Summary
allowing broader discovery where parties disputed who the true decisionmaker was
Summary of this case from Long v. Landvest Corp.Opinion
Civil Action No 01-2390-CM
July 31, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. 35). Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to respond to her Interrogatory Nos. 10-11, First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 10, 11, 16, 17, 21-22, and Second Request No. 1. Plaintiff also requests that the Court order Defendant to produce the records it agreed to produce in response to First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 6, 10, 16, 17, and 24. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion is granted in part.
I. Relevant Factual Background
This is an employment discrimination case in which Plaintiff claims Defendant Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. ("Farmers") terminated her employment based upon her age and gender, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff was employed with defendant Farmers as the Director of the Claims Department for the Recreational Products Insurance ("RPI") department. The RPI department, part of the Speciality Claims Unit, was supervised by John Honore. In March 2000, Plaintiff's employment with Farmers was terminated. One of the reasons given for terminating Plaintiff's employment was her department's failure to meet certain audit standards, which were intended to be measures of the performance of the claims department.
29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Plaintiff served her First Interrogatories to Defendant and First Request for Production of Documents on April 1, 2002. Defendant served its responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and First Request for Production on May 3, 2002. In several of its responses, Defendant objected to the discovery requests and limited the scope of its responses to the claims offices managed by Plaintiff's supervisor, John Honore. After conferring on their dispute, Plaintiff filed the instant motion in which she requests that the Court compel Defendant to fully respond to the identified interrogatories and requests for production.
Doc. 26.
Doc. 32.
II. Discussion A. Interrogatory Nos. 10-11 and First Request Nos. 10-11
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 10 requests that Defendant identify each claims department since January 1, 1998 that was subject to the same audit standards as those applied to the RPI claims department managed by Plaintiff. In conjunction with this Interrogatory, Plaintiff's First Request No. 10 seeks production of all documents relating to any audit performed since January 1, 1998 in those identified claims department. Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 11 and Request No. 11 request identification and production of documents relating to each supervisory or managerial employee since January 1, 1998, who was disciplined or discharged for failure to meet the audit standards. Defendant objected to these discovery requests on the basis that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in scope, and seek information that is neither relevant to the pending issues or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically, Defendant contends that the scope of the discovery requests should be limited to the claims departments managed by Plaintiff's supervisor, John Honore.
1. Relevancy and overly broad objections
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that the "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Since the 2000 amendments to Rule 26 narrowed the scope of relevancy from "subject matter of the action" to "claim or defense of any party," a request for discovery will be considered relevant under the amended rule if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to a "claim or defense of any party."
Hill v. Dillard's, Inc., No. 00-2523-JWL, 2002 WL 73751, at *7 (D.Kan. Jan. 4, 2002).
When the discovery sought appears relevant as defined by the amended rule, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that the requested discovery (1) does not come within the broad scope of relevance as defined under amended Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure. Similarly, a party resisting discovery on the grounds that a request is overly broad has the burden to support its objection, unless the request is overly broad on its face. When the relevancy of propounded discovery is not apparent, however, its proponent has the burden to show the discovery relevant.
Scott v. Leavenworth Unified Sch. Dist. No. 453, 190 F.R.D. 583, 585 (D.Kan. 1999); Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656 (D.Kan. 1999); see also Snowden By and Through Victor v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 137 F.R.D. 336, 341 (D.Kan. 1991) (holding that a request for discovery should be allowed "unless it is clear that the information sought can have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the action.")
Etienne, 185 F.R.D. at 656; Hilt v. SFC Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D.Kan. 1997).
Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295, 309 (D.Kan. 1996).
Discovery in employment discrimination cases depends heavily upon the particular circumstances of the case. The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that discovery in discrimination cases should not be narrowly circumscribed. The scope of discovery is particularly broad in a Title VII case and "an employer's general practices are relevant even when a plaintiff is asserting an individual claim for disparate treatment." This desire to allow broad discovery, however, is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights of both plaintiff and defendant. "As a general rule, the testimony of other employees about their treatment by the defendant is relevant to the issue of the employer's discriminatory intent."
Epling v. UCB Films, Inc., No. 98-4226-RDR, 98-4227-RDR, 00-4062-RDR, 2001 WL 584355, at *4 (D.Kan. Apr. 2, 2001).
Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp., 522 F.2d 333, 343-44 (10th Cir. 1975)).
Id. (citing Scales v. J.C. Bradford Co., 925 F.2d 901, 906 (6th Cir. 1991)).
Id.
Spulak v. K Mart Corp., 894 F.2d 1150, 1156 (10th Cir. 1990).
"In determining the geographic scope of discovery for non-class action complaints, the `most natural focus is upon the source of the complained discrimination — the employing unit or work unit.'" That focus may be expanded, however, if the plaintiff can show the requested information is "particularly cogent" to the matter. In other words, if the plaintiff can show that the information sought is particularly convincing or compelling to his or her case. Information that may establish a pattern of discrimination is discoverable even when the action seeks only individual relief. When a motive or intent of a defendant employer is at issue, information concerning its conduct towards employees other than the plaintiff is relevant. The quintessential relevancy inquiry is to determine whether the actions of the facility with regard to plaintiff's employment are sufficiently akin to the employment practices of the other facilities to be discoverable.
Mackey v. IBP, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 186, 195 (D.Kan. 1996) (quoting Heward v. Western Elec. Co., No. 83-2293, 1984 WL 15666, at *6 (10th Cir. July 3, 1984) (citations omitted)).
See Heward, 1984 WL 15666, at *6.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Kansas City S. Ry., No. 99-2512-GTV, 2000 WL 33675756, at *4 (D.Kan. Oct. 2, 2000) (citing Johnson v. W.H. Stewart Co., 75 F.R.D. 541, 543 (W.D.Okla. 1976)).
Spulak, 894 F.2d at 1156.
Naerebout v. IBP, Inc., No. 91-2254-L, 1992 WL 754399, at *2 (D.Kan. Aug. 19, 1992) (citations omitted).
The discovery requests at issue here seek identification and information on the claims departments subject to the same audit standards as the RPI department and managerial employees disciplined or discharged for failure to meet these audit standards. Defendant limited the scope of its discovery responses to the group of claims offices managed by John Honore, Plaintiff's former immediate supervisor, claiming that any other information is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to discovery of Defendant's evaluation and treatment of other claims office managers who were subject to the audit standards imposed upon her. She claims she is entitled to discovery that would show whether Defendant's assertion that her failure to meet the audit standards warranted discharge was applied with the same vigor and same consequences to other managers of claims offices who were younger or male. Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff's claimed reason for requesting the discovery. It only argues that this does not entitle Plaintiff to nationwide discovery.
In the present case, Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that the information sought is "particularly cogent" to her case. The Court determines that discovery pertaining to whether other claims departments, even those supervised by managers other than John Honore, were subject to the same audit standards and the treatment of other managerial employees who failed to meet the audit standards is relevant to Plaintiff's claims and should not be restricted to Plaintiff's work unit, which is defined by Defendant as the Speciality Claims Unit.
Defendant also argues that information regarding employment decisions made by supervisors other than Plaintiff's supervisor are not relevant because in disparate treatment claims, Plaintiff must show that she was treated differently than "similarly situated" individuals. While it is true that to be considered "similarly situated" the individuals with whom the plaintiff seeks to compare his/her treatment must have dealt with the same supervisor, this does not necessarily preclude all discovery into facts and circumstances involving different supervisors.
Henry v. Gehl Corp., 867 F. Supp. 960, 964 (D.Kan. 1994).
This is especially true in this case because the parties dispute whether John Honore was the true decision-maker in Defendant's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff claims that her supervisor, John Honore, merely recommended her discharge and his recommendation required the approval by his managers, Phil Huyser and Joe Petrangelo. Defendant disagrees arguing that Mr. Honore was the true decision-maker and he only consulted with the human resources and legal departments prior to terminating Plaintiff's employment. Given the broad scope of discovery and the fact that an issue to whether John Honore was the true decision-maker exists, discovery pertaining to other claims departments subjected to the same audit standards as those applied to the RPI department should not be narrowly circumscribed to only those claims departments supervised by John Honore.
As Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that her Interrogatory Nos. 10-11 and First Request Nos. 10-11 are particularly cogent to her case, Defendant's relevancy and overly broad objections to these discovery requests are therefore overruled. Defendant may not restrict the scope of these discovery requests to only those claims departments managed by John Honore.
2. Unduly burdensome objection
Defendant also argues that gathering the information sought by Plaintiff's discovery requests would be unduly burdensome. It claims to have well over 100 claims offices across the country; and, in 1998, it had over 200 claims offices. For it to obtain the requested information on all of the managers in these various claims offices since 1998 would be time consuming and unduly burdensome. Defendant, however, fails to provide the Court with any evidence to support its assertion that answering Plaintiff's discovery requests would be unduly burdensome. Defendant's statement to the number of claims offices it had in 1998, without some other type of indication of the type or level of effort required to obtain the information, is not sufficient to show that the discovery requests would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiff states that she is not seeking audit information regarding hundreds of small drive-up claims offices. She seeks the audit materials from the regional claims offices at the time she was managing RPI. She asserts that at the time the audit standards were applied to her RPI claims office in Janaury 1998, there were four regional claims offices located in Sacramento, Indianapolis, Hartford, Baltimore, along with the Speciality claims offices. Based on the facts presented in the pleadings, Defendant has failed to establish that fully responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests would be unduly burdensome. Defendant's overly burdensome objection is therefore overruled. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel as to Interrogatory Nos. 10-11 and First Request Nos. 10-11 is granted.
B. First Request No. 16
Plaintiff's First Request No. 16 seeks documents which relate to any audit performed since January 1, 1996 at the Sacramento, Indianapolis, Hartford, Baltimore, Marine Speciality, Antique Auto and RPI claims offices. Defendant objects to the request claiming that it should only have to produce documents for departments managed by John Honore.
For the reasons set forth in the Court's discussion above in section IIA, the Court determines that Defendant shall not restrict the scope of Plaintiff's First Request No. 16 to only the departments managed by John Honore. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to First Request No. 16 is granted.
C. First Request No. 17
Request No. 17 requests performance evaluations and balanced score cards for eleven named employees. Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is overly broad in scope. Defendant claims that it should only have to produce employee folders for individuals who worked in a supervisory or managerial position directly under John Honore.
For the reasons set forth in the Court's discussion above in section IIA, the Court determines that Defendant shall not restrict the scope of Plaintiff's First Request No. 17 to the employee folders for individuals who worked directly under John Honore. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to First Request No. 17 is granted.
D. First Request Nos. 21 and 22
Plaintiff's First Request Nos. 21 and 22 seek information on age and/or sex discrimination complaints, charges, or lawsuits filed by any managerial or supervisory employee or former employee of Defendant since January 1, 1998. Defendant objects to the requests to the extent they seek information outside of John Honore's supervision. It also argues that requiring it to produce nationwide information on its sex and age discrimination complaints and lawsuits would require an oppressive and burdensome expenditure of substantial time and resources to research and gather the requested information.
In her reply brief, Plaintiff states that her requests seeks the discrimination charges and lawsuits alleging sex or age discrimination filed by claim's managers at the following offices: (i) all Speciality Claims, (ii) Sacramento, (iii) Indianapolis, (iv) Hartford, and (v) Baltimore. The Court determines that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that her First Request Nos. 21-22 should not be restricted in scope to only those claims departments managed by John Honore. The Court further determines that Defendant has not met its burden of showing that fully responding to these discovery requests would be unduly burdensome. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel as to First Request Nos. 21 and 22 is granted.
E. Information not yet produced by Defendant 1. Personnel files
Plaintiff contends that Defendant's production of five personnel files in response to her First Request for Production No. 6 is not complete. She argues that John Honore's personnel file must be incomplete because it only contains 16 pages of documents and contains no documents dated before August 2000, five months after she was discharged. She compares the 16 pages produced in Mr. Honore's personnel file to the 578 pages produced for the personnel file of John Honore's boss, Phil Huyser. Defendant states in response that it has produced the entire personnel files of Honore, Nagle and Snyder and is in the process of confirming that these files were provided in the their entirety. If any material in the files was not produced, Defendant states it will produce that documentation immediately. Defendant also states that it has agreed to produce the personnel files of Huyser and Pietrangelo and is in the process of obtaining these files.
Based upon Defendant's representations in its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to compel on First Request No. 6 to be moot.
2. Audit results for other claims managers in the Speciality Claims Unit
Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has failed to produce documents requested by First Request No. 10 pertaining to the five claims officers under Mr. Honore's supervision. Defendant states in response that the available information has been produced and it has re-initiated its efforts to find responsive information to Plaintiff's requests and will supplement its responses as soon as the information is available. Based upon Defendant's representations, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce the audit results for other claims managers in the Speciality Claims Unit to be moot.
3. Audit results for RPI for 2000 and 2001
Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has not produced RPI's audit results for 2002 and 2001. Defendant states that since the filing of the instant motion, it has located and produced the 2000 audit results. Defendant also indicated that there is no audit result for 2001. Based upon Defendant's representations, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to compel on First Request No. 6 to also be moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted in part. Defendant shall fully respond to Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 and First Request for Production Nos. 10, 11, 16, 17, 21 and 22 and Second Request for Production No. 1 without limiting its responses to the claims departments supervised by Plaintiff's former immediate supervisor, John Honore. Defendant's responses to these discovery requests shall be produced within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to produce information it previously agreed to produce and to supplement its responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production Nos. 6, 10, 16, 17 and 24 is deemed moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.