Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:03cv416-SRW.
February 1, 2006
ORDER ON MOTION
Upon consideration of plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. # 46), and for good cause, it is
ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice with regard to the personnel files of the two selecting officials, as discussed in the court's telephone conference held on May 6, 2005. It is further
ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as to the personnel files of the fifteen selectees. The court cannot conclude that plaintiff is entitled to these files so that he might speculate about or attempt to "reconstruct" what may have transpired in other candidates' interviews. In addition, because the employer relied on the candidates' application packages (including KSA statements) rather than their personnel files in making the selections at issue, the personnel files are not discoverable for the purpose of determining whether the application packages were in fact accurate. See, e.g., Graham v. Gonzalez, 2005 WL 3159626, *1 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (Court does not consider the accuracy of the information before the decision-maker when we evaluate its employment decision; we consider only whether it relied on this information in making its decision); Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 729 (11th Cir. 2004) (The crucial question is not whether the non-selectee fulfilled the requirements, but whether the selecting official honestly believed that he did not meet the criteria.); Walker v. NationsBank of Florida N.A., 53 F.3d 1548, 1564 (11th Cir. 1995) (It is not a violation of federal employment discrimination laws for an employer to err in assessing the performance of an employee.); see also Elrod v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 939 F.2d 1466 (11th Cir. 1991).