Courtright v. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.

Filing 77

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE. Signed on 11/2/2015 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Lehr, Jonathan)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
REBECCA COURTRIGHT and
RAPHEAEL SAYE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Plaintiffs,
v.
O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-00334-CV-W-DGK
Consolidated with: 15-00134-CV-W-DGK

ORDER REGARDING SECOND DISCOVERY DISPUTE
This case is a putative class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants fail to comply with various
federal and state mandates for obtaining and using consumer reports 1 and investigative consumer
reports 2 for employment purposes.
Now before the Court are three questions raised in the parties’ second discovery dispute
teleconference. These are: (1) is the scope of discovery restricted to prospective employees only;
(2) is the scope of discovery restricted to retail applicants only; and (3) when shall Defendants’
produce various documents and other information requested by Plaintiffs. After reviewing the

1

Relevant to this lawsuit, the FCRA defines “consumer report” as “any written, oral or other communication of any
information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit
capability, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be
used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility
for employment purposes.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1).

2

“Investigative consumer report” means “a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a
consumer’s living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer
reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of
information.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).

parties’ memos and hearing argument from counsel during a teleconference, the Court rules as
follows:
1.

The Court reiterates its previous ruling that discovery is limited to prospective employees

as that term is defined in the Court’s Supplemental Order Regarding Discovery Dispute (Doc.
68). This means reports obtained during employment do not fall within the scope of discovery.
2.

The Court reiterates its previous ruling that discovery applies to “anyone who applied to

any Defendant for employment after March 4, 2012.”

Discovery is not limited to retail

employees. It applies to employees at Defendants’ other business operations, including—but not
limited to—corporate offices and warehouses.
3.

With respect to when discovery shall be provided, Defendants shall answer all

outstanding discovery requests by November 17, 2015. The exception shall be information
sought concerning Defendants’ non-retail employees. Defendants shall research how long it will
take to produce this information and confer with Plaintiffs on a reasonable schedule of
production. The parties shall jointly produce a mutually agreeable, reasonable schedule of
production that is consistent with the existing scheduling order.

The parties shall file the

production schedule with the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

November 2, 2015

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2