KARLO et al v. PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC

Filing 181

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 159 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; that Defendant is ordered to produce the following: 1. The RIF Guidelines currently in place at PGW. 2. Answers to the following interrogatories from Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendant: a. Interrogatory # 1. b. Interrogatory # 8. c. Interrogatory # 11. d. Interrogatory # 12. e. Interrogatory # 13, only to the extent that PGW must provide information on M r. Wiggins' ownership, compensation and other income earned from PGW, as well as the identity of other Kohlberg & Co. companies in which Mr. Wiggins has an ownership interest. f. Interrogatory # 14. g. Interrogatory # 18, to the extent that it applies to the interrogatories identified in this order. 3. All of the documents requested in the Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Defendant. PGW shall comply within 30 days of this Court's Order, i.e. on or before 6/11/12. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/11/12. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RUDOLPH A. KARLO, MARK K.
MCLURE, WILLIAM S. CUNNINGHAM,
JEFFREY MARIETTI, DAVID
MEIXELSBERGER, BENJAMIN D.
THOMPSON, and RICHARD CSUKAS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
PITTSBURGH GLASS WORKS, LLC,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 10-1283
Judge Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. (Docket No. 159). The Court
has considered the record before it, including Plaintiffs’ brief in support (Docket No. 160) and
supporting exhibits (Docket Nos. 159-2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). It has also considered the Defendant’s
brief in opposition (Docket No. 163) and supporting exhibits. (Docket Nos. 163-1, 2 and 3).
The Court also considered the positions expressed by the parties in the February 23, 2012 status
conference, prior to the instant motion’s filing. (See Docket Nos. 156, 175). For the following
reasons, the motion [159] will be DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part.
The Court begins by noting that it agrees entirely with the reasoning of the court in
McLaughlin v. Diamond State Port Corp., Civ. No. 03-617, 2004 WL 3059543 (D. Del. Dec. 30,
2004), which observed that:
Just as subsequent remedial measures are generally inadmissible under
Fed.R.Evid. 407, a defendant's attempt to reverse allegedly discriminatory
1

practices should also be inadmissible. It would be perverse indeed if attempts to
reverse discrimination could be used to condemn a defendant. Such use of
evidence would only serve to discourage reform, and the court will not permit it.
Id. at *3. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to support or demonstrate liability in 2009 based
on the state of affairs in 2011, the Court is not persuaded that the specifics of the 2011 RIF are
relevant to the pending case. However, because PGW agreed to provide a copy of the RIF
Guidelines that are currently in place (Docket No. 163-2 at 2), the Court will order production of
same. The Court will likewise order PGW to respond to Interrogatory #1, as it has already
offered to do so. (Id.).
With respect to the remainder of the interrogatories, the Court first notes that the
Plaintiffs have not made a showing of good cause to go beyond the already-inflated 40
interrogatories provided for in the Court’s amended case management order. (See Docket No. 83
at ¶ 10). The only reason Plaintiffs might be entitled to any additional discovery is because it
appears PGW agreed to the expansion (see Docket No. 163 at 3), as provided in the Court’s
order. (See Docket NO. 83 at ¶ 10 (the number of interrogatories “may be increased further by
agreement of the parties.”)).
The Court agrees with PGW that the discovery sought here “is tantamount to adding an
entire equally-sized case to this matter.” (Docket No. 163 at 1). The Court does not believe that
discovery into meetings, names, or addresses related to the 2011 RIF will have any significant
relevance to Plaintiffs’ claims, which pertain only to the 2009 RIF. Allowing Plaintiffs to
conduct discovery down all of these avenues will further delay this already old case. However,
the Court does believe that some of the evidence sought may be probative as to the Plaintiffs’
allegation of a pattern or practice of discrimination. Hence, the Court is inclined to grant the
motion with respect to statistical evidence that may demonstrate discrimination. Thus, the Court
will generally deny the motion, with certain limited exceptions pertaining to statistical evidence,
2

evidence which PGW otherwise agreed to provide, or other evidence which is not unduly
burdensome.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion [159] is GRANTED, in part, and
DENIED, in part. PGW is ordered to produce the following:
1. The RIF Guidelines currently in place at PGW.
2. Answers to the following interrogatories from Plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Interrogatories Directed to Defendant:
a. Interrogatory # 1.
b. Interrogatory # 8.
c. Interrogatory # 11.
d. Interrogatory # 12.
e. Interrogatory # 13, only to the extent that PGW must provide information on
Mr. Wiggins’ ownership, compensation and other income earned from PGW,
as well as the identity of other Kohlberg & Co. companies in which Mr.
Wiggins has an ownership interest.
f. Interrogatory # 14.
g. Interrogatory # 18, to the extent that it applies to the interrogatories identified
in this order.
3. All of the documents requested in the Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production
of Documents Directed to Defendant.

3

PGW shall comply within 30 days of this Court’s Order, i.e. on or before June 11, 2012.
s/Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
Date: May 11, 2012
cc/ecf: All counsel of record.

4