Jackson et al v. Gogel et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM ORDER; 1)The Mag. Judge's 16 Report and Recommendations is adopted as to the 32 Bates stamped pages that the Court has found to be discoverable and rejected as to the remaining 85 pages of the subpoenaed docs; 2)Jackson's 1 Motion to Quash is denied as to the 32 Bates stamped pagegs that the Court has found to be discoverable and granted as to the remaining 85 pages of the subpoenaed docs; 3)Matter is dismissed and stricken from the Court's active docket; 4)Copy of this Order to be Mailed to U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 5/29/2015. (LST)cc: COR, Timothy Batten via U.S. mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
AT COVINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-35-DLB-JGW
J. RANDY JACKSON

vs.

MOVANT

MEMORANDUM ORDER

ANDREA GOGEL

RESPONDENT

*******************
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman’s Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. # 16), wherein he recommends that Movant J. Randy
Jackson’s Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. # 1) be denied. Jackson having filed specific
Objections (Doc. # 19) thereto, Respondent Andrea Gogel having responded (Doc. # 22),
and the Court having conducted an in camera review1 of the subpoenaed documents, this
matter is now ripe for review. For reasons set forth herein, Jackson’s Objections are
sustained in part and overruled in part and Judge Wehrman’s R&R is adopted in part
and rejected in part.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Gogel is currently pursuing a Title VII discrimination and retaliation action against

her employer, Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (“Kia”), in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (Doc. # 15-1). Gogel alleges, inter alia, that Kia
failed to promote her to a Head of Department position because she was American and
1) More specifically, the Court reviewed 117 pages of e-mail correspondence provided by TMMNA
for in camera review.

1

female and later retaliated against her for filing complaints. (Doc. # 13-1). Jackson, who
served as Gogel’s supervisor at Kia, is not a party to that action. (Id.). However, he is
implicated in several of the underlying factual allegations. (Id.).
During discovery, Gogel suggested that Kia include several explicit search terms in
their e-discovery process. (Doc. # 1-4 at 19-20). She explained that she had reason to
believe such explicit terms would appear in e-mails: “For example, we are aware that
Randy Jackson circulated offensive pornographic materials on his computer” while
employed with Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, Inc. (“Toyota”).2 (Id.). Kia
adamantly denied the allegations against Jackson, which ““appear[ ] to have been included
solely to harass [him] and compromise his standing with his current employer.” (Id. at 23).
Gogel then subpoenaed Toyota’s corporate designee to testify at a deposition in Covington,
Kentucky. (Doc. # 1-3). The subpoena further required the corporate designee to produce
the following documents:
1.

J. Randy Jackson’s complete personnel file and/or other files
or compilations of documents, including but not limited to all
applications for employment, offer letters, performance
appraisals, credentials, resumes, commendations, reprimands,
warning letters, correspondence relating to employment,
resignation letters, and all other documents contained therein
for the time period of 1996 through 2003.

2.

Any e-mail sent or forwarded by J. Randy Jackson during his
employment with Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
North America, Inc. (TEMA), for the period of 1999 through
2003 that was considered offensive, pornographic in nature or
sexual in nature, and/or derogatory towards women.

2) Gogel also worked in human resources at Toyota. (Doc. # 13-9 at 2). In fact, Jackson served
as her supervisor there too. (Docs. # 1-4 at 2; 13-1, p. 4, ¶ 10). He left Toyota to work as a
consultant, then secured employment with Kia. (Doc. # 1-4 at 2). Jackson was instrumental in
helping Gogel obtain a position at Kia a few years later. (Id.; Doc. # 13-1, p. 4, ¶ 9).

2

3.

The Separation Notice TEMA filed with the Department of
Labor regarding the end of J. Randy Jackson’s employment.

4.

Any separation agreement or severance agreement between
J. Randy Jackson and TEMA.

(Id. at 5). Jackson promptly filed his Motion to Quash the Subpoena (Doc. # 1) in this
Court.
II.

Standard of Review
While “[a] motion to quash a subpoena is usually a nondispositive matter,” courts

have treated them as dispositive “where, as here, the decision would dispose of the entire
matter at issue in this case.” Luppino v. Mercedes-Benz Financial Servs. USA, LLC, No.
13-50212, 2013 WL 1844075, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 2013); see also EEOC v. Nestle
Prepared Foods, Civ. A. No. 11-358, 2012 WL 1888130, at *4-5 (E.D. Ky. May 23, 2012)
(“Because the EEOC’s motion to enforce the subpoena sets forth all of the relief requested
in this matter, the Court views it as a dispositive motion.”). Thus, a magistrate judge
entertaining such a motion must proceed by report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). If a party objects to the report and recommendation,
the district court must then review the contested portions of the decision de novo. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2), (3); see also Luppino, 2013 WL 1844075, at *3 (reviewing the magistrate
judge’s decision on a motion to quash a subpoena de novo).
III.

Analysis
The scope of discovery in civil cases is quite broad:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense–including the existence, description,
nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible
things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable
matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
3

relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information
need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). This rule applies to parties as well as nonparties. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 34© (“[A] nonparty may be compelled to produce documents
and tangible things or to permit an inspection.”).
However, upon a timely motion, “the court for the district where compliance is
required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to
comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule
45©; (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or
waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d). The
“undue burden category encompasses situations where the subpoena seeks information
irrelevant to the case.” Singletary v. Sterling Transport, Inc., 289 F.R.D. 237, 240 (E.D. Va.
2012) (internal quotations omitted).
In ruling on such a motion, courts must balance the following factors: (1) relevance;
(2) need; (3) confidentiality; and (4) harm. Anderson v. Old Nat’l Bancorp, Civ. A. No. 5:02CV-00324, 2010 WL 5463397, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 29, 2010). “A nonparty seeking to
quash a subpoena bears the burden of demonstrating that the discovery sought should not
be permitted.” Id. Courts must “proceed cautiously in enforcing a subpoena when the
information is being sought from a non-party to the litigation.” Id.
After Judge Wehrman issued his R&R, Jackson filed Objections and asked the Court
to conduct an in camera review of the subpoenaed documents.3 In his Objections, Jackson

3) Jackson also requested a hearing. Having reviewed the subpoenaed documents and the
applicable law, the Court finds that a hearing is not necessary to adjudicate this matter.

4

maintains that all of the subpoenaed documents are non-discoverable because they have
no relevance to Gogel’s gender discrimination claims. He notes that the requested emails
are over a decade old and pertain to his past employment with Toyota. Although Jackson
insists that the emails do not contain sexually explicit material, in the event that they do
contain questionable material, he argues that they are still irrelevant because they were
sent to a non-employee attorney. Thus, the emails reveal nothing about his attitude
towards female employees. Jackson also contends that “[w]hether or not sexual material
was sent to a non-employee is not probative of [Gogel’s] claims” because her claims
involve an entirely different type of conduct.

Specifically, Gogel bases her gender

discrimination claims on Jackson’s alleged failure to promote her and wrongful termination
of her employment; there are no allegations of sexual harassment.
Jackson’s argument blurs the line between discoverability and admissibility. As
Judge Wehrman points out, the two are not coextensive.

While material must be

discoverable in order to be admissible at trial, it is not necessarily admissible simply
because it is discoverable. Discovery must only be reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Through these emails, Gogel seeks to discover whether
Jackson engaged in inappropriate behavior during his former employment. She reasons
that this information is relevant and discoverable because it illustrates Jackson’s attitude
about females in the workplace, which allegedly influenced his decision to terminate her
employment. With this explanation in mind, the Court cannot conclude that the requested
documents are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Accordingly, Jackson’s request for a hearing is denied.

5

Jackson’s concerns about the age, origin and context of these emails may very well affect
their admissibility in later stages of the litigation, but they are not grounds to bar discovery
of these documents altogether.
Jackson also insists that this subpoena is intended to harass and annoy him
because it was issued just after the parties’ e-discovery dispute. The Court agrees with
Judge Wehrman that the timing of the subpoena is not inherently suspicious. As for
Jackson’s assertion that releasing these documents will harm his reputation with Kia, the
Court finds these concerns to be overstated as well. As Jackson’s current employer, Kia
“already knows–or reasonably should already know–[his] employment record with Toyota.”
(Doc. # 16 at 5). Thus, the potential harm to Jackson does not outweigh Gogel’s need for
these documents and their relevance to her claims.
Having conducted its in camera review, and after balancing the required factors of
relevance, need, confidentiality and harm, the Court concludes that 32 of the 117 pages
of email correspondence are discoverable under the applicable standard. The discoverable
pages bear the following Bates stamps: 000002, 000003, 000004, 000008, 000020,
000041, 000043, 000044, 000047, 000050, 000051, 000052, 000057, 000058, 000059,
000063, 000064, 000067, 000068, 000071, 000079, 000080, 000088, 000091, 000092,
000093, 000101, 000102, 000103, 000105, 000112 and 000114.
Finally, Jackson requests that the Court make disclosure of the subpoenaed
documents for “attorneys’ eyes only.” The Court will leave this decision to the United
States District Judge presiding over Gogel’s Title VII case in the Northern District of
Georgia. Accordingly, for reasons stated herein,

6

IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. # 16) is hereby ADOPTED as to the 32

Bates stamped pages that the Court has found to be discoverable, and REJECTED as to
the remaining 85 pages of the subpoenaed documents;
(2)

Jackson’s Motion to Quash (Doc. # 1) is hereby DENIED as to the 32 Bates

stamped pages that the Court has found to be discoverable, and GRANTED as to the
remaining 85 pages of the subpoenaed documents;
(3)

This matter be, and is hereby, DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s

active docket; and
(4)

A copy of this Order should be MAILED to United States District Judge

Timothy C. Batten, Sr., 2142 Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, SW Atlanta, GA, 30303-3309, who is presiding over Gogel
v. Kia Motors Manufacturing of Georgia, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00153-TCB-RGV in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
This 29th day of May, 2015.

G:\DATA\ORDERS\Cov15\15-35 Memorandum Order re Mtn to Quash.wpd

7