Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-2439
February 9, 2004
ORDER
AND NOW, this ___ day of February, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc. d/b/a Zep Manufacturing, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Fully Respond to Defendant's First Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Docket No. 23), Plaintiff's response (Docket No. 28), Defendant's reply (Docket No. 31), and Plaintiff's sur-reply (Docket No. 33), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) as to Interrogatory No. 6, DENIED;
(2) as to Interrogatory No. 8 9, GRANTED;
(3) as to Interrogatory No. 10, DENIED;
(4) as to Interrogatory No. 12, GRANTED;
(5) as to Interrogatory No. 13, DENIED;
(6) as to Interrogatory No. 15 and Request No. 38, GRANTED;
(7) as to Interrogatory No. 16 and Request No. 39, GRANTED;
(8) as to Interrogatory Nos. 17 18 and Request Nos. 41 42, GRANTED;
This is an employment discrimination suit brought under,inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Factual background for the case can be found in the Court's January 30, 2004 Memorandum and Order. In a Memorandum and Order dated February 4, 2004 addressing Plaintiff's motion to compel, the Court delineated the scope of discovery to be the period starting from June 1, 1998 to the present. Accordingly, except where specified in this Order, the temporal scope of discovery in this motion is also limited to the same time period.
"It is well-established that the scope and conduct of discovery are within the sound discretion of the trial court." Marroquin-Manriques v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery of "any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is not limited solely to admissible evidence but encompasses matters which "appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." See id; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978). "Relevance is construed broadly and determined in relation to the facts and circumstances of each case." Hall v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 164 F.R.D. 406, 407 (E.D. Pa. 1996). Once the party from whom discovery is sought raises an objection, the party seeking discovery must demonstrate the relevancy of the information requested. Vitale v. McAtee, 170 F.R.D. 404, 406 (E.D. Pa. 1997). At that point, the burden shifts back to the objecting party to show why discovery should not be permitted. Id.
Although Defendant is correct that the work-product doctrine does not apply to interrogatories, see Eoppolo v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 108 F.R.D. 292, 294 (D.C. Pa. 1985), Plaintiff represents that she has no statements responsive to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 seek information about the sales representatives that Plaintiff supervised and managed. In response to Interrogatory No. 8, Plaintiff provided an incomplete chart listing sales representatives she supervised, the date of their hiring, their termination date, and some general remarks as to why they left. For Interrogatory No. 9, Plaintiff provided a general summary of how she supervised the sales representatives and produced daily planners for the years 1998, and 2000 through 2003. Plaintiff did not, as requested, identify any specific actions or efforts she made with respect to any individual sales representative. As both requests are relevant to Plaintiff's claim of an alleged wrongful demotion and Defendant's assertion that Plaintiff's failure to effectively supervise sales representatives was a factor in the decision to demote her, the Court orders Plaintiff to supplement her responses.
Interrogatory No. 10 asks whether Defendants have prevented Plaintiff from recruiting, hiring, or supervising/managing sales representatives. Plaintiff represents that she has answered to the best of her recollection with specific examples. After reviewing Plaintiff's response, the Court finds that Plaintiff has provided specific examples and not the "vague examples" that Defendant has described. Accordingly, Defendant's request is denied.
Interrogatory No. 12 asks Plaintiff to identify all persons having knowledge of Plaintiff's claims and to set forth in detail each person's knowledge. In response, Plaintiff has provided the names of persons with the "most knowledge" and has only broadly described the knowledge each person possesses. Plaintiff is thus ordered to supplement her response and provide a full and complete answer to Defendant's request.
Plaintiff has amended her response to include all health care providers for the past ten years. Further, Plaintiff has represented that Defendant has received fax copies of the signed and notarized Medical Authorization form. See Docket No. 33 at 2.
Interrogatory No. 15 asks Plaintiff to describe all efforts she made to mitigate damages. Plaintiff's response is inadequate in that she has failed to list any specific persons with knowledge regarding her efforts to mitigate her damages, failed to identify the job she interviewed for at NuChem nor provided the results of her interview, and failed to specify the nature and results of her job search. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to this interrogatory.
Request No. 38 asks Plaintiff to produce all documents evidencing her efforts to mitigate damages. Plaintiff objects to this request as "seeking legal conclusions" and states that "Defendant has all documents relating to Plaintiff's continued employment with Defendant." To the extent these documents are privileged, Plaintiff is required to submit a privilege log under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5), a party that withholds information by claiming that it is privileged "shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that . . . will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection." See New Park Entertainment L.L.C. v. Electric Factory Concerts, Inc., No. 98-775, 2000 WL 62315, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2000). Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff has documents such as print-outs from on-line job postings, e-mails showing submissions of resumes, rejection letters from prospective employers, and other documents of that nature, as well as non-privileged documents that Plaintiff claims Defendant already possesses, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to this request.
Interrogatory No. 16 and Request No. 39 seek information and documents regarding accounts and potential accounts contacted by Plaintiff since her demotion in August of 2001. Plaintiff responded by producing her account list, without explaining, as Defendant requested, the accounts Plaintiff actually contacted, when the client was contacted, the name of the person contacted, and the results of the sales call. Since this information is relevant to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant has discriminated against her by failing to give her business opportunities at a comparable rate to what male employees were receiving, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response and produce full and complete answers to these requests.
These requests seek information and documents related to Plaintiff's claims that Defendant discriminated against her by failing to provide her with business leads or new business at a comparable rate to what male employees were receiving. Plaintiff's responses are inadequate at best. For instance, in her response to Request Nos. 40 and 41, Plaintiff merely references her Account List without providing more information.
Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 17 on the grounds that since the business leads were not given to Plaintiff, she does not have access to this information. The Court finds it hard to believe that Plaintiff is unable to point to even one account she believes she should have received. As this is a key component of her retaliation claim, Plaintiff is directed to supplement her response.
Moreover, Plaintiff has provided an incomplete response to Interrogatory No. 18. For example, although Plaintiff has attached a list of her accounts that she distributed to other sales representatives, she fails to identify which sales representatives received which accounts and who Defendant assigned those accounts to after the sales representatives left. Plaintiff also has not provided any information as to other "inherited business" that she believes she is entitled to. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to provide full and complete answers to this interrogatory.
(9) as to Request No. 2, DENIED;
(10) as to Request Nos. 5 6, GRANTED
Request No. 2 seeks "all documents that you or your representative(s) reviewed" in responding to Defendant's Interrogatories. Documents selected by counsel for a client's review is privileged and thus not discoverable. See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 1985).
Request No. 5 seeks documents related to Plaintiff's allegations. Request No. 6 seeks exhibits and other documents that Plaintiff may use as evidence, data, or to refresh the recollection of herself or other witnesses. Plaintiff has objected to these requests on the grounds that the documents are protected by the attorney client privilege and the work-product doctrine and, therefore, need not be produced. To the extent that Plaintiff has withheld non-privileged documents, the Court grants Defendant's motion to compel. To the extent that Plaintiff claims the documents are privileged, Plaintiff is required to provide Defendant with the information required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5).
(11) as to Request No. 8, DENIED;
(12) as to Request No. 12, DENIED as moot;
(13) as to Request Nos. 23 24, GRANTED;
(14) as to Request Nos. 25, 28, 36, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and
(15) as to Request Nos. 35 45, DENIED.
Request No. 8 seeks "all recordings, transcripts, or notes, that were made of any meeting with any government agency and all documents submitted by you or on your behalf to each agency." Plaintiff represents that she has produced her entire Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission file, with the exception of counsel's own notes.
Plaintiff represents that she has produced all the medical records in her possession.
Request Nos. 23 24 seeks documents pertaining to Plaintiff's claimed damages, including any methods of computation used by Gaul in calculating her damages. These requests are directly relevant to the damages that Plaintiff is claiming in this case and Defendant has no other way of obtaining this information.
Request No. 25 asks for all documents exchanged between Plaintiff and another employee since August 1, 1994. Request No. 28 asks for "all documents . . . relating to the employment experiences of whatsoever nature [of] any present or former employee." Request No. 36 seeks "all correspondence or other documents given by you to the people identified in your self-executing disclosures. . . ." Plaintiff objects to these requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome and has not produced any documents in response. As the temporal scope of discovery has been narrowed to the period from June 1, 1998 to the present, Plaintiff is directed to produce responsive documents within that time period. Request No. 36 is further narrowed to require Plaintiff to produce only the documents that are related to her claims. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff claims documents are privileged, Plaintiff is required to provide the information required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5).
Request No. 35 seeks "any and all other documents not specifically requested herein which related in any way to your Complaint, your EEOC charge/complaint, your PHRC charge/complaint, and/or September 28, 2001 Demand Letter." Request No. 45 is another catch-all provision that seeks "all documents not responsive to any other request that discuss, describe or bear on or relate to any of the issues or claims raised by the Complaint, or that contain facts concerning your allegations." Defendant's requests are sweeping in their scope and the Court finds that the requests are too broad. Further, the requests are redundant with other document requests. When Plaintiff fully complies with Defendant's other valid requests, Defendant will by default obtain the information requested by these sweeping catch-all requests.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall comply with this Order within thirty (30) days from its date.