Opinion
05 Civ. 4029 (KMW) (RLE).
August 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff, Luttaaya Kaboggozamusoke ("Kaboggozamusoke"), filed suit on April 21, 2005, against his former employer, Rye Town Hilton Hotel ("Rye Town"), raising discrimination claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. Pending before the Court are the parties' respective motions to compel. For the reasons set forth below, Kaboggozamusoke's motion is DENIED, and Rye Town's motion is GRANTED.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Kaboggozamusoke's MotionKaboggozamusoke moves to compel a response to a subpoena he served on a third party, the Culinary Institute of America ("the Institute"). Kaboggozamusoke, an alumnus of the Institute, requested that the Institute produce copies of his student file, among other documents. The Institute has not responded to the subpoena. Kaboggozamusoke's complaint makes no mention of the Institute, other than to state that he graduated in May 2000. The only possible relevancy of the documents he requests would be to establish his qualifications, as he has alleged that he was not promoted even though he was qualified for higher-ranking positions. However, other documents that Kaboggozamusoke surely has in his possession would establish that he graduated from the Institute and outline his qualifications. Kaboggozamusoke has not provided the Court with any information as to the relevancy of his Institute student file or other documents requested from the Institute. The Court finds that the subpoena served on the Institute does not request material relevant to this action and that, therefore, Kaboggozamusoke's motion is DENIED without prejudice.
B. Rye Town's Motion
Rye Town served interrogatories on Kaboggozamusoke, and also conducted a deposition. In both cases, Kaboggozamusoke refused to answer questions relevant to his claims. Rye Town has requested that the Court order Kaboggozamusoke to answer those questions. Letter, July 11, 2006. Kaboggozamusoke objected to the questions on the basis that his answers were "protected trial preparation material." Id. , Exh. C. All of the questions Rye Town points to are appropriate areas of inquiry in discovery. It is clear that Kaboggozamusoke, as a pro se plaintiff, is unaware of the applicable rules. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that parties are to exchange various forms of information before trial. For example, Rule 26(a)(3) requires that a party to a lawsuit provide its adversary with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all witnesses he expects to call at trial, as well as identify all the documents he may use as exhibits. Rule 26(b)(1) allows the parties to request all information from other parties "regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . ." "Relevancy is broadly construed to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Carey v. Berisford Metals Corp., 1991 WL 44843, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 1991) (quotations and citation omitted). Discovery is also allowed of any information that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Rule 26(b)(1). "Reasonably calculated" means having " any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action." Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 122 F.R.D. 447, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
Facts and documents pertinent to a particular claim are not privileged simply because they are involved in a party's trial preparation. Kaboggozamusoke must answer the questions referred to in Rye Town's letter, either in a second deposition or as answers to interrogatories. He must identify the witnesses and documents he plans to use at trial. He must answer questions about all of the allegations outlined in his complaint, including specific incidents and conduct which form the basis of his claims. He must identify individuals who may have knowledge of those facts. He must also identify any documents, notes, or tape recordings which are relevant to his claims or could lead to the discovery of other relevant information that would be admissible at trial. Failure to provide the requested information may result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Kaboggozamusoke's motion to compel is DENIED, and Rye Town's motion to compel is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.