REIN v. QUINCY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT #172
Filing
30
OPINION BY BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (d/e 25 ) is ALLOWED. The District is directed to produce the six personnel files by January 22, 2013. The documents so produced are subject to the protective order set forth in this Opinion. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered on 1/15/2013. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 15 January, 2013 03:26:29 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
FOR TH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
PAMELA REIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUINCY PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICT #172,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 11-3425
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Pamela Rein's Motion
to Compel (die 25). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
ALLOWED.
BACKGROUND
Rein has filed this claim for age discrimination against her employer
Defendant Quincy Public School District #172 (District), under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. ยง 621 et seq. First
Amended Complaint (die 19) (Complaint). Rein alleges that she was born
on June 4, 1956, and she has worked for the District for 18 years. She
alleges that when she was 54 years of age the District Superintendent
asked when she planned to retire. She told the Superintendent sh.e had no
Page 1 of 7
plans to retire. She alleges that thereafter she has been subjected to
various acts of discrimination. In particular, she alleges that she applied for
several administrative positions, but was turned down in favor of younger
less qualified employees. Complaint
~~
9, 11-14.
In discovery, Rein requested the identity of the successful candidates
for the administrative positions for which she applied and a copy of the
candidates' personnel file. See Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
(die 21.1, ~ 1. Rein's counsel stated that production of the personnel files
would be subject to a protective order. Motion, Exhibit B, Email dated
Decernper 4, 2012. The District disclosed the identity of six
succE~ssful
candidates for the positions, Aaron Beswick, Laurie Fiorenza, Christy Cox,
Daniel Sparrow, Jason Fink and Cheryl Dreasler. The District, however,
objected to producing the personnel files on the grounds that the request
was overly broad, burdensome, and sought information irrelevant to Rein's
claim ..Motion, Exhibit A, Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's RE?9uests to
Produ~&,
at 2 Response to Request No.7. Rein now moves to compel the
production of these files subject to an appropriate protective order.
PRINCIPLES OF DISCOVERY
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
Page 2 of 7
claim or defense of any party. Relevant information need not be admissible
at trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. The rule gives the district courts broad
discretion in matters relating to discovery. See Brown-Bey v. UniJed
States, 720 F.2d 467, 470-471 (ih Cir.1983); Eggleston v. Chicago
Journe~men Plumbers ' Local Union No. 130 U. A., 657 F.2d 890, 902 (ih
Cir.1981); see also, Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, 775 F.2d 177, 183 (ih Cir.1985) (on review, courts of appeal will
only reverse a decision of a district court relating to discovery upon a clear
showing of an abuse of discretion). "[I]f there is an objection the discovery
goes beyond material relevant to the parties' claims or defenses, the Court
would becorne involved to determine whether the discovery is relevant to
the claims or defenses and, if not, whether good cause exists for
authorizing it so long as it is relevant to the subject matter of the action.
The good-cause standard warranting broader discovery is meant to be
flexible."
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) Advisory Committee
Notes, 2000 Amendment.
The federal discovery rules are to be construed broadly and liberally.
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); Jefferys v. LRP Publications,
Inc., 184 F.R.D. 262, 263 (E.D .Pa. 1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Page 3 of 7
26(b)(1) provides that the "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party ..
.," but ''[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Id. The party
opposing discovery has the burden of proving that the requested discovery
should be disallowed. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656
(D. Kan. 1999); Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn
Co., 111S1., 132 F.R.D. 204, 207 (N.D. Ind. 1990); Flag Fables, Inc. v. Jean
Ann's Country Flags and Crafts, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1165, 1186 (D. Mass.
1989).
District Courts have broad discretion in discovery matters. Packman
v. Chiqago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646 (ih Cir., 2001). A party must be
diligent in pursuing the perceived inadequacies in discovery and the trial
court does not abuse its discretion if a party untimely seeks to compel
inadequate discovery responses. Packman, at 647. However, even an
untimely filed motion to compel may still be allowed if the party
demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice resulting from the denial of
discovery. Id. Remember, we are talking discovery, not admissibility at
trial.
ANALYSIS
Page 4 of 7
The District's objections are overruled. The requested information is
relevant, and producing (subject to a protective order) six personnel files of
the individuals who were hired for positions for which Rein applied is
neither overly broad nor unduly burdensome.
Rein alleges an ADEA claim for age discrimination, including claims
of a failure to promote. Rein may elect to proceed under either the direct or
indirect method of proof to establish this claim. Jordan v. City of Gary, Ind.,
396 F.3d 825, 834 (yth Cir. 2005). Under the indirect method, she may
present evidence of a prima facie case that she was more than 40 years of
age, she was qualified for the promotion, she was denied the promotion in
favor of substantially younger individual who was similarly or less qualified
than she.
19.:.
If she makes out this prima facie case, the District may
present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment
decision. Rein then may present evidence that the stated reason is a
pretext
19.:. at 834.
In this case, the personnel files of the six successful
candidates may contain relevant evidence or may lead to relevant evidence
about: (1) whether the successful candidates were similarly or less
qualified than Rein; (2) the District's possible legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its promotion decisions; and (3) whether the possible purported
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons are pretexts. The requested
Page 5 of 7
information is relevant for purposes of discovery. The District's arguments
to the contrary are not persuasive. The Court further determines, in its
discretion, that an in camera review is unnecessary.
The request for the six files is not overly broad or unduly
burdensome. Rein has limited her request in the Motion to the personnel
files of the successful candidates for the positions for which she applied.
She is not moving to compel production of personnel files for every
applicant for the positions or every District administrator. This request is
appropriately limited. She further agrees to make the production subject to
an appropriate protective order. The production under these conditions is
not unduly burdensome. The District is therefore ordered to produce six
personnel files for inspection and copying.
The production of the six personnel files is subject to the folliowing
protective order. All of the information contained in the six personnel files
(Protected Material) shall only be used for the sole purpose of preparing for
or conducting this litigation, including, but not limited to, discovery,
depositions, trial preparation and trial. Rein shall redact personal
identifying information from any copies of any portions the Protected
Material that she files in this litigation in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5.2 and Local Rule 5.11. The Protected Material shall
Page 6 of 7
otherwise only be disclosed to Rein, her attorneys (and her attorneys'
employees), any experts or consultants (and their employees) who are
retained by Rein or her counsel to assist in the preparation and trial of this
litigation, and any copying service used to copy the Protected Material for
use in connection with this litigation. The Protected Material shall not be
disclosed to anyone else. Rein and her counsel shall destroy or return to
the District's counsel the Protected Material, including all copies of any
portion of the contents thereof, within 30 days after the entry of a final, nonappealable judgment in this case.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (die 25) is ALLOWED.
The District is directed to produce the six personnel files by January 22,
2013. The documents so produced are subject to the protective order set
forth in this Opinion.
.______ , 2013
Enter: January 15
sl Byron G. Cudmore
".____
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 7 of 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?