Cruz v. Office of Juvenile Affairs

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 8/4/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ADAM DE LA CRUZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.,
OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-1020-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed May 27, 2015. On June
17, 2015, defendant filed its response, and on June 23, 2015, plaintiff filed his reply. Based upon
the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Introduction
In the instant case, plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully terminated after seeking time off for

medical treatment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Oklahoma AntiDiscrimination Act. On January 12, 2015, plaintiff issued discovery requests to defendant;
defendant responded on February 13, 2015. Plaintiff asserts that defendant’s responses were
deficient and now moves this Court to compel defendant to supplement its discovery responses.
Specifically, plaintiff seeks supplemental responses to Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, and 7 and Requests
for Production 9 and 14.
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.

Witness information (Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, and 7)

Plaintiff asserts that defendant’s responses to Interrogatories 3, 4, 6, and 7 are deficient and
requests the following information: (1) as to Interrogatory 3, plaintiff requests contact information
for the witnesses; (2) as to Interrogatory 4, plaintiff requests the names and contact information of
the potential witnesses, limited to persons supervised (directly or indirectly) by J.D. Johnson, a
decision maker who supervised plaintiff’s work-site facility; (3) as to Interrogatory 6, plaintiff
requests the names and contact information of persons possessing material knowledge and the
material facts known to such persons; and (4) as to Interrogatory 7, plaintiff requests the names,
contact information, and dates of employment.
1.

Contact information

Defendant asserts that it is prohibited by Oklahoma statute, specifically Okla. Stat. tit. 74,
§ 840-2.11, from disclosing the personal information requested of its current and former employees.
Section 840-2.11 provides:
The home addresses, home telephone numbers, social security
numbers, and information related to personal electronic
communication devices of current and former state employees shall
not be open to public inspection or disclosure without written
permission from the current or former state employees or without an
order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

2

Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 840-2.11. Plaintiff contends that this statute does not apply because there is an
agreed protective order prohibiting public disclosure of this information in place in this case and,
thus, the information is not being publicly disclosed. Plaintiff further states that he would not be
opposed to broadening the protective order to cover contact information not already addressed. In
its response, defendant states that it agrees to provide supplemental responses, which include the
contact information of various current and former employees, upon the entry of a protective order
which specifically lists the names of the employees whose personal information is to be provided.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that there is no real
dispute as to whether the contact information should be provided; the dispute is the form of the
protective order this Court should enter in relation to the disclosure of the contact information. The
Court further finds that the parties have not truly exhausted all opportunities to resolve this matter
and to agree upon a proposed protective order. Accordingly, the Court finds that the parties should
meet and confer to resolve this issue. If the parties are unable to agree on a proposed order, each
party may submit a proposed order, and the Court will enter an order based upon the parties’
submissions.
2.

Interrogatory 4

Interrogatory 4 states:
Identify (defined as full name, last known home address, last known
home or cell phone number, work address, year of birth, dates of
employment and job title and either the persons’ year of birth or last
four digits of the person’s social security number) each person who,
during any part of the period from January 1, 2011 to the present was
supervised (directly and/or indirectly) by those persons who made the
final decision to terminate the Plaintiff.

3

Plaintiff’s Opening Discovery to Defendant at 6, attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Discovery with Authority. Defendant responds:
Objection. Overly broad, unduly burdensome, unlikely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. The primary decision makers
regarding Plaintiff’s termination were OJA’s Chief of Staff and the
(then acting) Director of the Institutional Services Division. The
Chief of Staff is ultimately responsible for the supervision of nearly
every employee of the agency, which is over 700 people. The
Director of the Institutional Services Division is ultimately
responsible for the supervision of over 450 employees at the agency’s
three medium secure institutions. It is overly broad and unduly
burdensome to provide the requested information for this number of
employees.
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Opening Discovery to Defendant at 9, attached as Exhibit 2 to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery with Authority.
Plaintiff asserts that the information requested is clearly relevant and is appropriately limited
to those individuals supervised by the people defendant claims to have been the final decision
makers. Additionally, in an effort to compromise, plaintiff, during the Rule 37.1 conference, further
agreed to limit the request to persons supervised (directly or indirectly) by J.D. Johnson whose
supervisory authority is limited to the facility where plaintiff worked. Plaintiff contends such
individuals may know the work conditions imposed on plaintiff and others, the personalities (and
biases) of persons involved in the dispute, whether conduct similar to that attributed to plaintiff was
committed by others, how similar acts by others were treated by the decision makers, and how the
decision makers treated others who requested medical leave.
Defendant asserts that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to provide the requested
information for more than 700 employees. Regarding plaintiff’s proposed limitation to only those
employees that were supervised by Mr. Johnson, defendant states that Mr. Johnson is the

4

Institutional Program Coordinator at the Southwest Oklahoma Juvenile Center (“SWOJC”), the
facility where plaintiff worked, and he oversees all youth guardian specialists at SWOJC but was
not plaintiff’s direct supervisor and was not the decision maker regarding plaintiff’s termination.
Defendant further asserts that the information requested is irrelevant. Additionally, defendant states
it has agreed to produce the personnel documents for the youth guardian specialists that were
supervised by plaintiff’s supervisor, Cynthia Atkins, during the time period.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the information
requested by plaintiff in Interrogatory 4, as limited by plaintiff to those employees that were
supervised by Mr. Johnson, is relevant and is not overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Court
would specifically note that Mr. Johnson was listed by defendant as an individual who participated
in the decision to terminate plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant should be
compelled to respond to Interrogatory 4, limited to those employees that were supervised (directly
and indirectly) by Mr. Johnson.
3.

Interrogatory 6

Interrogatory 6 seeks the names and personal information of persons likely to have material
knowledge related to any issues in this case and seeks a description of that knowledge. In its
response, defendant states that it has supplemented its response with all requested information. In
his reply, plaintiff contends that defendant failed to provide the employment status for Cynthia
Atkins and Gail Gibson and failed to provide the contact information for these witnesses. Upon
review of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that defendant should be compelled to provide
the employment status for Cynthia Atkins and Gail Gibson. As to these witnesses’ contact

5

information, the Court finds that this information will be provided once a protective order has been
entered as set forth above.
4.

Interrogatory 7

Interrogatory 7 seeks information as to who replaced plaintiff. In its response, defendant
states that it has supplemented its response with the requested information, with the exception of the
contact information which will be provided upon entry of a protective order. Based upon
defendant’s supplementation and the Court’s ruling regarding the contact information, the Court
finds no further ruling is required as to Interrogatory 7.
B.

Personnel documents (Request for Production 9)

Request for Production 9 states:
Produce the “personnel documents” for the following persons:
A.
All persons who, from January 1, 2012 through the
present, occupied the same and/or similar position as
the Plaintiff and/or performed the same and/or similar
job duties as the Plaintiff;
B.
All persons who, from January 1, 2012 through the
present, were disciplined and/or terminated for the
same and/or similar reasons the Plaintiff was
disciplined and/or terminated;
C.
All persons who, from January 1, 2012 through the
present, made a request for a medically-related
accommodation (limited geographically to persons
who were supervised by the person who made the
final decision to terminate the Plaintiff).
D.
All persons who, from January 1, 2012 through the
present, were suspected and/or accused of committing
an offense of equal and/or greater seriousness than
that attributed to the Plaintiff (limited geographically
to persons who were supervised by the person who
made the final decision to terminate the Plaintiff);
E.
All persons who, from January 1, 2012 to the present,
were on medical-related leave for more than twelve
weeks.

6

Plaintiff’s Opening Discovery to Defendant at 14-15. Plaintiff contends that the personnel
documents sought would allow him to uncover relevant information, such as defendant’s motive,
intent and treatment of similarly situated persons.
Defendant asserts that Request for Production 9 attempts to obtain personnel documents of
every OJA employee and is facially overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further asserts that plaintiff has not shown any
justification for agency-wide documents. Defendant contends that plaintiff’s direct supervisor was
Cynthia Atkins and that it has produced the requested information and/or documentation within this
scope.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that Request for
Production 9 should be limited to persons at SWOJC, where plaintiff worked. As limited, the Court
finds the request for production is not overbroad or unduly burdensome and is likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, to the extent there are additional documents, the
Court finds that defendant should be compelled to produce personnel records in response to Request
for Production 9, limited to persons at SWOJC.
C.

Other charges of discrimination (Request for Production 14)

Request for Production 14 seeks copies of other charges of discrimination and retaliation,
including other lawsuits related to the same. In response, defendant provided all of the requested
information pertaining to disability discrimination and/or retaliation filed by employees of SWOJC
with the EEOC and/or OHRC between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014. In his reply,
plaintiff notes that the documents produced redacted contact information necessary to locate the
witnesses. The Court’s prior ruling regarding the protective order addresses this issue. In his reply,

7

plaintiff does not set forth any other specific deficiencies in defendant’s production; therefore, the
Court finds no further ruling is required as to Request for Production 14.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel Discovery [docket no. 18] as set forth above. The parties shall submit to the Court an
agreed protective order, or if no agreement can be reached, their individual proposed protective
orders, on or before August 18, 2015. Additionally, defendant shall provide any supplemental
responses, as set forth above, on or before August 21, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of August, 2015.

8