Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

Filing 226

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 208 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 1/13/15. (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 PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO APPROPRIATELY ANSWER
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Compel Defendant to Appropriately
Answer Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions filed by Plaintiff and PlaintiffIntervenor. (Doc. 208.) After consideration of the parties’ submissions, the
motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor challenge objections made to requests for
admission promulgated to Defendant, and challenge qualifications made to certain
responses. The Court will address these categorically.
Defendant objected as to “time frame” to several requests for information
concerning job requirements which included periods beyond Plaintiff-Intervenor’s

employment (Requests 1-9). Defendant presents a narrow view of the admission
of such evidence at trial, while Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor argue broadly that
such evidence will be relevant to a determination of whether job requirements were
or were not “essential.” This is essentially a question of the scope of discovery.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . .
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
“‘Discovery relevance is minimal relevance,’ which means it is possible and
reasonably calculated that the request will lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” Teichgraeber v. Memorial Union Corp. of Emporia State University,
932 F.Supp. 1263, 1265 (D. Kan. 1996) (internal citation omitted). “Relevance is
broadly construed at the discovery stage of the litigation and a request for
discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility the information
sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action.” Smith v. MCI
Telecommunications Corp., 137 F.R.D. 25, 27 (D.Kan.1991). Stated another way,
“discovery should ordinarily be allowed unless it is clear that the information
sought can have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the action.” Snowden
By and Through Victor v. Connaught Lab., 137 F.R.D. 325, 341 (D.Kan.1991),
2

appeal denied, 1991 WL 60514 (D.Kan. Mar. 29, 1991).
At this point in the case, these questions are within the scope of discovery
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Plaintiffs have described plausibly how that evidence may
contribute to their trial theories. Those objections are overruled. In each of those
responses, Defendant provided responses “without waiving” that objection. This
Court has consistently found that such conditional responses are improper.1
Therefore, those answers now stand as stated without objection. This ruling is
equally applicable to the “scope” objection to Request 21, which is also overruled.
Of course, this ruling does not make those admissions admissible at trial, and
whether the scope of the requests exceeds evidentiary relevance is a question for
the trial court. The motion is GRANTED as to these objections.
Defendant objected as to the relevance of Requests 19 and 20. Each of these
requests asks for admission that certain documents produced in discovery in this
1

Conditional responses “occur when ‘a party asserts objections, but then provides a
response ‘subject to’ or ‘without waiving’ the stated objections.’” Westlake v. BMO Harris
Bank N.A., No. 13-2300-CM-KGG, 2014 WL 1012669, *3 (D. Kan. March 17, 2014) (citing
Sprint Comm'n Co., L.P. v. Comcast Cable Comm'n, LLC, Nos. 11–2684–JWL,
11–2685–JWL, 11–2686–JWL, 2014 WL 54544, *2, 3 (D. Kan. Feb. 11, 2014). See also,
Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters Co. V. Ringside, Inc., et al., No. 13-2150-CM-KGG,
2014 WL 2815515, at *3 (D. Kan. June 23, 2014). This Court reiterates its agreement with the
Sprint decision that found such conditional responses to be “invalid,” “unsustainable,” and to
“violate common sense.” 2014 WL 54544, *2, 3.

3

case were not provided to the EEOC during its administrative investigation.
Neither the EEOC’s investigation nor its conclusions are relevant in this case, and
the Court has previously denied similar discovery. (See generally Doc. 150; see
also Abade v. JBS USA, LLC, No. 10-2103-PAB-KLM, 2013 WL 5812478, at *2
(D. Col. Oct. 29, 2013)). Movants have failed to demonstrate the relevance of
these requests. The objections are sustained and the answers stricken. The Motion
is DENIED as to these objections.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(4), if an answer is not admitted, the answer must
specifically deny the request
or state in detail why the answering party cannot
truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond
to the substance of the matter, or when good faith
requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a
part of a matter, the answer must specify the part
admitted and qualify or deny the rest.
Movants challenge certain qualifications added to Defendants admission of
requests. (Requests 1, 2, 3, 21.) Upon review of those responses, the Court cannot
conclude that they are not “good faith” qualifications as required by the rule. See
Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (UK) Ltd., No. 12-2350-SAC, 2014 WL
806071, n.28 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2014). Each of those requests remains “admitted”
and it will be for the trial court to decide whether the qualification comments are
irrelevant surplusage or should be included with the response if submitted to the
4

jury. The motion is DENIED as to these qualifications.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Compel
Defendant to Appropriately Answer Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions filed by
Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor (Doc. 208) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part as more fully set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 13th day of January, 2015.

S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

5