Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. I E S I Louisiana Corp

Filing 25

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 First Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 19 Second Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 06/03/10. Defendant's supplemental responses regarding the requests granted are due by June 18, 2010, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T ER N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R E V EP O R T DIVISION

U S EQUAL EMPLOYMENT O P P O RT U N IT Y COMMISSION VERSUS I E S I LOUISIANA CORP.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-cv-0980

J U D G E HICKS M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HORNSBY

M E M O R A N D U M ORDER Befo re the court are two Motions to Compel Discovery (Docs. 18 and 19) filed by the EE OC . First Motion to Compel ­ Doc. 18 T h e primary issue in this discovery dispute is the number of employees of Defendant I E S A Louisiana Corporation and a non-party, IESA Corporation, for the purpose of d e t e r m in i n g the applicable statutory cap on compensatory and punitive damages under 1 9 8 1 a . The EEOC contends that the two entities are so interrelated as to constitute a single e m p l o y er under the ADA and Section 1981a. More specifically, the EEOC argues that IESI C o r p o r a t io n was M r. Harper's employer, and that IESI Louisiana is merely a division of IESI C o r p o r a t io n . According to the EEOC, IESI Corporation has more than 500 employees and, t h e r e fo r e , the $300,000 statutory cap under Section 1981a should apply. Defendant argues t h a t Mr. Harper's employer was IESI Louisiana Corporation, and that IESI Louisiana has f e w e r than 200 employees, such that the applicable statutory cap is $100,000. Defendant a r g u e s that the two entities are legally and factually distinct. According to Defendant, the

p e r s o n n e l records or documents that refer to Mr. Harper as an employee of IESI Corporation are "inapposite." Doc. 21, p. 4, fn. 4. Also at issue in this discovery dispute are a few questions regarding the financial c o n d i t io n of IESI Corporation and IESI Louisiana. The EEOC contends that those discovery requ ests are relevant to a jury's decision concerning how large an award of punitive damages wo uld dissuade the employer from repeating its unlawful behavior. After considering the arguments of the parties, as well as consulting the relevant j u r is p r u d e n c e , including Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1983) and Vance v . Union Planters Corp., 279 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2002), the court finds that the EEOC's discovery requests are largely appropriate. The merits of the employer question is not yet b efore the court, but it is a relevant issue, and the EEOC is entitled to discover the facts r e g a r d i n g the relatedness and/or distinctness of the two entities. Accordingly, the EEOC's f i r s t Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as follows. Interrogatory No. 21: Granted. The request bears directly on the common

m a n a g e m e n t of the two corporations, which is one of the recognized factors under Trevino. Interro g ato ry No. 22: Granted as to the years 2004 and 2005. Denied as to the year 200 6. The number of employees for 2006 is completely irrelevant. Interro g ato ry No. 23: Granted as to the years 2004 and 2005. Denied as to the year 200 6.

Page 2 of 5

R e q u e s t for Production No. 30: Granted as to the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 only. T h e EEOC has not justified its request for balance sheet information for the additional years. D e f e n d a n t may ultimately be correct in its contentions regarding which entity employed Mr. H a r p e r , but we are not yet at that point. Under the somewhat unique circumstances of this c a s e , the EEOC is entitled to pursue further discovery on these issues. R e q u e s t for Admission No. 144: Moot. Request for Admission No. 177: Denied. Whether Ms. Thummel was an employee in April 2006 (some eight months after the alleged discrimination) is irrelevant. R e q u e s t for Admission No. 178: Denied. The date set forth in the request, April 25, 2 0 0 6 , is after the alleged act of discrimination, so the information sought is irrelevant. Request for Admission No. 202: Granted. The location of the headquarters of the two entities is relevant to the issue of commonality of management. Request for Admission No. 225: Denied. The date reflected in the request is irreleva nt. R e q u e s t for Admission No. 243: Granted. The information is relevant to the issues of centralized control over labor and employment operations. Request for Admission No. 244: Granted. This information is also relevant to the issu e of centralized control. Request for Admission No. 245: Moot.

Page 3 of 5

E E O C ' s Second Motion to Compel Discovery ­ Doc. 19 T h e second M o t i o n to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Interro g ato ry No. 20: Denied. The EEOC has already deposed Hayes, and the EEOC is entitled to explore this issue further in additional depositions. However, Defendant's wr itten response is sufficient. Request for Admission No. 31: Denied. Defendant is not obligated to provide further c l a r if i c a ti o n or explanation as to the basis for its denial, absent an additional discovery requ est. R e q u e s t for Admission No. 33: After the Motion to Compel was filed, Defendant s u p p l e m e n t ed its answer to this request. Defendant contends that this issue is moot, but the E E O C asks the court to overrule Defendant's objection, which Defendant maintains in its s u p p l e m e n t al answer. Defendant's objection is overruled. The concept of "training" is not, in the context of this case, too vague. Request for Admission No. 115: Denied. Defendant's answer is sufficient. The EE O C may explore the matter further in depositions or other discovery. D e a d l i n e for Supplemental Responses Defe n d an t's supplemental responses regarding the requests granted above are due by J u n e 18, 2010, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Page 4 of 5

T H U S DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 3rd day of June, 2010.

Page 5 of 5