Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

Filing 162

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 151 Motion for Reconsideration re 150 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 6/4/14. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
KENT DUTY,
)
)
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
)
v.
)
)
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________ )

Case No.12-02634-JWL-KGG

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
Now before the Court is Defendant’s “Motion For Partial Reconsideration
by Magistrate Judge of Order on Defendant’s Motions to Compel” (Doc. 151). For
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS this motion.
The nature and background of this employment discrimination case and the
underlying motion were summarized and addressed in the Court’s prior Order
(Doc. 150). The Court also addressed discovery standards. (Id.) Those relevant
portions of that Order are incorporated herein by reference.
Defendant argues that the Court should reconsider the portions of its Order
addressing the disputed relevance of EEOC conciliation materials because the

EEOC did not raise a relevance objection in response to the underlying discovery
requests (Requests for Production Nos. 13, 15, 23-33, and Interrogatories Nos. 4,
10, and 11). Rather, the objection was not raised until the EEOC responded to
Defendant’s motion. (Doc. 151, at 2-3.)
Defendant correctly argues that this Court has routinely held that “an
objection not raised in the initial discovery response is deemed waived if
subsequently raised for the first time in response to a motion to compel.” Seed
Research Equipment Solutions, LLC v. Gary W. Clem, Inc., No. 09-1282-EFMKGG, 2011 WL 1743232,*1 (D. Kan. May 6, 2011) (citing Anderson v. United
Parcel Service, Inc., No. 09–2562–KHV–DJW, 2010 WL 4822564, at n. 11
(D.Kan. Nov. 22, 2010) (internal citation omitted)). Plaintiff argues the Court’s
inherent power to control discovery (Doc. 158, at 1-2), but provides no legal
authority to address the fact that it waived the relevance objection.
As such, the Court reconsiders its prior Order and finds that Plaintiff waived
any relevance objection to Requests for Production Nos. 13, 15, 23-33, and
Interrogatories Nos. 4, 10, and 11. To the extent the Court sustained this objection
in its prior Order – and denied Defendant’s motion on that basis – the objection is
now overruled and Defendant’s motion is GRANTED accordingly.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial
2

Reconsideration by Magistrate Judge of Order on Defendant’s Motions to Compel
(Doc. 151) is GRANTED as more fully set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 4th day of June, 2014.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

3