Roberts v. Target Corporation
Filing
122
ORDER denying 90 plaintiff's motion to compel except to the limited extent noted in the order...see order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 10/01/2012. (lam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LINDA ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. CIV-11-0951-HE
ORDER
Plaintiff, Linda Roberts, brings this action seeking relief for “herself and other
similarly situated individuals”1 pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This
matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling defendant to more fully respond to four requests for production of records that
were issued on August 23, 2011. In her motion, plaintiff certifies that the parties held a
conference pursuant to LCvR 37.1 on January 23, 2012. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel with
Brief in Support at 3 [Doc. #90] [hereinafter cited as “Motion to Compel”]. Plaintiff did not,
however, file the motion at issue until August 1, 2012, the date discovery closed. In addition,
defendant contends – and plaintiff appears to concede2 – that three of the requests for
production at issue here were not discussed at the LCvR 37.1 conference. Normally, that
would be sufficient reason to deny plaintiff’s motion to compel with respect to Requests 9,
1
Amended Complaint at 1 [Doc. #51]. The Amended Complaint also named three other
individuals as plaintiffs. On June 20, 2012, the court issued an order striking the additional
plaintiffs from the Amended Complaint. Order at 8 [Doc. #89].
2
See Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel at 7 [Doc.
#94].
12, and 22, but it is uncontested that the parties did discuss the issue plaintiff raises with
respect to those requests: whether defendant must produce contact information for former
and current Target employees. As the underlying issue was discussed, the court will proceed
to the merits of plaintiff’s motion.
Analysis of plaintiffs’ motion begins with the fundamental principle that the
touchstone for discovery is relevance. The 2000 amendments to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure envision “a two-tiered discovery process; the first tier being attorneymanaged discovery of information relevant to any claim or defense of a party, and the second
being court-managed discovery that can include information relevant to the subject matter
of the action.” In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 2009).
Under this process, the court must first determine whether the requested discovery is relevant
to the claims or defenses as articulated in the parties’ pleadings. If the requested discovery
does not meet this standard, the court must then determine “whether good cause exists for
authorizing it so long as it is relevant to the subject matter of the action.” Id. at 1188-89
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee note (2000)). Relevancy for discovery
purposes is broadly defined; information subject to discovery is not restricted to evidence that
would be admissible at trial. In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d at 1189. The scope
of discovery is, however, subject to limitation where the discovery is unnecessarily
cumulative or burdensome in light of the nature and circumstances of the case. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). With these standards in mind, the court will examine each of plaintiff’s
requests in turn.
2
Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 9 asks defendant to “[p]roduce a roster” of
employees who worked in the same region as plaintiff and who worked “under the same
supervisors as Plaintiff throughout Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant.” Motion to
Compel at 5. Request No. 22 also asks defendant to create a roster3 of all employees who
worked in the same region as plaintiff and had the same job title. Id. Both requests ask for
the employee’s full name, last known home address, last known home telephone number,
date of birth, date of hire, date of separation, and job title. In addition, Request No. 22 asks
for the reason for the employee’s separation. Id. During the 37.1 conference, plaintiff agreed
to limit the geographic scope of the discovery requests to the district in which plaintiff was
employed.4 Id. at 6. Defendant indicated its willingness to provide home addresses for
employees and former employees, but refused to give other contact and personal information.
Plaintiff contends she needs this information – particularly telephone numbers – so she can
identify potential witnesses and can determine the composition of defendant’s workforce.
The court concludes plaintiff has not sustained her burden of establishing that
anything beyond the district level is relevant or that she is entitled to dates of birth and home
telephone numbers of employees and former employees. Plaintiff has been given names,
which should be sufficient to identify potential witnesses, and defendant offered to provide
home addresses provided it could ensure that plaintiff’s counsel was not using the contacts
3
Although it could be argued these requests are not proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 since
they require defendant to create documents, defendant did not assert this argument.
4
Defendant’s organizational structure begins at the store level. Stores are grouped into
districts, districts into groups, and groups into one of four regions.
3
to solicit clients. Telephone numbers for employees and former employees are also not
needed to determine the composition of defendant’s workforce; that information can be
gleaned from information as to the employee’s age at the time of hire and at the time of
termination. To the extent defendant has not provided that information, it should supply
these ages. In addition, defendant should provide the last known home address for each
former employee listed; for current employees, plaintiff’s counsel should contact defendant’s
counsel to arrange any interviews. Moreover, the court concludes defendant’s agreement to
expand the temporal scope to one-year prior to the 300-day period preceding plaintiff’s
charge of discrimination is reasonable under the circumstances, given the court’s earlier
finding that the relevant time period is December 16, 2009 to October 12, 2010. See Order
at 5 [Doc. #50]. Plaintiff’s motion to compel with respect to Request Nos. 9 and 22 is
therefore denied, except to the extent noted above.
Likewise the court denies plaintiff’s motion to compel further response (beyond age
and residence information as noted above) to Request No. 12. This request seeks “all
documents” “[f]or all persons who were disciplined or terminated from their employment for
the same or similar reason as Plaintiff and who worked under the same supervisors as
Plaintiff”. As with the prior requests, plaintiff seeks the “name, last known home address,
last known home telephone number, date of birth, date of hire, and date of termination for
each” former employee. Motion to Compel at 9. There were no temporal or geographic
limits contained in the request. Nonetheless, defendant has agreed to provide information
regarding persons employed within the same district as plaintiff and to expand the temporal
4
scope to December 16, 2008 to October 10, 2010. Plaintiff challenges both the temporal and
geographic limitations and defendant’s failure to provide contact information. As noted
above, however, the court finds the temporal and geographical limitations to be reasonable;
plaintiff has presented no persuasive reason to expand discovery beyond those limits.
Moreover, plaintiff’s claim that the requested information is relevant to the issue of pretext
is illogical. Pretext is more likely to be shown by information that individuals with conduct
and evaluations similar to plaintiff were not terminated or disciplined. This request,
however, seeks the exact opposite. The court therefore denies plaintiff’s motion to compel
with the exception that defendant should supplement its response with the employees’ ages
at the date of hire and termination and their last known home address.5
Finally, plaintiff seeks to compel documents in response to Request No. 34, as
narrowed by the parties. Based on the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s motion and defendant’s
response, it appears that defendant has produced all documents in its possession that are
responsive to this request. See Exhibit 5 to Motion to Compel at 2; Target’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel at 23 [Doc. #92]. The court therefore denies plaintiff’s motion
to compel.
In sum, plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. #90] is DENIED except to the limited
extent noted above.
5
To the extent the roster provided by defendant includes any current employees, defendant
need not provide the home addresses of those employees. Plaintiff’s counsel should contact
defendant’s counsel to arrange any interviews.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 1st day of October, 2012.
6
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?