Uehling v. Millennium Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 68 Joint MOTION for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 8/15/17. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RYAN UEHLING,

Case No.: 16cv2812-L-MDD
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.
MILLENNIUM LABORATORIES,
INC., et al.,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

[ECF NO. 68]

Defendants.

This lawsuit is a claim by Plaintiff that he was terminated by
Defendants in retaliation for raising issues regarding Defendants’ potential
liability under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733. Before the
Court is the Joint Motion of the parties for determination of a discovery
dispute filed on July 28, 2017. (ECF No. 68). The dispute involves two
interrogatories and five requests for production.
Legal Standard
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad
discovery, authorizing parties to obtain discovery of “any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
1
16cv2812-L-MDD

1

needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within the

2

scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id.

3

District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery

4

purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

Similarly, district courts have broad discretion to limit discovery where the

6

discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be

7

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or

8

less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

9

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into

10

under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must

11

answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with

12

specificity or by “answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Id.

13

at 33(b). The responding party has the option in certain circumstances to

14

answer an interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those

15

records available to the interrogating party. Id. at 33(d).

16

Similarly, a party may request the production of any document within

17

the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the

18

response must either state that inspection and related activities will be

19

permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the

20

reasons.” Id. at 34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce

21

responsive information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must

22

be completed no later than the time specified in the request or another

23

reasonable time specified in the response. Id.

24

An objection to a request for production must state whether any

25

responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Id. at

26

34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the part and

27

permit inspection or production of the rest. Id.
2
16cv2812-L-MDD

Discussion

1
2

A. Interrogatories

3

Unlike Rule 34, which governs requests for production and requires

4

responding parties to identify whether documents are being withheld

5

pursuant to an objection and produce non-objectionable documents, Rule 33,

6

which governs interrogatories, requires only that a party respond to an

7

interrogatory to the extent that it is not objected to. If an objection is

8

interposed to the entirety of an interrogatory, no answer is required at that

9

time.

10

1. Interrogatory No. 10

11

Plaintiff asks Defendants to identify all Millennium employees who

12

were terminated from their employment with Millennium from November 15,

13

2010, to November 15, 2012. Defendants’ primary objections are relevance,

14

overbreadth and protecting third-party privacy rights. Plaintiff asserts that

15

this “me, too” evidence is generally discoverable and admissible. All of the

16

cases cited by Plaintiff, however, are in the context of workplace

17

discrimination and not retaliation. (See ECF No. 68-1). And, in many of

18

those cases, plaintiffs alleged a pattern and practice of discrimination against

19

a group to which plaintiff belonged. (Id.). The Court was unable to find a

20

single case, under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) retaliation section, 31 U.S.C.

21

§ 3730(h), in which the type of discovery requested by Plaintiff was

22

authorized.

23

The Court agrees, however, that if similarly situated employees were

24

terminated for raising similar issues regarding the lawfulness of certain of

25

Defendants’ business practices, this information may be relevant. This

26

Interrogatory, however, is grossly overbroad to that purpose. The Court will

27

rewrite it, however, to require Defendants to identify Millennium employees
3
16cv2812-L-MDD

1

terminated from November 15, 2010, to November 15, 2012, whose personnel

2

records reflect concerns expressed regarding the lawfulness of Millennium’s

3

billing practices. For now, the identifying information for any such

4

individuals may be redacted. The employees may be identified by dates of

5

employment, job title and location. If redacted information is produced, the

6

parties must meet and confer regarding the best means to contact these

7

individuals and determine their interest in being interviewed or deposed in

8

connection with this case. The Court will intervene as needed.

9
10

2. Interrogatory No. 11
Plaintiff asks Defendants to identify all claims brought by current,

11

former, or prospective employees or independent contractors for retaliation,

12

whether formal or informal, against Millennium, or any of its agents or

13

employees, from 2008 through 2014. Defendants assert objections for

14

relevance, overbreadth and third-party privacy. Plaintiff again asserts that

15

“me, too” evidence generally is discoverable and admissible. As with

16

Interrogatory No. 10, Plaintiff cites no FCA retaliation cases supporting this

17

type of discovery, relying on cases from the discrimination context.

18

Despite the gross overbreadth of this Interrogatory, it is closer to the

19

mark than Interrogatory No. 10 and the Court will deal with it similarly.

20

Defendants must identify claims brought by Millennium employees from

21

November 15, 2010, to November 15, 2012, of retaliation for raising concerns

22

regarding the lawfulness of Millennium’s billing practices. For now, the

23

identifying information for any such individuals may be redacted. The

24

claimants may be identified by dates of employment, job title and location. If

25

redacted information is produced, the parties must meet and confer regarding

26

the best means to contact these individuals and determine their interest in

27

being interviewed or deposed in connection with this case. The Court will
4
16cv2812-L-MDD

1
2
3
4

intervene as needed.
B. Requests for Production (“RFP”)
1. RFP No. 5
Originally requesting the production of the personnel files for all of

5

Plaintiff’s supervisors, any Millennium employee to be called to testify in the

6

instant case, and eleven named persons, Plaintiff smartly reduced the

7

request to just one person, Elizabeth Peacock, Plaintiff’s supervisor at the

8

time of his termination. Defendants object for relevance and privacy.

9

Plaintiff asserts that it is relevant to test the reasons for Plaintiff’s

10
11
12

termination. The Court finds relevance lacking. The objection is sustained.
2. RFP No. 7
Plaintiff requests the production of all documents or communications

13

relating between any employees in which Plaintiff was discussed or

14

referenced from January, 2011 to the “present.” Plaintiff asserts that the

15

relevance of this information is to challenge whether Plaintiff was he was

16

terminated for performance, as claimed, or for retaliation, as he claims.

17

Defendants properly object to the date range; Plaintiff has not sufficiently

18

showed any relevance regarding Plaintiff following his termination.

19

Defendants also assert that it is unable to respond because Plaintiff has not

20

proposed a protocol or search terms to search Defendants electronic records.

21

First, the Court finds that the range should be limited to January 1,

22

2011 to November 12, 2012. Second, Defendants’ objections regarding

23

Plaintiff’s refusal to cooperate in establishing an ESI (electronically stored

24

information) protocol are frivolous. The mere fact that information is stored

25

electronically does not relieve a defendant from preserving, collecting,

26

analyzing and producing non-privileged, relevant information. Plaintiff’s

27

refusal to cooperate in that endeavor disadvantages Plaintiff; Plaintiff cannot
5
16cv2812-L-MDD

1

be heard to complain about the results if he does not participate in the

2

process and Defendants act reasonably. This is a relatively straightforward

3

case – was Plaintiff terminated in retaliation for raising issues regarding the

4

lawfulness of Defendants’ billing practices, as he claims, or was he

5

terminated for business reasons related to his performance on the job? The

6

objection is sustained in part and overruled in part. Defendants must

7

respond to this request limited to the date range ordered above and limited to

8

discussions regarding Plaintiff’s performance on the job or Plaintiff’s

9

complaints regarding the lawfulness of Defendants’ billing practices.

10

Regarding this RFP, the Court is concerned that Defendants failed to

11

satisfy their obligations under Rule 34. First, Defendants failed to state that

12

they are withholding information based upon their objections. Of greater

13

concern, and unlike the other RFPs, there clearly is information requested by

14

this RFP that is relevant and non-objectionable. Non-privileged

15

communications about Plaintiff’s job performance and about any complaints

16

he expressed regarding the manner that Millennium conducted business,

17

were and are discoverable. Defendants were obligated, under Rule 34, to

18

produce this material. No sanctions will be imposed at this time, but counsel

19

needs to refresh themselves regarding revised Rule 34.

20
21

3. RFP No. 15
Plaintiff requests the production of documents “relating to employees,

22

agents, and/or contractors complaints or concerns regarding Millennium’s

23

business practices or treatment of employees or former employees from

24

January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2016.” Defendant objects for relevance,

25

overbreadth and third-party’s privacy. This is patently overbroad and devoid

26

of any apparent connection to any claim or defense in this case. Plaintiff

27

offered to limit the RFP to complaints about urine testing but, as Defendants
6
16cv2812-L-MDD

1

say, urine testing is the primary business of Defendants. The Court cannot

2

rewrite this RFP; it is terminally overbroad. The objection is sustained.

3

4. RFP No. 16

4

Plaintiff requests the production of documents related to claims of

5

retaliation from 2008 through 2014 brought by persons identified in response

6

to Interrogatory No. 11. Defendants’ objections to overbreadth, relevance and

7

privacy are sustained in part and overruled in part. Defendants must

8

produce documents related to complaints identified in response to

9

Interrogatory No. 11, as limited by the Court to the period November 15,

10

2010, to November 15, 2012. The documents may be redacted to eliminate

11

identifying information of the claimant except for dates of employment, job

12

title and location. If redacted information is produced, the parties must meet

13

and confer regarding the best means to contact these individuals and

14

determine their interest in being interviewed or deposed in connection with

15

this case. The Court will intervene as needed.

16
17

5. RFP No. 17
Plaintiff requests the production of documents relating to presentations

18

by Howard Appel and Martin Price at the January 2012 Millennium

19

conference. Defendants object for relevance and overbreadth. Plaintiff

20

asserts that although post-termination, the presentation describes

21

Defendants attitude and actions against former employees. Defendants

22

respond that the presentation did mention former employees, not Plaintiff,

23

who were accused of trade secret theft and breach of contract. None of those

24

individuals raised FCA claims and none raised claims of retaliation. Plaintiff

25

nonetheless asserts that he continued to be retaliated against post-

26

termination and the presentation is relevant to that part of his claim. As

27

Defendants accurately state, the FCA does not provide a remedy for post7
16cv2812-L-MDD

1

employment retaliation. (See ECF No. 68 at 43 (using CM/ECF pagination)).

2

Defendants’ objections are sustained.
Conclusion

3
4

Defendants’ objections are sustained in part and overruled in part as

5

provided above. To the extent that Defendants have been ordered to produce

6

responses and documents, such responses and documents must be provided

7

within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Order, except that Defendants

8

may have thirty (30) days to provide documents pursuant to RFP No. 7,

9

absent contrary agreement of the parties or further Order of the Court.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
8
16cv2812-L-MDD