Eago v. BASF Corporation, Inc

Filing 29

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN EAGO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-15168

BASF CORPORATION, INC.,

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

Defendant.
/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DKT. 18)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff John Eago’s
(“Plaintiff”) motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 18). Defendant BASF
Corporation, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a response (Dkt. 24), Plaintiff filed
a reply (Dkt. 27) and the parties submitted a joint statement of
unresolved issues (Dkt. 28). The Court heard oral argument on
Plaintiff’s motion on September 17, 2014.
In the joint statement of unresolved issues, the parties informed
the Court that only four issues remain in dispute: (1) Defendant’s
response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory number 1, asking about the reasons
why Plaintiff was terminated; (2) Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s

document requests numbers 5, 6 & 8, relating to Defendant’s written
procedures for employee discipline, performance improvement plans
and termination; (3) Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s document
requests numbers 9 & 50, relating to the reasons for Plaintiff’s
termination and his alleged poor work performance; and (4) the
production of email communications (during August & September 2013)
to and from Veronica Braker, David Grimes and Peter Israel, relating to
Plaintiff, family medical leave, performance improvement plans,
personal development plans, termination or multiple sclerosis.
For the reasons stated more fully on the record, Plaintiff’s motion
to compel is denied as to issue 1 – Plaintiff may explore the reasons why
he was terminated by deposing Defendant’s representatives involved in
that decision. Defendant is not required to further supplement its
response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory number 1.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to issue 2. Defendant is directed to
produce all written materials relating to its written policies or
procedures for employee discipline, performance improvement plans
and termination. This production must encompass any such policies for
any plant employees, and is not limited to plant managers only.
2

Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to issues 3 and 4. During the
hearing, the Court expressed the view that the Plaintiff was entitled to
the categories of emails requested, and Defense counsel agreed that
they should be produced, provided that counsel for Defendant had the
prior opportunity to redact confidential information or interpose
privilege objections. The parties informed the Court that they should be
able to agree on a process that will allow satisfactory supplemental
production regarding these issues. The Court reminds counsel of their
duty to work cooperatively throughout the discovery process. Should
the parties be unable to reach an agreement, the parties are directed to
call the Court to schedule a telephone conference.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2014

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on
September 23, 2014, using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification to all parties.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager
3