Reed v. Tetra Tech Inc

Filing 38

ORDER granting 20 plaintiff's Motion to Compel and ordering defendant to fully provide, on or before January 27, 2014, the information sought in Request for Production No. 7 and Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 18 (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 1/13/2014. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CYNTHIA REED,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TETRA TECH, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-542-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed November 27, 2013. On December
18, 2013, defendant filed its response, and on December 31, 2013, plaintiff filed her reply. Based
upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Introduction
In the instant case, plaintiff alleges she was discriminated against due to her disability.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant in the position of receptionist from October 2008 until May
24, 2012. Around April 6, 2012, plaintiff informed Tim Hall, a human resources representative, that
she had recently been diagnosed with lupus. Plaintiff thereafter requested accommodations and time
off for medical appointments/treatment. On or about May 25, 2012, plaintiff was included in a
reduction in force and was terminated.
Plaintiff submitted opening and supplemental discovery requests to defendant. Based upon
defendant’s responses and the parties’ inability to resolve their disputes, plaintiff now moves this
Court to compel full responses to her Request for Production No. 7 and her Interrogatory Nos. 12
and 18.

II.

Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as
follows: 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).
A.

Request for Production No. 7

Request for Production No. 7 seeks the personnel documents of certain employees.
Defendant initially objected to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking
information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and
admissible evidence. In her motion to compel, plaintiff has narrowed this request to the personnel
file of Maria Wood and Rachelle Ewing, the two individuals against whom plaintiff was allegedly
compared and who assumed some of the duties of plaintiff’s position after it was eliminated. In its
response, defendant states that the personnel file for Rachelle Ewing has previously been produced
to plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant further contends that the personnel files for these two individuals
are not relevant.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the personnel files
for Ms. Wood and Ms. Ewing are relevant and should be produced. Accordingly, the Court finds
that defendant should be compelled to produce the personnel file for Marie Wood.

2

B.

Interrogatory No. 12

Interrogatory No. 12 seeks the following information:
Identify (as defined above) each person who, during any part of the
period from January 1, 2009 to the present was located at
Defendant’s Oklahoma City office.
In response, defendant objects as follows:
Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 12 as being overly broad and
seeking information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence. A
request for an identification of every person that worked at the
Oklahoma City office for years prior to the [sic] Cynthia Reed’s
departure has no discernible relevance to Cynthia Reed’s claims in
this case. Additionally, such a request is overly broad.
Plaintiff contends that this information is relevant as follows:
It is established beyond doubt that persons who worked in Plaintiff’s
location or who interacted with Plaintiff in the performance of job
duties will know information related to claims and defenses in this
case. Those persons who worked with the Plaintiff will have
witnessed her job performance and know which duties she
performed. Similarly, such persons will have observed the
performance of Maria Wood and Rachelle Ewing against whom
Plaintiff was allegedly compared. Thus, this group of persons can
offer testimony regarding Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff had work
performance issues and less skills than the two comparators. . . .
Such persons may also have knowledge regarding when
Plaintiff’s illness became apparent, since Defendant disputes
knowledge of Plaintiff’s condition.
Motion to Compel with Authority at 4. Plaintiff also contends that it would not be unduly
burdensome to produce this information because there were thirty or fewer persons who worked in
the Oklahoma City office.
Defendant asserts that it is impossible to discern the relevance of identifying every employee
that has ever worked at defendant’s Oklahoma City office from January 1, 2009 to the present,
3

which includes time periods both years before plaintiff’s claims arose and long after plaintiff was
terminated on May 25, 2012. Defendant also asserts that plaintiff was not terminated for job
performance issues and that this information is not relevant for that reason as well.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the information
requested in Interrogatory No. 12 is relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiff’s co-workers clearly could have
knowledge as to the claims and defenses in this case. Further, because the Oklahoma City office has
less than thirty employees, the Court finds that this interrogatory is not unduly burdensome.
However, the Court finds that Interrogatory No. 12 is overly broad in time and should be limited to
the period from January 1, 2011 to May 25, 2013. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant
should be compelled to respond to Interrogatory No. 12, as limited above.
C.

Interrogatory No. 18

Plaintiff’s Request for Admission No. 8 asked defendant to admit that at the time of
plaintiff’s termination, plaintiff had been satisfactorily performing her job duties. Defendant denied
this request.

As a result, plaintiff issued Interrogatory No. 18 seeking “the facts, events,

occurrences, conversations, and details materially related to Defendant’s denial in response to
Plaintiff’s Req. Adm. No. 8.” Defendant responded as follows: “Request for Admission No. 8 was
denied because by May 12, 2012, Cynthia Reed’s supervisor Geoff Covalt did not believe that
Cynthia Reed was satisfactorily performing her job duties.”
Plaintiff asserts that this response is insufficient because it fails to provide the information
sought, i.e., instances in which defendant believes plaintiff to have performed unsatisfactorily, the
job duties/tasks that were performed unsatisfactorily, etc. Defendant contends that this information

4

is irrelevant because it did not eliminate the receptionist position because of deficiencies in
plaintiff’s job performance. Additionally, defendant states that in his deposition, Mr. Covalt
explained at length all of his reasons for believing that plaintiff’s job performance was not
satisfactory.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the information
requested through Interrogatory No. 18 is clearly relevant, as there has been some evidence
produced indicating that job performance was taken into account when making the reduction in force
decision. Additionally, the Court finds that defendant’s response is inadequate and does not provide
all of the information sought. To the extent plaintiff still needs defendant to supplement its response
to this interrogatory after Mr. Covalt’s deposition, the Court finds that such supplement should be
compelled.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [docket no. 20] and

ORDERS defendant to fully provide, on or before January 27, 2014, the information sought in
Request for Production No. 7 and Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 18 as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2014.

5