Shawback v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to Compel. Within 14 days from the date of this order, Shawback shall provide copies of all her records reflecting her self-employment billings and collections from all her clients in 2010 and 2011 in conformity with the protective order at docket 50. Upon condition that counsel first confer in person or by telephone (not an email exchange), within 14 days from the date of this order either of both Wells and Shawback may file a motion seeking an award of expenses pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)((C). Signed by Judge John W. Sedwick on 7/1/13. (GMM, CHAMBERS STAFF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at docket 56]
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 56, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells”) moves to compel
supplemental discovery responses. Plaintiff Elena Shawback (“Shawback”) responds at
docket 61. Wells’ reply is at docket 68. Oral argument would not assist the court.
The factual and procedural background of this employment discrimination lawsuit
is described in an order at docket 39. Readers unfamiliar with the background may
read that order. Additional background pertinent to the pending motion is set out below.
Wells’ motion asks the court to require Shawback to provide complete responses
to Interrogatory Nos. 8, 9, and 10, and Requests for Production Nos. 1, 15, and 26.
Wells also asks the court to award the expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred to
bring the motion. The parties’ dispute may be reduced to an argument over two
subjects. One is Shawback’s withdrawal of funds from her 401(k) account, which she
says were used for support during the period when her income was inadequate to do
so. The second is Shawback’s income as a self-employed consultant.
A. 401(k) Withdrawals
Interrogatory No. 8 inquired about Shawback’s income from employers and other
sources, notably including 401(k) withdrawals, from the time she left Wells.
Interrogatory No. 9 asked for detailed information about income from any other source,
including “the sources, dates, and amounts”.1 In her initial responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 8 and 9 Shawback advised that she had no employer after leaving Wells and
further advised that she began self-employment in 2010, which thereafter was her only
source of income. Instead of providing the detailed information requested by Wells,
Shawback advised that she had not completed her income tax returns for 2010 or 2011
at that point in time. She also advised that she was not seeking to recover damages for
any lost income in 2012, or thereafter. It appears that her self-employment earnings
were high enough that she suffered no loss. She did not make any objection to either
Interrogatory. Shawback produced her 2007, 2008, and 2009 tax returns in response to
Request for Production No. 1. Shawback subsequently did produce her 2010 and 2011
Doc. 56 at p. 2.
Interrogatory No. 10 sought detailed information about 401(k) withdrawals for
“the last ten years.”2 Shawback objected to Interrogatory No. 10 as follows:
Objection, irrelevant and not likely to lead to relevant evidence, also
unduly burdensome, especially in light of the lack of relevance. Plaintiff
does not have records of those withdrawals and would have to get those
from the bank.3
To support the proposition that information about 401(k) withdrawals for the past
ten years is relevant, Wells argues that it is relevant to compare with the withdrawals
after Shawback left her employment to see if she had a practice of making such
withdrawals. The court finds this assertion unpersuasive. Before she left Wells,
Shawback enjoyed a good salary. If she made any withdrawals before that time, they
would not have been to replace that salary. Shawback’s objection to Interrogatory
No. 10 is sustained. Information regarding 401(k) withdrawals prior to the time she left
Wells is irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. The
subject of 401(k) withdrawals after she left Wells is addressed in connection with
Interrogatory No. 8.
With respect to the 401(k) withdrawals covered by Interrogatory No. 8, Shawback
contends that when she produced her tax returns, which show the amount of
withdrawals because she had to pay an early withdrawal tax penalty on them, she
produced all information necessary to a full response to Interrogatory No. 8 with respect
to 401(k) withdrawals. Wells complains that it sought more detailed information and that
there was no objection to Interrogatory No. 8. Yet, Interrogatory No. 8 does not request
Id. at p. 3.
anything more than the amount of 401(k) withdrawals during the period after Shawback
left Wells. The information about 401(k) withdrawals sought in Interrogatory No. 8 is
adequately answered in the tax returns. Of the three Requests for Production at issue,
only Request for Production No. 1 would apply to 401(k) withdrawals and the provision
of the tax returns is an adequate response.
In sum, Wells is not entitled to any relief with respect to Shawback’s responses
respecting 401(k) withdrawals.
B. Self-Employment Income
Shawback did provide considerable information respecting her income in
response to the discovery requests at issue, including income tax returns for the years
2007 through 2011, and record of her unemployment compensation payments.
However, she objected to producing her client records on the basis that they are subject
to confidentiality agreements with her clients. This objection is without merit, because
the court approved the parties’ stipulated protective order which clearly contemplates
that confidential information will be provided subject to stringent safeguards.4
The court concludes that Shawback must produce her client billing and payment
C. Award of Expenses
Given that Wells prevailed in part, but that Shawback also prevailed in part, the
court is inclined to the view that neither party should be awarded expenses. However, it
is clear from Rule 37(a)(5) that the court must give both parties an opportunity to be
See docs. 50 and 51.
heard so that either may make a motion pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(C). The court wishes
to advise that it is strongly of the view that such a game would not be worth the candle.
Wells’ request for an award of expenses will be denied without prejudice to further
motion practice by Wells or Shawback seeking an award of expenses.
The motion at docket 56 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
(1) Within 14 days from the date of this order, Shawback shall provide
copies of all her records reflecting her self-employment billings and
collections from all her clients in 2010 and 2011 in conformity with the
protective order at docket 50.
(2) Upon condition that counsel first confer in person or by telephone (not
an email exchange), within 14 days from the date of this order either of
both Wells and Shawback may file a motion seeking an award of
expenses pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)((C).
DATED this 1st day of July 2013.
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?