Opinion
Case No. 01-2320-CM
May 2, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (doc. 37). Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admission Nos. 3-19. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's boilerplate relevancy objections are without merit and the Court should therefore order Defendant to fully respond to these requests. Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that the Requests for Admission at issue are not relevant to Plaintiff's pleaded causes of action or any defense. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted.
Relevant Factual Background
Plaintiff brings this sexual harassment and retaliation suit against Defendant. Plaintiff claims she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex, and later terminated soon after she filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
On February 18, 2002, Defendant served its Answers and Objections to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admission. In response to Request Nos. 3-19, Defendant stated: "Defendant objects to the foregoing request on the basis that the request is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party, and therefore exceeds the scope of permissible discovery." Plaintiff filed her motion to compel on March 16, 2002.
Discussion
Standards
Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses requests for admissions, which states, in relevant part, that:
A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request.
* * *
Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless . . . the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter. . . . If objection is made, the reasons therefore shall be stated.
* * *
The party who has requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections. Unless the court determines that an objection is justified, it shall order than an answer be served.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a) (emphasis added).
When a party objects to a request for admission rather than admitting or denying it, or asserting an inability to admit or deny, it assumes the burden of persuasion to justify its objection. Audiotext Communications Network, Inc. v. US Telecom, Inc., Civ. A. 94-2395-GTV, 1995 WL 625744, * 4 (D.Kan. Oct. 5, 1995). If the court finds the objections invalid or improper, it will address the sufficiency of any response. Id.
Rule 26(b)(1) provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. . . . For good cause shown, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Relevancy is broadly construed, and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is "any possibility" that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Scott v. Leavenworth Unified School Dist. No. 453, 190 F.R.D. 583, 585 (D.Kan. 1999); Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656 (D.Kan. 1999). A request for discovery should be allowed "unless it is clear that the information sought can have no possible bearing" on the claim or defense of a party. Scott, 190 F.R.D. at 585 (quoting Snowden v. Connaught Lab., 137 F.R.D. 336, 341 (D.Kan. 1991) (emphasis added by Scott).
Scott and Etienne were decided under the prior version of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which provided that parties could obtain discovery regarding any matter "that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." (Emphasis added.) Despite the change in the Rule , the standard enunciated in Scott and Etienne still applies. Sheldon v. Vermonty, 204 F.R.D. 679, 690 n. 7 (D.Kan. 2001).
When relevancy is not apparent, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the discovery request. Steil v. Humana Kansas City, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 442, 445 (D.Kan. 2000). When the discovery sought appears relevant on its face, however, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that the requested discovery (1) does not come within the broad scope of relevance as defined under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure. Scott, 190 F.R.D. at 585 (citations omitted).
To determine whether the requests for admission are relevant, the court must examine the issues raised in the case. Audiotext, 1995 WL 625744 at * 5. Although relevancy is not limited by the matters stated in the pleadings, they do provide a basis from which to judge relevancy. Id.
Requests for Admission at Issue
Plaintiff's Requests for Admission at issue in this motion can be grouped into the following four categories: (1) Requests regarding the authenticity of a memorandum from Defendant's former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to store managers [Request No. 3]; (2) Requests regarding a conference call allegedly held in August 1998, focusing on Renters Choice, Inc.'s August 1998 acquisition of Thorn Americas, Inc. [Request Nos. 4-14]; (3) Requests regarding an alleged visit by Defendant's CEO and former Senior Vice President, to visit stores supervised by James Weinrich, Defendant's former Regional Director of Oklahoma and Arkansas [Request Nos. 15-16]; and (4) Requests regarding alleged conversations between Mr. Weinrich and Defendant's Senior Vice President regarding business meetings being held in "strip clubs" [Request Nos. 17-19]. The Court will address Defendant's relevancy objection as to each category of requests.
1. Requests for Admission No. 3
In Request Number 3, Plaintiff asks Defendant to "[a]dmit that the document attached . . . is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum issued by [Defendant's CEO] to store managers, dated January 13, 1999, regarding the light duty work." The referenced memorandum states that Defendant does not have a light duty policy. Defendant argues that Request No. 3 is not relevant because Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege she was discriminated against as a result of the light duty policy and the light duty policy is not related to either her sexual harassment or retaliation claims. Plaintiff argues that this request is relevant to show that she was adversely affected by Defendant's 75-pound lifting restriction because Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to return to work due to this lifting requirement.
As Plaintiff has only asserted sexual harassment and retaliation claims against Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, on their face, do not appear relevant. As such, Plaintiff carries the burden to establish the requests are "relevant to the claims or defenses of any party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). The Court determines that Plaintiff has shown that the Request is relevant to her claims that she was adversely affected by Defendant's 75-pound lifting restriction because Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to return to work due to this lifting requirement. Defendant's relevancy objection to Request No. 3 is therefore overruled.
2. Requests for Admission Nos. 4-14
Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Nos. 4 through 6 ask Defendant to admit or deny facts relating to Defendant's 1998 acquisition by another company, subsequent name change, and the identity of Defendant's CEO. Requests Nos. 7 through 14 inquire into facts relating to a telephone conference call held in August 1998 in which Defendant's CEO allegedly made various statements disparaging female employees. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's sole purpose in pursuing this issue is to bootstrap her personal sexual harassment and retaliation claims to Defendant's recently settled cases gender discrimination lawsuits. In response, Plaintiff states that these Requests are relevant to show Defendant's pattern and practice of discrimination against women and retaliatory motive against her.
The Court again finds that, on their face, the Requests do not appear relevant to Plaintiff's pleaded causes of action. The Court, however, determines that Plaintiff has shown that the Requests are relevant to Plaintiff's sexual harassment and retaliation claims because they could arguably be used to show the general work atmosphere and management's attitude toward the conditions that created the atmosphere. Defendant's relevancy objections to Requests Nos. 4-14 are therefore overruled.
3. Requests for Admission Nos. 15-16
These requests inquire whether Defendant's CEO and Senior Vice President visited a number of newly acquired stores in Mr. Weinrich's region and whether they made comments in Mr. Weinrich's presence that woman cannot lift and are "not right for the business."
Mr. Weinrich was Defendant's Regional Manager in Oklahoma and Arkansas from the period summer 1998 through summer 1999.
Defendant argues that these Requests are not relevant to Plaintiff's claims because the Requests inquire about store visits which did not encompass the stores at which Plaintiff worked and there is no evidence that Mr. Weinrich ever supervised Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that the Requests are relevant because they show corporate-wide climate of discrimination against women.
While the relevancy of Requests Nos. 15-16 is not apparent, the Court again concludes that Plaintiff has shown that the Requests are relevant to Plaintiff's sexual harassment and retaliation claims to show the general work atmosphere and management's attitude toward the conditions that created the atmosphere. Defendant's relevancy objections to Requests Nos. 15-16 are overruled.
4. Requests for Admission Nos. 17-19
Plaintiff's Requests No. 17 through 19 inquire whether Mr. Weinrich's supervisor often held business meetings in strip clubs, whether the supervisor told Mr. Weinrich he should hold business meetings in strip clubs because women employees would not want to attend, and whether the supervisor said, "Tough shit — if she doesn't like, you can just fire her," to Mr. Weinrich when a female marketing manager objected to these meetings. Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to connect Mr. Weinrich's allegations to her causes of action and there is no evidence that the managers involved in Plaintiff's case received this same instruction from their respective supervisors. Plaintiff argues that the Requests are relevant because they show corporate-wide climate of discrimination against women. Plaintiff further argues that the Requests are relevant because Defendant's corporate headquarters exercised direct control over the investigation of her claims and the decision to fire her.
Plaintiff has shown these Requests are relevant to her claims because they arguably go to showing the general work atmosphere and management's attitude toward the conditions that created the atmosphere. Defendant's relevancy objections to Requests Nos. 17-19 are overruled.
Conclusion
In sum, all Defendant's relevancy objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Nos. 3-19 are overruled. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (doc. 37) is therefore granted. Defendant shall serve amended answers to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admission Nos. 3-19 upon Plaintiff within seven (7) days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.