Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No: 00-2335-JWL
May 21, 2001
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. 30). The Court orally ruled on the motion at the pretrial conference held on May 14, 2001. This Order will memorialize the Court's oral rulings.
I. Background Information
Plaintiff asserts numerous causes of action arising out of his employment with Defendant, including violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), breach of implied employment contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Among other things, Plaintiff claims that Defendant fraudulently induced him to leave his employment with Shopsmith. In connection with his fraud claim, Plaintiff seeks $250,000 in damages for emotional distress. See Proposed Pretrial Order, § 9.1(3). He also seeks lost wages in connection with his ADEA, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation claims. See id, § 9.1(1), (4), and (5). After leaving his employment with Shopsmith, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from November 15, 1998 to February 1999.
II. Analysis
A. Information and Documents Regarding Plaintiff's Prior Employment (Interrogatory No. 2; Request for Production Nos. 3 and 23)
Defendant seeks information and documents relating to all of Plaintiff's employment prior to becoming employed by Defendant. Plaintiff has agreed to provide the requested discovery for the one — year period prior to his employment with Defendant. He argues that anything else is irrelevant and that Interrogatory No, 2 and Request for Production Nos. 3 and 23 are overly broad and burdensome. In his Motion to Compel, Defendant agrees to limit his discovery requests to the last nine years.
The motion to compel will be granted in part and denied in part as to this interrogatory and these requests for production. The Court finds that these discovery requests, even as modified by Defendant, are overly broad as to time. The Court will limit Interrogatory No. 2 and Request for Production Nos. 3 and 23 to the two — year period prior to Plaintiff's employment with Defendant.
B. Information and Documents Regarding Medical and Psychological Care During or after Plaintiff's Employment with Defendant (Interrogatory Nos. 4 5; Request for Production Nos. 6, 7, 16, and 22)
Defendant seeks information and documents regarding Plaintiff's medical and psychological care during the period of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant through the present. Plaintiff objected to Interrogatory Nos. 4 5 and Request for Production Nos. 6, 7, 16, and 22 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and "not limited to consultations related to the medical condition that was at issue." He also asserted that these interrogatories and requests for production are an invasion of his privacy. In addition, he objected on grounds that he is not alleging a cause of action for infliction of emotional distress, he is not claiming bodily injuries, and he will not be offering expert testimony regarding his claimed emotional distress.
The Court will grant the motion to compel as to these interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $250,000 for emotional distress in connection with his fraud claim. See Proposed Pretrial Order, § 9.1(3). The medical and psychological information sought by these interrogatories and requests for production are relevant as to both causation and the extent of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. See Hilt v. SFC, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 182, 186 (D. Kan. 1997) (overruling objections to interrogatory asking sexual harassment plaintiff who claimed damages for mental and emotional pain to identify all physicians and health care professionals who had treated her or with whom she had consulted).
The fact that Plaintiff is not planning to present any expert testimony in support of his emotional distress claim does not make this information any less relevant. Moreover, no case law supports Plaintiff's contention that this information is discoverable only if he were planning to present expert testimony regarding his mental and emotional condition.
The Court overrules Plaintiff's remaining objections. The Court does not find the discovery requests overly broad as to time since they are limited to the period of Plaintiff s employment with Defendant through the present.
C. Information and Documents Regarding Plaintiff's Medical and Psychological Care for the Five Year — Period Prior to Plaintiff's Employment with Defendant (Interrogatory No. 6; Request for Production Nos. 8, 16, and 22)
Defendant seeks the same information discussed above in Part B, but for the five — year period before Plaintiff became employed by Defendant. Plaintiff asserted the same objections discussed above in Part B. As discussed there, the Court finds this information and these documents discoverable, as Plaintiff is seeking damages for emotional distress. The Court, however, finds the five — year period to be overly broad and will limit the discovery to the two — year period prior to Plaintiff's employment with Defendant.
D. Income Tax Returns for 1996 Through 2000 (Request for Production No. 4)
Plaintiff objects to producing his joint income tax returns on the basis that they are confidential. He has, however, produced his W-2 Forms for Shopsmith for 1998 and 1999 and an earnings statement form Shopsmith for 2000. He argues that his earnings from prior years are not relevant. He also argues that he should not be required to produce tax returns from any years, as Defendant can obtain the necessary earnings information from his employer's records, to the extent the Court orders Plaintiff to produce documents relating to his prior employment.
Plaintiff seeks lost wages in connection with many of his claims. See Proposed Pretrial Order, § 9.1(1), (4), and (5). He has therefore placed his income at issue. Hilt v. SFC, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 187, 188 (D. Kan. 1997) (sexual harassment plaintiff who sought back and front pay placed income at issue). The motion to compel as to this request will be granted, for the reasons set forth in the Hilt decision. See id. (holding tax returns relevant and discoverable). The Court does not find that the time period requested, 1996 through 2000, is overly broad, since it includes only the two — year period prior to Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the period of his employment with Defendant, and the year following his employment.
Accordingly, the Court will compel production of the requested returns. Because the returns are joint returns, however, the Court will allow Plaintiff to redact any information contained on the returns that relates solely to his spouse.
III. Conclusion
The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. 30). All documents required to be produced as a result of this Order shall be produced by Plaintiff within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order . Said production shall take place at the offices of Defendants' counsel or at any other location agreed upon by the parties. All supplemental interrogatory responses required to be served on Defendant as a result of this Order shall also be served within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order
Each party shall bear its/his own fees and expenses incurred in connection with the Motion to Compel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.