Dong v. BASF Corporation et al
Filing
36
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion to Compel; granting 23 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 3/19/13. (bsw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-605-MOC-DCK
YAN DONG,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
BASF CORPORATION and
JONATHAN ANTONUCCI,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel
Production Of Documents” (Document No. 17) and “Defendants’ Cross-Motion To Compel
Discovery” (Document No. 23).
These motions have been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having
carefully considered the motions, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will grant
the motions in part, and deny the motions in part.
I.
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Yan Dong (“Plaintiff” or “Dong”) initiated this action with the filing of a
“Complaint” (Document No. 1) against BASF Corporation (“BASF”) and Jonathan Antonucci
(“Antonucci”) (together “Defendants”) on November 30, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
are liable for violation of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq., and “for tortious interference with advantageous relationship.” (Document No. 1,
pp.1, 5).
“Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Production Of Documents” (Document No. 17) was filed
on January 8, 2013, and “Defendants’ Cross-Motion To Compel Discovery” (Document No. 23)
was filed February 14, 2013. These motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for
disposition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense--including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of
any documents or other tangible things and the identity and
location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For
good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant
to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information
need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction.
See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507
(1947). However, a court may “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1).
Whether to grant or deny a motion to compel is generally left within a district court’s
broad discretion. See, Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922,
929 (4th Cir. 1995) (denial of motions to compel reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion);
Erdmann v. Preferred Research Inc., 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988) (noting District Court’s
substantial discretion in resolving motions to compel); and LaRouche v. National Broadcasting
Co., 780 F.2d 1134, 1139 (4th Cir. 1986) (same).
III. DISCUSSION
A. “Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel…”
Plaintiff’s motion requests the Court to compel Defendants’ production of “the following
eight documents,” or categories of documents. (Document No. 17, p.1). Having carefully
2
reviewed the parties’ briefs, the undersigned will list the documents requested by Plaintiff below,
and briefly describe what, if any, action the Court will require.
1.
“GPP Gate-3 Review Presentation by Mr. Natesan Subu in 2009.”
Defendant asserts that this document has no relevant or probative value to Plaintiff’s
claims and is highly confidential.
(Document No. 22, p.6).
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(c)(1)(G), “Defendants propose that Plaintiff be permitted to review this presentation at
Defendant’s counsel’s office in Charlotte.” Id.
Defendants’ proposal seems reasonable; moreover, it does not appear that Plaintiff has
articulated any objection to such review. (Document No. 28, pp.2-4). In fact, Plaintiff states that
he “welcomes the opportunity to review the Documents.” (Document No. 28, p.5).
Therefore, the parties shall make arrangements for Plaintiff to review the requested
presentation on or before April 10, 2013.
To the extent Plaintiff contends that this
document/presentation must be made “available to the Court,” his motion will be denied without
prejudice.
2.
“The BASF Initial Invention Disclosure Form for GPP Filed by Plaintiff Yan
Dong in 2009.”
Defendants assert that this document also lacks relevance or probative value. (Document
No. 22, p.6). Defendants contend that Plaintiff already has this document because he produced it
to the EEOC. Plaintiff re-asserts in his reply that he does not have this document. (Document
No. 28, p.5).
The Court directs that Defendants provide a copy of this document to Plaintiff on or
before April 1, 2013.
3.
“The entire presentation at Greenbay Packaging Inc. (a potential GPP
customer) in Greenbay, WI, in December, 2009, presented by Dr. Mike
Drewery along with Mr. James Duis.”
3
Defendants assert that this document has no relevant or probative value to Plaintiff’s
claims and is highly confidential. (Document No. 22, p.7). As with the first request, and again
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(G), Defendants suggest that Plaintiff be permitted to review
this presentation at Defendant’s counsel’s office in Charlotte. Id.
The Court again finds Defendants’ proposal to be a satisfactory solution, at least at this
stage. Therefore, the parties shall make arrangements for Plaintiff to review the requested
presentation on or before April 10, 2013.
To the extent Plaintiff contends that this
document/presentation must be made “available to the Court,” his motion will be denied without
prejudice.
4.
“GPP Project Debriefing Minutes in 2010.”
Similar to the items above, Defendants contend that the minutes it has identified from
2010 are “highly confidential and proprietary information.”
(Document No. 22, pp.7-8).
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(G), Defendants suggest that inspection, rather than production,
is appropriate.
As such, the Court directs that Plaintiff be allowed to inspect these documents on or
before April 10, 2013.
5.
Complete collection of GPP Technical reports/communications/presentations
by Defendant Jonathan Antonucci and Mr. Luis Varela, including but not
limited to, presentations in R&D review meetings in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010 by either Defendant Jonathan Antonucci or Mr. Luis Varela.
Defendants object to this request, in part because they contend it is not relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims, and because it is “extremely overbroad.” (Document No. 22, p.8). Defendants
contend, among other things, that the request seeks “documents regarding communications and
presentations that took place years before Plaintiff even became a BASF employee.” Id.
4
Plaintiff contends that all this information is “extremely relevant comparators data” and
will show how Plaintiff’s work compares to others, so he can demonstrate disparate treatment.
(Document No. 28, p.7).
The undersigned is not convinced that the information requested here is relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims, which focus on Defendant Antonucci’s discrimination against him,
particularly where much of it pre-dates Plaintiff’s employment with BASF. See (Document No.
1). This request will, therefore, be denied.
6.
“Complete BASF performance improvement program (PIP)
policy/procedure.”
Defendants have responded that “BASF does not have a PIP policy. Thus, there are no
documents responsive to this request to produce to Plaintiff.” (Document No. 22, p.9).
Plaintiff asserts in his reply that “Defendants have also produced some PIP documents in
response to Plaintiff’s requests” and thus Defendants’ response is contrary to their previous
production to the EEOC. (Document No. 28, p.8) (citing Document No. 28-1).
After review of the exhibit cited by Plaintiff, the undersigned is unable to determine
whether Defendant BASF has a performance improvement plan, program, policy, and/or
procedure. See (Document No. 28-1, p.5). Defendants stated that there was “no purpose behind
issuing written discipline or placing Dong on a performance improvement plan;” however, such
statement does not necessarily contradict Defendants’ position that BASF “does not have a PIP
policy.” Id. However, if it is true that Defendants have already produced some PIP documents
and/or that there are BASF employees who have been placed on a PIP, then Defendants must
supplement their response(s).
5
The Court directs that if Defendant BASF has a performance improvement plan,
procedure, policy, or program, Defendants shall appropriately supplement their response to this
request on or before April 1, 2013; otherwise this request is denied without prejudice.
7.
“Complete job performance reviews of all employees in PIP who held a
similar position as Plaintiff, for at least two consecutive years prior to
entering into [a] PIP.”
Defendants’ response to this request seems to contradict their previous position:
Defendants have already produced PIP and termination documents
related to other former employees in the Charlotte location. There
are no employees in the Charlotte location under Defendant
Antonucci’s supervision who held a similar position to Plaintiff
who were placed on a PIP. Thus, there are no documents
responsive to this request. There was one Research Scientist under
Antonucci’s supervision who was going to be placed on a PIP but
resigned prior to implementation of the PIP. Defendant BASF will
produce this former employee’s performance reviews for the two
(2) years prior to the employee’s resignation pursuant to the
Protective Order.
(Document No. 22, p.9). Here, in apparent contrast to Defendants’ statement that “BASF does
not have a PIP policy,” Defendants acknowledge the production of PIP documents, and that
sometimes employees are “placed on a PIP.” Id.
Based on the foregoing, the Court directs Defendants to appropriately supplement their
responses to requests 6 and 7. Defendants’ failure to supplement their responses and to clarify
their position that “BASF does not have a PIP policy” on or before April 1, 2013, may result in
sanctions.
8.
“All communications between Defendant Jonathan Antonucci and Mr.
Cheng-le Zhao, leading up to the termination decision of Plaintiff’s job.”
Defendants contend that they have already advised Plaintiff that they “have not identified
any communications responsive to this request,” and thus “have no documents to produce.”
(Document No. 22, p.10). Plaintiff argues that Defendants have repeatedly stated that Cheng-Le
6
Zhao participated in the decision to terminate Plaintiff.
(Document No. 28, p.9) (citing
Document No. 28-1).
After review of Defendant BASF’s “Respondents Statement Of Position” (Document No.
28-1), the undersigned understands why Plaintiff might expect there to be some
“communications” involving Cheng-Le Zhao and/or Antonucci, related to his termination. As
such, the Court directs Defendants to review their records and to supplement their response,
and/or further explain the apparent lack of any such communications, on or before April 1, 2013.
B. “Defendants’ Cross-Motion To Compel…”
Defendants’ motion to compel requests that Plaintiff “be ordered to respond fully and
completely to Defendants’ First Set Of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of
Interrogatories, and be ordered to answer those questions which he declined to answer during his
deposition.” (Document No. 23, p.1). Specifically, Defendants state that Plaintiff has “objected,
and provided no further response to 19 out of the 27 Document Requests, including Requests
Nos. 1-6, 9-17, 19 and 25-27.”
(Document No. 24, p.4) (citing Document No. 25-5).
Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s answers to their interrogatories are “woefully deficient.”
(Document No. 24, p.5) (citing Document Nos. 25-11 and 25-12). Finally, Defendants note that
Plaintiff simply refused to answer several questions during his deposition which are relevant to
his claims in this lawsuit. (Document No. 24, pp.7-8).
After careful review of the parties’ briefs, including “Plaintiff’s Opposition…”
(Document No. 32) and Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ discovery requests (Document Nos.
25-5 and 25-12), the undersigned agrees that Plaintiff’s responses are deficient. Plaintiff argues
that he has produced numerous pages of documents (more than 250), but it is far from clear that
the bulk of such production is relevant and/or responsive to the Defendants’ specific requests.
7
The Court respectfully reminds Plaintiff that he brought this lawsuit, and advises that if
he wishes to continue to pursue his claims he must participate fully in the discovery process.
Plaintiff’s continued failure to provide full and complete responses to discovery requests may
lead to sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 or 41, including the dismissal of this lawsuit.
Plaintiff is directed to supplement his responses to Defendants’ First Set Of Requests for
Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories on or before April 1, 2013. Moreover,
Plaintiff shall make himself available for a continued deposition on or before April 15, 2013.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED “Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Production Of
Documents” (Document No. 17) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part as more fully
described herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendants’ Cross-Motion To Compel Discovery”
(Document No. 23) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 19, 2013
8
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?