Kloeckner v. Solis

Filing 93

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 87 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff CAROLYN M. KLOECKNER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Carolyn Kloeckner's Second Motion to Compel Discovery and Supporting Brief [#87] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth above. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on May 20, 2014. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CAROLYN KLOECKNER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS PEREZ,
Defendant.

No. 4:09CV00804 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carolyn Kloeckner’s Second Motion to
Compel Discovery and Supporting Brief [ECF No. 87]. On May 20, 2014, the Court held a
hearing, and the parties addressed this pending Motion.
This case arises out of the alleged discrimination against Plaintiff during her employment
as a GS-13 investigator at the St. Louis District Office (SLDO) of the Employee Benefits
Security Administration, United States Department of Labor. On May 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed a
Complaint against Defendant Secretary of Labor, alleging claims of gender and disability
discrimination, as well as retaliatory discrimination. In her Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to
compel discovery of two items.1
A.

Performance Evaluations for GS-12 Auditors in the SLDO

First, Plaintiff seeks production of the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 performance
evaluations for two GS-12 auditors, Barbara Breig and Bill Brown, in the SLDO. Plaintiff

1

Plaintiff originally sought production of a third category of documents, namely, “[a]ny and all
emails exchanged between S. Newman and Laura Lammert relating and/or pertaining to Plaintiff
and/or her conduct and performance.” ECF No. 87 at 3. At the hearing, the parties agreed
Defendant has complied with this request, and it is, therefore, now moot.

argues she is entitled to these documents, because, during the EEOC investigation, her
immediate supervisor, Gary Newman, alleged he treated all SLDO employees alike. Plaintiff
further asserts these documents are relevant, because GS-12 auditors perform similar, albeit not
identical, employment duties as GS-13 investigators. Defendant responds these employees are
irrelevant to this case, because they are “simply in a different category” from Plaintiff, who was
a GS-13 investigator. At the hearing, Defendant expressed concern that compelling production
of these documents will open the door to new issues and further discovery.2
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request, which is limited to four documents 3 and places a
negligible burden on Defendant. The Court finds the requested evaluations are relevant in light
of the following facts: (1) GS-12 auditors and GS-13 investigators perform at least some
overlapping duties; (2) the GS-12 auditors were under the direct supervision of the same person
as Plaintiff, and worked out of the same office as Plaintiff; and (3) during the EEOC
investigation, Gary Newman represented he gave equal treatment to all SLDO employees,
including GS-12 auditors.
That said, the Court shares Defendant’s concerns about keeping the scope of discovery
within reasonable limits. At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel expressed she would adhere to this
case’s discovery deadline, which has already passed. She represented she would not seek further
discovery based on documents within the scope of the instant Motion to Compel, and she stated
she seeks this discovery primarily for purposes of cross-examination. The Court’s decision to
compel production of these documents is predicated on these averments. Plaintiff’s first request
is granted.

2
3

Liability discovery in this case closed on April 28, 2014.
Plaintiff seeks two performance evaluations for each of the two GS-12 auditors in the SLDO.
-2-

B.

Closed Case Quality Review Documents

Second, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel production of documents from the “Closed
Case Quality Review” (CCQR) conducted in February and March 2005, including a summary
identifying specific employees with alleged performance issues, as well as problematic
individual case reviews prepared by Deputy Regional Director Steven Newman. Upon receiving
Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant produced an email from Steven Newman, an attachment listing
fourteen cases, and corresponding “checksheets” for all GS-13 investigators, including those at
the Kansas City Regional Office (KCRO), and GS-12 Investigators in the SLDO. Therefore, the
only remaining documents in dispute are CCQR checksheets for four KCRO employees, two of
which are GS-12 investigators, and two of which are GS-12 auditors. See ECF No. 89 at 3.
The Court will not compel production of these documents. In a previous Memorandum
and Order, the Court, noting the tenuous relevance of facts pertaining to any office but the
SLDO, limited discovery relating to the KCRO to senior investigators employed at the GS-13
pay-scale. Moreover, the Court finds the relevance of these documents too dubious to be
“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
26(b)(1).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

These employees had different direct supervisors, at least partially different job

descriptions, and different working environments. Defendant has already provided Plaintiff with
a substantial number of more relevant documents arising out of the CCQR. Plaintiff’s second
request is denied.

-3-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Carolyn Kloeckner’s Second Motion to
Compel Discovery and Supporting Brief [ECF No. 87] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED,
in part, as set forth above.
Dated this 20th Day of May, 2014.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-