HAMMOND v. BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES, L.P. et al
Filing
42
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 27 Motion to Expand the Number of Interrogatories. Plaintiff may serve up to 25 additional interrogatories, for a total of 50 interrogatories in this case and Defendants shall respond thereto. See Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/15/2018. (SWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JONICA HAMMOND,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES, L.P.,
SHELIA STACHURA,
Defendants.
No. 1:18-cv-00565-WTL-MJD
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF INTERROGATORIES
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Expand the Number of
Interrogatories. [Dkt. 27.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
motion.
I. Background
In this action, Plaintiff, a former full time “Plasma Center Technician” employed by
BioLife Plasma Services, L.P., brings her claims of “Defendants’ interference with and
retaliation for [her] exercise of rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as
amended (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.” [See Dkt. 1.] Plaintiff alleges she began her
employment with Defendant on approximately May 14, 2007 and later applied for intermittent
FMLA leave on two occasions, in which she sustained occupational injuries, occurring on
February 12, 2016 and August 4, 2016. [Dkt. 1 at 2-3.] Plaintiff asserts her first application for
FMLA leave relating to the first occupational injury was denied by Defendant BioLife and her
1
scheduled hours were subsequently reduced in adverse employment action by Defendant BioLife
for the exercise of her FMLA rights. [Dkt. 1 at 3.] Plaintiff asserts in response to her second
application for FMLA leave relating to the second occupational injury she was “instructed by
B[ioLife]’s corporate human resources department representative . . . to remain off from work
until released from her treating physician in connection with her workers compensation claims.”
[Dkt. 1 at 4.]
During Plaintiff’s time away from work relating to her second injury, Plaintiff states she
“was being directed by both the defendant employer’s workers compensation case administrator .
. . [and] was also being directed by defendant-employer’s Corporate Leave Department,
sometimes receiving contradictory information, and being told to ignore computer-generated
letters from human resources.” [Dkt. 27 at 1.] Plaintiff was advised to return to her position on
approximately November 14, 2016 via written notification from Defendant’s corporate human
resources department, instructing Plaintiff to report to work on November 15, 2016. [Dkt. 1 at
4.] Plaintiff states before she was to report to work on November 15, 2016, she received a phone
call from Defendant Shelia Stachura informing Plaintiff she was terminated for “job
abandonment.” [Dkt. 1 at 4.] Plaintiff alleges during this telephone call Defendant Stachura
informed Plaintiff “she should not have followed the directions given by the corporate human
resources department . . . .” [Dkt. 1 at 4.] Plaintiff raises the claim that her termination was an
adverse employment action by Defendants for the exercise of her FMLA rights. [Dkt. 1 at 4.]
On September 14, 2018 the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Expand the Number of
Interrogatories. [See Dkt. 27.] In relevant part, the Plaintiff’s motion moves the Court to grant
the Plaintiff leave to propound 25 additional interrogatories, to serve a total of 50 interrogatories
upon the Defendants. [Dkt. 27 at 2-3.] Plaintiff seeks the additional 25 interrogatories to “cover
2
all facets of the conversations” specific to Plaintiff’s communication with Defendant’s Corporate
Leave Department [Dkt. 27 at 2.] Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Expand the Number of Interrogatories on September 21, 2018 stating the information sought
from the additional interrogatories “is unreasonably duplicative of [Plaintiff’s] prior discovery
requests, can be obtained by less burdensome means, and is disproportionate to the needs of this
straightforward employment discrimination case.” [Dkt. 30 at 1.]
II. Legal Standard
“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party
no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(A), “the court may alter the limits in these
rules on the number of . . . interrogatories . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A). The Court may
expand the number of allotted interrogatories unless it finds “(i) the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery
is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). The decision of a
a court to increase the number of interrogatories allowed is a “case by case analysis” in which
“the party seeking leave must forth a ‘particularized showing’ to exceed the limit of twenty-five
interrogatories.” Duncan v. Paragon Publ’g, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 127, 128-29 (S.D. Ind. 2001).
“Often the issue turns on whether the moving party has shown that the benefits of the additional
interrogatories outweigh the burden on the imposing party.” Powell v. The Home Depot USA,
Inc., & Industriaplex, Inc., No. 07-80435-Civ., 2008 WL 2473748, at *5 (S.D. Fl. June 16,
3
2008). The Court addresses the discovery request of expanding the number of interrogatories in
turn.
III. Discussion
In this case, the Plaintiff asserts her FMLA leave of absence pursuant to her second
occupational injury caused her to be “directed by” what can be construed as three arms operating
under the Defendant-employer consisting of: 1) the Defendant-employer’s workers
compensation case administrator; 2) Defendant-employer’s Corporate Leave Department; and 3)
the Defendant-employer’s Human Resources Department. [Dkt. 27 at 1.] Plaintiff’s reply to her
motion refers to this process as “maneuvering through the maze called FMLA.” [Dkt. 39 at 1.]
In Plaintiff’s Motion to Expand the Number of Interrogatories, Plaintiff specifically requests to
propound an additional 25 interrogatories to “cover all facets” of conversations between the
Plaintiff and the second arm of the Defendant-employer, the Defendant’s Corporate Leave
Department. [Dkt. 27 at 1.] Plaintiff alleges during the coordination of her leave, she was “in
constant contact with the defendant-employer’s ‘corporate leave department’ speaking with a
‘Rick,’” who Plaintiff claims advised her to disregard letters from BioLife’s human resources
department that stated her FMLA was not being approved. [Dkt. 39 at 1.]
The Plaintiff argues the “majority of the evidence for the Court to consider is held by the
Defendant . . . . Only the Defendant[s] and their officers can testify to the practices, procedures
and compliance with applicable codes and regulations.” [Dkt. 27 at 2.] During Plaintiff’s own
deposition, in which she testified regarding her contact with “Rick” from Defendant’s Corporate
Leave Department, Plaintiff requested “the name and location” of this employee. [Dkt. 39 at 2.]
Plaintiff further made a supplemental discovery request to inquire about other employees within
4
the human resources department who were responsible for the letters transmitted to her regarding
her FMLA as follows:
Please provide the author’s name, title, work location, and last known address for
those letters transmitted to Jonica Hammond from corporate human resources on
August 22, 2016, October 12, 2016, and November 15, 2016.
[Dkt. 39 at 2.] Plaintiff states Defendants have not disclosed any name or location information
regarding “Rick.” [Dkt. 39 at 2.] Plaintiff states Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s supplemental
request regarding authors of the human resources letters stating the requests “call for information
rather than documents and Plaintiff has already propounded the maximum number of
interrogatories under [the federal rules and] [a]ccordingly, this information has not been
provided to Plaintiff.” [Dkt. 39 at 2.]
1. Cumulative or Duplicative Consideration
Defendants claim Plaintiff’s additional interrogatories “appear to be entirely duplicative
of discovery she has already propounded” and include the following examples as they deem
inclusive of seeking the Plaintiff’s requested information regarding the Defendant’s Corporate
Leave Department:
Interrogatory No. 4: Please set forth all leave requested by the Plaintiff . . . to
whom and how the leave was requested . . . whether the leave was granted or denied
. . . and who participated in that decision.
Request No. 6: Produce each and every document reflecting records of any dispute
between BIOLIFE and an employee regarding designation of leave as FMLA leave,
including any written statement from the employer or employee of the reasons for
the designation and the disagreement
Supplemental Request No. 8: Any and all telephone logs, conference and/or
meeting notes, voice mail recordings, and emails between Jonica Hammond and
defendant-employer’s ‘Corporate Leave Team’ from August 1, 2016 through
November 15, 2016[.]
5
[Dkt. 30 at 2.] Defendants state they have produced all “responsive documents and information,
including call logs between Plaintiff and the corporate leave team, and emails or other
documents describing Plaintiff’s communications regarding her requested leave.” [Dkt. 30 at 2.]
Though the Plaintiff may glean some information regarding her claims from her previous
interrogatories and requests for production, particularly Supplemental Request No. 8 narrowly
tailored to the “Defendant’s Corporate Leave Team,” the Court finds the Plaintiff’s need for
information pertaining to the identification and location of “Rick,” “a potential witness who
could testify in this case” is not cumulative or duplicative, nor is it directly addressed under
Plaintiff’s previously propounded discovery. [Dkt. 39 at 3.] Plaintiff alleges Defendantemployer’s Corporate Leave Department’s employee “Rick” instructed her to disregard letters
sent to her from Defendant-employer’s human resources department. [Dkt. 39 at 1.] The Court
finds information regarding the authors of the letters issued from the human resources
department are connected to Plaintiff’s communications with Defendant-employer’s Corporate
Leave Department, are not cumulative or duplicative, nor are directly addressed under Plaintiff’s
previously propounded discovery. Further information regarding “Rick” and the authors of the
human resources letters may uncover additional witnesses in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1) (“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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(A)(i) (“a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties .
. . the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have
discoverable information – along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party
may use to support its claims or defenses . . .”)
6
Defendants argue the Plaintiff has propounded “numerous interrogatories and requests for
production concerning BioLife’s policies, practices, and procedures . . . [and] Defendants have
produced all the relevant and responsive information . . . .” [Dkt. 30 at 3.] Plaintiff has
requested additional interrogatories “attempting to ascertain the identity and location of one of
the defendant’s employees who communicated with Plaintiff and seemingly contradicted what
the letters from human resources were telling her to do” along with information regarding the
authors of such letters. [Dkt. 39 at 3.] The Court finds the Plaintiff’s additional requests are
different, and therefore not cumulative or duplicative, from previous requests for information
concerning BioLife’s general FMLA policies, employee instruction as to how to comply with
such policies, and employee manuals and communications in relation to such policies. [Dkt. 30
at 3.]
2. Less Burdensome Means and Particularized Showing Consideration
Defendants argue that the information Plaintiff seeks could be obtained from less
burdensome means and that Plaintiff has failed to show a “particularized” need for the additional
interrogatories. [Dkt. 30 at 4.] Plaintiff’s additional interrogatories are targeted to identify
additional witnesses “not located in Indiana” and may “avoid the need to travel out-of-state to
take depositions.” [Dkt. 39 at 3.] “Interrogatories have advantages over other methods of
discovery because they ‘serve a proper function in avoiding unfruitful depositions, in
inexpensively narrowing the areas of discovery, in minimizing delay, and in narrowing issues for
trial.’” Illiana Surgery & Med. Ctr., LLC Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 2:07-cv-3, 2008 WL
5111358, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 1, 2008) (quoting In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 161 F.R.D. 405,
409 (D. Minn. 1995)). “[Plaintiff] must do more than state that the proffered interrogatories are
more convenient, less burdensome, and not duplicative.” Id. at *3 (additional interrogatories
7
granted due to certain potential witnesses residing out of the country). The Court finds the
Plaintiff has met her burden of articulating a particularized need for the identification and
location of potential witnesses, not easily obtained from other sources, and not previously
acquired through initial discovery means.
3. Proportionality and Benefit to the Case Consideration
Defendants raise a proportionality argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1), 2(C)(ii)-(iii), in which “[t]his is a single-plaintiff action in which Plaintiff brings claims
of FMLA interference and retaliation . . . .” and state relevant documents and information have
already been produced, at to fail to justify doubling the amount of allotted interrogatories. [Dkt.
30 at 6.] The Court finds a level of complexity in this case, in Plaintiff’s assertions she was
working in coordination of three arms of the Defendant-employer, including the Defendant’s
Corporate Leave Department and human resources. The Court finds the benefit of the ability to
permit additional interrogatories to address the communications between these arms to locate
case witnesses outweighs the burden of answering 25 additional interrogatories. See Estate of
Manship v. United States, 232 F.R.D. 552, 558-60 (M.D. La. 2005) (additional discovery
permitted after considering the complexity of the case and nature of information sought);
Howard v. Urban Inv. Trust, Inc., No. 03-C-7668, 2011 WL 976767, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18,
2011) (“[R]ecognizing the factual complexities involved, we agree that allowing some additional
interrogatories is appropriate.”).
IV. Conclusion
“Discovery is a mechanism to avoid surprise, disclose the nature of the controversy,
narrow the contested issues, and provide the parties a means by which to prepare for trial. To
effectuate these purposes, the federal discovery rules are liberally construed.” Illiana Surgery &
8
Med. Ctr., 2008 WL 5111358 at *2 (citing 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §
2001, at 44-45 (2d ed. 1994); Spier v. Home Ins. Co., 404 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1968)). The Court
finds the Plaintiff’s additional requests are not cumulative or duplicative, cannot be attained
through less burdensome means, was not acquired through previous discovery requests, and does
not exceed the proportionality scope of the case. “[T]he Court recognizes the liberal use of
interrogatories for legitimate purposes[.]” Duncan, 204 F.R.D. at 129.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Expand the Number of Interrogatories is
GRANTED. Plaintiff may serve up to 25 additional interrogatories, for a total of 50
interrogatories in this case and Defendants shall respond thereto.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 15 OCT 2018
Distribution:
Service will be made electronically
on all ECF-registered counsel of record via
email generated by the court’s ECF system.
9
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?