Meyer v. St. John's Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St Francis
Filing
43
OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff Tiffany Meyer's Third Motion to Compel 35 is ALLOWED. See written order. Defendant is directed to make the documents available for inspection and copying by April 14, 2017. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 31 March, 2017 11:47:51 AM
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 CAVARETTO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. JOHN’S HOSPITAL
OF THE HOSPITAL SISTERS
OF THE THIRD ORDER
OF ST. FRANCIS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 15-cv-3313
OPINION
THOMAS P. SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Tiffany Meyer’s Third
Motion to Compel (d/e 35) (Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is ALLOWED.
BACKGROUND
Meyer alleges a claim for employment discrimination against
Defendant St. John’s Hospital of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of
St. Francis (St. John’s). Complaint (d/e 1). On April 24, 2016, Meyer
served St. John’s with her Second Request for Production of Documents.
Request No. 21 made the following request for documents:
Page 1 of 4
21. Produce documents that state the benefits, compensation
range, and salary raises available to the Clinical Dietician II
position at St. John’s Springfield, IL location from January 1,
2013 through the present.
Motion, Exhibit 1, Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Request for
Production of Documents, at 10.
In response, St. John’s produced documents, including a document
entitled “Your HSHS Retirement Program” dated July 2014 (Program
Summary). Plaintiff’s Supplemental Filing Regarding Her Third Motion to
Compel (d/e 42), Exhibit 4, Program Summary. The 12-page program
summary sets forth a summary of the retirement programs that were
available to certain St. John’s employees. The Program Summary
contained sufficient information to determine the benefits that qualified
employees could receive, and to calculate the benefits. The Program
Summary was responsive to Request No. 21.
The last page of the Program Summary included a qualifying proviso:
This is only a summary of the Hospital Sisters Health System
retirement program effective July 1, 2014. Details of all the
benefits described in this summary are found in the official plan
documents. The information here is subject to those official
documents, which will control in the event of any conflict,
difference or error. HSHS reserves the right to change or
terminate any of the retirement program benefits in the future.
Program Summary, at 11. Based on this proviso, Meyer asks the Court to
compel St. John’s to produce the official plan documents (Official Plan) so
Page 2 of 4
that she can compare the two and see if any additional relevant information
exists in the Official Plan. St. John’s states that the Plan Summary
provides sufficient information concerning the compensation information
sought by Request No. 21 and objects to producing the Official Plan as
being overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The question is whether requiring St. John’s to
produce the Official Plan in addition to the Plan Summary is proportional to
the needs of the case. If the Official Plan is produced, Meyer can confirm
whether the Program Summary is accurate. St. John’s, however, must
incur the cost of making the Official Plan available for inspection and
copying. St. John’s has not proven the cost of producing the Official Plan.
On balance, the Court finds requiring St. John’s to produce the Official Plan
is proportional to the needs of the case. Meyer should be able to see the
Official Plan to confirm the accuracy of the Plan Summary.
Page 3 of 4
The Court determines that St. John’s is not required to pay any of
Meyer’s fees or expenses incurred in filing the Motion because St. John’s
was substantially justified in taking the position that producing the Plan
Summary alone was proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(A)(ii).
THEREFORE, Plaintiff Tiffany Meyer’s Third Motion to Compel
(d/e 35) is ALLOWED. Defendant St. John’s is directed to make the Official
Plan documents referenced in the Program Summary available for
inspection and copying by April 14, 2017.
ENTER: March 31, 2017
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
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?