Opinion
Case No. 02-4121-JAR
December 19, 2003
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 20 and 21).
This is a sexual harassment/hostile work environment case filed under Title VII and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. Plaintiff brings claims of discrimination against her former employer, H.J. Heinz Operations, for being subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and for retaliatory termination.
Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to Request for Production No. 9, which was served on defendant on April 11, 2003. This request asks defendant to produce:
Plaintiff also seeks to compel responses to Request Nos. 2, 7, 8 and 10. Counsel advise that the parties have resolved their disagreements regarding these Requests, but are unable to resolve their disputes regarding Request No. 9.
copies of personnel files, including supervisor files, disciplinary files, formal and informal files, of the following persons: Doug Smith, Beth Metzger, Kelly Richter, Robert Franklin, Victor Padilla, Larry Rodecap, Maurice Vigernon, Tanya Merchen, John Barngrover, Cam Caldwell, Tracy Graf, Kelly Shoff, Jeannie Hippe, Tim Selgelid and Luke Livingston. . . .
In its initial response to this request, defendant objected on the grounds that the request was overly broad and unduly burdensome and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff asserts that these specific employees worked with or around plaintiff or are alleged by the parties to have knowledge of the complaint or defenses asserted.
The court has on numerous occasions ruled on the ability to discover personnel files in employment cases arising under Title VII where retaliation and discrimination are alleged. The court has held that, generally speaking, an individual's personnel file is relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and therefore discoverable, if the individual is alleged to have engaged in the retaliation or discrimination at issue or to have played an important role in the decision or incident that gives rise to the lawsuit.
See EE OC v. Kansas City Southern Ry., 2000 WL 33675756, at *3 (D. Kan. Oct. 2, 2000) (Title VII action in which court compelled production of personnel file of supervisor who made decision to terminate plaintiff's employment); Daneshvar v. Graphic Technology, Inc., 1998 WL 726091, at *5 (D. Kan. Oct. 9, 1998) (Title VII case in which court compelled production of personnel files of three "key witnesses" who "played important roles in the employment decisions affecting plaintiff).
Here, although plaintiff has requested 15 personnel files, the request is not overly broad because it is tailored to obtain the personnel files of particular individuals. Defendant does not state why production of these files would be unduly burdensome. The Court overrules defendant's objection on these grounds.
Defendant also seeks protection from production of the personnel files on the grounds that the request is not relevant. The Court disagrees. Amended Rule 26(b)(1) provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter . . . that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Further, "[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Id.
The Court finds that the Request appears on its face to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The individuals listed either played important roles in the employment decisions affecting plaintiff or allegedly participated in or witnessed the hostile work environment and/or retaliation giving rise to this lawsuit. When discovery appears relevant on its face, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish facts justifying its objections by demonstrating that the requested discovery (1) does not come within the 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. Defendant has demonstrated no basis to withhold the personnel files responsive to Request No. 9, and the Court orders it to produce the files.
Scott v. Leavenworth Unified School Dist. No. 453, 190 F.R.D. 583, 585 (D. Kan. 1999).
Nonetheless, the nature of the requested discovery warrants protection from unnecessary dissemination, since personnel files may contain embarrassing or sensitive information. Plaintiff has indicated that she agrees to a confidentiality order. Accordingly, the Court orders that the documents provided in response to Request No. 9 be deemed confidential. Plaintiff shall use them for no purpose other than this litigation. At the conclusion of this action and any appeals, plaintiff shall return to defendant all such confidential information and copies thereof.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 20 and 21) is GRANTED. Within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, defendant shall produce the personnel files for the specific individuals listed in Request No. 9. Such documents are deemed confidential and plaintiff shall use them for no purpose other than this litigation. At the conclusion of this action and any appeals, plaintiff shall return to defendant all such confidential information and copies thereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear her/its own fees and expenses incurred in connection with this motion to compel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.