Williams et al v. APAC Atlantic Inc et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Compel Personnel File of John Purvis. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 11/19/09.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA C O L U M B IA DIVISION R a n d y Williams and Mary Williams, ) ) P l a i n t if f s , ) ) vs. ) ) A P A C Atlantic Inc., APAC Inc., APAC ) C aro lin a Inc., ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ________________________________ ) C/A No.: 3:08-3432-JFA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

T h is matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motion to compel filed August 10, 2 0 0 9 [#19]. Plaintiff Randy Williams was a tanker truck driver employed by Curtis Oil C o m p a n y delivering hot asphalt. On October 3, 2005, while offloading the asphalt at d e f e n d a n t's facility in Sumter, South Carolina, Williams was sprayed with hot asphalt. He a lle g e s that the hook up equipment comprised of certain piping was not working properly and c a u s e d the pressurized hot asphalt to spray on him. Williams filed this action asserting a n e g lig e n c e claim against defendants, and his wife, Mary Williams, asserts a loss of c o n s o r tiu m claim. Defendants deny the allegations. P la in t if f s allege that defendant's former employee and plant foreman, John Purvis, w a s at the facility at the time of the accident. Subsequent to the injury, defendants sold the f a cility to C.R. Jackson in October 2006. During the course of discovery, plaintiffs issued a subpoena to C.R. Jackson for the personnel file of John Purvis. C.R. Jackson objected to th e production, claiming privilege, irrelevance and overbreadth. Further, C.R. Jackson

u n d e r s to o d the sole purpose of the subpoena to be to obtain Purvis's last known address, w h ich plaintiffs had already acquired. Plaintiffs also appear to have asked for the Purvis p e rs o n n e l file as it related to the events surrounding Williams' injury. Defendant claims that p lain tiff s are on a fishing expedition that is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil P r o c e d u re . D e f en d a n ts submit that Purvis gave deposition testimony on August 27, 2009, p u r su a n t to a subpoena issued by plaintiffs' counsel and was deposed for over two hours. D e f en d a n ts submit Purvis answered extensive questions from plaintiffs' counsel regarding h is termination from employment, which revealed that he was terminated in July 2008 for re a so n s unrelated to the accident. T h e court is not persuaded that any material contained in the Purvis personnel file are re le v a n t, likely to lead to discovery of relevant evidence, or otherwise discoverable under the F e d e ra l Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, as to certain documents, it appears that a p o s s ib le privilege may attach. Further, plaintiffs have deposed Purvis and had the

o p p o rtu n ity to explore the reasons for his termination and his knowledge of the issues related to this matter. For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the motion to compel. IT IS SO ORDERED.

N o v em b er 19, 2009 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

2