Coale v. Metro-North RR Co

Filing 35

RULING granting Plaintiff's 25 Motion to Compel filed on February 21, 2011. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on May 16, 2011. (Wilson, D.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM COALE,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:09-cv-2065 (CSH)

METRO-NORTH RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendant.

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AND THIRD MOTIONS TO COMPEL
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
Two motions to compel are pending in this employment discrimination case. Plaintiff
William Coale moves to compel Defendant Metro-North Railroad Company (“Metro-North”) to
produce various documents and responses concerning Metro-North promotion and hiring practices.1
[Docs. 22, 25.] For the following reasons, Coale’s motions to compel are GRANTED.
I.

Background
Coale, who works for Metro-North, alleges that Metro-North failed to assign him as a Special

Duty Training Instructor (“SDTI”) because he was perceived to be disabled by Metro-North in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). According to his Complaint, Coale was
initially offered a position as a SDTI, but the offer was withdrawn due to a previous injury he had
sustained while working for Metro-North. Compl. at ¶¶ 17-18. Coale alleges that Metro-North’s
Chief Training Officer confirmed to him that Metro-North considered him “unqualified to work at

1

Coale also seeks to compel Metro-North to respond to Requests 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 from
his Second Set of Requests for Production, requests which Metro-North did not object to. MetroNorth stated in its first objection that it anticipated producing these requests shortly. If MetroNorth has not already done so, it is ORDERED to produce responses to these requests within ten
(10) days of the date of this ruling.

any job involving a promotion or transfer due to his prior on-the-job injury.” Id. at ¶ 19. MetroNorth denies that it perceived Coale as disabled or denied him the SDTI position on that basis.
Coale is an Assistant Conductor at Metro-North. He is therefore considered a so-called
“agreement employee,” i.e., an employee who is a member of a union with a collective bargaining
agreement with Metro-North. The parties distinguish agreement positions from management
positions, which—among other differences—are not subject to collective bargaining. The parties
dispute whether the SDTI position is properly considered a “hybid management job,” as Coale
contends, or “not a management position,” as Metro-North argues.
In addition to the SDTI position, Coale sought at least two other management positions
while employed by Metro-North. In 2005 Coale applied and interviewed for an Operations
Managers position, and in either 2006 or 2007 he applied for a management position as a Drug and
Alcohol Technician, also referred to as the Drug Tester position. Coale was not hired for either
position, and the parties dispute the relevance of the applications to the current lawsuit.
II.

Discussion and Analysis
There are two pending motions to compel. The first, filed on January 14, 2011, concerns

information about the promotion of agreement employees to management and whether those
employees had previously suffered workplace injuries. The second, filed on February 21, 2011,
concerns Coale’s two unsuccessful applications for management positions with Metro-North.
Metro-North objects to the relevance of the information sought in these motions to compel.2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery and provides that

2

For some of the requests, Metro-North also objects on other grounds. Such objections
will be discussed infra in the context of each request.
-2-

“[p]arties 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.” FED . R. CIV . P. 26(b)(1). Further “[r]elevant information need not be
admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Id. For cases, like this one, that allege employment discrimination,
“[e]vidence of general patterns of discrimination by an employer is relevant even in an individual
disparate treatment case.” Lieberman v. Gant, 630 F.2d 60, 68 (2d Cir. 1980). Finally, the Court
has “a broad range of discretion to determine relevance.” 6 JAMES WM MOORE ET AL., MOOR’S
FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 26.41[7][a] (3d ed. 2006) (“MOORE ’S FEDERAL PRACTICE”).
A.

Contested Discovery Requests
1.

January 14, 2011 Motion to Compel

The crux of the January 14, 2011 Motion to Compel (“January Motion”) is whether
information concerning hiring decisions for management positions is relevant to Coale’s claim
concerning alleged discrimination in denying him a SDTI position. Metro-North objects to Coale’s
requests concerning Metro-North’s hiring or promoting agreement employees for non-agreement,
i.e., management, positions because it claims that: “[t]he hiring of individuals into management
positions implicates policies and practices that are distinct from the procedure by which agreement
(non-management) employees are assigned to special duty.” Def’s. Obj. to Pl’s. Mot. to Compel,
Feb. 4, 2011 (Def’s. Obj. to Jan. Mot.) at 4. Coale contends that the SDTI is a “hybrid management
job” because it is, among other things, (1) a supervisory role, (2) not assigned on the basis of the
seniority system, and (3) a “common springboard to management positions.” Pl’s. Mem. of Law
-3-

in Supp. of Mot. to Compel, Jan. 14, 2011 (“ Pl’s. Jan. Mot.”) at 4-5 (citing affidavit of Dalena
Glenn, Chief Training Officer in the Training and Development Department of Metro North, Exh.
D).
Metro-North disputes Coale’s characterization of the SDTI, emphasizing that agreement
employees selected for special duty assignments like the SDTI position in question are, among other
things, (1) still subject to their respective collective bargaining agreements, (2) serving in temporary
assignments, (3) and—perhaps most significantly—not selected through a formal procedure, unlike
the application process for management positions. Def’s. Obj. to Jan. Mot. at 8-9. Metro-North
argues that the differences between the SDTI position and management positions are so great, that
any “information relating to the hiring of individuals for management positions is plainly irrelevant
to the appointment of employees to SDTI assignments.” Id. at 11. The Court is not convinced.
Regardless of the precise differences between the SDTI position and management positions
at Metro-North, information regarding how Metro-North treats previously injured agreement
employees who seek management positions is likely to be relevant to this case. Coale argues that
the information sought in the January Motion is discoverable because it may show whether MetroNorth discriminated against other employees who had or were perceived to have disabilities due to
prior injuries. Such information would be relevant and is thus discoverable. See Hollander v. Amer.
Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80, 84 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Evidence relating to company-wide practices may
reveal patterns of discrimination against a group of employees, increasing the likelihood that an
employer’s offered explanation for an employment decision regarding a particular individual masks
a discriminatory motive.”); Culkin v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 69, 71 (D. Conn. 2004)
(“Evidence of general patterns of discrimination by an employer is clearly relevant in an individual
-4-

disparate treatment case and is therefore discoverable pursuant to FED . R. CIV . P. 26(b)(1).”)
(citations omitted). “Company-wide practices” and “general patterns” are broad phrases that are not
necessarily confined by the boundaries of a particular job description.
Applying the foregoing, the Court addresses each of the specific discovery requests at issue.
a.

Request to Admit No. 1

This request asks Metro-North to admit that “[i]n 2006 Metro-North did not hire any
agreement employees who had previously reported an on-the-job injury into a non-agreement
management position.” Metro-North objects only to the request’s relevance.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant. Metro-North is ORDERED
to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling.
b.

Request for Production No. 2

This request seeks the production of “[t]he injury reports and/or injury histories for all MetroNorth agreement employees who were hired to non-agreement/management positions at Metro-North
in 2006. Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant, overbroad and unduly
burdensome, and calls for personal and confidential information.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
As for the overbroad and unduly burdensome objection, “a party objecting to a discovery
request on the grounds that the information sought is unduly burdensome must go beyond the
familiar litany that requests are burdensome, oppressive or overly broad and submit affidavits or
other evidence revealing the nature of the burden.” Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Judson Constr.
Inc., No. 08-cv-981, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45314, *1-2 (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2011)(internal citation
and quotation marks omitted). Metro-North makes no effort to describe why this request would be
-5-

unduly burdensome and so this objection is denied.
Finally, Metro-North objects to the request based on “personal and confidential information
that is statutorily protected.” Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this
information would be confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective
order, as has already been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling. The
parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any confidential information
produced and submit it to the Court.
c.

Interrogatory No. 1 & 2

These requests ask Metro-North to (1) “[i]dentify all Metro-North agreement employees who
were promoted to non-agreement/management positions in 2006”; and (2) [i]dentify all Metro-North
agreement employees who had previously reported an on the job injury and who were promoted to
non-agreement/management positions in 2006.” Metro-North objects only to the relevance of the
requests. As stated above, the Court finds that the requests are relevant. Metro-North is ORDERED
to respond to these requests within three weeks of this ruling.
2.

February 4, 2011 Motion to Compel

Coale’s February 4, 2011 Motion to Compel (“February Motion”) seeks to compel MetroNorth to respond to two sets of requests concerning information about Coale’s unsuccessful
applications for two management positions, Operations Manager and Drug and Alcohol Technician,
respectively. Like in the January Motion, Metro-North objects to these requests primarily on the
basis of relevance, arguing that information concerning applications for management jobs—even
applications by Coale himself—are irrelevant to the current dispute over the SDTI position. As
-6-

stated above, the Court disagrees and finds that such information is relevant.
Applying the foregoing, the Court addresses each of the specific discovery requests at issue.
a.

Coale’s Third Set of Requests
(1)

Request 1

This request seeks “[a]ll Metro-North documents, correspondence, emails, and records
concerning its decision not to hire the plaintiff for the Operations Manager job he applied for (and
interviewed for) in or about December 2005 and concerning its decision about who it did hire for the
Operations Manager Job.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, calls for personal and confidential information, and seeks
privileged materials. During the parties’ Rule 37(a)(1) conference, Coale narrowed the requests to
“just the records concerning the plaintiff and the person who obtained the Operations Manager job
the plaintiff interviewed in 2005.”
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Like the aforementioned overbroad and unduly burdensome objection in the January Motion,
Metro-North does not describe why this request would be unduly burdensome and so this objection
is denied.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Finally, Metro-North objects to request “to the extent that it seeks materials protected by the
work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege.” However, “[a] bald assertion of privilege
is insufficient to claim the privilege.” 6 MOORE ’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 26.47[1][b]. Metro-North’s
-7-

objection is nothing but a bald assertion and no privilege log has been submitted describing the
nature of the documents or why they are privileged as required by FED . R. CIV . P. 26(b)(5)(A).
Therefore this objection is denied.
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling as
narrowed. The parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any
confidential information produced and submit it to the Court.
(2)

Request 2

This request seeks “[t]he successful candidate’s records and documents that were reviewed
by the decision maker(s) for the Operations Manager’s Job the plaintiff sought and interviewed for
in or about December 2005.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant and
calls for personal and confidential information.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling. The
parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any confidential information
produced and submit it to the Court.
(3)

Request 3

This request seeks “[t]he plaintiff’s records and documents that were reviewed by the
decision makers for the Operations Manager’s job the plaintiff sought and interviewed for in or about
December of 2005.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant. As stated
-8-

above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant. Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this
request within three weeks of this ruling.
(4)

Request 4

This request seeks “[a]ll documents and materials reviewed by Metro North when it made
the decision of who to hire and not hire for the Operations Manager Job the plaintiff sought and
interviewed for in or about December of 2005.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that
it is irrelevant, overbroad and unduly burdensome, calls for personal and confidential information,
and seeks privileged materials. During the parties’ Rule 37(a)(1) conference, Coale narrowed the
requests to “just the records concerning the plaintiff and the person who obtained the Operations
Manager job the plaintiff interviewed in 2005.”
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Like the aforementioned overbroad and unduly burdensome objection in the January Motion,
Metro-North does not describe why this request would be unduly burdensome and so this objection
is denied.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Finally, Metro-North again objects to the request “to the extent that it seeks materials
protected by the work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege.” Metro-North’s objection
is nothing but a bald assertion and no privilege log has been submitted describing the nature of the
documents or why they are privileged as required by FED . R. CIV . P. 26(b)(5)(A). Therefore this
objection is denied.
-9-

Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling as
narrowed. The parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any
confidential information produced and submit it to the Court.
(5)

Request 5

This request seeks “[t]he job description and job posting for the Operation Manager’s Job
the plaintiff applied for and interviewed for in or about December 2005.” Metro-North objects to
the request on the basis that it is irrelevant. As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is
relevant. Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling.
(6)

Request 6

This request seeks “[t]he injury history for the person who got the Operations Manager job
the plaintiff applied for and interviewed for in or about December of 2005 as it existed at the time
the person got the job.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant, calls for
personal and confidential information, and seeks privileged materials.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Finally, Metro-North again objects to the request “to the extent that it seeks materials
protected by the work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege.” Metro-North’s objection
is nothing but a bald assertion and no privilege log has been submitted describing the nature of the
documents or why they are privileged as required by FED . R. CIV . P. 26(b)(5)(A). Therefore this
objection is denied.
-10-

Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling. The
parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any confidential information
produced and submit it to the Court.
(7)

Request 7

This request seeks “[t]he injury histories as of the date of hire and/or promotion for each
person who got an Operations Manager job in the Transportation Department at Metro North in
2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant,
calls for personal and confidential information, and seeks privileged materials. During the parties’
Rule 37(a)(1) conference, Coale narrowed the scope to the years 2005 and 2006.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Finally, Metro-North again objects to the request “to the extent that it seeks materials
protected by the work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege.” Metro-North’s objection
is nothing but a bald assertion and no privilege log has been submitted describing the nature of the
documents or why they are privileged as required by FED . R. CIV . P. 26(b)(5)(A). Therefore this
objection is denied.
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling as
narrowed. The parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any
confidential information produced and submit it to the Court.

-11-

(8)

Request 8

This request seeks “[a]ll interview documents, notes and reports concerning the plaintiff’s
interview for the Operations Manager job in or about December 2005.” Metro-North objects to the
request on the basis that it is irrelevant, overbroad and unduly burdensome, and calls for personal
and confidential information.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Like the aforementioned overbroad and unduly burdensome objection in the January Motion,
Metro-North does not describe why this request would be unduly burdensome and so this objection
is denied.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling. The
parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any confidential information
produced and submit it to the Court.
b.

Coale’s Fourth Set of Requests
(1)

Request 1

This request seeks “[a]ll plaintiff’s applications, questionnaires, resumes, and all
correspondence with the plaintiff concerning jobs the plaintiff applied for at Metro North from
January 1, 2005 to the present.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant.
During the parties’ Rule 37(a)(1) conference, Coale narrowed the scope of this request to “just the
Operations Manager job in 2005 and the Drug Tester job he applied for in 2006 or 2007.” As stated
-12-

above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant. Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this
request within three weeks of this ruling as narrowed.
(2)

Request 2

This request seeks “Metro North’s complete files concerning all the jobs the plaintiff applied
for between January 1, 2005 and the present.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that
it is irrelevant. During the parties’ Rule 37(a)(1) conference, Coale narrowed the scope of this
request to “just the Operations Manager job in 2005 and the Drug Tester job he applied for in 2006
or 2007.”

As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant. Metro-North is

ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling as narrowed.
(3)

Request 3

This request seeks “[a]ll documents concerning all the jobs the plaintiff applied for at Metro
North from 2005 to the present including but not limited to all applications, all questionnaires, all
job postings, all job descriptions, all interview notes and all correspondence concerning the
plaintiff’s job applications during this time period.” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis
that it is irrelevant, and overbroad and unduly burdensome. During the parties’ Rule 37(a)(1)
conference, Coale narrowed the scope of this request to “just the Operations Manager job in 2005
and the Drug Tester job he applied for in 2006 or 2007.”
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Like the aforementioned overbroad and unduly burdensome objection in the January Motion,
Metro-North does not describe why this request would be unduly burdensome and so this objection
is denied.
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling as
-13-

narrowed.
(4)

Request 4

This request seeks “[a]ll correspondence between the plaintiff and Metro North concerning
each job the plaintiff applied for at Metro North from January 1, 2005 to the present.” Metro-North
objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant. During the parties’ Rule 37(a)(1) conference,
Coale narrowed the scope of this request to “just the Operations Manager job in 2005 and the Drug
Tester job he applied for in 2006 or 2007.” As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is
relevant. Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling as
narrowed.
(5)

Request 5

This request seeks “[a]ll documents and materials reviewed by Metro North when it made
the decision of who to hire for the Drug Testing Job the plaintiff applied for in or about 2006-2007.”
Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant, overbroad and unduly
burdensome, and calls for personal and confidential information. During the parties’ Rule 37(a)(1)
conference, Coale narrowed this request to Coale’s records and the successful applicant’s records.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Like the aforementioned overbroad and unduly burdensome objection in the January Motion,
Metro-North does not describe why this request would be unduly burdensome and so this objection
is denied.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
-14-

Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling as
narrowed. The parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any
confidential information produced and submit it to the Court.
(6)

Request 6

This request seeks “[t]he job description and job posting for the Drug and Alcohol
Technician Job the plaintiff applied for in or about 2006-2007.” Metro-North objects to the request
on the basis that it is irrelevant. As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling.
(7)

Request 73

This request seeks “[t]he injury history for the person who got the Drug and Alcohol
Technician Job the plaintiff applied for in or about 2006-2007 as it existed at the time the person got
the job” Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant and calls for personal
and confidential information.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling. The
parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any confidential information
produced and submit it to the Court.

3

Metro-North refers to this request as “5.[sic]” due to a numbering error in the original

request.
-15-

(8)

Request 84

This request seeks “[t]he injury histories as of the date of hire and/or promotion for each
person who got a Drug and Alcohol Technician Job at Metro North in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.”
Metro-North objects to the request on the basis that it is irrelevant and calls for personal and
confidential information. During the parties’ Rule 37(a)(1) conference, Coale narrowed this request
to 2006 and 2007.
As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is relevant.
Metro-North provides no further reasons or arguments as to why this information would be
confidential or could not be properly protected by a narrowly crafted protective order, as has already
been entered in the current case. See [Doc. 16].
Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling as
narrowed. The parties shall jointly craft any further protective order needed to protect any
confidential information produced and submit it to the Court.
(9)

Request 95

This request seeks “[a]ll applications and correspondence between the plaintiff and Metro
North concerning the Drug and Alcohol Technician Job in 2006.” Metro-North objects to the
request on the basis that it is irrelevant. As stated above, the Court finds that such a request is
relevant. Metro-North is ORDERED to respond to this request within three weeks of this ruling.

4

Metro-North refers to this request as “6.[sic]” due to a numbering error in the original

request.
5

Metro-North refers to this request as “7” due to a numbering error in the original

request.
-16-

(10)

Request 106

This request seeks “Metro North’s Human Resources files concerning the plaintiff.” MetroNorth objects to the request on the basis that it is vague and that Coale’s personnel files have
previously been produced. Insofar as there on any remaining records in any Metro-North file
concerning Coale’s employment with Metro-North, Metro-North is ORDERED to produce them
within three weeks of this ruling.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to compel is GRANTED and Metro-North is

ORDERED to respond to the discovery requests as delineated above.

It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
May 16, 2011
/s/ Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

6

Metro-North refers to this request as “8” due to a numbering error in the original

request.
-17-