Rollins et al v. Traylor Bros Inc et al
Filing
225
ORDER granting Defendants' 201 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 204 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Plaintiffs are permitted to subpoena Ethical Advocates only for complaints of race discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
LEONARD ROLLINS, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
11
12
CASE NO. C14-1414-JCC
TRAYLOR BROS. INC., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for protective order (Dkt. No.
16
201) and motion to quash subpoena regarding Ethical Advocate (Dkt. No. 204). Having
17
thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument
18
unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for protective order and GRANTS IN PART and
19
DENIES IN PART the motion to quash subpoena for the reasons explained herein.
20
The underlying facts of this case are well known and will not be repeated here. In
21
response to a discovery request, Defendants produced complaints of race discrimination, race
22
harassment, and/or retaliation made in the context of the U220 Project. (Dkt. No. 206.)
23
Defendant also produced other claims made from January1, 2010 to the present in the context of
24
any other Traylor project on which one of the U220 supervisors or managers worked. (Id.)
25
Defendants produced a complaint made in August 2015 against Doug Payne as part of the Blue
26
Plains Project in Washington, D.C. (Dkt. No. 206-2.) This complaint was made through Ethical
ORDER
PAGE - 1
1
Advocate, a third party hired by Defendants to handle complaints anonymously, so that
2
employees could make them without fear of retribution. (Dkt. No. 194.)
3
Plaintiffs then sought via interrogatory and request for production a complete roster of
4
each employee of the Blue Plains Project, including contact information. (Dkt. No. 202-3.)
5
Defendants now move for a protective order, arguing that the roster is not proportional to the
6
needs of the case. The Court agrees. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for a protective order
7
(Dkt. No. 201) is GRANTED. Specifically, Defendants do not have to respond to interrogatory
8
14 and request for production 2.3. (See Dkt. No. 202-3.)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiffs also sent a subpoena to Ethical Advocates, Defendants’ third-party complaint
administrator, seeking:
All documents concerning complaints of discrimination on any Traylor Bros. Inc.
project including any joint venture (e.g., Traylor Frontier Kemper), including but
not limited to, complaints, communications with the complainant,
communications with representatives of Traylor Bros. Inc. about a complaint, and
any documentation discussing the resolution, if any, of a complaint.
(Dkt. No. 206.) Defendants argue that this subpoena is overbroad and disproportional to
the needs of the case, particularly considering that the Court already ordered Defendants
to produce all documents relating to complaints of race discrimination and retaliation at
Defendants’ projects involving the same managers. (Dkt. No. 204 at 1, 4; Dkt. No. 155.)
Plaintiffs maintain that this information is necessary to support punitive damages
and show illegal motive of upper management. (Dkt. No. 210 at 2–4.) While the Court
agrees that complaints involving race discrimination and retaliation are relevant to illegal
motive and punitive damages, Plaintiffs’ subpoena is overbroad. Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion to quash subpoena (Dkt. No. 204) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are permitted to subpoena Ethical Advocates only for
complaints of race discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
//
//
ORDER
PAGE - 2
1
DATED this 15th day of June, 2017.
A
2
3
4
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
PAGE - 3
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?