Almanza v. Lynch (TV3)
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 9/5/17. (JBR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
JEFF SESSIONS, et al.,
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 telephonically before the Court on August 18, 2017, over a number
of discovery disputes. Attorney Jennifer Morton appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. Attorneys
Brandi Stewart and Christopher Yates appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
telephonic conference, the parties stated that they disagreed over the relevant time period with
respect to the discovery requests. The Plaintiff argued that she was entitled to discovery two to
three years before and after the liability period. At this time, the Court finds that all discovery
SHALL be limited to January 1, 2012, the date that Chris English was hired, to December 28,
2014, which is approximately a month after the Plaintiff’s alleged constructive discharge. The
Court finds this limitation proportional to the needs of this case because it spans through the entire
time that Chris English was the Plaintiff’s supervisor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
Further, the parties disagreed as to whether the Defendants were required to produce
personnel files of the employees. The Defendants stated that they provided the personnel files of
eight employees. The Plaintiff argued that Mr. English kept notes about the Plaintiff that are not
included in the official personnel file. The Defendants agreed to produce the other files kept by
Mr. English. The Defendants SHALL produce the files kept by Mr. English, Jane Archer, William
Killian, and Nancy Harr that relate to the Plaintiff’s allegations about Mr. English, even if the
documents are not located in the official personnel files. Moreover, the Defendants SHALL
produce the personnel files for John Mobius, Robert Irving, and Will Heckman. Further, the
Defendants SHALL produce the tour of duty schedules for Mobius and Karen Minser.
In addition, the Defendant agreed to produce vacancy announcements and job postings,
if such documents exist. With respect to the EARS Review, the Plaintiff explained that it was a
performance audit of the office performed by an outside organization in 2016. The Defendants
are INSTRUCTED to determine whether the EARS Review addresses performances during the
relevant time period described above. The Defendants SHALL notify the Court and the Plaintiff
of their determination within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order. The Court will then
determine whether an in-camera review is necessary.
As a final matter, the Court observes that the primary dispute between the parties was
the temporal scope of the discovery requests. Given that the Court has ordered a specific time
frame for discovery requests, the parties are encouraged to work together to resolve any remaining
discovery disputes. If the parties are unable to resolve further discovery disputes, they SHALL
contact Chambers for another informal discovery dispute or a hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?