Bridges v. Berryhill

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 78 First MOTION to Compel re First Set of Interrogatories filed by Charles Bridges Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr on 5/19/21. (ms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES BRIDGES,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER ANDREW
SAUL, UNITED STATES
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION1,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:17-cv-02285
(WILSON, J.)
(SAPORITO, M.J.)

MEMORANDUM
This is a race discrimination case which is before us on the
plaintiff’s motion to compel complete responses to interrogatories. (Doc.
78).
I.

Statement of Facts
We incorporate by reference the recitation of the facts in our Report

and Recommendation dated September 4, 2019 (Doc. 45), which was

At the time of the filing, the Acting Commissioner was Nancy A.
Berryhill, who was recently succeeded by a Senate-confirmed
Commissioner, Andrew Saul. By virtue of Rule 24(d) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Saul has been automatically substituted as defendant
in place of former Berryhill, the originally named defendant.

1

adopted in part and rejected in part. (Doc. 55). The only remaining claim
left is the plaintiff’s race discrimination count.
Bridges claims that he was discriminated against on the basis of
race when the agency selected three less qualified candidates―two white
males and an African-American female―for the three HOCALJ positions,
in violation of Title VII.
To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the
basis of race, a plaintiff ultimately must show that: “(1) the plaintiff
belongs to a protected class; (2) he/she was qualified for the position; (3)
he/she was subject to an adverse employment action despite being
qualified; and (4) under circumstances that raise an inference of
discriminatory action, the employer continued to seek out individuals
with qualifications similar to the plaintiff’s to fill the position.” Sarullo
v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)).
II.

Legal Standards
The federal courts have broad discretion to manage discovery,

Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724, 734 (3d Cir. 1995), and the
federal rules have long permitted broad and liberal discovery.

2

Macy’s, 193 F.3d 766, 777 (3d Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1),
parties may obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case. . . . Information within this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Further, the federal rules’ relevancy requirement is to be construed
broadly, and material is relevant if it bears on, or reasonably could bear
on, an issue that is or may be involved in the litigation. Oppenheimer
Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350 (1978).
Rule 26 establishes a liberal discovery policy. Discovery
is generally permitted of any items that are relevant or
may lead to the discovery of relevant information.
Moreover, discovery need not be confined to items of
admissible evidence but may encompass that which
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Clemens v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 300 F.R.D. 225, 226 (M.D. Pa.
2014) (citations omitted). When the Court is presented with a motion to
compel discovery,
[t]he burden is on the objecting party to demonstrate in
specific terms why a discovery request is improper. The
party objecting to discovery must show that the
requested materials do not fall within the broad scope of
relevance or else are of such marginal relevance that the
potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh
3

the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.
Id. at 227 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
III. Discussion
In his motion to compel, Bridges asserts two categories of
deficiencies: (1) the defendant’s position that the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Report of Investigation (ROI) issued in
this matter obviates his obligation to respond to interrogatories is
erroneous; and (2) the defendant erroneously engaged in a determination
of relevancy on the questions of the “focused review” process. The
defendant contends that he has appropriately responded to the written
discovery requests served upon it.
Counsel for the parties tried to resolve the disputed discovery
items, but were unable to settle all the disputed items. We will address
each of the objections raised by the defendant in the interrogatories
separately. Any interrogatory requiring an answer by the defendant shall
be made within seven (7) days of the date of this memorandum.
Interrogatory No. 2. The defendant has filed a supplemental
answer to Interrogatory No. 2.

(Doc. 80-6).

We find that this

interrogatory has been sufficiently answered. Therefore, the objection is

4

deemed moot.
Interrogatory No. 6. The objection to Interrogatory No. 6 is
overruled, and the plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. The defendant
shall produce any and all records reflecting the term “docket
management” in relation to the three candidates, Judge Barry Jenkins,
Judge Jack Penca, and Judge Ann W. Chain.

The defendant’s

representation in his brief that the SSA has not located any records
identifying those three individuals as “having significant deficiencies
with their overall ‘docket management’” is a matter of interpretation.
(Doc. 80, at 6).

The plaintiff should not be required to accept the

defendant’s interpretation, but rather, he should have the opportunity to
make his own interpretation upon review of the records.
Interrogatory No. 8. The objection to Interrogatory No. 8 is
overruled.

The defendant has filed a supplemental answer to

Interrogatory No. 8 which we find answers this interrogatory in part.
The defendant is directed to specifically identify all of the facts he relies
upon that are contained in the Jasper Bede affidavit. (Doc. 80-5).
Interrogatory No. 9. The objection to Interrogatory No. 9 is
sustained. This court dismissed Bridges’s claim seeking a declaration

5

that focused reviews are unlawful.
Interrogatory No. 11. The objection to Interrogatory No. 11 is
sustained.

We find that this interrogatory has been sufficiently

answered.
Interrogatory No. 12. The objection to interrogatory No. 12 is
sustained. The interrogatory seeks information about a civil action in
which the plaintiff unsuccessfully litigated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The information

requested should be in the plaintiff’s possession.
Interrogatory No. 13. The objection to Interrogatory No. 13 is
sustained.

The interrogatory seeks information unrelated to the

plaintiff’s remaining race discrimination claim.
Interrogatory No. 14. The objection to interrogatory No. 14 is
overruled. The information sought in this interrogatory is relevant to the
plaintiff’s remaining claim.
Interrogatory No. 15. The objection to Interrogatory No. 15 is
sustained in part and overruled in part.

The objection is sustained to

the extent that it seeks all email exchanges on the SSA’s servers between
Theodore Burock and Jasper Bede for the years 2010-2015.

6

It is

overruled to the extent that it seeks email exchanges between those
individuals for the years 2010-2015 limited to emails pertaining to or
referencing the plaintiff and the three individuals who were not selected
as HOCALJ.
Interrogatory No. 16. The objection to Interrogatory No. 16 is
overruled. The information sought in this interrogatory is relevant to the
plaintiff’s remaining claim.
Interrogatory No. 18. The defendant did not object to
Interrogatory No. 18. Therefore, no further response by the defendant is
required.
Interrogatory No. 19. The objection to Interrogatory No. 19 is
overruled. The information sought in this interrogatory is relevant to
plaintiff’s remaining claim.
An appropriate order follows.
s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated: May 19, 2021

7