Verby v. PayPal, Inc. et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion to compel, (Filing No. 37 ), is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AUSTI M VERBY,
Plaintiff,

8:13CV51

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAYPAL, INC., a Global Corporation
Registered To Do Business in Nebraska;
HEATHER JOHNSON, a resident of
Nebraska, individually; JODY WILLEY, a
resident of Nebraska, individually; and
JUSTIN SEBECK, a resident of Nebraska,
individually;
Defendants.
A conference call was held on November 19, 2013 to discuss the status of case
progression, potential settlement, and the plaintiff’s motion to compel, (Filing No. 37).
As to the motion to compel, during the conference call, the parties discussed their
respective positions regarding what documents in defendants’ possession may be relevant
to the plaintiff’s case. Although the motion to compel was discussed extensively, at the
plaintiff’s request, the plaintiff was granted leave to file a reply brief on or before
November 29, 2013. That brief was not filed. The motion to compel is now fully
submitted.

There is nothing of record indicating the plaintiff conferred with the defendants
before filing the motion to compel. The plaintiff did not submit a copy of the discovery
at issue and the defendants’ objections, and she filed no brief in support of her motion.
For these reasons alone, the motion to compel was subject to being summarily denied for
failure to comply with the court’s local rules.
Plaintiff’s Request 8 initially requested: “All login records of the Plaintiff, Jody
Willey, Justin Sebeck, and all day and weekend employees from January 1, 2011 to the

present," and the plaintiff thereafter reduced that request to a time period beginning on
September, 2011. During the conference call, the plaintiff changed the starting date to
November 2011. The defendants state the request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and
even with the date restrictions, far exceeds the scope of potentially relevant information
for this case. The defendants state they have already provided all records they reviewed
and relied on (the “dumping records”) when deciding to terminate the plaintiff’s
employment.

Plaintiffs Request 18 seeks: "To PayPal, all documents for all Fraud Claims
Agents day and weekend shifts for 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 that have the following
programs a) all Amour reports, b) all stats, c) all Avya phone reports, d) Instant
Messenger, e) Outlook emails.” The plaintiff thereafter narrowed the request to a) all
Amour reports, b) all stats, and c) all Avya phone reports for 2011 and 2012 for all Fraud
Claims Agents day and weekend shifts.

Again, the defendant states the request is

extremely broad and responding would be unduly burdensome, particularly in light of the
issues raised in plaintiff’s complaint..

The court agrees. Plaintiff’s discovery requests are not tailored to obtain only
information relevant or capable of leading to the discovery of information relevant to this
case. Plaintiff’s sweeping requests for information are overly broad and unduly
burdensome. As such, the defendants’ objections to the plaintiff’s discovery requests
identified in the motion to compel will be sustained.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel, (Filing No. 37), is denied.

December 2, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge
2