WILLIAMS v. ACXIOM CORPORATION
Filing
23
BENCH OPINION ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 3/10/17. (DD, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
WILLIAMS,
Civil Action No.
Plaintiff,
v.
2:15-CV-08464-ES-SCM
BENCH OPINION ON DISCOVERY
DISPUTE
ACXIOM CORPORATION,
Defendants.
D.E. 21
Friday, March 10, 2017
Steven C. Mannion, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before this Court is Plaintiff’s informal discovery motion to compel.1
I.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action concerns age discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination and wage claims under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law by plaintiff Richard
William against his former employer defendant Acxiom Corporation.2 Mr. Williams is a citizen of
New Jersey and Acxiom is a citizen of Arkansas.3 Mr. Williams worked for Acxiom from August
1999 until his termination in June 2015.4
1
(ECF Docket Entry No. (“D.E.”) 21).
2
(D.E. 1, Complaint).
3
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 7 - 8).
4
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 9 - 10).
In 2014, Mr. Williams and five of his colleagues were recruited by Acxiom to form the
Enterprise Data Group Executive (“EDGE”) team.5 Ms. Hailey Dillon was assigned to supervise
the EDGE team in April 2015 and started scrutinizing Mr. Williams’ performance.6
In May 2015, Ms. Dillon introduced two new spreadsheets—“Activity Tracking and Planto-Goal, for the EDGE team members to track their involvement and progress on sales
opportunities.”7 Mr. Williams and two of his colleagues-- Audrey Levitan and Randy Hull (age
52) were unclear about the use of the new spreadsheets.8
“On June 15, 2015, Ms. Dillon and Lorna Garner (Human Resources) told Plaintiff
Williams that he was being te1minated effective immediately for "falsifying financial documents
for financial gain", i.e., to co1lect commissions that he did not deserve and that Defendant Acxiom
had a zero-tolerance policy for such conduct.”9 Mr. Williams was 58 years old at the time of his
termination and the eldest member of his team.10
Mr. Hull was not terminated for conduct similar to Mr. Williams’ conduct.11
A component of Mr. William’s compensation included “commissions based on business
achievements that were closed and recognized.”12 He “earned $40,996.17 in commissions based
5
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 14, 31).
6
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 17-18).
7
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶ 20).
8
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶ 31).
9
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶ 45).
10
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶ 16).
11
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 53-54).
12
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶ 58).
2
on business he closed for and revenue recognized by Defendant Acxiom. This amount was due
and owing to Plaintiff Williams at the time of his termination.”13
“Defendant Acxiom refused to pay Plaintiff Williams' the amount owed to him. Rather,
they conditioned payment of … earned commissions on his signing of a General Release of all
claims he may have against them. Defendant Acxiom also refused to pay Plaintiff Williams' his
18 accrued, unused paid days off instead likewise conditioning this payment on his signing of a
General Release. Plaintiff Williams was owed a total of $8,134.30 for these accrued paid days
off.”14
II.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AUTHORITY
Magistrate judges are authorized to decide any non-dispositive motion designated by the
Court.15 This District specifies that magistrate judges may determine all non-dispositive pre-trial
motions which includes discovery motions.16 Decisions by magistrate judges must be upheld
unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”17
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be construed by the Court and the parties to
secure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”18 A
13
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶ 59).
14
(D.E. 1, Complaint at ¶ 60 - 61).
15
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
16
L. CIV. R. 72.1(a)(1); 37.1.
17
§ 636(b)(1)(A).
18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
3
Court’s pretrial order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.”19 This is
because the Court maintains control over the schedule to expedite disposition of the action and to
discourage wasteful pretrial activities.20
a. Liberal Standard for Discovery
The Federal Rules “allow broad and liberal discovery.”21 “Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case.”22 District courts must remain mindful that relevance is a broader inquiry
at the discovery stage than at the trial stage.23 Accordingly, “[f]or good cause, the court may order
discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.”24 “Although the
scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is broad, this right is not unlimited and may be
circumscribed.”25 A court may issue a protective order to regulate the terms, conditions, time or
place of discovery.26
19
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d).
20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a).
21
Pacitti v. Macy’s, 193 F.3d 766, 777 (3d Cir. 1999).
22
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1)-(2).
23
Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D.N.J. 1990).
24
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).
25
Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1999).
26
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c).
4
b. Interrogatories
Interrogatories are a discovery device designed “to obtain simple facts…” and “can be a
simple mode of obtaining the names and addresses of persons having knowledge of pertinent facts,
or of securing information about the existence of documentary evidence[.]”27 The recipient of
interrogatories must respond “to the fullest extent possible, stating any objections with
specificity.28 Although “a responding party generally is not required to conduct extensive research
to answer an interrogatory, it must make a reasonable effort to respond.”29 A responding party
must also supplement its responses if the information sought is later obtained or amend the
responses if they require correction.30 A responding party shall use common sense and reason, and
hyper-technical, quibbling, or evasive objections will be viewed unfavorably.”31
Rule 33(a)(1) provides that “unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party
may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete
subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with
Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” It must be noted that Rule 26(b)(1) now requires that discovery be
“proportional to the needs of the case. . . .”
27
Erie Ins. Property & Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 183 (S.D.W.Va. 2010)(quoting
Wright, Miller, & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 3d § 2163).
28
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3) and (4).
29
Lamon, 2014 WL 309424 (citing L.H. v. Schwartzenegger, 2007 WL 2781132 at 2 (E.D.Cal.
Sep.21, 2007)).
30
Id. (citing F.R.Civ.P. 26(e)).
31
Lamon v. Adams, 2014 WL 309424 (E.D. Cal. 2014)(citing Collins v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc.,
2008 WL 1924935 at 8 (D.Kan. April 30, 2008)).
5
Responses to interrogatories are due within “30 days of being served with interrogatories.
A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.”32
Consistent with these rules, the Initial Scheduling Order permitted the parties to serve 25
single question interrogatories.33 A pretrial order “controls the course of the action unless the court
modifies it.” 34 A scheduling order may be “modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.”35
c. Document Demands
Parties may serve on any other party a demand to produce any designated documents that
are in the possession, custody, or control of another party.36 Documents are within the possession,
custody, or control of the recipient if “the party has actual possession, custody, or control, or has
the legal right to obtain the documents on demand.”37 A responding party must also supplement
its responses if the information sought is later obtained or amend the responses if they require
correction.38
Rule 34 further requires,
(B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category, the
response must either state that inspection and related activities will
be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for
32
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2).
33
(D.E. 48 at ¶ 6).
34
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(d).
35
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4).
36
Lamon, 2014 WL 309424 at *4 (citing F.R.Civ.P. 34(a)).
37
In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir.1995).
38
Lamon, 2014 WL 309424 at *4 (citing F.R.Civ.P. 26(e)).
6
objecting to the request, including the reasons. The responding party
may state that it will produce copies of documents or of
electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection. .
..
(C) Objections. An objection must state whether any responsive
materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An
objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit
inspection of the rest.39
Objections to document demands or interrogatories must state with specificity the objection
and how it relates to the particular request being opposed, and not merely that it is “overly broad
and burdensome” or “oppressive” or “vexatious” or “not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence”.40
To voice a successful objection to an interrogatory [the objecting
party] cannot simply intone this familiar litany. Rather, [it] must
show specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction
afforded the federal discovery rules, each interrogatory is not
relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or
oppressive ... The burden [is upon] the party resisting discovery to
clarify and explain its objections and to provide support therefor.41
Failure to meet this standard may result in waiver of the objection.42 Boilerplate discovery
responses that obfuscate the truth and do not provide notice to the adversary may warrant sanctions
for causing unnecessary delays and increased costs of litigation for the parties and increasing the
court’s burden.43
39
Id.
40
Harding v. Dana Transp., Inc., 914 F. Supp. 1084, 1102 (D.N.J. 1996).
41
Id. at 1102 (citations omitted).
42
Id. (citations omitted).
43
PLX, Inc. v. Prosystems, Inc., 220 F.R.D. 291, 297-300 (N.D.W.Va. 2004).
7
IV.
DISCUSSION
This discovery dispute concerns interrogatory requests 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, and
document demands 13, 17, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 served by plaintiff Richard William upon
defendant Acxiom Corporation.
a. Williams’ Interrogatory Requests on Acxiom44
#2. Ruling: Motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.
The request is overly broad and contains subparts that are not allowed.
Acxiom’s response, however, includes the sort of hyper-technical quibbling and evasive
objections that are viewed unfavorably.
Acxiom shall supplement its response to identify Mr. Williams’s supervisor or managers
from June 2011 to June 2015 and provide their names and mailing addresses.
#7. Ruling: Motion to compel is denied. Interrogatories are a discovery device designed
“to obtain simple facts…” The information provided is sufficient. Mr. Williams can
probe further and challenge the veracity of the information provided in his 30(b)(6)
deposition.
#11. Ruling: Motion to compel is denied. The request contains subparts that are not
allowed, seeks information not relevant and not proportional to the needs of this case.
#12 - 16. Ruling: Same as #11.
b. Williams’ Document Requests on Acxiom45
#13. Ruling: Motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.
Acxiom shall produce responsive discovery regarding age discrimination/harassment
claims by sales employees against Ms. Dillon from June 2010 through June 2016.
44
(D.E. #####, Ex C).
45
(D.E. #####, Ex C).
8
With regard to other employees in the U.S., Acxiom shall produce responsive discovery
regarding age discrimination/harassment claims sales by employees from June 2012 to
June 2016.
#17. Ruling: Motion to compel is granted in part. Acxiom shall must amend its response
to include anti-discrimination or harassment training conducted or provided for its U.S.
based sales employees and managers from June 2012 to June 2015.
Note: All counsel are required to be familiar with their obligations under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 1 which requires that the rules be construed by the Court and the parties
to secure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.”46 Throughout defense counsel’s objections they have cited various temporal
limits they believe should be imposed upon Mr. William’s requests, however, they have
failed to include the information that would be responsive within their proposed time
limits and therefore likely prolonged this discovery dispute.
#31. Ruling: Motion to compel is granted in part. Acxiom shall must amend its response
to provide all documents pertaining to the EDGE team from April 1, 2015 through
December 31, 2015 and documents pertaining to commissions paid to the members of the
EDGE team during the same period.
#32. Ruling: Motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Acxiom shall must
amend its response to provide the requested documents pertaining to the EDGE team
from 2014 through December 31, 2015. The motion is denied as to draft documents that
were no implemented.
#33. Ruling: Motion to compel is denied because it appears that Acxiom has produced
the responsive documents. However, Plaintiff’s counsel may probe the issue further in
deposition.
#34. Ruling: Motion to compel is denied because it appears that Acxiom has produced
the responsive documents. However, Plaintiff’s counsel may probe the issue further in
deposition.
46
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
9
#35. Ruling: Motion to compel is denied because it appears that Acxiom has produced
the responsive documents. However, Plaintiff’s counsel may probe the issue further in
deposition.
#36. Ruling: Moot. Counsel shall meet and confer over the next 21 days and satisfy their
obligations to develop an ESI protocol.
V.
CONCLUSION
Acxiom has 21 days to comply with this ruling.
Mr. Williams counsel shall prepare an order that memorializes the Court’s ruling and
circulate it under the five-day rule.
3/10/2017 11:26:09 AM
Original: Clerk of the Court
Hon. Choose an item.
cc: All parties
File
10
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?