PELESKY v. RIVERS CASINO AND HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CO. L.P.

Filing 27

ORDER OF COURT DENYING 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 04/02/2015. (lcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALLYSON J. PELESKY,
Plaintiff,

14cv1542
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
RIVERS CASINO AND HOLDINGS
ACQUISITION CO L.P. a joint venture
Walton Street Capital, L.L.C. and High Pitt
Gaming, L.P.,
Defendant.

ORDER OF COURT RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. NO. 24)
This case centers on a single count of Title VII sexual harassment, based upon
Defendant’s alleged inadequate response to the conduct of a casino patron towards Plaintiff, a
cocktail server at the casino. Plaintiff moves this Court to compel Defendant to: (1) identify and
produce any record or document of discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual harassment since
it opened in 2009; and (2) conduct a more thorough email search to determine if additional
emails exist that relate to the matters at issue or are otherwise discoverable. Doc. No. 24.
Defendant has complied with Plaintiff’s request for production as to any “claim” or
“charge” of sexual harassment. The Court notes that Defendant states that no sexual harassment
complaints have been filed by the EEOC or PHRC during the applicable time period. Plaintiff
moves the Court to order Defendant to produce any record or document related to any Team
Member “complaint” of harassment. Production of information related to Team Member
complaints to the casino about sex discrimination would not lead to the discovery of evidence
that would be admissible in this case and would be unduly burdensome on Defendant. The

1

eventual key jury determination as to Defendant’s liability will focus on what happened to
Plaintiff and Defendant’s resultant action; not what did or did not happen to other employees.
Therefore, a request for production of complaints from other Team Members from 2009-present
as to discrimination based on sex or sexual harassment is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 26(b)(1).
Defendant’s email production, including a follow-up search upon receipt of Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel, comports with Defendant’s Rule 26 obligations.
AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge

cc:

All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties

2