Scheller v. Williams Companies Inc The et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 6/1/2018. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TYLER SCHELLER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., and )
WILLIAMS WPC-I, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-17-632-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed March 20, 2018. On
April 10, 2018, defendants filed their response, and on April 24, 2018, plaintiff filed his reply.
Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Introduction
Plaintiff worked for defendants, and in June 2014, plaintiff suffered a heart attack and

continued to suffer cardiac-related issues. Plaintiff alleges that he sought accommodations,
including a reduced work load and time off work for cardiac rehabilitation. Plaintiff further alleges
that defendants refused to reasonably accommodate him and further discriminated against him by
giving him lower evaluations, write-ups for failing to attend work-related functions, and requiring
him to work even more hours. Plaintiff asserts that defendants made his work environment so
intolerable that he was forced to resign, resulting in a constructive discharge. Defendants deny
they discriminated or retaliated against plaintiff.
II.

Discussion
On November 27, 2017, plaintiff issued discovery to defendants. On January 31, 2018,

defendants responded. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ responses were deficient and now moves this

Court to compel defendants to supplement their responses to Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for
Production Nos. 6, 14, 18, and 32.
A.

Interrogatory No. 4

Interrogatory No. 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) each person who, during any part of the
period from January 1, 2014 to the present was supervised (directly
and/or indirectly) by Plaintiff’s first and second-in-line supervisors.
Defendant Williams WPC-I, LLC’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Opening Discovery,
attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery with Authority, at 11. In response,
defendants state that they will produce certain documents from which the information responsive
to the interrogatory can be obtained. Specifically, defendants state that they will be producing the
organizational charts for employees reporting to Michael Stackhouse, Harvey Stockman, Donald
Ward Chase, and John Casto. Plaintiff asserts that the organizational charts do not provide the
requested information.
In their response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants state that they have
supplemented their response by identifying the personal contact information for current nonsupervisory employee Chase and the current titles, dates of births, and employment tenure for all
of plaintiff’s first and second-in-line supervisors that he had while employed. Defendants, thus,
contend that plaintiff’s motion to compel is moot as to Interrogatory No. 4.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion
to compel is not moot as to Interrogatory No. 4. That interrogatory seeks the identity and contact
information for persons who were supervised by plaintiff’s first and second-in-line supervisors,
not the identity and contact information for plaintiff’s supervisors. Further, the Court finds that

2

Interrogatory No. 4 seeks relevant information and in their response, defendants have not set forth
any objection to the information sought. Accordingly, the Court orders defendants to fully respond
to Interrogatory No. 4.
B.

Request for Production No. 14

Request for Production No. 14 states:
Produce the “personnel documents” for the following persons:
A.
All persons who, from January 1, 2013 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, 2013 through the present,
were disciplined and/or terminated for the same and/or
similar reasons that Plaintiff was disciplined and/or
terminated;
C.
All persons who, from January 1, 2013 through the present,
made a complaint (internal and/or external) of disability
discrimination, disability-related retaliation, FMLA
retaliation and/or FMLA interference;
D.
All persons who, from January 1, 2013 through the present,
were accused of engage [sic] in misconduct of equal or
greater seriousness than that attributable to the Plaintiff; and,
E.
All persons who, from January 1, 2013 through the present,
requested medical-related accommodations and/or FMLA
qualifying leave, limited to persons who held a similar
position as the Plaintiff, performed similar job duties as the
Plaintiff and/or were supervised by the same supervisors as
the Plaintiff.
The Williams Companies, Inc. and Williams WPC-I, LLC Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s
Opening Joint Requests for Production of Documents, attached as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel Discovery with Authority, at 13-14. Further, plaintiff defines “personnel documents”
as follows:
documents, emails or electronically stored information containing
the following information regardless of where those documents may
be located: (A) last known home addresses, date of birth, home
phone numbers; (B) job titles, job duties and dates of employment;
(C) complaints concerning FMLA and/or disability discrimination
3

and/or retaliation; (D) formal and/or informal disciplinary and
coaching actions; (E) performance appraisals and evaluations; (F)
requests for FMLA or FMLA qualifying leave and/or requests for
medical accommodations; (G) training related to enforcement of
disciplinary and discrimination policies and rules regarding
discrimination, disability and FMLA; and (H) complaints of FMLA
and/or disability type discrimination and/or retaliation.
The request for “personnel documents” does not include information
related to tax withholding, social security numbers, designation of
beneficiaries, medical records and identification of spouses and
children.
Id. at 13.
In their response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants state that they supplemented
their responses to this request for production by providing plaintiff with the personnel records for
employees with the same or similar job duties as those held by plaintiff during his employment or
who had the same supervisors as plaintiff. Defendants, thus, contend that plaintiff’s motion to
compel is moot as to Request for Production No. 14.
In his reply, plaintiff asserts that his motion to compel is not moot as to this request for
production. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that defendants did not produce personnel documents for
approximately 15-20 draftsmen (plaintiff’s position) who were also supervised by plaintiff’s
supervisors, Harvey Stockman and Michael Stackhouse, and who performed similar duties and
were subject to the same rules as plaintiff. Additionally, plaintiff asserts that for those persons
whose documents were produced, defendants limited production of performance records to the
period after plaintiff’s separation of employment when they should have produced performance
records for the period these employees worked with plaintiff.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court orders defendants to produce
personnel documents for the approximately 15-20 draftsmen who were supervised by Mr.

4

Stockman and Mr. Stackhouse. Additionally, the Court orders defendants to produce documents
in relation to this request that cover the time period the employees worked with plaintiff.
C.

Request for Production No. 6

Request for Production No. 6 states:
For any investigation(s) into complaints of disability discrimination
and/or retaliation made by any employee of the Defendants working
in the same facility as the Plaintiff (internal and/or external),
produce documents (including emails, memos, notes, etc.) showing:
A.
All complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation
made;
B.
The dates such complaints were made;
C.
The persons whom the complaints were against;
D.
All investigations made into such complaints;
E.
All persons interviewed as part of such investigations
(including all notes or other documents showing the
questions asked by interviewers and responses
provided by interviewees);
F.
The outcome of such investigations; and,
G.
Any action taken in response to complaints and/or
the information learned through such investigations.
This request is temporally limited to the period of January 1,
2012 to the present.
Id. at 7.1
In their response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants assert that other than nonprivileged documents related to plaintiff’s complaints, they do not have any records responsive to
this request for production. Additionally, defendants assert that although they are unaware of any
responsive documents, to the extent plaintiff is seeking the production of documents which are
attorney/client communications or attorney work product, such documents are not discoverable.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds plaintiff’s motion to compel

1

Plaintiff has offered to limit the request to a three year period.
5

is moot as to Request for Production No. 6 as defendants do not have any responsive documents
that are not claimed to be privileged.2
D.

Request for Production No. 18

Request for Production No. 18 states:
Produce: Copies of any charges of harassment, discrimination or
retaliation filed against you with the EEOC, OHRC, DOL, DOJ,
Department of Education or any federal, state or local agency from
January 1, 2013 to the present;
A.
Your responses to such charges, together with any
documents or attachments to such charges;
B.
Any lawsuits, tort claims, demand letters or demands
for arbitration directed to you and asserting wrongful
discharge, retaliation, discrimination or harassment
in violation of any state or federal law or in violation
of public policy; and,
C.
The answers or responses you filed to any such
lawsuit, tort claim, demand letter or demand for
arbitration.
This request is limited to charges/claims materially related
to disability discrimination, disability-related retaliation,
FMLA retaliation and/or FMLA interference.
Id. at 16-17.
In their response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants assert that this request for
production is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is not relevant to
plaintiff’s claims. Defendants further assert that the scope of the request should be limited to
claims, charges, and lawsuits related to employees who were supervised by plaintiff’s former
supervisors or in the Oklahoma City facility. Finally, defendants assert that other than plaintiff’s
claim, they are unaware of any claims, charges, and lawsuits related to employees who were
supervised by plaintiff’s former supervisors or in the Oklahoma City facility.

In his reply, plaintiff objects to defendants’ claims of attorney-client privilege and work product
protection. The Court will address the privilege objections in a separate section of this Order.
2

6

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that Request for
Production No. 18 is overly broad and should be limited to claims, charges, and lawsuits related
to employees who were supervised by plaintiff’s former supervisors or in the Oklahoma City
facility. Thus, the Court finds plaintiff’s motion to compel is moot as to Request for Production
No. 18 as defendants do not have any responsive documents that are not claimed to be privileged.3
E.

Request for Production No. 32

Request for Production No. 32 seeks documents related to defendants’ affirmative
defenses.

In their response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants assert they have

supplemented their responses to Request for Production No. 32 by identifying non-privileged
documents which they believe support various defenses identified in their answers. Defendants,
therefore, contend that plaintiff’s motion as to Request for Production No. 32 is now moot. In his
reply, plaintiff contends that the motion to compel is not moot as to Request for Production No.
32 because defendants have limited the request to documents that it intends to use to support the
affirmative defenses and have not produced documents which are relevant, and could be used by
plaintiff to undermine such defenses. Plaintiff further asserts that documents relevant to an
affirmative defense are not privileged.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion
to compel as to Request for Production No. 32 is not moot. Specifically, the Court orders that
defendants produce, in addition to the documents they have already produced, any documents that
are materially related, not just in support of, defendants’ affirmative defenses. To the extent

In his reply, plaintiff objects to defendants’ claims of attorney-client privilege and work product
protection. The Court will address the privilege objections in a separate section of this Order.
3

7

defendants are asserting a claim of privilege to documents that fall within Request for Production
No. 32, the Court will address that issue in the following section.
F.

Privileged Documents

Subsequent to plaintiff filing his motion to compel, defendants supplemented their
discovery responses and provided plaintiff a privilege log for those documents withheld based
upon the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Plaintiff asserts that defendants
have waived any privilege by failing to timely disclose and provide a log. Having reviewed the
parties’ submissions, the Court finds that defendants have not waived any privilege claims.
Specifically, the Court finds that defendants’ privilege log was not so untimely as to warrant a
waiver of the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
In his reply, plaintiff disputes defendants’ claim of privilege to numerous documents.
Because of the timing of the production of the privilege log in relation to the briefing of the instant
motion and because the meet and confer between the parties occurred prior to the production of
the privilege log, the Court finds it is unable to rule on any claims of privilege at this time.
Specifically, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the documents in dispute on
the privilege log. Once the parties have met and conferred, and if there are remaining documents
in dispute, plaintiff shall file a motion regarding those documents. After that motion is fully
briefed, the Court will determine whether defendants need to produce the disputed documents to
the Court for an in camera review.
III.

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

Compel Discovery [docket no. 24] as set forth above. To the extent that defendants have been

8

ordered to produce additional documents, defendants shall produce said documents to plaintiff on
or before June 18, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2018.

9