Meyer v. St. John's Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St Francis
Filing
33
OPINION entered by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on 12/19/2016. Plaintiff Tiffany Meyer's Motion to Strike Defendant's Objections and Second Motion to Compel Answers to Her First Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents, d/e 30 is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff Meyer's request for a telephonic conference is DENIED because no conference is necessary at this time. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 21 December, 2016 03:48:21 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
TIFFANY MEYER, f/k/a
TIFFANY CAVORETTO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. JOHN’S HOSPITAL
OF THE HOSPITAL SISTERS
OF THE THIRD ORDER
OF ST. FRANCIS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 15-cv-3313
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Tiffany Meyer’s
Motion to Strike Defendant’s Objections and Second Motion to Compel
Answers to Her First Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of
Documents (d/e 30) (Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion
is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
Tiffany Meyer (Meyer) uses a wheelchair and crutches. She worked
for Defendant St. John’s Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order
of St. Francis (St. John’s) as a dietician for approximately four years.
Meyer alleges that in late June or July of 2014, St. John’s announced it was
Page 1 of 20
relocating Meyer’s work station which would require her to work almost
exclusively on the patient floors. Meyer alleges she voiced concerns that
her new work station would not accommodate her wheelchair and asked for
accommodation to let her continue to work where she had prior to the
transfer of her work station. Meyer alleges that within days after her
accommodation request, her employment was terminated. See Complaint
(d/e 1), ¶¶ 18-20.
This matter resulted in Meyer filing a disability discrimination action
against St. John’s asserting, among other things, that it refused to provide
her reasonable accommodations for her disability and retaliated against her
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§12112(b)(1), 12112(b)(5)(A), and 12203(a).
On April 20, 2016, Meyer served on St. John’s her First Set of
Interrogatories (Interrogatories) and her Second Request for Production of
Documents (Document Requests) (collectively the Discovery). The parties
agreed to several extensions of time for St. John’s to respond to the
Discovery. The last agreed extension required St. John’s to respond by
July 29, 2016. St. John’s responded to the Discovery on August 24, 2016.
St. John’s states that it delayed in producing its response to the Discovery
because its Human Resource Manager left and St. John’s counsel had a
Page 2 of 20
death in the family. Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Strike Objections and Second Request for the Production of
Documents (d/e 32) (St. John’s Response), at 4.
On September 26, 2016, the Court entered an Agreed Protective
Order (d/e 26).
Counsel for Meyer and St. John’s discussed the response to the
Discovery. St. John’s supplemented its response to the Discovery on
October 28, 2016, and supplemented its response to the Document
Request a second time on November 22, 2016. The parties have
conferred but have not resolved all of their disputes regarding St. John’s
response to the Discovery.
ANALYSIS
Meyer asks the Court to strike all of St. John’s objections to the
Discovery because the response was late. Objections to interrogatories
and requests to produce must be timely filed or are waived unless the
Court for good cause excuses the failure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).
The Court finds that sufficient cause exists not to waive all of St. John’s
objections in this case. The Court, however, admonishes the parties to
respond to discovery in a timely fashion hereafter.
Page 3 of 20
The Court addresses the remaining unresolved disputes over St.
John’s responses to the Discovery as follows:
INTERROGATORY 12 AND DOCUMENT REQUEST 21
Interrogatory 12
Interrogatory 12 asked the following:
Were salary raises available to a Clinical Dietitian II
employee in Springfield, IL from July 8, 2014 through the
present? If yes, include in your answer each time raises
occurred, the date the raises went into effect each time, the
potential percentage range of the raise each time, and all
factors considered in giving a raise such as merit, cost of living,
or length of time since the last raise.
Motion, Exhibit 1, Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories, at 7. St. John’s responded:
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
that it seeks information that is irrelevant, immaterial, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the production of admissible
evidence. Without waiving or prejudicing these objections in
whole or in part, records showing raises Plaintiff received
during her employment were previously produced and
numbered St. John's 15, 17, 19 , 21, 40, 42, and 43.
Id. St. John’s did not supplement this answer in its October 28, 2016
supplemental response to the Interrogatories. See Additional Exhibit to
Motion (d/e 31), Defendant’s Supplemental Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set
Page 4 of 20
of Interrogatories (Supplemental Interrogatory Response). St. John’s
subsequently informed Meyer that:
Registered Dieticians were eligible for October 2014 Merit
Increases based on individual performance review; October
2015 Merit Increases based on individual performance review;
December 2015 Salary Alignment Adjustment and October
2016 Merit Increases based on individual performance review.
Merit Increases for 2015 and 2016 were 3%.
St. John’s Response, at 4-5. St. John’s further agreed “to provide the
specific raise amount for the December 2015 Salary Alignment and any
2016 Salary Alignment increases once we had that information.” Id., at 5.
St. John’s relevance objection is overruled. The salary increases for
dieticians after Meyer’s termination is relevant for discovery purposes to the
issue of damages in the form of lost wages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). St.
John’s provided a partial response. St. John’s must complete the
response. St. John’s is directed to provide “the specific raise amount for
the December 2015 Salary Alignment and any 2016 Salary Alignment
increases” by January 8, 2017.
Document Request 21
Document Request 21 stated:
21. Produce documents that state the benefits,
compensation range, and salary raises available to the Clinical
Dietician II position at the St. John's Springfield, IL location from
January 1, 2013 through the present.
Page 5 of 20
Motion, Exhibit 2, Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Request for
Production of Documents (Document Response), at 10. St. John’s
responded:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as unduly vague in its failure
to define "applicable." Defendant further objects to this request
on the grounds that it seeks information that is irrelevant,
immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
production of admissible evidence. Without waiving or
prejudicing these objections in whole or in part, see documents
regarding raises Plaintiff received during her employment and
available employee benefits which were produced previously,
numbered St. John's 15, 17, 19 , 21, 40, 42, 43 and 253-302.
Id. St. John’s supplemental response substantially repeated the original
response and added the following:
Answering further, Plaintiff received a raise effective April 20,
2014. Registered Dieticians were eligible for October 2014
Merit Increases based on individual performance review;
October 2015 Merit Increases based on individual performance
review; December 2015 Salary Alignment Adjustment; and
October 2016 Merit Increases based on individual performance
review. Defendant has not located any responsive documents.
Investigation continues.
Motion, Exhibit 6, Defendant’s Second Supplemental Response to
Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents (Second
Supplemental Document Response), at 7. St. John’s also objected to the
word “benefits” as vague. Id.
Page 6 of 20
St. John’s relevance objection is overruled. The salary increases for
dieticians after Meyer’s termination is relevant for discovery purposes to the
issue of damages in the form of lost wages. The vagueness objection is
also overruled. The word “applicable” is not in Document Request 21. The
word “benefits” in context is clear and refers to fringe benefits provided to
employees as part of their compensation.
The Court directs St. John’s to search once more for responsive
documents. The Court is skeptical that St. John’s does not maintain any
documentation of any kind regarding periodic merit salary increases,
periodic salary alignment adjustments, or fringe benefits provided to
employees. St. John’s is directed to provide any responsive documents or
certify under oath that no such documents exist by January 8, 2017.
INTERROGATORY 9
Interrogatory 9 asked for the following:
"Identify" each dietitian at St. John's Springfield, IL
between 4/1/2010 - 12/31/2014 who told Defendant that he or
she was disabled or who Defendant identified as being
disabled. For each such person, state the nature of the
disability and what accommodations Defendant has provided
this employee, if any.
Page 7 of 20
Supplemental Interrogatory Response, at 3. Dish responded:
ANSWER:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, unlikely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and seeks information that Defendant
does not track. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as
it seeks disclosure of confidential personnel information
regarding persons who are not parties to this lawsuit. Without
waiving or prejudicing these objections in whole or in part, there
were two dieticians during this time period who requested
accommodations:
L___ R___ requested and was given an ergonomically correct
computer and computer stand due to neck issues;
E___S___ requested and was given a special receiver for her
phone due to serious hearing issues.
Id. (names blanked out in copies filed in court). St. John’s answered the
interrogatory. Meyer complains that St. John’s did not provide dates of
employment for the two individuals who received accommodations, but
Meyer did not ask for dates of employment in the interrogatory. The motion
to compel additional responses to Interrogatory 9 is denied.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 3
Document Request 3 states:
3. Produce all standards of care and communications that
governed the charting standards and requirements for St.
John's Registered Clinical Dieticians at the Springfield, IL
location from June 1, 2012 - December 31, 2014.
Page 8 of 20
Document Response, at 3. St. John’s agreed to produce all responsive
documents. St. John’s states in its response that the responsive document
is a reference book. St. John’s is directed to produce the responsive
documents by January 8, 2017.
Document Request 4
Document Request 4 stated:
4. Produce all performance reviews, clinical performance
appraisals, peer feedback forms for all of St. John's dietician
employees at the Springfield, IL location for the years 2012,
2013 and 2014.
Document Response, at 3. St. John’s responded:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as vague in its failure to
define "dietician employees" and overly broad in scope.
Defendant further objects to this request as it seeks private
information regarding individuals who are not parties to this
lawsuit and without the entry of a protective order. Without
waiving or prejudicing these objections in whole or in part, see
Plaintiff's personnel reviews, appraisals and peer feedback
forms produced previously, numbered St. John's 143 - 252.
Document Response, at 3. St. John’s supplemented its response as
follows:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as vague in its failure to
define "dietician employees" and "clinical performance
appraisals", overly broad in scope and seeks private
information regarding individuals who are not parties to this
Page 9 of 20
lawsuit. Defendant further objects to this request as it seeks
information that is irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence as
none of the other Dieticians are similarly-situated to Plaintiff,
nor were any performance evaluations conducted by Ms.
Stauffer prior to 2014. In fact, evaluations prior to 2013 were
conducted by other Dieticians and in the case of the 2013
reviews, by Michael Lucas who was not a Registered Dietician,
but merely an acting supervisor until he hired a supervisor for
the Dieticians. Additionally, there were no peer feedback forms
completed in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Defendant could find no
documents titled "clinical performance appraisals". Without
waiving or prejudicing these objections in whole or in part, see
Plaintiff s performance reviews, appraisals and peer feedback
forms produced previously, numbered St. John's 143 - 252 and
similar documents for Karen Morton produced previously,
numbered St. John's 679 - 690. Defendant will produce the
2014 performance reviews for all Clinical Dieticians.
Investigation continues.
Second Supplemental Document Response, at 2-3. St. John’s objections
are overruled to the extent that St. John’s is directed to produce by January
8, 2017, the performance reviews for all Clinical Dieticians for 2012, 2013,
and 2014. Such documents may lead to admissible evidence, and so are
relevant for discovery purposes. Meyer is entitled to discover the
documents to see if any evidence exists to indicate that other employees
were similarly situated. The three-year time frame is also reasonably
limited to minimize the burden on St. John’s and is proportional to the
needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
Page 10 of 20
DOCUMENT REQUEST 6
Document Request 6 stated:
6. Produce the result for each Registered Clinical
Dietitian's Chart Audit (or Medical Record Documentation
Worksheet(s)) that Ms. Stauffer administered in June or July
2014.
Document Response, at 3. St. John’s responded:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as it seeks disclosure of
private and medical information regarding individuals who are
not parties to this lawsuit. Defendant further objects to this
request as it is overly broad in scope and seeks information that
is irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the production of admissible evidence. Without waiving or
prejudicing these objections in whole or in part, see relevant
documents enclosed herein, numbered St. John's 671-678.
Answering further, no other chart audits were retained at the
time of the audits as all other Registered Dieticians received
passing scores.
Id. St. John’s states that it produced all the chart audits in its possession.
The request to compel additional production to Document Request 6 is
denied.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 7
Document Request 7 stated:
7. Produce the standards of care, expectations, rubric, and scoring
guide applicable to the Chart Audit (or Medical Record
Documentation Worksheet(s)) that Ms. Stauffer administered in June
or July 2014.
Page 11 of 20
Document Response, at 4. St. John’s responded:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as unduly vague in its
failure to define "standards of care" and "expectations."
Defendant further objects to this request as overly broad in
scope and unduly burdensome. The broad scope of this
request conceivably includes documents that apply to Clinical
Dietitians that are not in the control or custody of the
Defendant, such as policies governed by the American Dietetic
Association, the Illinois Division of Professional Regulations,
and Sodexco, Inc. Without waiving or prejudicing these
objections in whole or in part, Defendant will produce
responsive St. John's documents. Investigation continues.
Id. See also Second Supplemental Document Response, at 4. St. John’s
says that the chart audit forms belonged to an outside contractor who
employed Meyer’s supervisor, Sodexco, Inc., and St. John’s did not have
any responsive documents. If St John’s has not already done so, it is
directed to certify under oath it does not have any documents responsive to
this request on or before January 8, 2017.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 8
Document Request 8 stated:
8.
Produce the portions of the medical record that Ms.
Stauffer reviewed to complete her Chart Audit (or Medical
Record Documentation Worksheet(s)) on Plaintiff in June or
July 2014.
Page 12 of 20
Document Response, at 5. St. John’s responded:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as it seeks disclosure of
private and medical information regarding individuals who are
not parties to this lawsuit and without the entry of a protective
order. Without waiving or prejudicing these objections in whole
or in part, Defendant will produce responsive documents upon
the entry of a protective order.
Id. St. John’s supplemented its response:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as it seeks disclosure of
private and medical information regarding individuals who are
not parties to this lawsuit. Without waiving or prejudicing these
objections in whole or in part, Defendant will produce all
portions of the medical records that Ms. Stauffer reviewed but is
still investigating what portions of the medical records were in
fact relied upon. Investigation continues.
Second Supplemental Document Response, at 4. St. John’s produced
some responsive records. The records produced for Account #:
Y00001345996 did not include a section called a LIVE DISCHARGE
SUMMARY. The records produced for other accounts included this
section. St. John’s is directed to produce by January 8, 2017, the LIVE
DISCHARGE SUMMARY for Account #: Y00001345996 for the patient’s
June and July 2014 hospital visit.
Page 13 of 20
DOCUMENT REQUESTS 9 AND 11
These requests asked for medical records related to the Chart Audit
for Karen Morton:
9. Produce the portions of the medical record Ms.
Stauffer reviewed to complete her Chart Audit (or Medical
Record Documentation Worksheet(s)) on Karen Morton in June
or July 2014.
....
11. From medical records that were the subject of Ms.
Stauffer Chart Audit (or Medical Record Documentation
Worksheet(s)) on Karen Morton, produce the following parts
from the medical record from June 1, 2014 through July 31,
2014: History and physical, Progress Notes, Nursing
Assessments regarding edema and skin status, labs, meal
intake notes, all information related to nutrition
assessments/diagnoses, education nutrition records, dietitian
nutrition assessments, dietitian calorie count, and nutrition
screenings.
Document Response, at 6. St. John’s objected, but stated that it would
produce responsive documents. Id. See Second Supplemental Response,
at 2-3. St. John’s states that it is working to identify the responsive portions
of the medical records requests. St. John’s is directed to produce the
responsive documents by January 8, 2017.
Page 14 of 20
DOCUMENT REQUEST 12
Document Request 12 stated:
12. Produce all communications to or from Ms. Stauffer or
among her staff about or referring to the June or July 2014
Chart Audit (or Medical Record Documentation Worksheet(s)).
Document Response, at 6.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as it is unduly burdensome to
the extent that it seeks all communications among the staff
regarding the chart audits. Defendant further objects to this
request as it is seeking information that is irrelevant, immaterial,
and not reasonably calculated to lead to the production of
admissible evidence. Without waiving or prejudicing these
objections in whole or in part, see document produced herein,
numbered St. John's 390. Investigation continues.
Id. St. John’s added in its supplemental responses that no responsive
documents exist other than document numbered 390 referenced in the
response. St. John’s objections are overruled. The request is not unduly
burdensome and the documents sought are relevant and proportional. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Meyer is entitled to discover communications to or
from her supervisor, Ms. Stauffer, related to the June or July 2014 Chart
Audit to see if the documents contain any relevant information.
St. John’s response to the Motion is ambiguous. St. John’s states, in
part, “As stated earlier, no other dieticians are similarly-situated to Plaintiff.
For purposes of responding to discovery, Defendant also provided
Page 15 of 20
electronic communications to and from Karen Morton. Defendant has not
located any other responsive documents.” Response, at 8. The response
may be read to mean that St. John’s did not produce any communications
related to other dieticians because St. John’s takes the position that the
other dieticians are not similarly situated, and so, the documents are not
responsive. If so, this interpretation of the document request is incorrect.
St. John’s must produce all communications to or from Ms. Stauffer and her
staff regarding the June or July 2014 Chart Audit or Medical Record
Documentation Worksheets for all dieticians regardless of whether the
communications concern Meyer, Morton, or any other dietician. Meyer is
entitled to discover this information to determine if other dieticians are
similarly situated. The communications may also lead to evidence relevant
to other issues such as intent. St. John’s is directed to produce all
responsive documents or to certify under oath that it has no additional
documents in by January 8, 2017.
DOCUMENT REQUEST 13
Document Request 13 stated:
13. Produce all documents describing, discussing, or reflecting
communication with Karen Morton or about Karen Morton on the following
topics from September 1, 2013 - December 31, 2014:
a. Performance;
b. Discipline;
Page 16 of 20
c. Chart Audits;
d. Knowledge or Skills;
e. Quality or Quantity of Work;
f. Chart Expectations;
g. How Ms. Morton Charted;
h. Performance Action Plans; and
i. Termination.
Document Response, at 5. St. John’s responded:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it
seeks disclosure of information protected by attorney-client
privilege and work-product doctrine. Defendant further objects
to this request as it is requesting information from an individual
who is not a party to this lawsuit. Without waiving or prejudicing
these objections in whole or in part, Defendant will produce
responsive documents upon the entry of a protective order.
Document Response, at 7. St. John’s later produced some
documents. St. John’s stated that it would produce, “Morton's chart
audit that was part of her performance improvement plan. Defendant
has not located any other responsive documents. Investigation
continues.” Second Supplemental Response, at 6. St. John’s is
directed to produce by January 8, 2017, all additional responsive
documents, including “the chart audit that was part of her
performance improvement plan.”
Page 17 of 20
DOCUMENT REQUEST 14
Document Request 14 stated:
14.
Produce all documents describing, discussing, or
reflecting communications with Plaintiff or about Plaintiff on the
following topics from January 1, 2012 -July 31, 2014:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
Performance;
Knowledge or skills;
Quality or Quantity of Work;
Discipline;
Charting Expectations;
How Plaintiff's (sic) Charted;
Competency;
Core Values;
Behavior;
Attitude;
Adaptability;
Attendance;
Punctuality;
Reliability; and/or
Disability.
Document Response, at 7. St. John’s responded:
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this request as overly broad as it
seeks disclosure of documents that are protected by attorneyclient privilege and work-product doctrine and unduly vague in
its failure to define "How Plaintiff’s Charted." Defendant further
objects to this request as overly broad in terms of search terms
for any electronically-stored information. Answering further,
Defendant's counsel will continue to work with Plaintiff s
counsel to come to an agreement on the necessary scope of
such search terms. Without waiving or prejudicing these
objections in whole or in part, see documents produced
previously, numbered St. John's 143 - 252. Investigation
continues.
Page 18 of 20
Document Response, at 8. St. John’s supplemented this response with
additional documents. Second Supplemental Document Response, at 6.
Meyer asks the Court to direct St. John’s to conduct a more thorough email
search. St. John’s responds that Meyer has never suggested specific
search terms to use in an email search. Counsel for the parties are
directed to agree by December 29, 2016, on search terms to be used in a
search of St. John’s email system. St. John’s is directed to complete the
search and produce any additional responsive emails by January 8, 2017.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS 30 AND 31
Document requests 30 and 31 stated:
30. Produce all communications to or from Ms. Stauffer
regarding actual or proposed construction work at St. John's
that could affect her staff from January 1, 2014 - December 31,
2014 on the following topics: dates of construction work, what
construction work to be done in her staff's office area, location
of her staff s work locations.
31.
Produce all communications to or from Ms. Stauffer from
January 1, 2014 -December 31, 2014 regarding her staff s work
location(s).
Document Response, at 13. St. John’s stated that it would produce the
documents. St. John’s is directed to produce all responsive documents by
January 8, 2017.
Page 19 of 20
St. John’s is also directed to produce by January 8, 2017, a privilege
log that lists each document withheld on a claim of privilege, that states
nature of the claim of privilege for each document, and includes a
description of the documents withheld that meets the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A).
Meyer asks the Court to require St. John’s to certify that all
responsive information has been provided. St. John’s has stated that all
responsive information has been provided or will be provided. St. John’s
Response, at 4. The Court deems the statement to constitute the
requested certification. The Court will not require more at this time.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff Tiffany Meyer’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Objections and Second Motion to Compel Answers to Her First
Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents (d/e 30)
is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff Meyer’s request for a
telephonic conference is DENIED because no conference is necessary at
this time.
ENTER: December 19, 2016
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 20 of 20
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?