Balderas v. Target Corporation
Filing
64
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 53 Second MOTION to Compel Documents filed by Christian Balderas. The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide the employee information as described above, but not the entire pers onnel file. Because the motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, the Court "may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion." Fed. R. Civ P. 37(a)(5)(C). In this case, because the question was fairly close and both parties were partially successful, the Court determines that each party is to bear its own expenses and will not order additional briefing. The Court sua sponte ORDERS that the fact discovery deadline is ext ended through April 30, 2019, for the sole purpose of obtaining contact information for and holding the deposition of the employee, and the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended response to the pending motion for summary judgment, if necessary, is extended to May 15, 2019, with a reply to be filed by May 30, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 3/27/19. (ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
CHRISTIAN BALDERAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-270-JEM
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [DE 53], filed March 4,
2019. On March 14, 2019, Defendant filed a response, and on March 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Plaintiff requests that the Court compel disclosure of the personnel file of a witness to the events
underlying the dispute.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the scope of discovery is “any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy is “construed broadly to encompass any
matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that
is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). A party may seek an order to compel discovery when
an opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests or provides evasive or incomplete responses.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party objecting to the discovery request bears the burden of showing
why the request is improper. See McGrath v. Everest Nat’l Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 660, 670 (N.D.
Ind. 2008). The Court has broad discretion when determining matters related to discovery. Thermal
Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditioning Eng’rs, Inc., 755 F.3d 832,
837 (7th Cir. 2014); Rennie v. Dalton, 3 F.3d 1100, 1110 (7th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he slipped and fell on a substance on the floor at one of
Defendant’s stores. Plaintiff requests information about the store employee who allegedly witnessed
the substance on the floor and cleaned it up in order to locate and depose him. Plaintiff represents
that Defendant refused to provide the emergency contact information in the employee’s file, and
Plaintiff was unable to locate the employee, so Plaintiff requested the entire personnel file.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for the employment file was untimely, coming after
discovery closed, and that Plaintiff is not entitled to the entire file. Defendant agrees that Plaintiff
may receive contact information for the employee, and asserts that it provided updated contact and
address information for the employee after receiving the request. It argues that the request for the
entire personnel file is not proportional to the needs of the case and violates the employee’s privacy
rights. Plaintiff argues that the employee cannot be located with the information Defendant provided,
and Defendant still refuses to provide emergency contact information or other information from the
personnel file that may be useful in finding him.1
The Court first turns to the argument that Plaintiff’s request was untimely. Defendant asserts
that Plaintiff served the request for production on November 3, 2018,one day after the fact discovery
deadline of November 2, 2018. In this case, the request was served only a few hours after the
deadline expired, Defendant was not prejudiced by the short delay, and, given the discovery
difficulties in the case and the fact that the Court later extended the fact discovery deadline for
1
In the reply brief, Plaintiff also argues for the first time that there is likely to be other relevant information in the
personnel file, such as discipline, employment history, and training, but since the assertion is not developed and
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are generally deemed waived, the Court will not address the relevancy
of other possible information in the file. See Carter v. Tennant Co., 383 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2004).
2
several more months, it concludes that the failure to timely act was excusable. See, e.g., Marquez
v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 2005); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). It therefore turns to the merits of
the discovery request.
As courts have recognized, provision of personnel folders “may infringe on the privacy
interests of non-parties. While it is true that no privilege exists to protect personnel files, courts
recognize that such information is sensitive, and that they should weigh the value of the information
sought against the burden of providing it.” Doyle v. City of Chicago, 943 F. Supp. 2d 815, 828 (N.D.
Ill. 2013). Accordingly, the Court “ha[s] broad discretion to limit a request for the discovery of
personnel files, in order to prevent the dissemination of personal or confidential information about
employees.” Brunker v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., 583 F.3d 1004, 1010 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing
Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309, 320 (7th Cir.2003)). The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has directed the district court considering whether a personnel file
should be produced to “consider ‘the totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of the material
sought against the burden of providing it,’ and taking into account society’s interest in furthering ‘the
truth-seeking function’ in the particular case before the court.” Brunker, 583 F.3d at 1010 (quoting
Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002)); see also, e.g., Baker v. Town
of Middlebury, 753 N.E.2d 67, 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (noting the important “public policy
protecting the privacy rights of individuals with respect to sensitive personnel matters” in Indiana).
In this case, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to contact information of the employee, but
has not presented a developed argument regarding the relevance of the other personal and
confidential information potentially contained within the file. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
the entirety of the personnel file need not be produced. However, any information within the file that
3
could be used to locate the employee must be produced, including current or former home addresses,
reference information for people who know the employee, emergency contact information, and any
other information that may assist in determining how to contact the employee. Information such as
discipline and training should not be provided to Plaintiff.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [DE 53]. The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide the employee
information as described above, but not the entire personnel file. Because the motion to compel is
granted in part and denied in part, the Court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion
the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ P. 37(a)(5)(C). In this case, because the
question was fairly close and both parties were partially successful, the Court determines that each
party is to bear its own expenses and will not order additional briefing.
The Court sua sponte ORDERS that the fact discovery deadline is extended through April
30, 2019, for the sole purpose of obtaining contact information for and holding the deposition of the
employee, and the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended response to the pending motion for
summary judgment, if necessary, is extended to May 15, 2019, with a reply to be filed by May 30,
2019.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2019.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
All counsel of record
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?