Case v. Platte County

Full title: ROBERT CASE AND JOHN DOES, Plaintiff, v. PLATTE COUNTY, NEBRASKA, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Nebraska

Date published: Jun 11, 2004

8:03CV160 (D. Neb. Jun. 11, 2004)

Opinion

8:03CV160.

June 11, 2004

ORDER

F. A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the court on plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#14). Plaintiff has complied with NELR 7.1(i). Having reviewed the parties briefs and evidentiary materials, I find that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part

Background

Apparently, plaintiff was employed by the Platte County Highway Department or the Platte County Department of Roads in various capacities until his employment was terminated in September 2001 (see#16). The complaint alleges that plaintiff suffered a workers compensation injury on September 22, 2000 and was off work under doctor's orders until February 2001. After plaintiff returned to work, he was assigned duties such as flagging traffic for the asphalt crew and assisting the asphalt crew in transport and routine maintenance of equipment. Plaintiff was also asked to operate a pneumatic roller if physically able. On August 9, 2001 plaintiff was assigned lighter duty around shop facility, including sweeping, trimming weeds and keeping shop area clean (see #18).

The complaint alleges that defendant discriminated against plaintiff by refusing to accommodate plaintiff's work restrictions. Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed and then fired for not being able to perform the positions and assignments given to him, which were inconsistent with the restrictions and reasonable accommodations that plaintiff sought. Plaintiff further alleges that various positions were open that were consistent with plaintiff's restrictions but that plaintiff was rarely granted the opportunity to perform such work.

Law

The scope of discovery in a civil case is limited by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, as follows:

(b) Discovery Scope and Limits. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(I), (ii), and (iii).

(Emphasis Added)

A. Request for County-wide Discovery

Defendant's answers to interrogatories were made only on behalf of the Platte County Department of Roads. Plaintiff contends that defendant should be compelled to answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 5, 7, 11-12, 15, 17-18 and include in his responses county-wide data, because the county, not the Department of Roads, was plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff argues that answers "on behalf of all of defendant and not just one department are relevant and could lead to discovery of relevant evidence." Defendant contends that the Department of Roads was plaintiff's employer, not the county as a whole, since the Department of Roads operates independently of other departments of Platte County.

Two circuit cases provide insight into how the discovery issue should be decided. In Carman v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 114 F.3d 790, 792 (8^th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the plaintiff's discovery request for company-wide records to the facility where the plaintiff was employed, in the absence of a showing of particularized need for regional or nationwide discovery. There the court observed that company-wide statistics are usually not helpful in establishing pretext in an employment-discrimination case, because those who make employment decisions vary across divisions. Id. at 792.

In Carroll v. United Parcel Services, No. 02-4306, 2003 WL 21831937 (3^rd Cir., Aug. 6, 2003), the Third Circuit approved limiting the plaintiff's discovery request for all disciplinary reports of all UPS employees (300,000 employees nationwide) over a twelve year period to only those reports originating during a five-year period within the UPS district where plaintiff was employed (one of 60 in the nation).

In the absence of the plaintiff showing a particularized need for county-wide discovery, the court finds that plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to provide county-wide answers to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 7, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 and document requests Nos. 10-13 and 18-20 should be denied. Defendant's answers to plaintiff's interrogatories may be limited to the Department of Roads, the department that actually employed the plaintiff and where plaintiff actually worked.

B. Production of Documents

With respect to document request No. 14, plaintiff requests that defendant be compelled to provide the employment records of any of plaintiff's supervisors. Defendant objected on the grounds of relevance and "employee privilege."¹ Plaintiff argues that such documents could reveal other relevant evidence that may reflect negatively on the supervisor and may help plaintiff, if only to impeach the supervisor's credibility.

1 There is no such thing as a general "employee privilege."

These requests seek discovery of nonparty personnel information and as a result the plaintiff must show that the value of the information sought would outweigh the privacy interests of the affected individuals. In Onwuka v. Federal Express Corp., the court stated

Courts have often limited the discovery of company records to the local facility, at which the Plaintiff was employed, in the absence of a showing of particularized need for regional or nationwide discovery. . . . Even where company records are shown to be relevant, Courts have been reluctant to permit discovery, when the requested disclosures would intrude upon the privacy interests of other, non-party employees. These Courts have concluded that the personnel files of an entire class of employees should not be produced, even in an employment discrimination proceeding, absent a compelling showing of relevance. See, e.g., Gehring v. Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 342-43 (7^th Cir. 1994) (privacy interests was proper basis upon which to disallow counsel from "root[ing] through the personnel files."), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1159 (1995). As a consequence, a party seeking the discovery of personnel information must demonstrate, notwithstanding the breadth of discovery, that the value of the information sought would outweigh the privacy interests of the affected individuals.

Onwuka v. Federal Express Corp., 178 F.R.D. 508, 517 (D. Minn. 1997).

In the present case, plaintiff's requests the employment files of any person who supervised plaintiff. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the value of the information sought outweighs the privacy interests of the affected individuals. However, those parts of the supervisor employment files which make reference to plaintiff or plaintiff's claim, or may serve as evidence for the defense should be provided to the plaintiff. Therefore, the court finds that the plaintiff's request for plaintiff's supervisor's employment files should be granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#14) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

1. Defendant need not provide county-wide data in its responses to plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

2. Defendant shall produce those parts of plaintiff's supervisors' employment files which make reference to plaintiff or plaintiff's claim, or may serve as evidence for the defense.

3. Disclosure of information contained in any non-party's personnel file is limited to plaintiff's counsel and members of counsel's staff, and review by plaintiff is prohibited. Plaintiff shall not be given copies of such documents otherwise informed of their content.

4. Any personnel records produced pursuant to this order shall be deemed confidential. Plaintiff shall no use the documents for any purposes other than this litigation and shall return to the producing entity all such confidential information and copies thereof at the conclusion of this lawsuit.