Schwarzkopf v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp

Filing 39

ORDER granting 28 motion to compel. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on February 18, 2014. (Meskill, J)

3:13-cv-87 (AVC) February 18, 2014. The plaintiff‟s motion
to compel production responses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
This is an action for damages and equitable relief in which
the plaintiff, John Schwarzkopf, Jr., asserts Sikorsky Aircraft
Corp., terminated his employment based on his age and his
alleged disability.1 The plaintiff requests the “personnel files
of the six (6) employees who were retained as Gear Room
Supervisors instead of the plaintiff and/or who replaced him
and/or assumed his duties during his medical leave and after his
termination. (Request No. 6).”
The plaintiff argues he “narrowly tailored the request to
seek only the files of those six (6) employees who are similarly
situated to” him. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that “he
has also demonstrated that the information within the files is
relevant because it can be used by the plaintiff to establish
disparate treatment and pretext.” The plaintiff argues
“confidentiality concerns are without merit since the plaintiff
has already agreed to treat any and all such files as
„confidential‟ under the governing Stipulated Protective Order,”
and that “although non-party employees certainly have legitimate
interests in maintaining the privacy of their respective
personnel records . . . such privacy interests and
confidentiality concerns do not provide a basis for a defendant
employer to refuse to provide such relevant records. . . .”
The defendant responds that the general manager who
selected employees, including the plaintiff, for termination,
“did not see the gear room supervisors‟ personnel files,” and,
as such, “those documents are not relevant to Plaintiff‟s
pretext argument.” Specifically, the defendant argues “[b]ecause
the personnel files are not relevant to Plaintiff‟s claims, they
are not within the scope of permissible discovery, and
Plaintiff‟s motion to compel their production should be denied.”
The defendant also argues “[e]ven if the personnel files were
relevant, confidentiality concerns would still place them
outside the scope of permissible discovery” because it “would
unduly intrude upon the privacy of non-parties.”
“[T]he scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) is
very broad, „encompass[ing] any matter that bears on, or that
1

All in violation of
U.S.C. §621 et seg.,
("ADAAA"), 42 U.S.C.
Employment Practices

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") 29
the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended
§12101 etseq.. as amended, and the Connecticut Fair
Act ("CFEPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-60(a) et seg.

reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any
issue that is or may be in the case.‟” Maresco v. Evans
Chemetics, Div. Of W.R. Grace & Co., 964 F.2d 106, 114 (2d
Cir.1992) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S.
340, 351 (1978)).
The court concludes that the request for production no. 6
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence and, therefore, the motion to compel with
respect to these documents is GRANTED. The parties shall
continue to adhere to the agreements of the joint protective
order with respect to non-party confidential information.
Request for production no. 31 and request to compel no. 14 are
denied as moot.2
SO ORDERED.
_______/s/________________
Alfred V. Covello, U.S.D.J.

2

The plaintiff states that based on the defendant‟s representation that LDR
tool documents do not exist, the “plaintiff withdraws his motion to compel
such LDR documents (Request No. 31) and also his request to compel the
Guidelines/Instructions for the LDR tool. (Request No. 14) In addition,
following the filing of the motion to compel, the defendant produced the
Guidelines/Instructions for the PET tool. (Request No. 14).”