Iannucci et al v. RiteAid Corporation
Filing
35
ORDER granting 19 Motion to Compel, granting 34 Motion for Entry of a Confidentially Agreement and incorporates the Confidentiality Agreement; granting in part 33 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The Court EXTENDS the discovery, mediation, and motion deadlines by thirty (30) days. The Court finds that an award of costs is not required in this situation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 07/24/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11cv281
MARGE IANNUCCI,
Plaintiff,
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION,
Defendant.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel [# 19] and
Motion for Entry of a Confidentially Agreement [# 34] and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time [# 33]. Plaintiff brought this action alleging age and sex
employment discrimination against Defendant. Defendant now moves to compel
the production of documents and answers to interrogatories. Defendant also moves
for the entry of a confidentiality and protective order. Plaintiff moves the Court to
extend the discovery, mediation, and motion deadlines in this case. Upon a review
of the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel [# 19] and
Motion for Entry of a Confidentially Agreement [# 34] and GRANTS in part the
Motion for Extension of Time [# 33].
-1-
I.
Legal Standard
Generally speaking, parties are entitled to discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. Where
a party fails to respond to an interrogatory or a request for production of
documents, the party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer to the interrogatories or the production of documents responsive to the
request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “Over the course of more than four decades,
district judges and magistrate judges in the Fourth Circuit . . . have repeatedly ruled
that the party or person resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel
discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec
Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226, 243 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (collecting cases); Mainstreet
Collection, Inc. v. Kirkland’s, Inc., 270 F.R.D 238, 241 (E.D.N.C. 2010); Billips v.
Benco Steel, Inc., No. 5:10cv95, 2011 WL 4005933 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2011)
(Keesler, Mag. J.).
II.
The Discovery Requests at Issue
Defendant seeks a Court Order compelling Plaintiff to respond to the following
interrogatories:
-2-
Interrogatory No. 2: Including military service, self-employment,
businesses that you have owned or partially owned, independent
contract work, temporary agencies used, and work obtained through
temporary agencies, if any, identify each employer you have had since
January 1, 2001 and identify your position at each such employer.
Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No. 2: Plaintiffs object to
this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad in that it is not
limited in time to the events relevant to this complaint. However we
will answer based on a more relevant time basis to the events relevant
to the complaint which is from August 1, 2009 through July 15, 2010.
During this period Marge Iannucci was employed by RiteAid [sic]
Corporation as a pharmacist-in-charge.
Interrogatory No. 3: For each period during which you have not
been employed since January 1, 2001, describe fully what you were
doing (e.g., hospitalized, in school, seeking employment, incarcerated,
etc.) and any income received or accrued during that time.
Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No. 3: There were no
periods of unemployment during the time period described in
Response 2.
Interrogatory No. 4: If you ever have been disciplined,
terminated, or demoted in connection with any employer identified in
response to Interrogatory 2 (other than your employment with
Defendant), describe each such incident (including specifying your
employer at the time), fully.
Plaintiff’s Responses to Interrogatory No. 4: During the time
period already discussed in Response 2, only once by John Lago,
pharmacy district manager, as put forth in our complaint.
Interrogatory No. 5: Identify and describe fully every lawsuit or
legal action (criminal or civil) in which you have participated
(including, but not limited to, felonies, misdemeanors, small claims,
bankruptcy, workers’ compensation, alimony, garnishment, child
custody and divorce) as a witness, party, or other type of participant,
-3-
including the style or title of the lawsuit or legal action, the case
number, the court in which the lawsuit or legal action was filed and/or
tried, the nature of the lawsuit, legal action or offense charged, and the
outcome of the lawsuit or legal action.
Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No. 5: During the time
period already discussed in Response 2, none.
Interrogatory No. 6: Identify and describe fully every charge or
complaint of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation that you
have filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”), or any other federal, state or local agency, including the
charge or file number and the parties’ identities.
Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No. 6: During the time
period already discussed in Response 2, EEOC Charge # 430-201002169. Filed against Rite Aid Corporation. The Charge of
Discrimination was brought because of Plaintiff’s unequal treatment
based on her age coupled with her sex, primarily.
Interrogatory No. 10: Identify each physician, psychiatrist,
psychologist, counselor, nurse, or other health care practitioner or
professional (or group of healthcare professionals, hospital, clinic,
hospice, EAP, or other such health care organization by whom you
have been treated or examined since January 1, 2005 to the present.
Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No . 10: Plaintiffs object
to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad in that it is not
limited in time to the events relevant to this complaint. However, we
will answer in relation to the more relevant time frame established in
Response 2. Plaintiff Marge Iannucci may have seen her OB/GYN
Joshua S. Jaffe, MD, c/o Physicians for Women’s Health 50 Amenia
Rd. Sharon, Ct 06069, for routine gynecological visits during this
time. She may also have seen her asthma/allergist Donald W. Russell,
MD, c/o Allergy Partners 14 McDowell Street Asheville, NC 28801,
for ongoing maintenance of her allergy induced asthma. She may also
-4-
have had a teeth cleaning with her dentist Heath Lefberg, DDS, 2
Town Square Blvd. Asheville, NC 28803. We can not recall exactly.
Interrogatory No. 11: Identify and describe specifically all
sources of income, including, but not limited to, sources of any payment,
salary, compensation, or other income (including unemployment
income, worker’s compensation income, social security payments,
sick leave, disability pay, medical insurance, welfare, or other
payments of any kind) that you have received since January 1, 2005
and/or expect to continue to receive.
Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No. 11: Plaintiffs object
to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad in that it is not
limited in time to the events relevant to this complaint. However, we
will answer in relation to the more relevant time frame established in
Response 2., Plaintiff Marge Iannucci received her hourly wages from
RiteAid [sic] for hours worked during said established time frame as
well as her second installment of her sign on bonus, again, from Rite
Aid.
In addition, Defendant requests an Order compelling Plaintiff to produce
documents responsive to the following document requests:
Request No. 10: For the period from January 1, 2005 to the
present: Any and all documents relating or pertaining in any way to
gross wages, salary, commission, compensation, or other monetary
benefits or payments earned by you or accruing to you, whether selfemployed or employed by others, including, but not limited to, any
such monetary benefits or payments received from federal or state
governments (including, without limitation, workers’ compensation,
sick pay, disability pay, welfare, unemployment compensation, and
social security).
Plaintiff’s Response to Request No. 10: Plaintiffs have
attached signed copies of Exhibits C and D and this should give
Counsel for Defendant all relevant financial information from The
-5-
North Carolina Employment Security Commission and Rite Aid
Corporation, and conform to Plaintiffs’ objections raised in our
responses to those interrogatories that we found overly broad and
herein this particular request, seem meant to be burdensome and
oppressive.
Request No. 11: All documents relating to any medical treatment
you received since January 1, 2005, whether physical, emotional or
mental, including any and all medical records, reports, documents
relating to all prescriptions and medications prescribed to you or taken
by you, opinions rendered, bills or other documents that in any way
relate to any medical treatment you underwent or are undergoing. For
each healthcare provider identified in response to Defendants’
Interrogatory No. 10, please execute a copy of the Medical
Authorization attached as Exhibit B.
Plaintiff’s Response to Request No. 11: Plaintiffs object to this
request for production of documents on the grounds that it is overly
broad in that is not limited in time to the events relevant to this
complaint. However, we would be willing to permit counsel upon
their specific request in relation to time frame in Response 2 to
request documentation from those medical professionals discussed in
Response 10.
Request No. 17: All documents relating to your job performance,
discipline and/or wage earnings during your employment with other
employers listed in response to Interrogatory No. 2, including, but not
limited to, performance evaluations, letters, pay stubs, and
disciplinary documents. For each employer and/or contractor
identified in response to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 2 (excluding
Defendant), please execute a copy of the Authorization for Release of
Employment Records attached as Exhibit D.
Plaintiff’s Response to Request No. 17: Plaintiffs have attached
signed copy of Exhibit D which should give Counsel for Defendant
these documents from RiteAid [sic] Corporation and Plaintiffs will
-6-
most certainly request a copy of said documents in due time. This
also conforms with Plaintiffs’ objection raised in our responses to
Defendant’s Interrogatories.
Request No. 20: If you have ever been involved in a criminal or
civil legal matter (including bankruptcies, divorces, child custody
disputes, garnishments, alimony lawsuits, foreclosures, etc.), whether as
a party or a witness, all documents relating to said criminal or civil legal
matter, including documents regarding incarceration and parole (if
applicable).
Plaintiff’s Response to Request No. 20: Plaintiffs believe that
Counsel for Defendants has these documents in our original complaint
which conforms to Plaintiffs’ objections raised in our responses to
Defendant’s Interrogatories.
Request No. 27: Please produce copies of all resumes you
submitted to any prospective employer or any other entity from
January 1, 2005 to present. Please also produce documents reflecting
interest expressed by the companies and/or organizations identified in
your response to Interrogatory No. 2 as well as any further
communications between you, or anyone on your behalf, and each
such company or organization.
Plaintiff’s Response to Request No. 27: “Plaintiffs have
attached signed copy of Exhibit D which should contain a copy of
Plaintiff Marge Iannucci’s resume submitted and accepted by Rite Aid
Corporation, which conforms to Plaintiff’s objections and which
Plaintiffs will request a copy of in due time.”
III.
Analysis
The Court finds that Defendant’s Interrogatories and Document Requests
seek information relevant to the claims asserted by Plaintiff, and that the temporal
-7-
limitations placed on this information by Plaintiff is not warranted. District Courts
have “wide latitude in controlling discovery,” including the overall scope of
discovery. Ardrey v. United Parcel Serv., 798 F.2d 679, 682 (4th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff attempts to limit her responses to the period from August 1, 2009, through
July 15, 2010, the dates of her employment with Defendant. Plaintiff’s subsequent
and prior employment history, however, are also relevant to the claims asserted in
this case, including damages. See Cole v. Saks, Inc., No. 5:06cv229, 2007 WL
2997453 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 2007) (holding that subsequent employment history
relevant in employment discrimination action). Similarly, Defendant is entitled to
know whether Plaintiff was unemployed during this same time period. The Court
also finds that information and documents regarding salary and resumes submitted
to prospective employees, as well as any discipline, termination, or demotion in
connection with the employers identified during the relevant time period is relevant
to the claims and alleged damages asserted in the Complaint. Finally, the Court
finds that Defendant is entitled to information related to any sources of income
Plaintiff has received since July 15, 2010. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the
Motion to Compel as to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, & 11 and Document Requests
Nos. 10, 17, & 27.
Defendant is also entitled to information related to prior lawsuits in which
-8-
Plaintiff participated in or charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC. Plaintiff
may not limit this information to only the period of time during which she was
employed by Defendant. Defendant is similarly entitled to all documents related to
any criminal or civil matters in which she participated. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS the Motion to Compel as to Interrogatories Nos. 5 & 6 and Document
Request No. 20.
Finally, the Court finds that the information related to all medical providers
who have treated Plaintiff since January 1, 2005, is relevant to this dispute. Any
documents related to any such medical treatment are also relevant. Plaintiff has
placed her emotional and medical state at issue in this matter by seeking damages
for pain and suffering and alleging that she has developed hypertension and a loss
of interest in having sexual intercourse with her husband as a result of the stress
created by the alleged conduct. See Owens v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 221
F.R.D. 657, 659 (D. Kan. 2004) (“Generally, discovery requests seeking an
employment discrimination plaintiff's medical and psychological records are held
to be relevant as to both causation and the extent of plaintiff's alleged injuries and
damages if plaintiff claims damages for emotional pain, suffering, and mental
anguish.”); Carr v. Double T. Diner, No. WMN-10CV-00230, 2010 WL 3522428,
at *2-3 (D. Md. Sep. 8, 2010); EEOC v. Sheffield Fin., LLC, No. 1:06cv00889,
-9-
2007 WL 1726560, at *5-6 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 13, 2007). Although Plaintiff provided
some medical information for the dates of her employment, the Court finds that
Defendants are entitled to a complete list of each healthcare provider she has seen
since January 1, 2005. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel as
to Interrogatory No. 10 and Document Request No. 11.
III.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel [# 19]. The Court DIRECTS
Plaintiff to fully respond to the Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents
Nos. 10,11,17, 20, and 27 and Interrogatories Nos. 2-6, 10, and 11 within thirty
(30) days of the entry of this Order. The Court also GRANTS the Motion for
Entry of a Confidentially Agreement and incorporates the Confidentiality
Agreement [# 34-2] Attached as Exhibit A to Defendant’s motion into the body of
this Order. The Court also GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
time to Complete Discovery [# 33]. The Court EXTENDS the discovery,
mediation, and motion deadlines by thirty (30) days. Finally, the Court finds that
an award of costs is not required in this situation.
-10-
Signed: July 24, 2012
-11-
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?