Rodriguez v. Corral West Jordan

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion to Compel. Defendant shall provide full responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories No. 9 and No. 10 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs request for an award of reasonable expenses incurred in connection with her motion is GRANTED. The parties are directed to submit the filings referenced above concerning the award of reasonable expenses against Defendant. After receipt of those filings, the court will make a final determination concerning the award of reasonable expenses against Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 6/17/14. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARIA RODRIGUEZ, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Case No. 2:13-cv-634-DB-PMW

CORRAL WEST JORDAN, a Utah limited
liability company, dba GOLDEN CORRAL
WEST JORDAN,

District Judge Dee Benson
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

Defendant.

District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 2 The
court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil
rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motion on the
basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at a restaurant in West Jordan, Utah. Plaintiff
alleges in her complaint that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor, John
Hogue (“Mr. Hogue”), and that her employment was terminated in retaliation for complaining

1

See docket no. 17.

2

See docket no. 11.

about the alleged harassment. Plaintiff alleges causes of action under Title VII for sexual
harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The motion before the court relates to discovery. “The district court has broad discretion
over the control of discovery, and [the Tenth Circuit] will not set aside discovery rulings absent
an abuse of that discretion.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d
1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted).
The general scope of discovery is governed by rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . For good cause, the court may order
discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant
information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Advisory
Committee Notes for the 2000 Amendments to rule 26 direct parties and courts to “focus on the
actual claims and defenses involved in the action” in determining relevance for purposes of
discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee Notes, 2000 Amendments, Subdivision (b)(1).
With respect to limiting discovery, rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) provides that
[o]n motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or
extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local
rule if it determines that . . . the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the
case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance
of the discovery in resolving the issues.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
2

ANALYSIS
In her motion, Plaintiff seeks compelled responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories No. 9 and
No. 10. Because those two interrogatories are substantively similar, and because Defendant’s
objections to both interrogatories are identical, the court will address them together.
Interrogatory No. 9 provides: “Identify all of Defendant’s employees who worked at the
[restaurant at issue] in the time period of March 2011 through September 2011, and for each
employee, state their full name, job title, dates of employment, last known address and last
known telephone number.” 3 Interrogatory No. 10 provides: “Of the employees identified in
response to Interrogatory [No.] 9 above, identify the employees who were under [Mr.] Hogue’s
supervision.” 4 Defendant lodged the following objection to both interrogatories:
Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it is not calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and because the
information requested is in Plaintiff’s possession. Defendant also
objects to this interrogatory because it is overbroad in that it calls
for the information of employees who never worked with Plaintiff
or in her department. 5
Plaintiff argues in her motion that Defendant’s objections are not well taken. In response
to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant presents arguments concerning each of its objections. The court
will address those below, albeit in a different order than presented in Defendant’s objections.

3

Docket no. 11, Exhibit E.

4

Id.

5

Id., Exhibit F.
3

I. Plaintiff’s Department
First, Defendant argues that Interrogatories No. 9 and No. 10 are overbroad because they
seek information about employees who did not work in Plaintiff’s department. In support of that
argument, Defendant makes a distinction between the areas of its restaurant. Defendant contends
that workers at its restaurant are generally divided between the “front of the house” and the
“back of the house.” According to Defendant, workers in the “front of the house” include servers
and cashiers, and workers in the “back of the house” include cooks and dish washers. Defendant
asserts that, because Plaintiff worked in the “front of the house,” only information about
employees who worked in the “front of the house” is relevant to her claims because only those
employees would have observed the alleged harassment. The court disagrees.
In the court’s view, while Defendant’s distinction between the “front of the house” and
the “back of the house” may be a construct employed in its restaurant, it is not a valid basis for
limiting the discovery Plaintiff seeks. As noted by Plaintiff, it is undeniable that there would be
some interaction between those employees in the “front of the house” and those in the “back of
the house.” Further, it appears to be undisputed that Mr. Hogue was the supervisor of both
“houses.” For those reasons, the court cannot agree that employees working in the “front of the
house” would have been the only individuals to have witnessed the alleged harassment.
Accordingly, the court concludes that Defendant’s argument on this point fails.
II. Relevance
Defendant next argues that Interrogatories No. 9 and No. 10 are not seeking relevant
information because responses to those interrogatories are not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of that argument, Defendant relies upon the
4

preceding argument, which the court has already rejected. For that reason alone, and based on
the reasoning set forth above, the court concludes that the information sought by Interrogatories
No. 9 and No. 10 is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case.
III. Information in Plaintiff’s Possession
Defendant next argues that the information sought by Interrogatories No. 9 and No. 10 is
in Plaintiff’s possession. Plaintiff contends, however, that because this case involves events that
occurred nearly three years ago, she cannot recall the identities of all the persons sought by those
interrogatories.
The court accepts in good faith Plaintiff’s contention that she cannot recall the
information sought by the interrogatories and concludes that Defendant has taken an untenable
position on this issue. This is particularly true when the information sought by Plaintiff clearly is
in Defendant’s possession and would not be overly burdensome to produce. Indeed, Plaintiff has
limited Interrogatories No. 9 and No. 10 to a very short time frame, and Defendant admits that it
would be required to produce the identities of only about 120 past or current employees. For
those reasons, the court concludes that Defendant’s argument on this point is without merit.
IV. Fishing Expedition
In its final argument, although not contained in its objections to Interrogatories No. 9 and
No. 10, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff is conducting a fishing expedition by way of those
interrogatories. In support of that argument, Defendant again relies on its contention that the
interrogatories should be limited to those employees who worked in the “front of the house.”
Again, the court has rejected that argument and rejects it again here. As the court has concluded
above, Interrogatories No. 9 and No. 10 are not overbroad, are seeking relevant information, and
5

do not impose an undue burden on Defendant. In light of those conclusions, the court cannot say
that Plaintiff is engaged in any sort of a fishing expedition by way of Interrogatories No. 9 and
No. 10.
V. Award of Reasonable Expenses
As part of her motion, Plaintiff requests an award of reasonable expenses incurred in
connection with her motion pursuant to rule 37(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). In relevant part, rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides:
If [a motion to compel] is granted[,] . . . the court must, after
giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney
advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable
expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.
But the court must not order this payment if:
(i)

the movant filed the motion before attempting in
good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery
without court action;

(ii)

the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or
objection was substantially justified; or

(iii)

other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).
At the outset, the court notes that Defendant provided no argument in response to
Plaintiff’s request for an award of reasonable expenses. Nevertheless, the court will address the
exceptions to rule 37(a)(5)(A) in turn. First, the court concludes that first exception to that rule
does not apply here because Plaintiff did make good faith efforts to obtain the discovery at issue
in her motion without court action. Second, the court concludes that Defendant’s position in this
discovery dispute was not substantially justified. In the court’s view, Defendant’s objections to
6

Interrogatories No. 9 and No. 10 are untenable and are an attempt to unilaterally and arbitrarily
limit the broad scope of discovery under the federal rules. Again, the court has concluded that
the interrogatories at issue are not overbroad, are seeking relevant information, and do not
impose an undue burden on Defendant. Given those conclusions, and the court’s rejection of all
of Defendant’s arguments, the court cannot see any valid justification for Defendant’s failure to
respond to those interrogatories in full. Third, the court cannot see, and Defendant does not
contend, that there are any circumstances that would make an award unjust. Consequently, the
court has determined that Plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that she is entitled to an
award of reasonable expenses against Defendant under rule 37(a)(5)(A). At the same time, the
court recognizes that before any such an award can be imposed against Defendant under rule
37(a)(5)(A), Defendant must be provided with an opportunity to be heard on that issue. See id.
In order to fully inform the court on the issue, and to provide Defendant with the requisite
opportunity to be heard, the parties are directed to make the following filings. Within fourteen
(14) days after the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file with the court an affidavit and cost
memorandum detailing the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in connection
with her motion. Within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of Plaintiff’s affidavit and cost
memorandum, Defendant shall file a written submission detailing its position on the issue. After
receipt of those filings, the court will make a final determination concerning the award of
reasonable expenses against Defendant.

7

In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel 6 is GRANTED, based on the reasoning set forth
above.

2.

Defendant shall provide full responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories No. 9 and No.
10 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.

3.

Plaintiff’s request for an award of reasonable expenses incurred in connection
with her motion is GRANTED.

4.

The parties are directed to submit the filings referenced above concerning the
award of reasonable expenses against Defendant. After receipt of those filings,
the court will make a final determination concerning the award of reasonable
expenses against Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

6

See docket no. 11.
8