Marroy v. Aisin Mfg. Illinois, LLC
ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (Doc. 37 ) is DENIED, without prejudice. Defendant's objection to Request No. 24 is OVERRULED. Defendant is DIRECTED to ame nd its response by July 30, 2021. Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (Doc. 39 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 40 ) is GRANTED. Defendant is DIRECTED to Answer Interrogatory No. 19 by J uly 30, 2021. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 42 ) is GRANTED, in part. Defendant is DIRECTED to respond to First Request for Production No. 45 by July 30, 2021 in accordance with the Court's directives in Para graph No. 4 of the attached Order. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 69 ) is GRANTED. Defendant is DIRECTED to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses by July 30, 2021. The parties should review the attached Order carefully for additional directives. (Action due by 7/30/2021, Amended Pleadings due by 7/30/2021). Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 7/15/2021. (arm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
AISIN MFG. ILLINOIS LLC,
Case No. 20-cv-972-DWD
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on seven motions filed by Plaintiff Amanda
Marroy: Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (Doc. 37), Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (Doc.
39), Motion to Compel (Doc. 42), Motion to Compel (Doc. 55), Motion to Deem Facts
Admitted (Doc. 59), Motion to Strike (Doc. 69), and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 70).
On July 1, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motions. In preparation for this hearing,
the Court directed the parties
See Doc. 86). The parties
submitted discovery reports to the Court via email on June 30, 2021.
At the July 1, 2021 hearing, the Court GRANTED the Motion to Compel (Doc. 55)
and ORDERED the parties to immediately discuss available dates to take depositions.
The depositions SHALL
conference, which is currently scheduled for July 27, 2021. The parties represented that
they are in agreement on the location of the depositions and prefer that the depositions
be taken in-person. The Court further DENIED the Motion for Protective Order (Doc.
70) and instructed the parties that if any privilege issues arose during depositions then
the parties could approach the Court with their dispute.
The parties also represented that they had resolved all outstanding discovery
issues related to the Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (Doc. 59). Accordingly, the Court
DENIED the Motion (Doc. 59) as moot. Finally, Plaintiff agreed to supplement her
parties agreed to supplement their discovery responses and disclosures by July 12, 2021.
briefing and after hearing arguments, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Plaintiff seeks to deem No.
rst Request to Admit Facts (see
Doc. 35; Doc. 37-2) as admitted. Defendant represents that it will be admitting No. 26,
e as to this No. 26 is resolved. As for Request to Admit
No. 24, the request states:
at p. 13 ¶ 4 expressly states that absences incurred by its employees with
that can lead to termination.
Defendant submitted the following answer in response:
Defendant objects to Request No. 24 as it is vague and misleading. Further
answering, Defendant admits that its attendance policy states, in part:
onal leave (prior authorization
required), or two marriage days (prior authorization required) will not be
answering, the document speaks for itself.
(Doc. 35, p. 5; Doc. 37-2, p. 5).
Defendant is DIRECTED to amend its response by July 30, 2021.
DENIED, without prejudice.
see Doc. 38;
Doc. 39-2) as admitted. Request to Admit No. 1 states:
Defendant never expressly made any claim in its Position Statement
to the Illinois Department of Human Ri
No. 1 on pp. 1-6, that providing the Plaintiff with any additional time off or
a leave of absence beyond her twelve weeks of Family Medical Leave for
her temporary inability to work due to medical conditions related to her
pregnancy and childbirth was an undue burden under the Illinois Human
Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(J)(1) through (4).
Defendant submitted the following answer in response:
Defendant admits that the document atta
a true and accurate copy of the position statement submitted to the Illinois
Department of Human Rights. The document speaks for itself.
to Deem Facts Admitted (Doc. 39) is DENIED.
By this Motion Plaintiff seeks to
No. 19 seeks to discover the names, addresses, phone numbers, job titles, and current
Defendant objects to this
Interrogatory as irrelevant, overbroad, not reasonably limited in time and scope, and as
not proportional to the needs of the case (Id.). Defendant further objects to discovery
related to its net worth at this time, arguing that any determination of
survives a motion for summary judgment.
Defendant does not specifically argue that discovery into its net worth is irrelevant to an
award of punitive damages. See Yund v. Covington Foods, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 582, 589 (S.D.
discovery of defendan
to assess punitive damages because a corporate
assessment of punitive damages against it); but see EEOC v. Staffing Network, 2002 WL
31473840, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that a co
may be relevant for purposes of Rule 26). Instead, Defendant argues that any discovery
into its net worth should be delayed until after a determination that it will be liable for
net worth could be relevant to a claim of
punitive damages. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Illinois Human Rights Act and Title
VII of the Civil Rights, including an award of punitive damages (Doc. 25). Under certain
circumstances, an award of punitive damages may be permitted under both acts.
However, Federal law and Illinois law differ in their treatment of the relevance of
its or net worth as evidence supporting a
determination of punitive damages. Under Illinois law, it is well-established that a
a relevant factor relevant in determining punitive damages.
rning Fiberglass Corp., 265 Ill. App. 3d 805, 823 (5th Dist. 1994)
However, the federal law in this circuit is decidedly less clear. In Newport v. Fact
Concerts, 453 U.S. 247, 270 (1981), the Supreme Court set out the general rule that
ionally admissible as a measure of the amount
profits may be irrelevant to the consideration of an award of punitive damages, at least
under federal law.
979 F.2d 499, 508 (7th Cir. 1992). Several
courts in the circuit have opined that Zazu has been interpreted too broadly and that a
a relevant factor to an award of punitive
damages. See Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 266 F.Supp.3d 1097 (C.D. Ill. 2017)
(describing district court split on applying Zazu, and noting that the majority of district
courts find that Zazu
dictum); Isbell v. John Crane, Inc.,
74 F.Supp.3d 893, 898-899 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (citing cases).
Accordingly, given the broad discovery contemplated by Rule 26, at this junction,
Defendant does not argue that it will suffer harm due to the confidential nature of these
Defendant is DIRECTED to answer the Interrogatory No. 19 by July 30, 2021. This ruling
renew its objection in a pre-trial motion in
limine or other motion as may be appropriate.
By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to
compel responses to its First Request for Production No. 45 (Doc. 42-2). Request for
2, p. 12). Defendant
again objects to this request as irrelevant, not proportional to the case, and as premature
(Id.). However, Defendant does not specifically argue that discovery into its net worth is
irrelevant to an award of punitive damages. Nor does Defendant argue that it will suffer
harm due to the confidential nature of these documents. However, the request is overly
broad and will undoubtedly precipitate the production of an unnecessarily large volume
of records when existing compilations and summaries will allow the Plaintiff to
adequately prepare her case. Accordingly, Pl
GRANTED in part. Defendant is DIRECTED to respond to First Request for Production
No. 45 by July 30, 2021 by producing for the calendar years 2019 and 2020 all existing
quarterly and year-end financial balance sheets, income statements, cash flow statements,
Earnings per Share statements, and all similar documents which evidence by compilation
or summary the net worth of the Defendant. This ruling is without prejudice to both the
objection in a pre-trial motion in limine or
other motion as may be appropriate.
DIRECTED to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses by July 30, 2021.
Forthcoming settlement conference.
As discussed at the July 1, 2021
set for July 27, 2021 will proceed as scheduled.
The parties are again reminded that they SHALL participate in this settlement conference
in good faith.
Dated: July 15, 2021
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
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?