Shepard v. Mesa Associates, Inc

Filing 29

ORDER that the Defendant is ORDERED to respond to Interrogatory No. 7, as modified by the parties agreement and in the Courts discretion to state: Please state the name, year of birth, and current or last-known address of any indivi dual hired as a Senior/Designer/Technical Specialist at Defendants Knoxville location between March 26, 2010, and July 23, 2011.2 For each person identified, please include the date of hire, positions held by the person, and whether the employee is currently employed by the Defendant.Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 6/25/13. (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JAMES D. SHEPARD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MESA ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.

No. 3:11-CV-125
(VARLAN/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
The parties appeared before the undersigned on January 19, 2012, for a telephone
conference to address a discovery dispute. The Court and parties were not able to resolve the
issue during the conference, and the Court gave the parties leave to file a motion on the issue.
No motion was filed. In May 2013, counsel for the Plaintiff contacted the Court stating that the
parties were unable to resolve their dispute.
A telephone conference was requested, and it was held on June 10, 2013.

At the

conclusion of the conference, the parties jointly requested that the Court issue an Order ruling on
the discovery issue. For clarity of the record, the Court gave the parties time to file written
materials on this issue, and both parties filed written submissions on June 17, 2013. This issue is
now ripe for adjudication, and for the reasons stated herein, the Plaintiff’s request for discovery
will be GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel the Defendant to provide “very limited discovery . . .
regarding any Senior/Designer/Technical Specialists positions filled at [Defendant’s] Knoxville
branch from 3/26/10 through 7/23/11.” [Doc. 27-2 at 1]. In support of this request, Plaintiff
submits that evidence that the Defendant hired younger, less qualified employees in the
Knoxville branch in positions that the Plaintiff was qualified to fill would be evidence of age
discrimination. [Id. at 2]. In support of his position, Plaintiff cites the Court generally to Louzon
v. Ford Motor Company, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 2398042 (6th Cir. June 4, 2013).
The Defendant responds that the Plaintiff presents an age discrimination claim, and as
such, information regarding positions other than the position held by the Plaintiff is irrelevant to
the Plaintiff’s claim. [Doc. 28-1 at 6]. Defendant maintains that it had no obligation to transfer
the Plaintiff to different positions that may have been open. [Id. at 7].
Rule 26 allows discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court finds that the limited materials sought are
relevant to Plaintiff’s claim – specifically, to his claim that younger individuals were hired to
perform his job duties or work he was qualified to perform. Therefore, the Court will allow the
Plaintiff to acquire this discovery.
Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to respond to Interrogatory No. 7, as modified by
the parties’ agreement and in the Court’s discretion to state: Please state the name, year1 of
birth,

and

current

or

last-known

address

of

any

individual

hired

as

a

Senior/Designer/Technical Specialist at Defendant’s Knoxville location between March 26,
2010, and July 23, 2011.2 For each person identified, please include the date of hire,

1

Plaintiff originally requested that the Defendant provide the date of birth for such employees. The year of birth
will satisfy the Plaintiff’s purposes for this information and will protect the third parties from disclosure of sensitive
personal information.
2
Temporal limitation as agreed to by the Plaintiff.
2

positions held by the person, and whether the employee is currently employed by the
Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

s/ H. Bruce Guyton
United States Magistrate Judge

3