Dahl v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC et al
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Overruling 48 Objection To Discovery Ruling filed by Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC, Wachovia Corporation; AFFIRMING 47 Order on Motion to Compel (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 01/17/2012. (TLU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Craig Dahl,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Civil No. 10-4696 ADM/FLN
v.
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC,
Wachovia Corporation,
Wells Fargo & Company, and
Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
David H. Redden, Esq., and John A. Fabian, III, Esq., Fabian May & Anderson, PLLP,
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff Craig Dahl.
Annette Tyman, Esq., and Gerald L. Pauling, II, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, and
David A. James, Esq., and Joseph G. Schmitt, Esq., Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Minneapolis, MN,
on behalf of Defendants Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Wachovia Corporation, Wells Fargo &
Company, and Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC.
______________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on
Defendants Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Wachovia Corporation, Wells Fargo & Company, and
Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC’s (collectively “Defendants”) Objections to
Magistrate’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 48]
(“Objections”). Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel’s December 20, 2011 Order [Docket No. 47]
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Craig Dahl’s (“Dahl”) Motion to Compel Discovery
[Docket No. 38]. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Objections are overruled and the
December 20, 2011 Order is affirmed.
II. BACKGROUND
Dahl, who is 65 years old, worked as Branch Manager of a Prudential Securities branch
in Bloomington, Minnesota from 1998 to 2003. Compl. [Docket No. 1] ¶¶ 10–11. In 2003,
Wachovia purchased Prudential Securities and Dahl continued as Branch Manager. Id. ¶ 10.
Wachovia consolidated its Minneapolis-St. Paul branches into a “major market,” and Dahl was
promoted to the position of Market Manager of the Minneapolis market. Id. ¶ 12. In 2006, Dahl
began reporting to Regional President Keith Vanderveen (“Vanderveen”). Id. ¶ 14.
Early in 2008, Wachovia opened Dahl’s position, requiring he reapply for the position.
Id. ¶¶ 17. Dahl was interviewed for his previously held position, and a younger individual was
chosen. Id. ¶ 19–20. Vanderveen was one the interviewers. Id. ¶ 19. Dahl then applied for
other positions in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, St. Louis, Missouri, Des Moines, Iowa, and
throughout Minnesota, but he was not hired for any of these positions. Id. ¶¶ 21–31. On June 1,
2008, Wachovia terminated Dahl’s employment. Id. ¶ 32.
Dahl filed his Complaint on November 22, 2010, and on November 28, 2011, filed a
Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 38]. Judge Noel’s December 20, 2011 Order granted
the motion to compel Defendants’ response to an interrogatory request and Document Request
Numbers 17, 19, and 20, but denied it as to Document Request Numbers 12, 21, and documents
related to other forms of discrimination. Defendants object to Judge Noel’s Order as it pertains
to Document Request Numbers 17, 19, and 20.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review for an objection to a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive
2
issue is extremely deferential. See Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp. 2d 1005, 1007
(D. Minn. 1999). The magistrate judge’s order on a discovery issue will be affirmed by the
district court unless the decision is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
A decision is “clearly erroneous” when, although some evidence supports it, “the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Chakales v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996)
(quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A decision is
contrary to law when it misapplies or does not apply the relevant case law, statutes, or rules of
procedure. Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn.
2008).
B. Judge Noel’s Order Granting Dahl’s Motion to Compel is Not Clearly
Erroneous or Contrary to Law
Defendants argue that Judge Noel’s decision is contrary to law and clearly erroneous
because it permits nationwide or region-wide discovery related to individuals who are not
similarly situated to Dahl and to markets outside both Dahl’s and Vanderveen’s regions, as well
as time periods when Dahl was not a Market Manager or did not report to Vanderveen. These
arguments are unavailing.
1. Nationwide or Region-wide Discovery
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . [and it] need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts may limit discovery if “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), and the “party opposing discovery bears
3
the burden of showing that the discovery request is overly broad and burdensome by alleging
facts demonstrating the extent and nature of the burden imposed by preparation of a proper
response.” Sinco, Inc. v. B & O Mfg., Inc., No. 03-5277, 2005 WL 1432202, at *2 (D. Minn.
May 23, 2005) (citing Mead Corp. v. Riverwood Natural Res. Corp., 145 F.R.D. 512, 515–16
(D. Minn. 1992)). Plaintiffs are generally not entitled to company-wide discovery unless they
show a particular need for the information requested. Semple v. Fed. Express Corp., 566 F.3d
788, 794 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of company-wide discovery in a wrongful termination
claim absent a showing of particular need). Courts also limit discovery of company records to
the local facility where a plaintiff was employed, absent a showing of necessity for region-wide
or nationwide discovery.
Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 478 (8th Cir. 2005); see also
Carman v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 114 F.3d 790, 792 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Company-wide
statistics are usually not helpful in establishing pretext in an employment discrimination case,
because those who make employment decisions vary across divisions.”).
Defendants argue that Document Request Number 17 is overly broad in that it requests
“documents relating to the criteria used by Defendants to evaluate and/or measure the
performance of: (2) the Major Markets in Defendants’ other regions . . . and (4) the Market
Managers in Defendants’ other regions.” Redden Aff. [Docket No. 41] Ex. 4 (“Requests &
Responses”) 10–11. Similarly, Defendants argue that Document Request Number 20 is
impermissibly overbroad, and therefore Judge Noel’s decision granting this discovery was
contrary to law and clearly erroneous because it allows discovery of documents “relating to
performance comparisons of the Major Markets from June 1, 2004 to the present, including but
not limited to all ‘Major Scorecards.’” Requests & Responses 12.
4
Although company-wide discovery generally requires a showing of particular need for
the requested information, Dahl established this need by claiming the information about other
Major Markets and Market Managers is necessary to determine if Vanderveen applied different
standards not applied elsewhere and whether he deviated from the nationwide or region-wide
criteria. Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Objection to Magistrate’s Order [Docket No. 51] (“Pl.’s Resp. to
Objection”) 10. Dahl demonstrated a particular need for this requested information, and the
information obtained through this discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence under Rule 26. Moreover, Defendants failed to establish how these requests
would be unduly burdensome or expensive alleging facts demonstrating the extent and nature of
the burden. See e.g., Defs.’ Mem. in Oppn. to Mot. to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 43] 11.
Therefore, Judge Noel’s decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
2. Time Periods when Dahl was not a Market Manager or Vanderveen
Report
While employment discrimination claims usually are accorded “liberal discovery rules
giv[ing] plaintiffs broad access to document their claims,” “[c]ourts have frequently tailored
discovery requests, as to historic company records, to encompass a ‘reasonable time period,’
both before and after the discriminatory event being alleged.” Sallis, 408 F.3d at 478 (quoting
Onwuka v. Fed. Express Corp., 178 F.R.D. 508, 517 (D. Minn. 1997)). No bright-line rule
exists; rather, discovery requests are evaluated individually to determine whether the extent of
discovery should be limited because the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit. Fed R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii); Burns v. Hy-Vee, Inc., No. Civ. 02-254, 2002 WL 31718432, at *3 (D.
Minn. Nov. 21, 2002) (“[t]he information relating to other individuals who were terminated or
fired during the three-year period prior to plaintiff’s termination is precisely the information
5
necessary to establish the existence or absence of a discriminatory motive.”); Onwuka, 178
F.R.D. at 517–18 (reducing discovery for disciplinary measures of similarly situated individuals
from a ten-year period to a period of three years before plaintiff’s discipline); Cardenas v.
Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Nos. 99-1421, 99-1422, 99-1736, 2003 WL 244640, at *1–2 (D.
Minn. Jan. 29, 2003) (compelling discovery of documents at all Minnesota locations for six
years prior to lawsuit); Raddatz v. Standard Register Co., 177 F.R.D. 446, 448 (D. Minn. 1997)
(reducing discovery from ten years to a period of two years before and after employee
termination).
Defendants argue that Document Request Numbers 17, 19, and 20 allow discovery over
an unreasonable time period surrounding the alleged discrimination. Document Request Number
17 allows discovery from 2005 to present, Document Request Number 19 is limited to
performance comparisons from June 1, 2004 to present, and Document Request Number 20 also
permits discovery from June 1, 2004 to present. Given that the alleged discrimination began in
2006 and continued through 2008, this discovery request seeks discovery during the time of the
alleged acts, as well as discovery up to two years before Vanderveen became Dahl’s supervisor
and up to four years after Dahl’s termination. The information regarding employment decisions
before, during, and after Dahl’s supervision by Vanderveen is relevant, likely to lead to
admissible evidence, and encompasses a reasonable time period. The Court is not left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Therefore, Judge Noel’s Order
granting Dahl’s discovery request was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and is affirmed.
6
IV. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Discovery [Docket No. 48] are OVERRULED; and
2.
Judge Noel’s December 20, 2011 Order [Docket No. 47] is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 17, 2012.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?