Summary
allowing discovery of other employees' personnel files because the court found the files were necessary to establish the plaintiff's claims of age and disability discrimination under the ADEA
Summary of this case from Reed v. Forney Indus., Inc.Opinion
CASE NO. 3:01-cv-1361-J-25TEM
February 12, 2003
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #12, Motion to Compel) filed October 17, 2002. Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #13, Response) details Defendant's opposition.
Plaintiff avers that Defendant, CSXT, has withheld documents which directly relate to the Defendant's asserted defense in this action including documents that discuss the company wide reduction in force plan or "Special Enhanced Benefits Program". (See Doc. #12 at 2-3). Plaintiff alleges that these documents are needed to refute the Defendant's defense that Plaintiff's termination occurred during the reduction in force and was not based on age discrimination. Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant has withheld documents and personnel files that relate to the interviewing process where Plaintiff attempted to secure other administrative positions. (See Doc. #12 at 2-3.) Plaintiff argues these documents are needed to show that Plaintiff was well qualified for other available jobs, if the reduction in force in fact caused Plaintiffs job to be eliminated for nondiscriminatory reasons.
Defendant argues that the document request relating to the reduction in force or "Special Enhanced Benefits Program" is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Defendant also asserts that the document request relating to the layoffs that occurred company-wide in 2000 is also overly broad, unduly burdensome, and the documents may be protected as attorney/client privilege and/or work product; therefore, the Defendant seeks to limit the production request to the State Relations Department. (See Doc. #13 at 2-3.) Defendant objects to the production of documents that relate to the interviewing, subsequent selection of personnel, and the personnel files for any persons selected for "any position which Kathie Nevin sought from November 1, 2000 until December 31, 2000." (See Doc. #13 at 6-7). Defendant asserts that these documents are not relevant and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
Motions to compel disclosures and other discovery under Rule 37(a) are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). The trial court's exercise of discretion regarding discovery orders will be sustained absent a finding of abuse of that discretion to the prejudice of a party. Id. The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result. United States v. Proctor Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion involving judicial intervention. "The rules require that discovery be accomplished voluntarily; that is, the parties should affirmatively disclose relevant information without the necessity of court orders compelling disclosure." Bush Ranch v. E.I. DuPont Nemours and Co., 918 F. Supp. 1524, 1542 (M.D. Ga. 1995).
In the instant case, the Plaintiff is alleging that CSXT discriminated against her on the basis of her age and disability pursuant to Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). (See Doc. 2, Complaint.) The courts have applied more liberal discovery rules in cases involving allegations of employment discrimination and civil right violations. Sweat v. Miller Brewing Co., 708 F.2d 655 (11th Cir. 1983).
Reduction in Force Analysis
Plaintiff avers that the Defendant fired her because of her age and/or disability, not because of any reduction in force ("RIF") plan. Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant's reduction in force plan was used as a pretext for the firing. Clearly, the content of any documents relating to the reduction in force or "Special Enhanced Benefits Program" are relevant to whether Plaintiff was on any document listing persons to be terminated, what the evaluation criteria was for the reduction on force, and whether the terminated employees were disproportionately more than 40 years of age. The Court thus finds Plaintiff's First Request for Production No. 5, which requests all documents that relate to the reduction in force or "Special Enhanced Benefits Program", is well founded and the Motion to Compel shall be granted as to that issue, but shall be limited to the documents related to the RIF for Defendant's Jacksonville locations.
While the reduction in force was initiated by CSXT at the national level, each location and department was entrusted to formulate its own reduction in force plan. (See While the reduction in force was initiated by CSXT at the national level, each location and department was entrusted to formulate its own reduction in force plan. (See Doc. #13 at 1, 13.) The decision to terminate Plaintiff appears to have been made at the local level The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has limited discovery where the reduction in force/termination was undertaken at the local level. Brown v. American Honda Motor Co., 939 F.2d 946, 954 (11th Cir. 1991) citing Earley v. Champion Int'l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1084-85 (11 th Cir 1990) (holding that unless it is clear that nationwide practices are relevant, discovery should be confined to the local units of a corporation). Since the employment decisions were made locally, discovery should be limited to the locations within the Jacksonville area. Therefore, Plaintiff Third Request for Production No. 1, which seeks to discover information related to the 2000 lay-off, shall be limited to the Jacksonville locations.
Personnel Files/Subsequent Positions
Plaintiff is seeking all documents relating to the positions that Plaintiff applied for during a two month period of time and the personnel files of the persons hired for those positions. Defendant asserts Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of the personnel files of employees hired or documents relating to subsequent positions for which Plaintiff applied. The Eleventh Circuit requires that in a reduction in force case, a plaintiff must show: "(1) plaintiff was a member of a protected group and was adversely affected by an employment decision; (2) plaintiff was qualified for his current position or to assume another position at the time of discharge and (3) evidence by which a fact finder might reasonably conclude that the employer intended to discriminate on the basis of age in reaching the decision at issue. Wavde v. Digital Equip. Corp., 994 F. Supp. 1433, 1437 (11th Cir. 1997) citing Earley v. Champion Intern. Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1082-83 (11th Cir. 1990). A review of the personnel files and other documents may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Plaintiffs theory that the reduction in force was in fact a pretext and/or that the Defendant intended to discriminate on the basis of age. Therefore, the Court finds the discovery requests for the personnel files and other documents listed in Plaintiffs Third Request for Production Nos. 2 and 3 are well founded and shall be granted.
The Court notes Plaintiffs reference to "Request Number 1" on page 8 of the Motion to Compel appears to be in error, as the substance of the request corresponds with Plaintiffs Third Request for Production No. 2 in Defendant's Response (Doc. #13 at 7) and Plaintiff previously referred to the Third Request for Production No. 1 on page 4. The Court will assume the reference to Number 1 on page 8 of the Motion to Compel is a scrivener's error.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Doc. #12) is GRANTED to the extent outlined above.
2. Defendant shall fully respond to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of No. 5, Third Request for Production Nos. 1, 2 and 3 within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
3. The Court reminds the parties that the discovery granted herein is subject to the Protective Order (Doc. #11) previously entered in this case.
4. Defendant's request for oral argument (Doc. #13 at 9) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED