Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CollegeAmerica Denver, Inc.
Filing
77
ORDER Granting in Part, Denying in Part, Deferring Ruling in Part on 70 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Compel, By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/3/2015.(emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01232-LTB-MJW
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
COLLEGEAMERICA DENVER, INC.,
n/k/a CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION, INC.,
d/b/a COLLEGEAMERICA,
Defendant(s).
ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF EEOC’s MOTION TO COMPEL (docket no. 70)
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion to Compel (docket no.
70). The court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 70) and the response
(docket no. 75). In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court’s file and has
considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now
being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
1.
That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;
2.
That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;
3.
That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
2
be heard;
4.
That only the third claim for relief by the Plaintiff EEOC is currently
at issue. The third claim asserts that on March 25, 2013, College
America violated Section 4(d) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d), by
filing a retaliatory lawsuit against Debbi Potts in Larimer County,
Colorado, because Potts filed a charge of discrimination with the
EEOC alleging violations of the ADEA. See docket nos. 1 and 1-1
at paragraphs 12-23, 43-46 on pages 12-14;
5.
That in the subject motion (docket no. 70), the Plaintiff EEOC
(“Plaintiff”) seeks an Order from this court compelling Defendant
College America (“Defendant”) to respond fully to Plaintiff EEOC’s
Interrogatories (“ROG”) numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and Requests
for Production (“RFP”) numbered 2, 3, 5, 10, and 11;
6.
That Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines
the scope of discovery as follows:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case, considering the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of
3
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, “a party’s right to obtain
discovery of ‘any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim
or defense of a party’ . . . may be constrained where the court
determines that the desired discovery is unreasonable or unduly
burdensome given the needs of the case, the importance of the
issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed
discovery in resolving the issues.” Simpson v. University of Colo.,
220 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D. Colo. 2004). “The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permit a court to restrict or preclude discovery when
justice requires in order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense. . . .” Id. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c);
7.
That as to ROG. No. 1, the Defendant’s objections are overruled.
Defendant has responded, in part, to ROG. No. 1 noting that
Defendant provided the names of Eric Juhlin and Dina Roberson.
However, Defendant responded only in a generic fashion as to the
Defendant’s Information Technology Team. Accordingly,
Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff the specific names and titles
4
ONLY of Defendant’s Information Technology Team who provided.
information in responding to Plaintiff’s ROGS and RFPs;
8.
That as to ROG Nos. 2 and 3, the Defendant’s objections are
sustained. Defendant has fully responded to ROG Nos. 2 and 3 for
the relevant time frame. No further response is required;
9.
That as to ROG No. 4, the Defendant’s objections are sustained.
Defendant has fully responded to ROG No. 4 for the relevant time
frame. No further response is required. It should be noted that
Defendant has provided Plaintiff with additional information as to
ROG No. 4 as outlined in Defendant’s response (docket no. 75) on
page 9;
10.
That as to ROG No. 5, the Defendant’s objections are sustained.
Defendant has fully responded to ROG No. 5 for the relevant time
frame. No further response is required;
11.
That as to ROG No. 6, the Defendant’s objections are sustained.
Defendant has fully responded to ROG No. 6. No further response
is required;
12.
That as to RFP No. 2, the Defendant’s objections are sustained.
Defendant has fully responded to RFP No. 2 for the relevant time
frame. No further response is required;
13.
That as to RFP No. 3, the Defendant’s objections are sustained.
Defendant has fully responded to RFP No. 3. No further response
5
is required;
14.
That as to RFP No. 5, an in camera review of the personnel files for
Kevin Barnhart and Eric Juhlin is needed before the court can
properly rule on RFP No. 5. The personnel files for Kevin Barnhart
and Eric Juhlin shall be submitted to this court, under restricted
access level 2, for in camera review consistent with Martinelli v.
District Ct., 199 Colo. 163 (1980). The court will review these
personnel files and then enter a ruling on RFP No. 5; and
15.
That as to RFP Nos. 10 and 11, the Defendant’s objections are
sustained. Defendant has fully responded to RFP Nos. 10 and 11.
No further response is required.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
court ORDERS:
1.
That Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 70) is
GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DEFERRED
RULING IN PART;
2.
That the subject motion (docket no. 70) is GRANTED as to:
a.
ROG No. 1 - on or before December 11, 2015, Defendant
shall provide to Plaintiff the specific names and titles ONLY
of Defendant’s Information Technology Team who provided
information in responding to Plaintiff’s ROGs and RFPs;
6
3.
That the subject motion (docket no. 70) is DENIED as to:
a.
b.
4.
ROGs Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
RFPs Nos. 2, 3, 10, and 11.
That ruling on RFP No. 5 in the subject motion (docket no. 70) is
DEFERRED until after this court has an opportunity to review, in
camera, the personnel files of Kevin Barnhart and Eric Juhlin. On
or before December 11, 2015, Defendant shall file with the court,
under restricted access Level 2, the personnel files for Eric Juhlin
and Kevin Barnhart; and
5.
That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
motion.
Done this 3rd day of December 2015.
BY THE COURT
s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE 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?