U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mattress Firm, Inc.

Filing 118

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 115 Motion to Strike Untimely Designated Witness. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 6/16/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2

***

3

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,

4
5

Case No. 2:13–cv–1745–GMN–VCF

Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.

6

MOTION TO STRIKE UNTIMELY DESIGNATED
WITNESSES (ECF NO. 115)

MATTRESS FIRM, INC.; et.al.,

7

Defendants.

8
9

This matter involves the EEOC’s civil action against Mattress Firm Inc. Before the court are the
10

Mattress Firm’s motion to strike untimely designated witnesses (ECF No. 115), the EEOC’s response
11
12
13

(ECF No. 116), and Mattress Firm’s reply (ECF No. 117). For the reasons stated below, Mattress
Firm’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background

14

In September 2013, the EEOC sued Mattress Firm for alleged age discrimination. (ECF No. 1)

15
16

This court initially set the discovery cutoff date for October 27, 2014. (ECF No. 17) This deadline was

17

later extended to August 3, 2015. (ECF No. 74)

18
19
20

In April 2014, the EEOC served Mattress Firm with an extensive list of potential witnesses.
(ECF No. 115-1) Two years later, the EEOC served Mattress Firm with a supplemental list of 29
additional witnesses. 1 Mattress Firm argues that none of these witnesses were included in the EEOC’s

21

April 2014 disclosure.
22

The witnesses at issue are easily divided into two groups.
23
24
1

25

Mattress Firm assets that there are 30 untimely disclosed witnesses. (ECF No. 115) The EEOC contends there are 31
witnesses at issue. (ECF No. 116) This court counts 29 witnesses at issue.

1

The first group consists of current or former EEOC employees:
1
2

1. Daniel Garcia

3

2. Adrianna Lopez

4

3. Lucy Orta

5

4. Thomas Profit

6

5. Marla Stern

7

6. Tracy Villemarette
8
9
10

The second group includes current and former Mattress Firm employees as well as their friends
and family:

11

1. Elvia Bahena

13. Ryan Panlener

2. Adam Baker

14. Dennis Romanchenko

3. Marty Bikel

15. Aaron Shaffer

15

4. David Blasucci

16. Ryan Shatto

16

5. Gail Culp

17. Theresa Seisan

17

6. Anthony Holyoak

18. Steve Stagner

18

7. Kevin Johnson

19. Angela R. Vann

8. Robert D. Killgore

20. Matthew Wilson

9. Danny Mejia

21. Stefon Wilson

10. Frank McLean Jr.

22. Dean Woodland

11. Lucia McLean

23. Carols Woods

12
13
14

19
20
21
22
23
24

12. Timothy Moyer

25

2

Mattress Firm now moves to strike these untimely disclosed witnesses.
1

II. Discussion

2
3

1.

The Court Will Strike 27 of the 29 Witnesses at Issue

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires a party to disclose “the name and, if

5

known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information —

6

along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or

7

defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.”

8
9
10

If a party learns that “in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or
incorrect,” it must supplement or correct its disclosure in a timely manner. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e).
“If a party fails to … identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) … the party is not allowed to

11

use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing or at a trial, unless the failure
12

was substantially justified or is harmless.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1).
13
14
15
16

As an initial matter, the EEOC does not dispute that its April 2016 disclosure was untimely. (ECF
No. 116) Instead, the Commission argues that its late disclosure was substantially justified and harmless.
i.

The EEOC Employees

17

The EEOC argues that its late disclosure of its employees was substantially justified. The

18

Commission argues that Mattress Firm was first made aware of these employees during the Commission’s

19

2007-2013 administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 116) These employees were also identified in the

20

EEOC’s 2014 discovery responses. (Id.)

21
22

Rule 26(a) places an affirmative obligation on the EEOC to disclose the names of its witnesses. A
“passing reference” to a witness in a discovery response does not provide a substantial justification for an

23

untimely disclosure. See Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 862 (9th Cir. 2014).
24

Additionally the increased cost of deposing the EEOC witnesses renders the Commission’s untimely
25

3

disclosure harmful. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir.
1
2
3

2001).
ii.

Tracy Villemarette

4

The EEOC’s inclusion of witness Tracy Villemarette presents this court with different situation.

5

This court previously allowed Villemarette’s Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 summary to support the

6

EEOC’s motion for summary judgement. (ECF No. 113) Given this court’s prior order, this court will

7

permit Villemarette to testify as a Rule 1006 summary witness only.

8
9
10

iii.

The Mattress Firm Witnesses

The EEOC argues that its late disclosure of the Mattress Firm witnesses was substantially justified.
The Commission alleges that Mattress Firm frustrated its discovery efforts. The company asserted

11

numerous objections to the EEOC’s requests for production. These objections forced the EEOC to move
12

to compel a response. (ECF No. 33) Consequently, Mattress Firm did not produce the names of its
13
14
15

employees until April 2015, and did so only after this court granted the EEOC’s motion to compel. The
EEOC then disclosed these witnesses in its April 2016 supplemental disclosure. (ECF No. 115-2)

16

The EEOC does not explain why it waited an entire year to disclose the Mattress Firm witnesses.

17

(ECF No. 116) Instead the Commission attempts to justify its delay by citing to Mattress Firm’s untimely

18

discovery responses. (Id.) Even if Mattress Firm’s discovery conduct were improper, that would not

19

excuse the EEOC from complying with Rule 26(e)’s requirement that supplemental disclosures be made

20

in a “timely manner.” The Commission’s untimely disclosures were not substantially justified.

21
22

The EEOC also argues that its late disclosure of these witnesses was harmless. The Commission
relies on Mattress Firm’s superior access to information about its own employees to argue that the

23

company should have known the EEOC would designate these witness. Again the EEOC’s reliance on
24

Mattress Firm’s conduct is misplaced. Although the company knew of the identities of its employees, it
25

4

likely did not anticipate the need to depose these employees until the EEOC served its April 2016
1
2

disclosure. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd., 259 F.3d at 1107. Even though the court has not set a trial date, the

3

increased cost and probable delay in reopening discovery at this late hour renders the EEOC’s untimely

4

disclosure harmful. See id.
iv. Dennis Romanchenko

5
6

The EEOC asserts that “Dennis Romanchenko” is not a new witness. Rather the EEOC’s initial

7

disclosure misspelled his name as “Dennis Demochenco.” (ECF No. 115-1) Mattress Firm does not

8

dispute that “Dennis Demochenco” and “Dennis Romanchenko” are the same individual. (ECF No. 117)

9
10

Since the EEOC identified him in its initial disclosures, Romanchenko may testify at trial.
2.

The EEOC May Use the Witnesses for Impeachment Only

11

A party is not obligated to disclose a witness that it intends to use “solely for impeachment.” Fed.
12

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The EEOC asks the court to allow it to use its untimely disclosed witnesses for
13
14
15

impeachment at trial.

(ECF No. 116)

Since Rule 26’s disclosure requirements do not apply to

impeachment witnesses, this court will grant the EEOC’s request.

16

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mattress Firm’s motion to strike (ECF No. 115) is GRANTED

18
19
20
21
22

in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to this court’s prior order (ECF No. 113), Tracy
Villemarette is permitted to testify at trial as a Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 summary witness only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dennis Romanchenko will be permitted to testify at trial.
/// /// ///

23

/// /// ///
24
25

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining 27 witnesses described in Mattress Firm’s motion
1
2

(ECF No. 115 at 3-5) will not be permitted to testify at trial, except for impeachment purposes.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED this 16th day of June, 2016.

5
6

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

6