Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Comprehensive Behavioral Health Center of St. Clair County, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER re December 13, 2013 discovery dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 12/16/2013. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and PAMELA PERRY,
Plaintiff in Intervention,
vs.
COMPREHENSIVE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH CENTER OF ST. CLAIR
COUNTY, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-1031-JPG-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
On December 13, 2013, the Court held a discovery dispute conference to take up
several disputes between the parties on Defendant’s answers to Interrogatories and Requests to
Produce. The following memorializes the Court’s findings and rulings at that hearing.
A.

Interrogatories
1.

Verification of Interrogatories
Plaintiff Perry indicates that Defendant has failed to verify its answers to Plaintiff

Perry’s Second Interrogatories and supplemental answers to the Second Interrogatories. The Court
DIRECTS Defendant to provide those verifications to Plaintiff Perry by Friday, December 20, 2013.
2.

Interrogatory # 14
Plaintiff Perry indications that Defendant has not provided a narrative answer to this

interrogatory which asks Defendant to (a) state by source and amount all grants, loans, and contracts
that funded its operations, and (b) state the amount of each of the grants, loans, and contracts that
funded the PSR program for fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Counsel for Plaintiff Perry
indicates that while he has received documents from 2010, there are no documents from 2007, 2008,
and 2009 and Plaintiff cannot find the information requested in the Interrogatory in the documents
submitted by Defendant. The Court INSTRUCTED Defendant to supplement its response by
December 17, 2013 by providing documents for the remaining years. As to the contents of the
documents provided, without the documents in front of the Court, it is unable to ascertain whether the
documents provide adequate answers to the questions posed by the interrogatory, thus meeting the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d). Counsel for Plaintiff Perry may brief the issue
if he so chooses, and if so, he may contact the Court in order to set the matter for a hearing to
determine a briefing schedule.
3.

Interrogatory #18
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory #18 asks Defendant to (1) identify, if it contends that Perry

was uninsurable due to work-related accidents, all insurance companies who refused to insure Perry
for driving Defendant’s vehicles, and (2) if it contends Perry was insurable to drive but the costs were
too high to cover her due to work-related accidents, to explain how and why the insurance costs were
higher for Perry than for the other employees. Defendant responded to the interrogatory by stating it
had no documents which were responsive to the interrogatory. The Court, however, notes that since
the request is an interrogatory, Defendant was not required to provide documents. Counsel for
Defendant indicated that Defendant does not contend that Perry was uninsurable for work-related
accidents or that the cost of insuring Perry was too high. The Court DIRECTED Defendant to
make a supplemental response to the interrogatory by formally answering the two questions in writing.
Page 2 of 5

Defendant has until December 17, 2013 in which to supplement its response.
B.

Requests to Produce
1.

Request to Produce #11
Plaintiff Perry also brought up disputes over Defendant’s responses to numerous

requests to produce. Plaintiff’s Request #11 sought agendas and minutes for management meetings
from July 1, 2009 through November 20, 2010. Counsel for Defendant indicates that she believed
those documents had been turned over and will supplement her response to produce the missing
documents. The Court DIRECTED Defendant to produce the agendas and committee minutes for
the requested dates by December 17, 2013.
2.

Request to Produce #12
Plaintiff’s Request #12 sought agendas, minutes from meetings, and records showing

those in attendance for coordinator meetings from July 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010. Defendant
objected that the request was overbroad.

However, the Court overruled the objection and

ORDERED Defendant to produce the documents by December 20, 2013.
3.

Request to Produce #19
Request #19 sought unredacted agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings of the

Quality Control Team from July 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010.

The Court also overruled

Defendant’s objection on this request and DIRECTED Defendant to respond by December 17,
2013.
4.

Request to Produce #25
Request #25 also sought unredacted agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings for

board of directors and all committees from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012 which discussed certain
topics. Plaintiff’s counsel has withdrawn his request for recordings of the meetings. Defendant’s
Page 3 of 5

counsel indicates that there is only one person in the Human Resources department and that the
documents are located in boxes, making the process of retrieving the documents unduly burdensome.
Counsel for Defendant did indicate that the board met approximately once a month. The Court
found that the request was not overly burdensome as the meetings only occurred on average once a
month requiring the production of, at most, 18 agendas and minutes for the 18 month period
requested. Thus, the objection was OVERRULED and Defendant was given until December 20,
2013 I which to produce the documents.
5.

Requests to Produce #’s 28, 29, and 30
Plaintiff’s Requests #’s 28, 29, and 30 seek documents that were brought up during the

Jumper deposition. Counsel for the defense indicates that her client is not sure what is being sought
from the requests. As an example, counsel noted that Defendant does not have a specific Medicaid
contract as is requested in #29.

Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that Jumper mentioned these

documents in her deposition. As there is some confusion between the parties as to what documents
are being sought, the Court DIRECTS the parties to meet and confer today on the issue. The parties
are instructed that if there is further disagreement after the meet and confer, then another discovery
conference can be scheduled and the Court can review the deposition transcripts regarding the
documents.
6.

Requests to Produce #’s 31, 33, and 34
Finally, Plaintiff noted that there were issues to Defendant’s response to Request #’s

31, 33, and 34 which sought service reports for certain employees by one-week increments for July 1,
2008 through September 10, 2010. Defendant objected to the request arguing that it was unduly
burdensome. Counsel for Plaintiff offered an example of one such service report that was produced
by Defendant. The document reported service activity for each month for an entire year. Counsel
Page 4 of 5

for Plaintiff agreed to limit his request to a similar search perimeter of monthly service reports. The
Court OVERRULED Defendant’s objection in part and ORDERED Defendant to provide yearly
reports that reflect monthly numbers for the three individuals requested in #’s 31, 33, and 34.
Defendant will have until December 20, 2013 in which to supplemental its response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 16, 2013.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5