed in the U.S District Court Civil Docket for the Case.
Further, the following are the disputed entries on Appellant Ramirez’s Brief and
Appendix:
A. APPENDIX NO. 11, P. 120-25 (P.2)
Regarding Appendix entry of (Dkt. 101-2) Appellant made a mistake while
rushing putting together a due Appendix that needed to be mail therefore, pro se
Appellant listed an incorrect document number from the docket. The original
intended entry was; (Dkt.106-1 Page 4, Page ID 1807) which at its numbers
#29, 30 and 31 are referred as “Bausch & Lomb Job Description for Quality
Control Inspector”, it is related, important and appropriate to this issue because
it lists the Appellant’s protected Job Responsibilities.
Regarding (Dkt. 32-2, p. 2-3 Page ID 323) and contrary to B&L’ request to
strike the specific and valid record reference of (Dkt. 32-2, p. 2-3) which, is in
the civil Docket and titled: “Plaintiff’s objections and responses to Defendant’s
First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Carlos Ramirez.”

Case: 15-11914 Page: 10
How is a Court to decide a FWA, labor related, protected activity dispute without
taken in proper consideration, the fundamental and basic knowledge of what the
Appellant’s work duties were without considering the Appellee’s official, Job
Description and requirements of a, Pharmaceutical Quality Control Inspector.
B. APPENDIX NOS. 13, P. 131-35 (P. 2); 28, P. 164-65 (P. 7), 83, P.
232 (P. 19), 84, P. 233 (P. 20)
Pro Se Appellant urges this Court to consider excerpt pages of the deposition
transcript of Thomas whom, held the title of Manufacturing Group Leader for
Bausch and Lomb Pharmaceutical and was an active participant in the so called
‘insubordination’ incident that Bausch & Lomb used as a pre text excuse to fire
Appellant.
13, P. 131-35 (P. 2) Thomas is, one of Bausch & Lomb deposed employees,
and asserted the fact that, Appellant Ramirez gave her a reason as to why
Appellant would not start the line
28, P. 164-65 (P. 7) Thomas acknowledging of the fact that, Appellant
Ramirez, was absent for more than a month thus, he needed to be retrained on
GMP’s when he came back.
83, P. 232 (P. 19) Thomas acknowledging of the fact that, Appellant
Ramirez, gave her a reason as to why Appellant would not start the line
84, P. 233 (P. 20) Thomas acknowledging of the fact that, she did not hear
Appellant state that he was not going to start the line but, it was Gordon that told
her that.
Further, the testimonial deposition transcript of Thomas in this case should be
permitted to be appropriate because, it is direct evidence to establish that Judge
Scriven, was misled by Appellee’s Attorneys, reached and applied an inappropriate
judgment when she asserted the following:

Case: 15-11914 Page: 11
“…. the refusal to explain the refusal to start up the line is a legitimate, nonretaliatory
reason for termination.”
Appellant’s former legal non-profit organization assigned attorneys did handle the
opposition to Summary Judgment for me.
Besides, when I questioned about the absence of provided evidence to my former
Attorneys, they expressed to me that they did not consider relevant evidence
which, nowadays ends up being relevant. The same applies for the non submittal,
unrequested “Plaintiff Affidavit in opposition to defendant MSJ”
Citing the frustration and hopelessness of my standing in this case, my former
nonprofit counselors declined to assist me in any manner on the appeal due to; lack
of funds from the sponsoring nonprofit organization hence, leaving me to my own
resources
C. APPENDIX NOS. 14, 15, 16, P. 136-38 (P. 4), 70, P. 216 (P. 17),
73, P. 220 (P. 17), 85, P. 234-35 (P. 20)
14, P. 136 (P. 4) DEF000459, makes this honorable Court of Appeals aware that,
Appellant’ supervisor Mujagic knew, since she was notified by the company nurse
whom also email her as soon as the FMLA leave was approved, of Appellant leave
of absence status and the time it comprised.
15, P. 137 (P. 4) DEF000643 This document further leaves in evidence that
Appellant’ supervisor Mujagic, signed the approve FMLA on 8-4-08
16, P. 138 (P. 4) DEF000681 is an official Appellee, B & L’s form document
probes that the Appellant’s company nurse gave him the authorization to return to
work on 11-03-08 at 2:45p.m

Case: 15-11914 Page: 12
70, P. 216 (P. 17) DEF000174 is an ‘Official Time Away from work request form’
which, justify Appellant’s approved ‘vacation time’ for the time period from 19:00
on 11-05-08 to 11-12-08 (date that Appellant was scheduled to return to work).
The axiomatic request of why Appellee would like this form to be striken is that it
probes and discredits written deceiving statements made to the lower court in its
Defendant’s trial brief (Dkt. 148 p. 9) which reads: “… while he was suspended
pending investigation of his insubordination.”
73, P. 220 (P. 17) Appellee Bausch & Lomb ‘Confidential Proprietary Training
Department’ stamped DEF000349 form which unveils more appropriate evidence
as stated and pertinent on Appellant’s Brief.
85, P. 234-35 (P. 20) DEF000660-DEF000661 belongs to Thomas, contradictory
to her oral deposition testimony, handwritten statement report about, the incident
that led to Appellant’s firing from his job.
D. APPENDIX NO. 20, P. 145-46 (P.4), 24, P. 155-56 (P. 6), 59, P.
202-03 (P. 13), 65, P. 209 (P. 14)
20, P. 145-46 (P.4) refers to additional contradictory evidence from the deposition
testimony of Mujagic whom, contradicts herself when, questioned about Exhibit
#11 which corresponds to; an official B&L memorandum in reference to the
meeting held on 11-03-08 at which Appellant reiterated the safety concerns in the
manufacturing of medical devices for which Appellant was to care for as part of
his work duties.
24, P. 155-56 (P. 6) further contradictory deposition evidence from Appellee’s
Quality Control Supervisor Mujagic who, knew of the Appellee’s official company
policy (SOP) to be follow after an employee comes back from extended absence
however, Appellee’ Supervisor denied Appellant re training hence, did not follow
company policy.
59, P. 202-03 (P. 13) Quality Supervisor, Mujagic, part of her deposition where
she is questioned about her involvement in ‘cooking the production books’ on
some batches of medicines with broken glass found on them of which Appellant
blew the whistle. Also, Mujagic confessed her involvement in providing; a report
and suggesting disciplinary action to Appellee’s corporate attorneys in reference to
Appellant’s decision to hire an attorney due to the many incidents of retaliation
suffered while trying to do the job for which he was hired to do.

Case: 15-11914 Page: 13
65, P. 209 (P. 14) Quality Supervisor, Mujagic, declared her involvement in firing
Appellate, Ramirez, for an alleged ‘insubordination’ issue.
E. APPENDIX NO. 23, P. 150-57 (P. 5)
Judge Scriven relied heavily on Gould’s testimony and affidavits to grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment in this case therefore, it is valuable.
Appellee’s request to strike crucial and evidentiary parts of Bausch & Lomb
deposed employees is evidence enough to come to the conclusion that, as it has
been through this litigation, they do not want the truth to come out and by using all
kinds of legal maneuvers they, have kept Appellant story in the dark hence,
Appellant Ramirez request to this Court of Appeal to; deny in its totality
Appellee’s motion to strike which, only seeks to cover up the facts relevant to
probe ‘but for, pre text’
F. APPENDIX NO. 25, P. 158-161 (P. 7)
Appellant references p. 29 (page 161 of the Appendix) of the transcript of
Jose Hernandez’s deposition. (Dkt. 124-1),
G. APPENDIX NO. 34, P. 171 (P. 9)
Mistyped entry error from, Pro Se, Appellant’s part which were made at; listing in
the ‘Index of Appendix’ specifically, listing #34 should have called for “Def.
Sealed Exhibit [219] which corresponds to Appellee’ Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) 80-007 “Associate Procedural Training, Reading and On-The-Job
Training”. Instead of the listed Bates stamped [209] as item #34. The same mistype
error is at page 171 of 245 in the Appendix.
H. APPENDIX NOS. 43, P. 179-80 (P. 11), 63, P.207 (P. 14), 79, 80,
81, 82, PP. 228-31 (P. 19)
Appellant references pages 13, 20, 25, 26, 27 (pages 179-80, 207, 228-31 of
the Appendix) of the transcript of Valerie Gordon’s deposition. Although part of
the Gordon deposition transcript is part of the record (Dkt. 88-5), those pages are
not in the record however, this should be allow to be expanded because, of its
importance.
43, P. 179-80 (P. 11)
This transcript deposition evidence should be taken in consideration for the sake of
justice to come out so Appellant can prove ‘But-For Pre Text’
63, P.207 (P. 14)

Case: 15-11914 Page: 14
79, 80, 81, 82, PP. 228-31 (P. 19)
This transcript deposition evidence should be taken in consideration for the sake of
justice to come out and the web of many different and contradictory lies made by
Appellee’s employees so, Appellant can prove ‘But-For Pre Text’ since Gordon’
testimony is important to probe bad intent at the time of the ‘insubordination’
incident.
I. APPENDIX NO. 57, P. 199 (P. 13)
“Appellant references page 9 of the transcript of Javier Callejas’s deposition.
Although part of the Callejas deposition transcript is contained in the record below
(Dkt. 88-2), that page is not in the record.”
However, this page and citation demonstrate what Callejas duties and knowledge
his HR job functions consisted of.
J. APPENDIX NO. 69, P. 214-15 (P. 16)
“Appellant references document bates numbered “CR F. 26 p. 274-275” (Job
Posting) in the appendix. This document is one of the documents produced by
Appellant in response to “Defendant’s Request to Produce”
Appellee is also well aware of this crucial evidence since it was also used as
evidence during the Florida Unemployment compensation proceeding claim and
presented as well, by Appellant, to the EEOC. Finally, it is an essential key
evidentiary document.
K. APPENDIX NO. 72, P. 218-19 (P. 17)
“Appellant references “DEF000462-463 Document responsive to Plaintiff First
Request #17” in the appendix, and in the brief he states they were “Def’s sealed
documents.” These are not in the record or in the Defendant’s sealed documents.”
These e-mails interchanges were produced by the Appellee and its content show
pre-text hence, they are to be considered as, evidence.
L. APPENDIX NO. 73, P. 220 (P. 17)
“Appellant references “DEF349 Sealed Exhibits Document responsive to
Plaintiff’s First Request #1” in the Appendix. This document is not the record
below or in the Defendant’s sealed documents”

Case: 15-11914 Page: 15
Same entry, double requested, as of letter C of Appellee’s Motion to Strike.
CONCLUSION
Appelle Bausch & Lomb’s Motion to strike valid evidence and swore given
testimonies by appellee’s employees is without merit, admits that under certain
circumstances an Appeal Court can permit a record to be supplemented on appeal,
and seeks to hide the truth hence, it is a discretionary determination for this Court
to deny The Defendant’s Motion to Strike or seek other remedies.
DATED this 29 th day of December, 2015
Respectfully submitted by,
________________________________________________
Carlos Ramirez Pro Se Appellant

Case: 15-11914 Page: 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Appellants Opposition Motion has been
provided to the following individuals by deposit in the U.S. Mail with proper
postage affixed this 29 th day of December, 2015.
Lara Peppard, Esq.
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.
Ogletree Deakins, PC
Suite 3600, 100 N. Tampa Street
Tampa, Florida. 33602
_______________________
CARLOS RAMIREZ, Pro Se
General Delivery
Tampa, Fl 33675
(813) 474 2038