Reed v. Forney Industries, Inc.
Filing
35
ORDER denying 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order on Defendant's Notice of Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum; granting in part and denying in part 29 the Agreed Motion to Extend Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines. K-T Industries, Inc. shall have up to and including March 2, 2018 to fully respond to the subpoena (Doc. 27-1). The hearing scheduled for February 21, 2018 is CANCELLED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 2/16/2018. (HJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RICHARD C. REED, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:17-cv-288-FtM-38CM
FORNEY INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order on Defendant’s Notice of Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc.
27) and the Agreed Motion to Extend Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines (Doc. 29).
Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order.
Doc. 28.
On May 25, 2017, this case was removed from the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. Doc. 1.
Defendant
Forney Industries, Inc. (“Forney”) is a family-owned corporation selling tool,
equipment and accessory products.
Doc. 20 ¶ 9.
Forney from September 2003 to December 2015.
Plaintiff was an employee of
Id. ¶¶ 10, 17. Plaintiff alleges he
could not work from July 2015 to August 2015 because he suffered a knee injury and
had knee surgery in July 2015.
Id. ¶¶ 13-15. Plaintiff claims that after he returned
to work in August 2015, Forney attempted to find fault with his work performance in
efforts to terminate him.
Id. ¶ 17. In December 2015, Forney terminated Plaintiff’s
employment, although he allegedly performed well at work.
Id. ¶¶ 19-22. On May
25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking damages under the Florida Civil Rights
Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01 et seq. Doc. 1.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, adding two counts of disability discrimination under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., as amended, and age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 621 et seq.
Doc. 20.
On September 19, 2017, Forney served a subpoena on Plaintiff’s current
employer, K-T Industries, Inc. (“K-T Industries”), commanding K-T industries to
produce “[a]ny and all human resources/personnel records in [its] possession
regarding
[Plaintiff,]
including
applications
for
employment;
performance
evaluations; payroll records; time cards; absentee records; employment physicals; and
Workers’ Compensation claims. In other words, EVERYTHING in [K-T Industries’]
possession regarding [Plaintiff.]”
Doc. 27-1.
The subpoena required K-T Industries
to produce them at 10:00 a.m. on October 19, 2017.
Id. at 1. Forney sent a notice
of the subpoena to Plaintiff’s counsel on October 24, 2017.
Doc. 27-2.
On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present motion, seeking a protective
order concerning Forney’s subpoena to K-T Industries.
Doc. 27.
Plaintiff alleges
he objected to the subpoena based on relevance and other grounds, such as
annoyance, embarrassment and oppression.
Id. at 2. Forney disagreed with the
objections, but agreed to notify K-T Industries not to produce any responsive
documents until the parties could reach an agreement.
-2-
Id.
Plaintiff argues he provided Forney with copies of his tax returns and W-2s,
including his records of earning from K-T industries.
Id. He acknowledges these
documents are relevant to the issues of his damages and mitigation of damages.
Id.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff asserts his payroll records requested by Forney are not
necessary because he already provided his tax returns, W-2s and paystubs following
the period after Forney’s termination of his employment.
Id.
Plaintiff further
claims the requested information concerning his medical condition is not relevant
because only his medical condition during the term of his employment with Forney
matters here.
Id. at 2-3.
Thus, Plaintiff argues Forney’s subpoena constitutes
annoyance, embarrassment and oppression because his employment records of K-T
Industries are not relevant to any issue in this case, except for damages.
Id. at 3.
Plaintiff asserts Forney is engaging in a fishing expedition, and the discovery request
is not proportional to the needs of the case.
Id. Alternatively, Plaintiff asks the
Court to find less intrusive means to obtain the requested information.
Id. Forney
responds all of the requested documents are relevant and discoverable. Doc. 28 at
3-4.
The Court finds the requested documents are relevant and discoverable.
26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits 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 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.
-3-
Rule
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
A party may object to a discovery request by moving for a protective order
pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Rule 26(c) provides that “a party or any person” may move for a protective order to
protect a person from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
The court, upon a party showing good cause, may
issue a protective order including “specifying terms, including time and place or the
allocation of expenses, for the disclosure or discovery” and “forbidding the disclosure
or discovery.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
“Rule 26(c) gives the district court discretionary
power to fashion a protective order.”
Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble, Co., 758 F.2d
1545, 1548 (11th Cir. 1985).
A party resisting discovery must establish “lack of relevancy or undue burden
in supplying the requested information.” Gober v. City of Leesburg, 197 F.R.D. 519,
521 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (citation omitted).
The resisting party must show that the
requested discovery does not come within the scope of relevance within Rule 26(b)(1)
or is of marginal relevance that the potential harm caused by discovery outweighs
the presumption in favor of broad disclosure.
Id. (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff does not provide any legal authority to show that the requested
information lacks relevancy or imposes undue burden on K-T Industries.
Doc. 27.
In contrast, Forney supplies two cases from this district in which courts found an
employee’s personal records from a current employer are relevant and discoverable
-4-
when the records pertain to the employee’s claim of damages and mitigation of those
damages against a previous employer.
Doc. 28 at 5-6; Glambrone v. Kearney & Co.,
P.C., No. 8:16-cv-2083-T-30AAS, 2017 WL 2538705, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2017);
U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, v. Autozone, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-00862-J32MCR (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2007).
Similarly, Plaintiff here admits the requested pay
records from K-T Industries are relevant to the issue of Plaintiff’s damages and
mitigation of damages.
Doc. 27 at 2.
Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges he suffers damages, including emotional pain
and suffering, mental anguish, outrage and loss of dignity, as a result of Forney’s
termination of his employment.
Doc. 20 ¶ 35.
By seeking damages for emotional
distress, Plaintiff waived his privacy interest in the documents sought.
Glambrone,
2017 WL 2538705, at *1; U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, v. Autozone, Inc.,
No. 3:06-cv-00862-J-32MCR, at 7 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2007).
Forney also is entitled
to discover the documents related to Plaintiff’s mental conditions so that Forney may
determine the extent to which Plaintiff’s mental state is affected by his loss of
employment.
Glambrone, 2017 WL 2538705, at *1; U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity
Comm’n, v. Autozone, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-00862-J-32MCR, at 7 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18,
2007).
Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and
direct K-T Industries to respond fully to Forney’s subpoena.
Lastly, the parties jointly seek a ninety (90) extension of the pending deadlines.
Doc. 29.
Pursuant to the Case Management and Scheduling Order, the parties have
until February 1, 2018 to complete discovery, February 14, 2018 to mediate and
-5-
March 1, 2018 to file dispositive motions, and a trial term commences on August 6,
2018.
Doc. 19 at 1-2.
Based on the parties’ representations, the Court finds good
cause to grant in part the requested extensions.
Doc. 29.
Given the length of the
requested extensions and the Court’s heavy caseload, however, the Court will extend
the remaining deadlines by sixty (60) days.
In light of the extensions, the Court
expects the parties to exercise their diligence in meeting the extended deadlines.
The parties’ continued diligence and coordination will help avoid the parties’ future
need to file additional motions to extend the deadlines.
The Court further will cancel
the hearing scheduled for February 21, 2018.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order on Defendant’s Notice of Service
Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 27) is DENIED.
2.
K-T Industries, Inc. shall have up to and including March 2, 2018 to fully
respond to the subpoena (Doc. 27-1).
2.
The Agreed Motion to Extend Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines (Doc. 29) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3.
An amended case management and scheduling order will be issued under
separate cover.
4.
The hearing scheduled for February 21, 2018 is CANCELLED.
-6-
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 16th day of February,
2018.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-7-
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?