Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CCR Wellness Investments, LLC.

Filing 23

ORDER granting 10 Motion for Protective Order; holding in abeyance 14 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Compel. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 5/7/2015. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
CCR WELLNESS INVESTMENTS, LLC, )
d/b/a MASSAGE ENVY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________________ )

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-00340-GCM

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Protective Order
(Doc. No. 10), Motion for Entry of a Protective Order (Doc. No. 14) and Motion to Compel
(Doc. No. 16), as well as the attendant responses and replies filed by the parties. The EEOC
seeks respective orders from this Court (1) requiring that the deposition of Megan McCloskey
take place no earlier than one (1) week after Defendant has fully responded to the EEOC’s first
set of interrogatories and requests for production; (2) for the entry of a protective order
governing discovery materials; and (3) compelling responses to the EEOC’s interrogatories and
requests for production. On April 29, 2015, the EEOC notified the Court that some of the matters
contained in these motions has been resolved. (Doc. No. 22). The Court has carefully considered
these filings and now finds as follows.
1. Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 10)
The EEOC argues that it cannot properly prepare for a deposition of Ms. McCloskey,
whose discharge is the subject of this action, without adequate responses to its interrogatories

1

and requests for production. Having reviewed the filings on this matter, the Court agrees and
finds that good cause exists for a protective order pursuant to FRCP 26(c). The deposition of Ms.
McCloskey shall not take place earlier than one (1) week after Defendant has fully responded to
the EEOC’s first set of interrogatories and requests for production, or as otherwise agreed to by
the parties.
2. Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 16)
The EEOC’s motion seeks to compel the production of a range of information and
materials; however, Defendant’s response only takes issue with two categories of information.
Because it appears that the parties are at an impasse on these two issues, the Court will now rule
on them.
Defendant CCR first contends that it should not have to fully respond to Interrogatory
No. 4 and Requests for Production 12 and 31 because those items concern the financial status of
CCR, which is irrelevant to this dispute. The EEOC responds that this information is relevant as
it relates to its claim for punitive damages, and that other courts have so found. See, e.g., EEOC
v. Envtl. & Demolition Servs., Inc., 246 F.R.D. 247, 249-50 (D. Md. 2007). The Court agrees.
Defendant’s contention that this information is not likely to be particularly helpful due to the
statutory cap on damages for a company of its size is well-taken; however, at this early stage in
the litigation, the Court cannot find that this information is irrelevant. As such, Defendant will be
required to produce it.
CCR also objects to Interrogatories 12, 13, and 14, as well as Requests for Production 11
and 32. Those items broadly seek information and documentation which support affirmative
defenses raised in Defendant’s Answer. CCR contends that these inquiries seek counsel’s
strategy and mental impressions, and are thus not discoverable. To the extent that Defendant

2

believes responsive documents or other information are privileged or otherwise protected, it may
object on that basis and submit a privilege log as contemplated in FRCP 26. Otherwise, the Court
finds that this information is relevant to this dispute and CCR will be required to produce it.
3. Motion for Entry of Protective Order (Doc. No. 14) and remaining issues
It appears to the Court that the parties have not reached an impasse on the remainder of
the issues presented by the EEOC’s motion to compel and motion for entry of a protective order.
As such, the parties are directed to meet and confer within the seven (7) days of the date of this
order in an attempt to resolve these matters amicably. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of
this order, the parties are directed to notify the Court of their progress on these remaining issues.
If the parties remain at an impasse, they may request a hearing at that time.
The Court also reminds the parties that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure envision the
parties managing the discovery process. Disputes about routine discovery issues—such as the
timing of a deposition or the content of a joint protective order—should not require Court
intervention. Going forward, the Court expects the parties to work cooperatively on these issues,1
and to employ motions as a last resort.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The EEOC’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED. The deposition
of Ms. McCloskey shall not take place earlier than one (1) week after Defendant has fully
responded to the EEOC’s first set of interrogatories and requests for production, or as
otherwise agreed to by the parties.

1

This includes allowing opposing parties sufficient time to respond to discovery requests, and to negotiate
compromises to disputes. See, e.g., Doc. No. 21 at 3 (“EEOC does not wish to proceed with the exchange of
documents at the same leisurely pace that Defendant seeks . . .”). The Court does not view favorably the
Commission’s apparent efforts to unilaterally dictate the pace of discovery in this case, nor its efforts to increase its
bargaining position by filing unnecessary motions.

3

2. The EEOC’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED in part. Defendant is
directed to respond to Interrogatories 4 and 12-14, as well as Requests for Production 11,
12, 31, and 32 as provided herein within ten (10) days of the entry of a protective order
governing discovery materials in this case. Defendant’s request for fees is DENIED.
3. The EEOC’s Motion for Entry of a Protective Order (Doc. No. 14) is HELD in
abeyance. The parties are directed to meet and confer within seven (7) days of the date of
this order in an attempt to resolve the issues presented by this motion, as well as the
remaining issues presented in the EEOC’s Motion to Compel. Within fourteen (14) days
of the date of this order, the parties are directed to notify the Court of their progress on
these remaining issues.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 7, 2015

4