Anger v. General Motors LLC

Filing 32

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 23 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HEATHER ANGER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-10083
District Judge Paul D. Borman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 23)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to
compel (DE 23), Defendant’s response (DE 26), Plaintiff’s reply (DE 27), and the
parties’ joint list of unresolved issues (DE 31). At issue in Plaintiff’s motion is the
scope of request nos. 28 and 29 in her first set of discovery requests. (DE 23-5 at
20-21.) Defendant objected to these discovery requests, asserting that they were
overly broad, irrelevant, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and seeking
personal and confidential information of non-parties. The parties, through counsel,
came before me for a hearing on August 3, 2017. For the reasons stated on the
record, all of which are incorporated by this reference as though fully restated
herein, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Specifically, on or before August 24, 2017, Defendant shall produce the
following in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests 28 and 29, as stated on the
record and summarized below.
1. Request 28:
For all creative clay sculptors (both male and female) in pay grades/levels
6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B who were employed by Defendant from January 1, 2014
to present, Defendant is required to produce all of the data set out in subparts
a-ee that are available on the HRIS system or any other computerized
database used by Defendant. If some pieces of information are unavailable
electronically, Defendant must certify in its response to Plaintiff that it has
made its best efforts to obtain the information, including a brief description
of how it has done so. For all the individuals on which data is produced, it
must include records from their entire period of employment with
Defendant. Defendant must provide Plaintiff with the first and last names of
all individuals identified.
2. Request 29:
For all creative clay sculptors (both male and female) in pay grades/levels
6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B who were employed by Defendant from January 1, 2014
to present, Defendant is required to produce, for every change in payroll
status from the date of the hire to the present, all of the data set out in

2

subparts a-hh that are available on the HRIS system or any other database
used by Defendant. If some pieces of information are unavailable
electronically, Defendant must certify in its response to Plaintiff that it has
made its best efforts to obtain the information, including a brief description
of how it has done so. For all the individuals on which data is produced, it
must include records from their entire period of employment with
Defendant. Defendant must provide Plaintiff with the first and last names of
all individuals identified.
Defendant’s objections, therefore, are largely overruled. To the extent
Defendant is objecting on the basis that the information sought is overly broad, the
objection is sustained in part and overruled in part, as the Court has concluded that
limiting the timeframe to January 2014 and later, and limiting the pay grade/level
to 6A, 6B, 7A, and 7B sufficiently narrows the scope of the request. As to
relevance, the Court finds the personnel information sought to be highly relevant to
Plaintiff’s case, which involves claims of equal pay and failure to promote. 1 In
addition, with the revisions as noted above, there is no concern that the discovery

1

To the extent Plaintiff limits any portion of her discovery solely to her failure to
promote claim—which is asserted as an individual and not as a class
representative—the relevant pay grade/levels would appear to be 7A and 7B, the
levels immediately above Plaintiff’s pay grade/level at the time she filed her
complaint. (DE 13 at ¶ 34.)

3

requested is disproportionate to the needs of the case. Defendant’s objection on
the basis that the requests seek confidential material is overruled, as the parties
have entered into a stipulated protective order, making such an objection moot. To
the extent Defendant asserts that producing the information would be unduly
burdensome, that objection is overruled as waived; moreover, Defendant has not
made such a showing, supported by affidavit and with specific analysis of the
factors spelled out in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1), as required by my practice
guidelines.
The Court also overrules Defendant’s objection on the basis that Plaintiff has
exceeded her number of interrogatories, for the reasons stated on the record. The
discovery requests at issue, which the Court does construe as interrogatories, are
counted as only two in number, irrespective of the alphabetical listings which
appear immediately below them, the latter of which do not constitute “discrete
subparts.”
Finally, I decline to award fees or costs to either side. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37, if a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in
part, the Court may apportion reasonable expenses for the motion. Here, both
sides’ positions were substantially justified and required rulings from the Court. In
addition, neither party fully prevailed, and one of Defendant’s objections was

4

sustained in part. As such, an award of costs in this matter would neither be
appropriate, nor just.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2017

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on August 4, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

5