Lingenfelter v. Meijer Great Lakes Limited Partnership et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting in part and denying in part and Reserving Ruling In Part re 20 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACOB LINGENFELTER,
Plaintiff,

Case No: 17-10926
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
MEIJER GREAT LAKES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND RESERVING
RULING IN PART ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. 20]
Plaintiff Jacob Lingenfelter filed this employment discrimination case against
Defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging they failed to hire him
because of his disability.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. [Doc. 20]. The Court
held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion on March 5, 2018. Appearing were Joey Niskar on
behalf of Plaintiff and Brett Rendeiro and Timothy Williams on behalf of Defendants.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN
PART, and RESERVES RULING IN PART on Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, as
set forth below.
1.

Regarding Request to Produce No. 23, Plaintiff’s motion is Granted in Part

and Denied in Part. Defendants already produced the following discovery in response
to this request: (1) the job application and interview guides for each bagger/utility worker
hired between August 1, 2014 and July 31, 2015 at the White Lake Store (the “Store”);

(2) all applications they received for the bagger/utility position at the Store from July 1,
2014 through January 31, 2015; and (3) work schedules for the bagger/utility workers at
the Store from August 2014 through July 2015. Defendants must expand their
document production for these three categories for all of 2014 and 2015.
Moreover, Defendants must respond in interrogatory form to the following three
inquiries: (1) identify any bagger/utility worker with similar work hour availability as
Plaintiff hired at the Store during 2014 and 2015; (2) identify any bagger/utility worker at
the Store with similar work hour availability as Plaintiff who transferred to a different
position or store location (and thus created a position opening) during 2014 and 2015,
and include the date of transfer; and (3) identify any bagger/utility worker at the Store
with similar work hour availability as Plaintiff who left employment during 2014 and
2015, and provide the date of separation.
2.

Regarding Interrogatory No. 8 and Requests to Produce Nos. 38 and 48,

Plaintiff’s motion is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Defendants must produce
internal documents responsive to these requests, including job postings on Defendants’
own website(s), for calendar years 2014 and 2015. Defendants must also disclose to
Plaintiff any third-party source they used or commissioned for job postings/listings from
2014-2015, and produce any internal documents they provided third parties or external
documents created on their behalf that are responsive to Plaintiff’s requests regarding
job postings or requisitions.
3.

The Court Reserves Ruling on Requests to Produce Nos. 4 and 6. After

Plaintiff reviews the personnel file of Elaine Evans, he may seek production of any rules,
policies or directives referred to, which Evans is alleged to have violated.

2

4.

Regarding Request to Produce No. 17, the Court Grants in Part and

Denies in Part Plaintiff’s motion, as follows.
a. For Jeff Lombardo, Melanie Mahan, and Barb Raby, Defendants must
produce: (i) documents in their personnel files relating to discipline,
transfers, dishonesty, “ADA issues” and/or discrimination training records;
and (ii) documents in their personnel files mentioning or relating to
Plaintiff or the complaint his mother filed;
b. Defendants must produce documents revealing Barb Raby’s official job
title and job code in August and September 2014, and documents
revealing the job duties of that position at that time;
c. For Ellen Brophy-Watt, Defendants must produce documents in her
personnel file that relate to and/or mention Plaintiff or the complaint his
mother filed;
d. For Cindy Whelpley, Defendants must produce documents in her
personnel file that relate to and/or mention her termination/separation
from employment or her disability;
e. For Richard Whelpley, Defendants must produce documents in his
personnel file that relate to and/or mention his wife’s
termination/separation, or complaints or reports about what Lombardo did
to his wife; and
f. For Kirk Austin, Defendants must produce documents in his personnel file
that relate to and/or mention Plaintiff.

3

5.

The Court Reserves Ruling on Request to Produce No. 47. Plaintiff may

move to re-open discovery regarding profit and loss statements for the Store after the
summary judgment stage.
6.

Regarding Requests to Produce Nos. 34(c) and 57, Plaintiff’s motion is

Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Defendants must produce Elaine Evans’ settlement
agreement with the dollar amount redacted. Plaintiff may re-raise the issue of redaction
if Evans contradicts earlier statements or if he can show some other change in
circumstances warrants disclosure of the amount of settlement.
7.

Defendants must produce the discovery ordered above by April 4, 2018.

8.

Regarding disclosure of Steven Schroeder’s phone number, Plaintiff’s

motion is Granted. Defendants must disclose Schroeder’s phone number to Plaintiff by
March 9, 2018.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: March 6, 2018

4