Crumb v. McDonald's Corporation et al

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DENYING 74 motion to determine the sufficiency of Defendant McDonald's Corporation's answers to requests for admission, DENYING 75 motion to determine the sufficiency of Defendant Ram Foods, Inc.'s answ ers to requests for admission, DENYING 80 motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories, GRANTING 89 motion to strike untimely discovery requests and stay further proceedings, GRANTING 91 motion for an extension of the motions deadline, DENYING without prejudice to renewal if mediation is not successful 76 motion to modify the scheduling order, DENYING without prejudice to renewal if mediation is not successful 81 motion to compel discovery, DENYING as moot 82 motion for leave to file status report on discovery and opposition to motion to modify the scheduling order, and STAYING this action pending further order of court (c/m to Plaintiff 11/18/16 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 11/18/2016. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
EALISE CRUMB
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 15-1719

:
McDONALD’S CORPORATION, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently
discrimination

pending
case

and

are:

ready
(1)

for

a

resolution

motion

to

in

this

determine

the

sufficiency of Defendant McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonald’s”)’s
answers to requests for admissions, filed by Plaintiff Ealise
Crumb

(“Plaintiff”)

(ECF

No.

74);

(2)

Plaintiff’s

motion

to

determine the sufficiency of Defendant Ram Foods, Inc. (“Ram
Foods”)’s answers to requests for admissions (ECF No. 75); (3)
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories
(ECF

No.

discovery

80);

(4)

requests

a

motion

and

to

stay

strike

further

Plaintiff’s

proceedings,

untimely
filed

by

Defendants McDonald’s and Ram Foods (collectively, “Defendants”)
(ECF

No.

89);

and

(5)

Defendants’

unopposed

extension of the motions deadline (ECF No. 91).1

motion

for

an

The issues have

been briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed
necessary.
1

Local

Rule

105.6.

For

the

following

reasons,

Other motions will be denied without prejudice to renewal
if mediation is unsuccessful.

Plaintiff’s

motions

regarding

the

sufficiency

of

Defendants’

responses will be denied; Defendants’ motion to strike discovery
requests and stay proceedings will be granted; and Defendants’
unopposed motion to extend the motions deadline will be granted.
A recitation of the factual and procedural background of
this case can be found in the court’s prior memorandum opinion
granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motions to
dismiss.

(ECF No. 67, at 2-8).

Discovery in this case closed

September 6, 2016, and a settlement conference before Magistrate
Judge William Connelly has been scheduled for January 30, 2017.
(ECF No. 93).
Plaintiff has filed two motions regarding the sufficiency
of

Defendants’

responses

to

numerous

requests

for

admission,

challenging nearly every response that was not an admission.
(ECF Nos. 74; 75).

Defendants filed identical responses to the

motions, and Plaintiff filed replies.
88).

The

crux

of

Plaintiff’s

(ECF Nos. 78; 79; 87;

motions

is

that

Defendants’

responses were insufficient because they refused to admit that
the alleged discrimination occurred and refused to admit that
Ram

Foods’s

Plaintiff
requests

employees

contends.
for

are

also

Defendants

admissions,

and

McDonald’s
responded
their

employees,
to

responses

as

Plaintiff’s
are

not

insufficient simply because they refuse to admit to facts that
are

central

to

this

dispute.
2

Plaintiff

contends

that

Defendants’ responses denying that Ram Foods’s employee Ashley
Alston

made

a

discriminatory

statement

to

Plaintiff

are

inconsistent with previous statements to the court, citing Ram
Foods’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
2, at 40-41).

(ECF No. 75-

Ram Foods’s argument in its motion to dismiss was

that, assuming that the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint
were true, Plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts to
support a discrimination claim.
59, at 4-5).

(See ECF Nos. 44-1, at 9-12;

Ram Foods did not concede that the alleged facts

were true, however, and therefore Defendants’ denials are not
inconsistent.

Moreover,

Plaintiff’s

requests

for

admissions

characterize Ram Foods’s employees as McDonald’s employees and
seek admissions regarding McDonald’s day-to-day knowledge of and
control

over

operations

at

the

franchise.

Plaintiff’s

own

arguments demonstrate that these issues are in dispute in this
litigation.

(See ECF Nos. 74-2, at 10-13; 75-2, at 15-25; 87,

at 2; 88, at 2; 78, at 2 & n.1).

Upon review of Defendants’

responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission, the court finds
that

Defendants’

answers

were

sufficient.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.
Defendants have moved to strike untimely discovery requests
and stay further proceedings.
on September 6.

(ECF No. 89).

(ECF No. 71).

Discovery closed

Defendants’ motion concerns

Plaintiff’s third set of requests for admissions, which contains
3

approximately 450 requests and was served on September 20 (see
ECF Nos. 89-1, at 1; 94, at 2), and Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to file additional interrogatories and to reserve her first set
of interrogatories, filed on September 13 (ECF No. 80).2
On motion or on its own, the court must
limit the frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed by these rules or by local
rule if it determines that:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative
or
duplicative,
or
can
be
obtained from some other source that is more
convenient,
less
burdensome,
or
less
expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had
ample opportunity to obtain the information
by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the
scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(1)(B):

“A party may serve

on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of
the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the
scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to . . . the genuineness of any
described documents.”
admissions,

Nos.

Plaintiff’s third set of requests for

31-483,

apparently

relates

solely

to

the

authenticity of documents from the Prince George’s County Human

2

Defendants moved to strike all of Plaintiff’s discovery
requests made following the close of discovery, and did not file
a separate opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve
additional interrogatories. (See ECF No. 89-1).
4

Relations Commission’s investigation of Plaintiff’s claim.
ECF Nos. 89-1, at 1 n.1; 94, at 2, 4, 10).

(See

These documents were

provided to Plaintiff by Defendants in connection with their
requests

for

admissions

that

these

documents

were

authentic,

complete, accurate, and admissible copies of the Commission’s
records.

(ECF No. 94, at 2).

Plaintiff denied Defendants’

requests for admissions, and argues that it should instead be
Defendants

who

“have

to

admit

that

these

documents

‘authentic, complete, accurate and admissible records[.]’”
at 4).

are
(Id.

Defendants have, however, already done so in serving

their requests for admissions.

The discovery Plaintiff seeks is

unreasonably cumulative and duplicative.

Plaintiff is not, of

course, required to withdraw her denial of Defendants’ requests
for

admissions,

Plaintiff’s

but

third

Defendants’

set

of

motion

requests

will

for

be

granted

admission

will

and
be

stricken.
Defendants’

motion

also

concerns

Plaintiff’s

motion

for

leave to reserve her first set of interrogatories and to serve
additional interrogatories (ECF No. 80).
change

the

name

of

the

employee

who

Plaintiff seeks to

allegedly

discriminated

against Plaintiff from “Ashley Alston” to “Ashley Austin” in her
first set of interrogatories.
insurance

form

included

documents

discussed

in

above,

Plaintiff’s motion is based on an
the

in

Human

which
5

Relations

the

Commission’s

employee’s

name

was

recorded as “Austin.”
form

is

proof

of

(Id. at 5).

fraud

and

Plaintiff alleges that this

witness

tampering.

Defendants

contend that the form contains a typo (ECF No. 84, at 1), and
have repeatedly and consistently identified the employee’s name
as “Alston,” including in their requests for admissions and in
their responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions.
e.g.,

ECF

Nos.

94-1;

75-5).

The

burden

and

(See,

expense

of

Plaintiff’s proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, see
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)-(2), and accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion
as to her first set of interrogatories will be denied.
Second, Plaintiff moved for leave to serve fifty additional
interrogatories

on

each

defendant,

arguing

that

Defendants’

alleged concealment of Ms. Alston’s identity is proof that “a
large quantity of discovery” is necessary in this case.
No. 80, at 15).

(ECF

“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the

court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25
written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.

Leave

to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent
consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1).

Plaintiff states that some of the additional 100 interrogatories
would be related to Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s first
request for the production of documents.
regarding

responses

to

requests

for

(Id.).

production

appropriate subject of additional interrogatories.
6

A dispute
is

not

an

Plaintiff

also

seeks

to

serve

additional

interrogatories

related

to

McDonald’s policies, procedures, and product standards, arguing
only

that

she

could

not

have

previously

done

so

because

of

Fed.R.Civ.P. 33’s limit on the number of interrogatories that
may be served.
discovery

(Id. at 13-14).

Plaintiff

Fed.R.Civ.P.

seeks

26(b)(1),

is

but

It is not clear that the

within

the

scope

regardless,

permitted

Plaintiff

had

by
the

opportunity to pursue such discovery within the limits of the
rules

and

within

scheduling

the

order.

discovery

Plaintiff’s

period

by

the

will

motion

set

court’s

be

denied,

and

Defendants’ motion to strike will be granted.
Defendants have moved to stay further discovery and motions
(ECF No. 89), and have moved for an extension of time to file
motions for summary judgment until after the scheduled mediation
process

is

concluded

(ECF

No.

91).

Although

discovery

has

closed, Plaintiff indicates in her motion for leave to serve
additional

interrogatories

that

she

intends

pursue additional discovery at this time.
15-16).

to

continue

to

(See ECF No. 80, at

Given the scheduled mediation, Defendants’ motions will

be granted.

Further discovery and motions are suspended until

further order of the court, and a new motions deadline will be
set

if

mediation

is

not

successful.

Plaintiff’s

motion

to

modify the scheduling order to extend discovery (ECF No. 76),
and Defendants’ motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 81), will be
7

denied

without

prejudice

to

renewal

if

mediation

is

not

successful.3
Accordingly, it is this 18th day of November, 2016, by the
United

States

District

Court

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.
McDonald’s

The motion to determine the sufficiency of Defendant
Corporation’s

answers

to

requests

for

admission,

filed by Plaintiff Ealise Crumb (ECF No. 74) BE, and the same
hereby IS, DENIED;
2.

The motion to determine the sufficiency of Defendant

Ram Foods, Inc.’s answers to requests for admission, filed by
Plaintiff Ealise Crumb (ECF No. 75) BE, and the same hereby IS,
DENIED;
3.

The

motion

for

leave

to

serve

additional

interrogatories filed by Plaintiff Ealise Crumb (ECF No. 80) BE,
and the same hereby IS, DENIED;
4.
discovery

The motion to strike Plaintiff Ealise Crumb’s untimely
requests

and

stay

further

proceedings

filed

by

Defendants McDonald’s Corporation and Ram Foods, Inc. (ECF No.
89) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED;

3

Defendants’ motion for leave to file status report and
opposition to motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No.
82), will be denied as moot.
8

5.

The motion for an extension of the motions deadline

filed by Defendants McDonald’s Corporation and Ram Foods, Inc.
(ECF No. 91) BE, and the same hereby IS, GRANTED;
6.
extension

The motion to modify the scheduling order, including
of

discovery

deadlines,

filed

by

Plaintiff

Ealise

Crumb (ECF No. 76) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED without
prejudice to renewal if mediation is not successful;
7.

The

motion

to

compel

discovery

filed

by

Defendants

McDonald’s Corporation and Ram Foods, Inc. (ECF No. 81) BE, and
the

same

hereby

IS,

DENIED

without

prejudice

to

renewal

if

status

report

on

mediation is not successful;
8.
discovery

The
and

motion

for

opposition

leave
to

to

motion

file
to

modify

the

scheduling

order filed by Defendants McDonald’s Corporation and Ram Foods,
Inc. (ECF No. 82) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED as moot;
9.

This case BE, and the same hereby IS, STAYED pending

further order of court; and
10.

The

clerk

will

transmit

copies

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

9