Hunt v. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc.

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM and ORDER re 17 MOTION for Discovery filed by Cynthia T. Hunt. For the reasons stated above with respect to Interrogatory No. 5, the undersigned Magistrate Judge GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel with respect to Inter rogatory No. 8 and ORDERS that Defendant shall describe the process for selection of applicants for the position of Store Manager at other stores under Ms. Spurlin's supervision, at least to the extent that it differs from the process fol lowed at the Spring Hill store. The undersigned finds that Plaintiff's motion to compel production of the sales rank reports as requested should be GRANTED, but only for the stores managed by Randy Taylor and Dorothy Gray. To the extent that Plaintiff's request seeks sales rank reports from other stores, the motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 7/1/2016. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
CYNTHIA T. HUNT,
Plaintiff
v.
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF
MIDDLE TENNESSEE, INC.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15-0417
Judge Crenshaw/Bryant
Jury Demand

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending in this case is Plaintiff’s motion to compel
responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Docket Entry No. 17),
to which Defendant has responded in opposition (Docket Entry No.
20). Plaintiff has filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 21) and a
supplemental reply (Docket Entry No. 24). For the reasons stated
below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff’s
motion to compel responses should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Cythia T. Hunt has filed this action pursuant
to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §
623, alleging that she was wrongfully denied promotion to store
manager at the Goodwill Industries Store in Spring Hill, Tennessee,
because of her age, and that she was subjected to retaliation for
her complaints of discrimination including, but not limited to, the
termination of her employment (Docket Entry No. 1). The Defendant

has denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses (Docket
Entry No. 11).
ANALYSIS
As a general statement, Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case.
From the parties’ motion papers, it appears that some
issues initially raised by Plaintiff’s motion have been resolved by
agreement of the parties. Specifically, it appears that Defendant
has agreed to provide full responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory
No. 7 and Request for Production No. 27 upon Plaintiff’s agreement
that she will not assert such production as a waiver of Defendant’s
objection to producing relevant documents from other stores beyond
Defendant’s

Spring

Hill

store.

Plaintiff

has

agreed

to

this

condition (Docket Entry Nos. 20 at 7 and 21 at 3).
Similarly, Plaintiff has offered to withdraw her motion
seeking production of records of additional employees in Request
Nos. 8, 10, 16 and 17 if Defendant is willing to agree, with
respect to these additional persons identified by Plaintiff, that
Defendant will neither depose any of these individuals or rely, in
any way, on any information contained in their respective personnel

2

files regarding their employment histories with Defendant (Docket
Entry No. 21 at 3). Defense counsel agreed to this proposal during
a telephone case management conference in this case on December 29,
2015, and Plaintiff therefore has agreed to withdraw her motion to
the extent that it seeks additional production pursuant to Request
Nos. 8, 10, 16 and 17 (Docket Entry No. 24 at 1).
Thus, it appears to the undersigned Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff’s motion to compel be limited to two interrogatories,
Nos. 5 and 8, and four requests for production, Nos. 5, 9, 14 and
15.
Interrogatory No. 5 seeks certain information regarding
each vacancy of the position of Store Manager at each Goodwill
store under the supervision of Vicki Spurlin between January 1,
2014. Defendant has objected to this interrogatory on grounds that
the information requested is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible
evidence.

Defendant

further

objects

on

the

grounds

that

the

information sought is not limited to the Spring Hill Store where
Plaintiff worked.
It is undisputed in this instance that Vicki Spurlin, a
district

manager

for

Defendant

Goodwill

Industries,

was

the

decision maker regarding the Store Manager positions for which
Plaintiff applied at the Spring Hill store. Despite Defendant’s
3

conclusory claim that Interrogatory No. 5 is overly broad and
unduly burdensome, unless the undersigned Magistrate Judge has
missed it, the record is altogether silent regarding the number of
stores

under

Vicki

Spurlin’s

supervision

and

the

number

of

vacancies in the position of Store Manager that occurred in those
stores

during

information,

the
the

period

at

undersigned

issue.
is

In

the

unable

to

absence
determine

of

such

whether

producing such requested information would present an undue burden
to Defendant. Similarly, since Ms. Spurlin was the decision-maker
in filling each of these position vacancies, the undersigned is not
persuaded that the only relevant scrutiny of her decision making is
limited to the Spring Hill store. Accordingly, the undersigned
finds that Defendant has failed to carry its burden to show that
Interrogatory No. 5 is overly broad or unduly burdensome and
therefore

ORDERS

that

Defendant

should

serve

responses

to

Interrogatory no. 5.
Interrogatory No. 8 seeks the process for the selection
of applicants for the position of Store Manager in effect for each
year between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014. Defendant has
objected

to

this

interrogatory

to

the

extent

that

it

seeks

information that is not related to the Spring Hill store. Although
not

stated,

Defendant’s

the

undersigned

objection

are

presumes
those
4

that

stated

the

grounds

for

with

respect

to

Interrogatory No. 5. Defendant has responded to this interrogatory
by describing the process followed by Ms. Spurlin at the Spring
Hill location. For the reasons stated above with respect to
Interrogatory

No.

5,

the

undersigned

Magistrate

Judge

GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 8
and ORDERS that Defendant shall describe the process for selection
of applicants for the position of Store Manager at other stores
under Ms. Spurlin’s supervision, at least to the extent that it
differs from the process followed at the Spring Hill store.
Request for Production No. 5 seeks production of certain
documents for each person identified in response to Interrogatory
No. 5 (applicants for the position of Store Manager). Again,
Defendant has objected to this request for production as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the

discovery

of

admissible

evidence.

Defendant

has

further

objected to this interrogatory because it is not limited to the
Spring

Hill

store.

Nevertheless,

Defendant

has

provided

the

requested information pertinent to the Spring Hill location.
Again, Defendant has offered almost no facts in support
of its objections. Specifically, Defendant has not stated the
number of applicants whose identities would be responsive to
Interrogatory No. 5, nor has it offered the number of documents
responsive

to

Request

for

Production
5

No.

5.

Therefore,

the

undersigned finds that Defendant has failed to carry its burden to
establish the merits of its bare-bones objections, and therefore
ORDERS Defendant to serve responses to Request for Production No.
5.
Request for Production No. 9 seeks certain documents from
the personnel file of Dee Wadley. According to the parties’ motion
papers, Dee Wadley was an Assistant Store Manager at the Lewisburg
store who Plaintiff alleges was passed over for a promotion to
Store Manager due to her age. Apparently, the Lewisburg store is
also a store under the general supervision of District Manager
Vicki Spurlin.
Defendant has objected to Request for Production No. 9 on
grounds of overbreadth, undue burden and lack of reasonable basis
for leading to discovery of admissible evidence. In addition,
Defendant further objects that this request for production seeks
personal information relating to Defendant’s employees or former
employees without demonstrating that the probative value of this
discovery outweighs the privacy interests of nonparty employees.
The parties disagree regarding whether Dee Wadley is an appropriate
comparator to Plaintiff Hunt and also whether “me too” evidence
should be admissible in this case.
Without deciding the issue of ultimate admissibility, the
undersigned finds that the information sought in Dee Wadley’s
6

personnel file is reasonably likely to be relevant to the issues in
this case and, therefore, the undersigned ORDERS that Defendant
produce the documentation requested in Request No. 9.
Request for Production No. 14 seeks sales rank reports
for each store supervised by Vicki Spurlin for the period January
2013 through December 2014. Defendant has objected to this request
on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Plaintiff in its reply states that it is willing to limit
this request to those stores managed by Randy Taylor and Dorothy
Gray, the two individuals who were selected to serve as Store
Managers, if Defendant was willing to withdraw its objection to
production such documentation. Defendant has not responded to this
proposed limitation of Plaintiff’s request. According to the motion
papers, Randy Taylor and Dorothy Gray were both selected as a Store
Manager instead of Plaintiff Hunt. Despite Defendant’s silence
regarding Plaintiff’s proposed limitations of Request No. 14, the
undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of
the sales rank reports as requested should be GRANTED, but only for
the stores managed by Randy Taylor and Dorothy Gray. To the extent
that Plaintiff’s request seeks sales rank reports from other
stores, the motion is DENIED.

7

Request for Production No. 15 seeks certain documents
from Bobby Howell’s personnel file. Defendant has objected to this
request

as

being

overly

broad,

unduly

burdensome,

and

not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. In addition, Defendant objects on grounds that the
request seeks personal information of nonparty employees. According
to the motion papers of the parties, Plaintiff asserts that Bobby
Howell, another employee, was consistently late to work but was not
disciplined for this infraction. Plaintiff seeks to present this
evidence in support of an argument that she was subjected to undue
discipline for an infraction used as a pretext by Defendant in its
decision to terminate Plaintiff, compared to no discipline for Mr.
Howell for comparable infractions.
Given that the infraction allegedly committed by Mr.
Howell was not the same infraction as that allegedly committed by
Plaintiff Hunt, and considering that Defendant has produced or will
be producing information relating to employees disciplined for
violations

of

the

Employees

Purchase

Policy,

the

undersigned

Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff’s request for production of
Mr. Howell’s personnel records lacks merit and should be DENIED.
To the extent that this order requires Defendant to make
further responses to the subject interrogatories and requests for
production, those responses shall be served by July 18, 2016.
8

It is so ORDERED.
/s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

9