Orloski v. Vincent House et al

Filing 84

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 54 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Compel. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 11/9/2017. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER ORLOSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 8:17-cv-553-T-27AAS

VINCENT HOUSE, VAN GOGH’S
PALETTE, INC., LIGIA GOMEZ,
WILLIAM MCKEEVER, AND ELLIOTT
STEELE,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce
Documents in Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production (Doc. 54), Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Defendants to Fully Answer Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories (Doc. 55), and
Defendants’ responses in opposition thereto (Docs. 58, 61).
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Christopher Orloski filed this action against Defendants Vincent House, Van

Gogh’s Palette, Inc., Ligia Gomez, William McKeever, and Elliott Steele, alleging violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 for denying his membership application to Vincent House, a nonprofit organization. (Doc. 82).
In the instant motions, Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendants to provide better
responses to certain requests for production of documents and interrogatories. (Docs. 54, 55).
Defendants filed responses in opposition to Plaintiff’s motions, wherein Defendants assert that
1

they oppose certain discovery requests as well as aver that proper responses to a number of requests
have since been provided. (Doc. 58, 61). This matter was scheduled for oral argument to take
place on October 24, 2017. (Doc. 63). Prior to the hearing, Defendants hired new counsel, who
then requested (with the agreement of Plaintiff) that the hearing be cancelled so that Defendants
could have “a chance to meaningfully meet and confer with Plaintiff to narrow the issues.”
(Docs.70, 72). The Court cancelled the hearing, and directed that the parties confer and advise the
Court of the status of the motions. (Doc. 74). Thereafter, Defendants notified the Court that they
had resolved several disputed discovery requests, but others remained unresolved. (Doc. 76). The
Court will address the motions to compel as to the remaining, unresolved discovery requests
II.

ANALYSIS
Motions to compel discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See

Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). Rule 26(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the scope of discovery. That rule provides, in relevant
part, that
[p]arties may obtain 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Here, the following discovery requests and responses are still at issue:
Plaintiff’s First Request for Production No. 1, and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-3,
5, and 7.

2

A.

Request for Production

Request for Production No. 1: Copies of Van Gogh’s Palette, Inc. Annual Reports with
all financials of the organization, fiscal years 2007 through 2017, with a comprehensive
estimated budget for 2017.
Response:

Defendants object to this request as it is overbroad and not limited to the
relevant time period. Defendants further objects as this request seeks
information that is not reasonably related to the claims or defenses of either
party. Plaintiff has filed a claim wherein he appears to allege he was
improperly denied membership into Vincent House. Defendants are unsure
how any information regarding the financials and 2017 budget of Van
Gogh’s Palette, Inc. will prove or disprove Plaintiff’s allegations in this
matter.

(Doc. 54-2, p. 2). Section 794 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against qualified
individuals with a disability under any “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Whether Defendants receive federal funding is relevant to bringing an action
under the Rehabilitation Act. However, Plaintiff’s request is overbroad. The relevant period is in
this action is from 2015, when Plaintiff submitted his application to Vincent House, to the present.
In addition, only documents that indicate whether Defendants receive federal funding are relevant
to this action. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted only to the extent that it seeks financial
documentation indicating whether Defendants have received federal funding for Vincent House
from the year 2015 to the present. This information, if it exists, shall be provided to Plaintiff by
November 28, 2017. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
B.

Interrogatories

Interrogatory No. 1: Please provide Van Gogh’s Palette, Inc. average staff salaries by job
title, of nonexecutive staff, annually from 2007 to 2017.
Response:

Defendants object to this request as it is overbroad, not limited to the
relevant time period and seeks information that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs
purported claims and not relevant to the claims or defenses of either party.
Further this interrogatory is not proportional to the needs of the case.
Plaintiff’s sole claim appears to be that he has been denied membership into
3

Vincent House based on his disability. To that end, Defendants are unsure
how any information regarding the staff salaries will prove or disprove
Plaintiffs claims in this matter, or how the information sought is important
to resolving the issues alleged in Plaintiffs complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff
submitted an incomplete application package for membership for admission
into Vincent House in 2015. Even assuming the staff salaries were relevant,
Defendants are unsure how any information regarding staff salaries and job
titles dating back eight (8) years prior to his initial application, will prove
or disprove Plaintiff’s presumed claims in this matter that he was not
extended membership based on his disability.
(Doc. 55-2, pp. 1-2). Plaintiff contends that this information is relevant in proving that Defendants’
staff are motivated to “bully” by “executive salaries and overcompensation.” (Doc. 55, p. 4).
Plaintiff has brought this action in response to Vincent House denying his membership application.
Plaintiff attributes the denial of his application to Defendants’ mental disability discrimination.
The Vincent House’s staff’s salary information is not relevant or proportional to the needs of this
case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory No. 2: Please provide annual statistics, which show 2a) non-personallyidentifying annual membership data including demographics, 2b) income of members at
time of membership application, 2c) income of members after 1 year of clubhouse
membership, 3d) tuition moneys paid, 2e) clubhouse attendance, clubhouse daily task
participation, 2f) mental health diagnoses (a count of clubhouse members for each
diagnoses), 2g) program success data, where program success data shows member job
retention after having worked for 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year and 5 years at a workplace
external to the clubhouse.
Response:

Defendants object to this interrogatory as it seeks information that is not
relevant to Plaintiff's purported claims or to the claims or defenses of either
party. Further, this interrogatory is not proportional to the needs of the case.
Defendants further object this request as it seeks the personal information
as well as confidential medical information of non-parties to this action,
specifically the interrogatory seeks information regarding members.
Plaintiff’s sole claim appears to be that he has been denied membership into
Vincent House based on his disability. To that end, Defendants are unsure
how any information regarding the income or tuition paid or mental health
diagnosis or other requested information of Vincent House members will
prove or disprove Plaintiffs purported claims in this matter. Defendants are
further unsure how any information regarding the demographics of
members will prove or disprove Plaintiff's claims in this matter. Defendants
4

also are unsure how any information regarding program success data, as
described in 2g, will assist in resolving the singular issue in this case as
presented by Plaintiff, i.e., that he was denied membership based on his
disability. Subject to these objections and without waiving the same,
Defendants state that to be eligible for membership at Vincent House
individuals must have a diagnosis of mental illness (such as bipolar
disorder, major depression, schizophrenia or other related conditions), be
18 years or older; have the ability to demonstrate safe conduct; and desire
to join.
(Id. at p. 2). Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and potentially seeks the personal and confidential
information of Vincent House members, who are non-parties to this action. Plaintiff’s claim is
that he was denied membership in Vincent House based on his mental disability. The majority of
the information requested, i.e. demographics of members, their income, the amount they paid in
tuition, and their success, is not relevant or proportional to the needs of to this action. However,
to the extent that Vincent House has kept annual statistics as to the number of Vincent House
members with mental health diagnoses from 2015 (the year Plaintiff submitted his application to
Vincent House) to the present, is relevant and proportional. This limited information, if it exists
and without Defendants disclosing any personal information about a specific member, shall be
provided to Plaintiff by November 28, 2017. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Interrogatory No. 3: Please provide annual statistics from 2007 to 2017, 3a) which show
annually how many applications for membership are received, how many are approved,
how many applicants are rejected, how many applications are classified as incomplete, 3b)
reasons for rejection and an annual count for each reason that an applicant is disqualified.
Response:

Defendants object to this interrogatory as it seeks information that is not
relevant to Plaintiffs purported claims or to the claims or defenses of either
party. Further, this interrogatory is not proportional to the needs of the case.
Additionally, Defendants object as the interrogatory is overbroad and not
limited to the relevant time period. Plaintiff began the application process
for membership for admission into Vincent House in 2015, but never
provided all of the required information requested relevant to evaluating
whether or not he qualified to become a member of Vincent House.
Defendants contend that the information requested is not relevant and are
unsure how any information regarding other individual's applications which
5

were submitted prior to 2015 and whether they were approved or rejected
and the reasons for the same, will prove or disprove Plaintiff's presumed
claims in this matter that he was not extended membership based on his
disability. Plaintiff appears to be alleging he was not approved for
membership based on his disability. However, Plaintiff never completed the
application process. To that end, the only relevant information is related to
the number of applications that were received but were classified as
incomplete for the period 2015- 2017. Subject to these objections and
without waiving the same, Defendants do not maintain statistics regarding
the information requested.
(Id.). The Court agrees with Defendants that the only requested statistics that are relevant and
proportional to the needs of the case are the number of applications that Vincent House received
but classified as incomplete from 2015 to present. Defendants state that they do not maintain these
statistics. (Doc. 61, p. 5). The Court is satisfied with Defendants’ response, and Plaintiff’s motion
is denied as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 5: For 2007 to 2017 please provide the average annual salary of
executives by name (executive director, assistant director, etc.) of Van Gogh’s Palette,
Inc.; and the average annual salary paid to members of the board of Van Gogh’s Palette,
Inc., if any.
Response:

Defendants object to this request as it is overbroad, seeks information this
is not relevant to Plaintiffs purported claims or to the claims or defenses of
either party. Further, this interrogatory is not proportional to the needs of
the case. Defendants further object as this interrogatory seeks personal
information about persons who are not even parties to this case. Plaintiff’s
sole claim appears to be that he has been denied membership into Vincent
House based on his disability. To that end, Defendant [sic] are unsure how
any information regarding the annual salaries of executives or board
members will prove or disprove Plaintiffs claims in this matter. This request
amounts to a fishing expedition that seeks to ultimately harass the
Defendants regarding matters that are not germane to the issues presented
in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiff submitted
an incomplete application package for membership for admission into
Vincent House in 2015. Even assuming these salaries were relevant or
proportional to the needs of the case, which they are not, Defendants are
unsure how any information regarding staff salaries and job titles dating
back eight (8) years prior to his initial application, will prove or disprove
Plaintiffs presumed claims in this matter that he was not extended
membership based on his disability.
6

(Id. at p. 4). Plaintiff contends that this information is relevant in that Defendants’ executives are
motivated to bully based on their salaries. (Doc. 55, p. 8). Plaintiff brought this action for
discrimination based on his mental disability. The information requested is not relevant or
proportional to the needs to this case.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this

interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory No. 7: Please provide pie charts or a bar chart similar to the example below.
The charts should show Van Gogh’s Palette, Inc.’s annual sources of funding by funding
category from 2007 to 2017; and the charts should show for each funding category the
dollar amounts and percentages of the total annual income. If pie, a separate pie chart for
each year. If bar, a separate bar in the bar chart for each year. Be creative. Let your artistic
abilities shine.
Response:

Defendants object to this request as it is overbroad, seeks information that
is not relevant to Plaintiffs purported claims or to the claims or defenses of
either party. Further, this interrogatory is not proportional to the needs of
the case. Plaintiff’s sole claim appears to be that he was denied membership
into Vincent House based on his disability. To that end, Defendant is unsure
how any information regarding funding sources, the dollar amounts and
percentages of total annual income will prove or disprove Plaintiffs claims
in this matter. This request amounts to a fishing expedition that seeks to
ultimately harass the Defendants regarding matters that are not germane to
the issues presented in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Moreover,
Plaintiff submitted an incomplete application package for membership for
admission into Vincent House in 2015. Even assuming funding sources
were relevant to the claims and/or defenses in this matter, Defendants are
unsure why any information regarding funding sources prior to 2015 would
be relevant to Plaintiffs purported claims. Defendants Gomez, McKeever
and Steele object to this information as they do not have “annual sources of
funding” and are unable to respond to this interrogatory. Subject to these
objections and without waiving the same, a list of major funders can be
found on Vincent House’s website: http://vincenthouse.org.

(Doc. 55-2, p. 5). Section 794 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against qualified
individuals with a disability under any “program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Whether Defendants receive federal funding is relevant to bringing an action
under the Rehabilitation Act. However, Plaintiff’s interrogatory is overbroad. The relevant period
7

is in this action is from 2015, when Plaintiff submitted his application to Vincent House, to the
present. In addition, only information pertaining to whether Defendants receives federal funding
is relevant to this action. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted only to the extent that
Plaintiff seeks an interrogatory response disclosing whether Defendants received federal funding
for Vincent House from the year 2015 to the present. This information can be provided in any
format Defendants deem appropriate and in compliance with their obligations pursuant to Rule 33.
Defendants shall provide their amended interrogatory response to Plaintiff by November 28, 2017.
In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce

Documents in Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production (Doc. 54) and Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel Defendants to Fully Answer Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories (Doc. 55) are
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as provided herein.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 9th day of November, 2017.

8