Taylor v. Pool Corporation et al

Filing 73

ORDER that the discovery deadline shall be extended as follows: Discovery due by 12/19/2008. Additional extensions will not be granted. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/6/08. (KMG, )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Billy Taylor, Plaintiff, vs. Pool Corporation ( of Delaware) a/k/a SCP Pool Corporation, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-07-1984 PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court held a discovery conference call with the parties on November 5, 2008. The first issue addressed was whether Plaintiff is entitled to inquire about prior allegations of sexual harassment brought against Terry Speth, a supervisor employed by Defendant and who allegedly was involved in the rescission to Plaintiff's employment offer. Plaintiff claims that an offer of employment extended by Defendant was withdrawn because Plaintiff is African American. Although his complaint also contains a retaliation claim, it is based on the same allegation of race discrimination. Plaintiff claims that because he complained about the withdrawal of his offer, Defendant retaliated by failing to investigate whether the withdrawal was permissible. Without addressing whether or not such circumstances support a retaliation claim, the Court notes that the retaliation claim, like the discrimination claim, is based on race. The Court concludes that prior allegations of sexual harassment against Terry Speth are not relevant to the question of whether Plaintiff was discriminated or retaliated against

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

on the basis of his race. See Crowe v. Wiltell Communications Sys., 103 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Crowe alleged that the defendants discriminated against her based on her gender. Since evidence of sexual orientation and racial discrimination did not relate directly to any issue at trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence."); Rauh v. Coine, 744 F.Supp. 1181. 1183 (D.D.C. 1990) (evidence of discrimination against black employees had "little probative value" to a sex discrimination claim and "would have a very great potential for prejudice"). Plaintiff also has asked the Court to extend the discovery period in this case for 60 days. The discovery deadline established in the Court's Case Management Order (Dkt. #17) was October 31, 2008. In an order granting a motion filed by Plaintiff under Rule 56(f), the Court advised Plaintiff that he needs to diligently pursue discovery and that the Court would not extend the discovery deadline absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Dkt. #51. Because the deadline in this case has not previously been extended, Plaintiff is representing himself pro se, and previous problems have arisen with respect to Plaintiff's attempts to complete depositions (Dkt. #64), the Court concludes that circumstances exist for one extension of the discovery deadline. The deadline shall be extended to December 19, 2008. Additional extensions will not be granted. Plaintiff asserted during the conference call that he should be permitted to conduct discovery concerning salaries paid to various employees of Defendant. He asserts that there is a disparity between salaries paid white employees and those paid black employees, and that this disparity would be probative of his claim of race discrimination. The Court concludes that Plaintiff will be permitted to conduct written discovery of salaries paid to other credit managers and to team leaders who reported to those credit managers, but not with respect to any other positions. Finally, Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider its previous rulings which denied him the right to obtain personnel files with respect to particular individuals. The Court previously required Defendant to produce some information short of full personnel files. The Court will not revisit this decision.
-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS ORDERED that the discovery deadline shall be extended to December 19, 2008. Additional extensions will not be granted. DATED this 6th day of November, 2008.

-3-