Glapion v. Jewell
Filing
47
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Compel by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/15/2015.(mdave, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03236-MEH
MELEAHA R. GLAPION,
Plaintiff,
v.
SALLY JEWELL, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel [filed August 21, 2015; docket #44]. For
the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendant’s Motion.
Although permitted the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff filed no response within the time allotted by
D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1(d).1
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, initiated this Title VII action alleging discriminatory and
retaliatory treatment against her by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Complaint, docket #1.
Plaintiff, who filed a total of three Title VII cases in 2014 – all currently before this Court –
requested administrative closure of the above-captioned case along with one other in order to focus
more exclusively on the first case, on which Plaintiff says the other two cases ultimately rely. See
Motion for Administrative Closure, docket #41. The Court denied the motion. Minute Order,
docket #42. Defendant then filed the present Motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to
1
The Court notes that the motion to compel contains a certificate of service indicating that
it was properly served upon Plaintiff in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and the accompanying
local rules.
respond to interrogatories one and two, requiring her to provide the factual bases of her claims, and
asserting Plaintiff’s objections and responses to be improper. See Motion to Compel, docket #44.
The scope of evidence that is subject to discovery under the federal rules is broad:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense – including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in
the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party objecting to discovery must establish that the requested
discovery does not fall under the scope of relevance as defined in Rule 26(b)(1). Simpson v. Univ.
of Colo., 220 F.R.D. 354, 359 (D. Colo. 2004). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give a district
court ample tools to deal with a recalcitrant litigant.” Jones v. Thompson, 996 F.2d 261, 264 (10th
Cir. 1993).
Here, the Plaintiff’s objections to interrogatory one and two both read as follows:
Plaintiff reiterated and restates each Objection from above, and adds that this
Interrogatory is redundant (answers and several documents were already produced
in EEO proceedings which ascertain this interrogatory); contains multipart
questions/numerous; unwritten opinion work product is entitled to the protection of
absolute work product; AND unduly burdensome.
Motion to Compel, docket #44 at 2, 5. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s responses
are improper. Defendant’s discovery requests, on their face, appear to be relevant to the claims and
defenses raised in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See Defendant’s Interrogatories
to Plaintiff, docket #44 at 1-2, 6, 7-8. In responding to interrogatories, Plaintiff may not merely
point to other documents in the case and label the interrogatory “redundant.” In addition, the
requests, while multi-part, do not exceed the limits set forth in the Scheduling Order. They also do
not fall within work product, as the Court agrees with Defendant’s characterization that the
2
interrogatories ask for a basic description of the allegedly discriminatory/retaliatory acts: who what,
where, when, and how. See Motion to Compel, docket #44 at 2.
Therefore, the Court grants the Motion to Compel and orders Plaintiff on or before
September 30, 2015, to answer each of Defendant’s interrogatories listed in the Motion without
simply referencing other documents as sources from which Defendant should glean answers.2
However, the Court denies Defendant’s request for fees. Based on conversations held at status
conferences with the parties, the Court deems circumstances exist making an award of expenses in
this case unjust pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion
to Compel [filed August 21, 2015; docket #44] is granted in part and denied in part as specified
herein.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge
2
If appropriate, the Plaintiff may identify a document accessible to the Defendant in response
to a discovery request, but must also identify the page number, paragraph number, or some other
identifier that directs the Defendant to the precise answer to the specific discovery request.
3
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?