Titus v. Verizon Wireless et al

Filing 46

ORDER. Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel Discovery and For Sanctions (Doc. 44 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 2/9/2012. (mdf1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MELISSA TITUS,
Plaintiff,

:
:

Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-469

vs.
:
VERIZON WIRELESS, et al.,
Defendants.

:

Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

:

ORDER
I.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery and For
Sanctions. Doc. 44. Plaintiff’s motion was filed on the morning of February 9, 2012 -- the date of
the discovery cut-off and the dispositive motions deadline. See doc. 42. On the afternoon of
February 9, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on Plaintiff’s motion. Counsel for the parties
appeared by telephone, and the proceedings lasted approximately twenty minutes.
Plaintiff’s primary argument is that she has been deprived the “total compensation
information” for all employees that Defendants have promoted from December 2007 through
December 2011. During oral argument, Plaintiff represented to the Court that although Defendants
had produced salary information and information regarding the commission formulas applicable to
all employees, they had not produced the actual commissions paid out to each of the employees -i.e., the W-2 earnings for each employee. Defendants, nevertheless, maintain that they have
complied with the Court’s previous Orders by producing salaries for the promoted employees, as

well as the “commission structure” for each employee as specifically requested by Plaintiff in
Interrogatory No. 7. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s interrogatories do not request W-2 earnings
for each of the promoted employees, and that the Court has not compelled production of W-2
earnings information.
II.
At the outset, the Court notes that it is troubled by Plaintiff’s motion being filed on the
morning of the discovery cut-off and dispositive motions deadline. On January 20, 2012, the Court
ordered Defendants to produce by January 27, 2012 any information regarding compensation that
the Court had specifically ordered be produced. See doc. 38. Plaintiff waited thirteen days to file
this motion to compel, which alleges not only that Defendants’ production was deficient, but also
that the information being withheld is critical to her damages calculation.

Given the lengthy

history of discovery disputes in this case, the alleged importance of the information Plaintiff claims
is being withheld, and the looming discovery cut-off, one would naturally expect that any motion
to compel would have been filed on January 28th, or shortly thereafter.
Furthermore, although Plaintiff attached in support of her motion one email chain between
counsel from February 7-8th, it appears that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1 -- to exhaust extrajudicial means to settle this dispute prior to the filing
of the motion to compel -- have not been met. Even if the Court were to completely set these
concerns aside, Plaintiff’s motion nevertheless warrants denial on the merits.
After considering the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s motion, as well as the arguments raised
orally by both parties, the Court is satisfied that Defendants have sufficiently answered the precise
discovery requests as they were phrased by Plaintiff and ordered by the Court. Since the time of the

2

Court’s ruling on her first motion to compel, Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to submit
additional, specific interrogatories and discovery requests. Moreover, the Court extended the
discovery cut-off date on multiple occasions to give the parties sufficient time to conduct additional
depositions and ask pointed questions. The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments to be without merit,
and finds her allegations -- that Defendants have not complied with the Court’s previous production
Orders -- to be unfounded.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery and For Sanctions,
doc. 44, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

February 9, 2012

3