ROADMAN v. SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 45 Motion to Compel Discovery. Moreover, it is hereby Ordered as follows: The parties shall complete all fact discovery by 11/2/2018, including inter alia, the three depositions referenced at oral argument and any other matters. The Post-Discovery Status Conference currently scheduled for 8/3/2018 at 11:00 a.m. is rescheduled for 12/142018, at 11:00 a.m., and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 7/30/2018. (dlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONNA ROADMAN,

)

Case No. 3:16-cv-246

)

)

Plaintiffs,

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)
)
)

v.

)

SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL and
RONALD LEWIS,

)

)
)

)

)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I.

Introduction

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF No. 45.) All
parties have filed briefs (ECF No. 45, 46) and participated in oral argument (ECF No. 53) on this
Motion, and it is ripe for disposition.
This case arises from Plaintiff Donna Roadman' s ("Roadman") allegations that Defendant
Ronald Lewis ("Lewis") sexually harassed her at her workplace, Defendant Select Specialty
Hospital ("Select"). See Roadman v. Select Specialty Hospital, Case No. 3:16-cv-246, 2018 WL 557922,
at *1 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2018) (Gibson, J.); Roadman v. Select Specialty Hospital, 3:16-cv-246, 2017 WL
4236581 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2017) (Gibson, J.). Roadman asks this Court to order Lewis and Select
to respond to a number of discovery requests. Based on the statements made by Roadman' s
counsel at the oral argument on July 26, 2018, some of these outstanding discovery disputes have
been resolved. However, to the extent these discovery disputes have not been resolved by
counsel for the parties, the Court concludes that Defendants have fully met their discovery

obligations by responding to all relevant requests within the scope of discovery provided for by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(l). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l).
Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No.
45) is DENIED.

II.

Jurisdiction & Venue
The Court has jurisdiction over Roadman' s federal claim under Title VII pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the alleged
events giving rise to Roadman's claims occurred in Johnstown, Cambria County, Pennsylvania.
(ECF No. 30 'Il 2.)

III.

Factual Background1
Defendant Select, a specialty care hospital offering rehabilitative care and long term acute

care, hired Roadman as a registered nurse to work at its Johnstown location on July 7, 2015. (ECF
No. 30 'Il'Il 6-8.) During the first week of her employment, Roadman did orientation. (Id. 'Il 10.)
During the second week of Roadman' s employment, Roadman was introduced to Lewis, a
registered nurse who had worked for Select for several years prior to Roadman's employment.
(Id.

'Il'Il 11-12.) Select assigned Lewis to train Roadman for her new position.

(Id.

'Il 13.)

Before beginning her training, a number of other employees made comments to Roadman
concerning Lewis's behavior. (Id. <[ 14.) These comments included: (1) a nurse named Jamie

The Court draws this factual background from its Memorandum Opinion and Order of January 23, 2018
that decided Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in Part. See Roadman v. Select Specialty
Hospital, Case No. 3:16-cv-246, 2018 WL 557922, at *1-*2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2018) (Gibson, J.). Thus, this
factual background is derived from the allegations made by Plaintiff in her Amended Complaint. (See ECF
No. 30.)

1

-2-

telling Roadman to "be careful" around Lewis because "he hit on her," (2) Jamie suggesting
"being mean" to Lewis so that he would not harass or continue to harass her, (3) a respiratory
therapist informing Roadman that Lewis liked her and wanted to date her, and (4) another
respiratory therapist joking in front of Lewis and Roadman, therein "implying knowledge" of
Lewis's intentions, that Roadman would never go out with Lewis. (Id.<_![ 14.)
Thereafter, the Amended Complaint alleges that, with approval and knowledge of Select,
Lewis created and maintained a hostile work environment for Roadman because of her gender
by engaging in the following behavior: (1) demanding dates, intimating that Roadman should
sleep with him, touching Roadman's buttocks, and touching Roadman's cheeks; (2) calling
Roadman "babe" and "hun" and commenting on Roadman' s appearance by stating Roadman
was "cute," "pretty," or "sexy" on "diverse dates"; (3) texting Roadman on her cell phone number
that he acquired for purposes of orientation and calling Roadman "babe" or "hun" in those
messages; (4) scolding, degrading, and belittling Roadman concerning her nursing skills and job
performance when Roadman refused his unwelcome advances; (5) grabbing Roadman by the
waist and grinding his crotch into her buttocks to the point where Roadman "felt Mr. Lewis's
erect penis against her" on one occasion in the medicine room; and (6) "by other such actions too
numerous to list in their entirety." (Id.

<_![

15.) Roadman also alleges that Lewis's references to

Roadman as "babe" and "hun" and the touching of Roadman's buttocks and cheeks "regularly
occurred in front of staff and were open and notorious to the other employees of Select." (Id.

<_!I

16.)

Roadman reported this behavior to her scheduler, Renee Lightcap ("Lightcap") and
requested to be trained by someone other than Lewis. (Id.<_![ 17.) Lightcap complied, and Ronald

-3-

Lindros ("Lindros") completed Roadman's remaining week of orientation. (Id. cir 18.) Roadman
completed her orientation with Lindros, but she was scheduled to work at the same time as Lewis
for several days. (Id. cir 19.) Roadman called off work on these days to avoid working with Lewis.
(Id. cir 20.)

After returning from vacation, Roadman's supervisor, Danielle Smorto ("Smorto"),
telephoned Roadman and "asked her what happened." (Id. cir 21.) Roadman reported the alleged
harassment to Smorto by telephone and sent a follow-up e-mail. (Id. circir 23-23.) Smorto told
Roadman that she would investigate the situation, instructed Roadman not to discuss the matters
with anyone, and changed the weekend work schedule so that Roadman and Lewis would not
be working together. (Id. circir 25-27.)
Approximately one week after speaking with Smorto regarding the alleged harassment,
Smorto called Roadman into a meeting with Smorto and Matt Gost ("Gost"), a human resources
employee. (Id. cir 28.) At this meeting, Smorto and Gost told Roadman that they had "investigated
her complaints with Mr. Lewis, exclusively" and that Lewis had denied her accusations. (Id. circir
29-30.) Roadman then informed Smorto and Gost that she could not work with Lewis, requested
that she not be scheduled with Lewis, and advised them that she had received inappropriate text
messages from Lewis. (Id. circir 31-32.)
After this meeting, Roadman also discussed the matter with Barb Foster ("Foster")whose position, if any, with Select is not set forth in the Amended Complaint-and stated that
she did not want to work with Lewis. (Id. cir 33.) Roadman provided copies of the abovereferenced text messages to Foster and told her that Jamie Cotterman-presumably the same
nurse who told Roadman to "be[] mean" to Lewis so he would not harass her-could corroborate

-4-

her concerns. (Id. <J[<J[ 34-35.) The Complaint alleges that Select was aware of Roadman's concerns
regarding Lewis because, on several occasions, Roadman called off work when she was
scheduled to work with Lewis and still received pay. (Id. <J[ 36.)
Roadman had an additional meeting with Human Resources, during which she was
informed of the effort to schedule her and Lewis for different shifts, but that Human Resources
could not "guarantee" that she and Lewis would not be scheduled together. (Id. <J[<J[ 37-38.) At
this second meeting, Human Resources "threatened the Plaintiff that if either her [sic] or Mr.
Lewis said anything else or filed a complaint either one would be fired." (Id. <J[ 39.)
The Amended Complaint alleges that this threat made it intolerable for Roadman to
continue her employment because she believed that she was being "shunned into silence" and
that she "could have been victimized later by Mr. Lewis or his friends." (Id. <J[ 40.) At no time did
Human Resources discuss or offer Roadman the opportunity to transfer to a different Select
facility. (Id. <J[ 41.) Roadman resigned on August 26, 2016. 2 (Id. <J[ 42.)

IV.

Procedural History
Following this Court's disposition of Defendants' two motions to dismiss, the remaining

claims in this case are (1) a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 against Select, (2) a "negligence/negligent supervision" claim against Select, and (3) a
battery claim against Lewis. See Roadman v. Select Specialty Hospital, Case No. 3:16-cv-246, 2018
WL 557922, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2018) (Gibson, J.). By Memorandum Opinion and Order of
January 23, 2018, this Court dismissed all claims for constructive discharge with prejudice. Id.

As pointed out by Defendants (ECF No. 33 at 5), the date of April 26, 2016 provided in the Amended
Complaint appears to be a typographical error and should read August 26, 2015.

2

-5-

Most pertinent here, Roadman filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery on June 1,
2018. (ECF No. 45.) Defendants filed their Response on June 8, 2018. (ECF No. 46.) Due to the
apparent failure to meet and confer in good faith to resolve the discovery disputes pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and the lack of clarity in Roadman's Motion to Compel
Discovery, on June 19, 2018, this Court scheduled oral argument for July 18, 2018 and ordered the
parties to meet and confer prior to that argument. (ECF No. 47.)
This oral argument was rescheduled for and, subsequently, was held on July 26, 2018.
(ECF Nos. 52, 53.)

V.

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides the general framework for discovery in

federal civil litigation. Rule 26(b)(l) defines the scope of discovery as "any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l). This scope formerly included matters that were "reasonably calculated" to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, but Rule 26 as amended-and effective December
1, 2015-no longer includes this language.
A matter is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence; and ... the fact is of consequence in determining the action." See
Fed. R. Evid. 401. In determining whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the case,
courts must consider "the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l).

-6-

Rule 37 provides the mechanism to compel discovery from a person or party who refuses
to provide discovery. The party moving to compel discovery under Rule 37 bears the initial
burden of proving the relevance of the material requested. See Morrison v. Phila. Haus. Auth., 203
F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citations omitted). If the movant meets this initial burden, then
the burden shifts to the person resisting discovery to establish that discovery of the material
requested is inappropriate. Momah v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 164 F.R.D. 412, 417 (E.D. Pa. 1996)
(citation omitted). The person resisting discovery must explain with specificity why discovery is
inappropriate; the boilerplate litany that the discovery sought is overly broad, burdensome,
oppressive, vague, or irrelevant is insufficient. See Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991-92 (3d
Cir. 1982).

VI.

Discussion
At the oral argument on Roadman's Motion to Compel Discovery held on July 26, 2018,

Roadman' s counsel expanded upon those issues raised in the Motion and represented that some
of the issues raised in the Motion had been resolved through discussions with opposing counsel.
For ease of analysis and clarity, the Court has organized Roadman' s outstanding issues into six
categories. 3 The Court will address each of these six categories in tum.

A. Lewis's Personnel File
First, Roadman requests that Defendants produce Lewis's personnel file. (See ECF No. 45
at 2-3.) At oral argument, Roadman's counsel stated that Defendants had resolved his concerns
regarding Lewis's personnel file and employment documents.

The Court notes that this categorization follows the organization used by Road man's counsel in his oral
argument.

3

-7-

Furthermore, to any extent Roadman may still be dissatisfied with Defendants'
production of Lewis's personnel file, this Court holds that Defendants have produced all of
Lewis's "personnel file" documents within the scope of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l)
(defining the scope of discovery as "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim
or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.").

B. Text Messages
Second, Roadman requests that Defendants produce certain text message exchanges from
Lewis's phone. (See ECF No. 45 at 2-3.) As with the personnel file, at oral argument, Roadman's
counsel stated that Defendants had resolved his concerns regarding the text messages. Moreover,
to any extent Roadman may still believe Defendants' production of the text message is
incomplete, this Court finds that Defendants' have fully responded to Roadman' s request for text
messages by providing screenshots of all relevant text messages to Roadman.
Thus, this Court holds that Defendants have produced all of the requested text messages
within the scope of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l).
C. E-mails

Third, Roadman requests that Defendants produce somewhat non-specific e-mails of a
sexist or inappropriate nature. (See ECF No. 45 at 2-4.) Beyond requesting e-mails dating five
years prior to Roadman' s employment with Select and for an unspecified period of time after the
end of Roadman's employment with Select, Roadman's counsel was unable to clearly articulate
in either the Motion or at oral argument the precise types of e-mails he sought or the manner in
which Defendants' responses were inadequate.

-8-

However, despite their objections to Roadman' s request, Defendants used the keywords
suggested by Roadman' s counsel to search through all of Roadman and Lewis's servers for
responsive e-mails and electronic documents. Defendants' search included e-mails and electronic
documents from approximately six months before Roadman's employment with Select began
until two months after Roadman left her employment at Select.
This Court finds that Defendants' search and production was reasonable, appropriate,
and proportional to the needs of the case and holds that Defendants have met their discovery
obligations regarding Roadman's request for e-mails. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l).

D. Lewis's Cell Phone and Personal Computer
Fourth, Roadman seeks non-specific information purportedly/potentially contained on
Lewis's cell phone and personal computer. (See ECF No. 45 at 2-4.) Roadman's counsel failed to
identify with any clarity the nature of this alleged information in the Motion or at oral argument.
The Court notes that Defendants provided Roadman with the aforementioned text
messages, e-mails, and employment-related documents. However, Roadman has not provided
this Court with any information or argument to suggest that any other responsive or relevant
materials exist on Lewis's cell phone or personal computer.

Additionally, the Court finds

Defendants' representation that no other relevant and responsive material exists on Lewis's cell
phone and personal computer to be credible.
Defendants cannot produce materials that do not exist. And, this Court will not permit
an aimless "fishing expedition" of Lewis's phone and personal computer when Defendants assert
that no other relevant and responsive materials exist and Roadman has not presented this Court
with any evidence or cogent argument to the contrary.

-9-

E. Employee Identification and Contact Information
Fifth, Roadman asserts that Defendants have failed to adequately identify Select
employees who may have witnessed the alleged wrongdoing or other similar wrongdoing
perpetrated by Lewis in the past. (See ECF No. 45 at 3-4.) In particular, Roadman requests the
identity and contact information for all Select employees who have worked with Lewis. At oral
argument, Roadman' s counsel tentatively expressed willingness to seek the identity and contact
information of only Select employees who worked with Lewis for the five years prior to
Roadman's employment with Select and for an unspecified period of time after Roadman's
employment.
Defendants provided Roadman with Select's employee work schedules for the time of
Roadman' s employment at Select. The Court holds that providing these schedules to Roadman
is a sufficient response to Roadman' s discovery requests. From these schedules, Roadman can
identify all employees who were likely to have witnessed the alleged wrongdoing by Lewis and
identify all employees who worked for Select at the time of Roadman' s employment with Select.
Based on these schedules, Roadman could propound appropriate interrogatories or seek to
depose other Select employees where appropriate.
Given the scope of discovery provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
brief period of time that Roadman was employed by Select, these schedules adequately identify
potential witnesses to the wrongdoing alleged by Roadman. Defendants need not provide the
name and contact information of every single person who worked with Lewis over his many
years of employment with Select. Roadman' s counsel can appropriately seek information from
the employees on the work schedules through discovery requests and depositions-not through

-10-

direct phone calls to these employees without Defendants' counsel present, as Roadman's counsel
suggested at oral argument.
Accordingly, this Court holds that Defendants have met their obligations in providing
Roadman with the identity and contact information of Select employees who may have relevant
information of the alleged wrongdoing underlying this case.

F. "Misogynic [sic] or Pornographic Material"
Lastly, Roadman requests that Defendants produce "any misogynic [sic] or pornographic
material." (ECF No. 45 at 4.) The Court denies this request.
No allegation in Roadman's Amended Complaint, no information adduced in Roadman's
deposition, and no other material in this case suggest that any misogynistic or pornographic
material is present on Select' s servers. Furthermore, Defendants used the keywords proposed by
Roadman to search Lewis and Roadman's servers-searches that would likely have produced
any such relevant materials had such materials existed. Defendants deny the existence of such
material and, at oral argument, Roadman' s counsel even noted that Select' s computer system
would have blocked such materials from being used on their servers and computers.
The allegations and claims of Roadman' s Amended Complaint do not relate to
misogynistic or pornographic material on Defendants' servers beyond those already produced,
and Defendants credibly deny the existence of any additional responsive content relevant to this
case.
Defendants cannot produce information that does not exist, and Roadman's request
simply is not relevant to the claims she is pursuing in this litigation. Thus, the Court finds
Defendants' objection to this discovery request meritorious and holds that Defendants' response

-11-

through its previously discussed server, text message, and e-mail searches to satisfy their
discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

VII.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 45) will be

DENIED.

In sum, Defendants have fully met their obligations to answer interrogatories and
produce documents to Roadman. To the extent that Roadman contends Defendants have not
adequately responded to her discovery requests, those requests seek information that is not
relevant to the claims brought by Roadman and/or go beyond the scope of discovery provided
for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(l).
As requested by Roadman's counsel at the oral argument for this Motion, the Order
following this Memorandum Opinion sets new discovery deadlines and reschedules the PostDiscovery Status Conference in this case.

-12-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONNA ROADMAN,

)

Case No. 3:16-cv-246

)

)

Plaintiffs,

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)
)

v.

)
)

SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL and
RONALD LEWIS,

)
)
)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER
NOW, this 30th day of July 2018, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying

Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 45) is DENIED.
Moreover, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

The parties shall complete all fact discovery by November 2, 2018, including, inter

alia, the three depositions referenced at oral argument and any other matters.
2. The Post-Discovery Status Conference currently scheduled for August 3, 2018 at
11 :00 a.m. is rescheduled for December J

t./, 2018 at l l: 0 0

A:fvl

BY THE COURT:

KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE