Lavigne v. Cajun Deep Foundations, LLC et al

Filing 50

RULING granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 02/28/2014. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TERRANCE J. LAVIGNE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-441-BAJ-SCR
CAJUN DEEP FOUNDATIONS, LLC,
ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is a Motion to Compel Discovery filed by the
plaintiff Terrance J. Lavigne.

Record document number 22.

The

motion is opposed.1
Plaintiff filed this action against his former employers,
defendants Cajun Industries, LLC and Cajun Deep Foundations, LLC,
alleging claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title
VII and Louisiana law.

Plaintiff alleged he was hired on August

18, 2005 as a laborer and at the time of his termination was a
drill shaft foreman.

Plaintiff alleged that he was terminated on

March 22, 2011 because of his race and in retaliation for opposing
discriminatory employment practices.
The allegations underlying the plaintiff’s race discrimination
and retaliation claims were as follows: (1) plaintiff alleges he
was wrongfully terminated for violating company policy, and treated

1

Record document number 37.
Plaintiff filed a reply
memorandum. Record document number 42. Defendants filed a surreply memorandum. Record document number 49.

less favorably than white male employees who violated the same or
similar policies; (2) plaintiff alleges before his termination he
was overlooked and/or denied promotion to superintendent and the
pay rate of a superintendent, while white males were regularly
brought in from outside or promoted from within the companies to
superintendent when they were not fully qualified, and as a
consequence he often had to train them or perform some of their
duties; (3) plaintiff alleges he was cited for a policy violation
for being too close to an open hole,2 and white males were not
cited for the same actions; (4) plaintiff alleges he was cited for
a

policy

violation

arising

from

an

accident

involving

heavy

equipment,3 and white males who had the same or similar accidents
were not found in violation of company policies; (5) plaintiff
alleges he was cited for a policy violation based on a review of
his motor vehicle records, and white males with similar or worse
records

and/or

who

otherwise

had

accidents

involving

personal/company vehicles were not found in violation of company
policy; and (6) plaintiff alleges he was retaliated against for
seeking the promotion and pay rate of superintendent, and because
of the defendants’ concern he would advise OSHA of reportable
incidents that were covered up, and for opposing unfair employment

2

This incident occurred in January 2009.

3

The date of the incident was February 7, 2011.
2

actions that violate Title VII.4
The subject of this discovery motion is the plaintiff’s First
Request for Production of Documents served on the defendant Cajun
Deep Foundations on May 9, 2013.5

Plaintiff’s discovery consisted

of 63 requests for production of documents.

Defendant provided

responses on September 25, 2013. Defendant produced some documents
and also objected to many of the requests on the ground that they
were clearly over broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence related to the claims of
discrimination and retaliation alleged by the plaintiff.6
In a letter dated December 17, 2013, counsel for the plaintiff
attached suggested amendments to some of the original document
requests, stating that it was an effort “to narrow the scope of the
request and further cure the deficiencies in the Defendants’
responses.”7
completing

On December 31, 2013, which was the deadline for
fact

discovery

and

filing

motions

to

compel

fact

disocvey, the plaintiff filed the present motion. Plaintiff argued
that the defendant failed to adequately respond to 48 document
requests, specifically, Request for Production Numbers 1-19, 24,
25, 27-30, 32, 35, 38-51, 53, 54, and 58-62.

4

Record document number 1, Complaint.

5

Record document number 22-2, Exhibit A.

6

Record document number 22-3, Exhibit B.

7

Record document number 22-4, Exhibit C.
3

Given the extremely over broad document requests served by the
plaintiff, it is not surprising the plaintiff claims that 48 of the
defendant’s 63 responses are deficient.

The above summary of the

plaintiff’s claims makes it is apparent that the plaintiff’s
allegations of discrimination and retaliation are focused on a
specific time frame and specific incidents.

Yet, the plaintiff’s

discovery requests could not be more broadly worded.

Plaintiff’s

suggested amendments in the December 17 letter are somewhat more
limited, but still very broad in scope given the plaintiff’s
allegations.
As

written,

the

plaintiff’s

requests

for

production

essentially encompass virtually every document related to every job
and employee of the defendant during the tenure of the plaintiff’s
employment from August 2005 through March 2011.

Were the court to

specifically consider, analyze and limit (if possible) each of the
48 contested document requests so that the information sought would
come within scope Rule 26(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., in light of the
plaintiff’s allegations, this would amount to the court basically
writing/propounding discovery requests for the plaintiff.

It is

not appropriate for the court rule on a discovery motion by
essentially rewriting dozens of the plaintiff’s overbroad document
requests.
Nevertheless, considering the motion, memoranda and exhibits
as a whole, the plaintiff’s motion to compel is resolved as

4

follows.
As

to

many

of

the

48

contested

document

requests,

the

defendant agreed to produce documents sought by the request if the
request was limited to the time frame of June 2009 through March
20118 and to employees who were similarly situated to the plaintiff
during

this

employees

time.9

were

Defendant

drill

shaft

stated
foremen

that
and

similarly

situated

superintendents.10

Therefore, if the defendant has not already done so, it must
provide the relevant documents, limited to the time frame of June
2009 through March 2011 and employees who were drill shaft foremen
and superintendents, or specifically state that it does not have
any responsive documents to produce.
With regard to Requests for Production Numbers 5, 41 and 46
(related

to

the

bridge-striking

incidents

by

two

non-white

employees), and Request for Production Number 17 (related to a
meeting involving the plaintiff, Romell Lavigne and Gene Landry),

8

In its sur-reply memorandum the defendant argued for a
stricter time limitation - February 7, 2011 through March 22, 2011
- stating that any claims arising before that date are prescribed.
There has been no finding that any of the plaintiff’s claims are
prescribed, and this argument is inconsistent with the defendant’s
initial statement of the appropriate time limitation.
9

See, record document number 37, pp. 7-8, defendant’s
statements regarding Request for Production Number 1.
10

Although the defendant initially took the position that only
drill shaft foreman were similarly situated, in its sur-reply
memorandum the defendant stated drill shaft foreman and
superintendents were similarly situated. Record document number
49, defendant’s sur-reply memorandum, p. 2.
5

the defendant will be ordered to produce any responsive documents
from the time period June 2009 through March 2011.

Document

Requests 5, 41 and 46 are relevant to the plaintiff’s claim that
race was a motivating factor in his termination, and Request for
Production Number 17 is relevant to the plaintiff’s claim that he
was retaliated against for opposing employment practices that
violated Title VII.

Therefore, the defendants will be ordered to

provide supplemental responses to Requests for Production Numbers
5, 17, 41 and 46.
With regard to Requests for Production Numbers 24, 25, 27-30,
40, 42, 48, 53 and 54, the defendant responded that it already
produced all the documents responsive to the requests in its
September 25, 2013 production.

Plaintiff did not dispute this.

Therefore, there is no basis to compel the defendant to provide
supplemental responses to Requests for Production Numbers 24, 25,
27-30, 40, 42, 48, 53 and 54.
Based on a review of the motion, memoranda and exhibits, there
is no basis to grant any other relief sought by the plaintiff in
the Motion to Compel.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by the
plaintiff Terrance Lavigne is granted in part. Within 14 days, the
defendant

Cajun

Deep

Foundations,

LLC

shall

supplement

its

responses to Request for Production Numbers 5, 17, 41 and 46, and
the remaining document requests to which it agreed to produce

6

documents pertaining to drill shaft foremen and superintendents
from the time period of June 2009 through March 2011.
The remaining aspects of the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel are
denied.
Under Rule 37(a)(5)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. each party shall bear its
own costs incurred in connection with the motion.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 28, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7