Roeben, Henry v. Home Depot

Filing 21

ORDER denying plaintiff's 18 motion for a protective order. Plaintiff is ordered to respond to defendant Home Depot Inc.'s discovery requests. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/21/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

HENRY W. ROEBEN,
Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.
13-cv-641-wmc
HOME DEPOT INC.,
Defendant.

In this civil action, plaintiff Henry Roeben, proceeding pro se, alleges that defendant
Home Depot Inc. discriminated against him because of his age.

The court has held the

preliminary pretrial conference in this matter, and discovery has begun. Now before the court
are Roeben’s objections to Home Depot’s interrogatories and requests for production of
documents. (Dkt. #18.) In his letter, Roeben (1) states that the requests violate the letter and
spirit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) by going beyond the scope of what is needed for discovery; and (2)
asks the court to set aside Home Depot’s requests and require a face-to-face conference with a
mediator.

Given the relief requested, the court will construe his letter as a request for a

protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) allows a party to seek a protective order from the court when
requested discovery may cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or
expense. Before seeking such an order, however, Rule 26(c)(1) requires the movant to confer or
attempt to confer with other parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court
intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). During the preliminary pretrial conference, the court
also advised Roeben that parties should try to work out discovery disagreements with one
another if it is possible to do so quickly. (See Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order (dkt. #14)
7.) Home Depot has submitted an affidavit indicating that Roeben neither met and conferred

with, nor contacted Home Depot before filing his objections with the court. (See Margaret
Rudolph Aff. (dkt. #20) ¶ 2.)
Additionally, the court has reviewed the discovery requests and sees no problem with
them. “Generally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for broad discovery.” Deitchman v.
E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 740 F.2d 556, 559 (7th Cir. 1984). “Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be admissible if the discovery is nevertheless
“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
Roeben offers only two specific objections to Home Depot’s discovery requests.1 First, he
objects to the production of his tax returns. Tax returns are not privileged, Poulos v. Naas Foods,
Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 74 (7th Cir. 1992), and they are relevant to discovery where a litigant puts in
issue the amount of his income. Fields v. Gen. Motor Corp., No. 94 C 4066, 1996 WL 14040, at
*4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 1996). Given that Roeben requests monetary damages in his complaint
(see Compl. (dkt. #1) 3), and his theory of liability is wrongful termination based on age
discrimination, Roeben’s income is relevant for discovery purposes. Second, Roeben objects to
the relevance of his educational background. As Home Depot points out, that information is, at
a minimum, relevant to Roeben’s qualifications and mitigation efforts. Thus, neither specific
objection entitles Roeben to a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Accordingly, Roeben
must promptly respond to Home Depot’s discovery requests.
Home Depot asks the court to order Roeben to pay its fees and costs from responding to
Roeben’s letter. Given that Roeben is pro se and may not have fully understood the procedural
requirements of discovery, the court declines to enter such an order, particularly since the
Roeben also suggests that Home Depot has exceeded the number of interrogatories permitted, but
the First Set of Interrogatories attached to his objection poses only 14 written interrogatories, which
is well below the 25 maximum established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
1

2

obvious defects in his motion should have made significant expenditures on the response
unnecessary. In the future, (1) Roeben should attempt to work out any discovery disputes with
Home Depot directly, unless he can show that doing so would be a waste of time; (2) should
Roeben move for a protective order, he should be sure to file a motion making clear the requests
to which he objects and why those requests are oppressive or unduly burdensome, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); and (3) should Home Depot believe that Roeben’s position on
discovery is essentially meritless, it should so advise the court by a short letter response,
understanding that the court will allow it to submit a more formal response, should that be
necessary, before ruling against it.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Henry Roeben’s motion for a protective order (dkt. #18) is DENIED.
2) Plaintiff is ordered to respond to defendant Home Depot Inc.’s discovery requests.
Entered this 21st day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3