Carter v. Columbia County, Board of Commissioners

Filing 35

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 5/7/2013. (MOH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

VALINDA CARTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No: 3:12-cv-1045-J-UAMHMCR

COLUMBIA COUNTY, BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and
MARK HUNTER,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant, Columbia County Board of
County Commissioners' Motion to Compel (Doc. 30) filed April 1, 2013. In the Motion,
Defendant seeks an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide supplemental Rule 26
disclosures and to provide more complete responses to its requests for production.
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to this motion (Doc. 33) on April 26, 2013.
Accordingly, the matter is now ripe for judicial review.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case alleging race
discrimination. (Doc. 1). Thereafter, on February 1, 2013, Plaintiff served her initial
Rule 26 disclosures on Defendants. On February 18, 2013, Plaintiff served her
responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production.
After Defendant pointed out several alleged deficiencies, Plaintiff served supplemental
Rule 26 disclosures and supplemental responses to the Interrogatories and Requests

for Production on March 8, 2013. Defendant alleges these responses are still deficient
and despite an email requesting further clarification, Plaintiff has failed to provide
adequate Rule 26 disclosures and responses to two requests for production.
On March 14, 2013, counsel for Defendant sent an e-mail to Plaintiff’s counsel
requesting a working copy of a faulty disc produced by Plaintiff containing discovery
materials, however, Plaintiff never produced a working copy of the disc. Additionally, on
March 15, 2013, counsel for Defendant sent another e-mail to Plaintiff’s counsel
requesting that Plaintiff sign and notarize an authorization form from the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity authorizing release of Plaintiff’s Reemployment
Assistance files due to Plaintiff’s failure to produce all such documents in response to
Defendant’s Request for Production. According to Defendant, Plaintiff never responded
to this e-mail.
II. ANALYSIS
Motions to compel disclosures and other discovery under Rule 37(a) are
committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Commercial Union Insurance Co. v.
Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). The trial court’s exercise of discretion
regarding discovery orders will be sustained absent a finding of abuse of that discretion
to the prejudice of a party. See Westrope, 730 F.2d at 731.
The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the
disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in
any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts.
See United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983, 986-87
(1958). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision unless a

-2-

dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion requiring judicial intervention.
Furthermore, “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation
and civility.” Middle District Discovery (2001) at 1.
In the instant case, Defendant asserts Plaintiff must provide more detailed
damage calculations pursuant to Rule 26. Specifically, Defendant contends Plaintiff has
failed to sufficiently “identify the full dollar totals and calculations” for the following
categories of damages: (1) past and future pecuniary losses; (2) bodily injury; (3) back
pay; (4) front pay; (5) interest on pay; (6) bonuses; (7) other benefits; (8) expense; (9)
loss of benefits; (10) illness; (11) lost wages; and (12) other tangible damages. (Doc.
30, p.4). In her response, Plaintiff notes that on April 27, 2013, she provided Defendant
with a second supplemental Rule 26 disclosure. In that disclosure and in her response,
Plaintiff provided more detailed information regarding her damages for each of these
categories except her claim for loss of other benefits, loss of benefits, other tangible
damages, and emotional pain and suffering. (Doc. 33).
With respect to her claims for lost benefits, Plaintiff argues she cannot provide
more information at this time because she needs to obtain information from the Division
of Retirement from the State of Florida. Further, Plaintiff claims she needs to determine
the replacement cost for health insurance before she can provide a calculation. The
Court will direct Plaintiff to supplement her disclosure with respect to lost benefits.
Plaintiff must determine the replacement cost for health insurance and provide a
calculation to Defendant on or before May 17, 2013. As for her claim for lost retirement
benefits, Plaintiff is reminded of her duty to supplement or correct her responses
pursuant to Rule 26(a).

-3-

As for Plaintiff’s claims for other tangible damages, Plaintiff has sufficiently
disclosed her damages at this time. Plaintiff has indicated she is concerned she may
lose her home to foreclosure. As she has not yet lost her home, she has not yet
incurred any other tangible damages. Again, Plaintiff is reminded that should the
situation change, she is obligated to supplement or correct her responses pursuant to
Rule 26(a).
Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s alleged emotional pain and suffering damages,
Plaintiff claims she will not ask the jury for an amount certain and therefore, she cannot
calculate an amount. If the Court understands Defendant’s motion correctly, Defendant
is not asking Plaintiff to calculate the damages she claims for emotional pain and
suffering, but rather, she is to disclose whether there are any economic damages
associated with the diagnosis and/or treatment of any alleged emotional pain and
suffering and if so, to provide a calculation of such. Plaintiff is directed to provide this
calculation no later than May 17, 2013.
Defendant also alleges Plaintiff failed to properly respond to two of its Requests
for Production. In Request for Production number 22, Defendant asked Plaintiff to
produce, “[a] copy of all blogs, cell phone text messages, e-mails, electronic chat
program conversations and wiki postings that in any way concern your employment with
Defendant.” (Doc. 30, p.7). Plaintiff responded that she was not aware of any such
documents, however, Defendant noted that in response to an Interrogatory, Plaintiff
indicated she had exchanged Facebook messages with Tiffany Aderholt. Defendant
would like a copy of any of those messages. In her response to the Motion to Compel,

-4-

Plaintiff stated she provided copies of the messages to Defendant on April 27, 2013.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is moot with respect to this request.
In its Request for Production number 9, Defendant asked Plaintiff to produce
“[a]ny and all documents constituting, referring, or relating to testimony you have
provided under oath in any forum at any time in your life, including, but not limited to,
workers’ compensation and unemployment matters, depositions, trial testimony, and
other sworn or unsworn declarations.” (Doc. 31, p.8). In response, Plaintiff produced a
disc containing a recording of her unemployment compensation hearing. Defendant
contends the disc was faulty and despite requesting a working copy, Plaintiff has failed
to produce one. Additionally, Defendant asks that Plaintiff be required to produce a
signed and notarized authorization form from the Department of Economic Opportunity,
which would allow Defendant to procure a copy of Plaintiff’s entire Reemployment
Assistance file, including a copy of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals hearing. In
her response, Plaintiff stated that on April 27, 2013, she provided a working copy of the
disc to Defendant and on April 2, 2013, she mailed a copy of the release to counsel for
Defendant. Thus, Defendant’s motion to compel is also moot with respect to this
request.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
ORDERED:
Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. 30) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is
directed to provide the supplemental responses indicated above no later than May 17,
2013.

-5-

DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 7th day of May, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-6-