Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Performance Food Group, Inc. et al

Filing 177

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 169 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; adopting Magistrate Judge's 168 Letter Order. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 8/5/2016. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

Petitioner

*

vs.

*

PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.

*

Respondent
*

*

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-13-1712

*
*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: OBJECTION [JUNE 21, 2016 ORDER]
On June 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Gesner issued a Letter Order
[ECF No. 168] ("the Order") that denied Plaintiff discovery of the
unredacted versions of certain documents.

The Court has before it

Plaintiff EEOC's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Ruling of June
21, 2016, ECF No. 168 [ECF No. 169] filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(a) and the materials submitted relating
thereto.

The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.

Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
"[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections
[to a Magistrate Judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter]
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
or is contrary to law."

Discovery motions are quintessential

non-dispositive motions.

Neighborhood Dev. Collaborative v.

Murphy, 233 F.R.D. 436, 438 (D. Md. 2005)(citation omitted).
Moreover, the district court should, normally, give great deference

to the judgment calls necessarily made by a Magistrate Judge in the
course of resolving discovery disputes.

Id.

The Magistrate Judge stated in the Order:
I have reviewed the unredacted versions of
D562143-D562163—the investigative notes
of Steve Stacharowski, PFG-Carroll County
Foods’ Vice President of Human Resources. Mr.
Stacharowski took these notes during the course
of his investigation of complaints of
race-based discrimination made to him by former
PFG night warehouse manager, Kyle Gardner.
During the course of Mr. Stacharowski’s
investigation, a very limited number of
comments relevant to plaintiff’s sex-based
discrimination claims were made. Defendant
already has produced these portions of the
investigative notes in unredacted form.
The balance of Mr. Stacharowski’s
investigative notes (which defendant has
produced with redactions) pertains to possible
race-based discrimination only. The notes
contain no other reference to sex or gender, and
do not indicate that Mr. Gardner’s complaints
of race-based discrimination are “inextricably
intertwined” with the sex-based discrimination
alleged in this case.
Accordingly, defendant is not required to
produce unredacted copies of D562143-D562163.
Order, ECF No. 168.
The Court has read every redaction at issue.
The Court finds no reason to disagree with the Magistrate
Judge's judgment call that evidence of race-based discrimination by
a PFG employee would not be admissible (or lead to admissible
evidence) regarding alleged corporate gender-based discrimination.
2

Of course, there may be cases in which a contrary approach would be
appropriate; but this is not one of those.

However, if relevant at

all to the instant case, the redacted material could be viewed as
reflecting a corporate sensitivity to possible racial discrimination
and efforts to eliminate the problem.
The Court, having reviewed every redaction in question, fully
agrees with the Magistrate Judge's finding regarding the absence of
a relationship between the racial discrimination allegations and the
issues presented in the instant case.
Accordingly:
1.

Plaintiff EEOC's Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Ruling of June 21, 2016, ECF No. 168 [ECF No.
169] are OVERRULED.

2.

The Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Letter
Order [ECF No. 168].

SO ORDERED, this Friday, August 05, 2016.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3