Summary
finding defendant's financial status relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to plaintiffs' punitive damages claim and ordering defendant to "produce its annual reports, financial statements and federal income tax returns from January 2001 to the present."
Summary of this case from Tingle v. HebertOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-2219, SECTION "D" (2)
January 26, 2004
MINUTE ENTRY
A hearing was conducted on January 21, 2004 in this matter concerning the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, Record Doc. No. 21; and (2) Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, Record Doc. No. 26. Participating were: Alexandra Mora, representing plaintiff's; Kim Boyle and Nan Alessandra, representing defendant.
Having considered the record, the applicable law, and the oral representations of counsel during the hearing, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, Record Doc. No. 21, is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART and DEFERRED IN PART as follows:
The motion is denied as to Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 2. The objections are sustained, and the responses provided beyond the objections are sufficient. The motion is deferred as to Request for Production No. 3 as follows. Counsel agreed during the hearing that the request should be limited to the personnel files of the five specifically named individuals. However, discovery of the personnel files of non-party individual employees presents special concerns about the privacy rights of the individuals involved. This does not mean that a party is never entitled to discover the personnel files of an opponent's employees or that everything contained in them is irrelevant. The court must balance the interests of the parties in obtaining relevant discovery against the privacy interests of individual non-parties. Thus, "a district court has discretion to determine whether discovery of such files is warranted."Davis v. Precoat Metals, No. 01 C 5689, 2002 WL 1759828 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2002) (citing Gehring v. Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 342 (7th Cir. 1994); Knoll v. American Tel. Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 365 (6th Cir. 1999); Atkinson v. Denton Publ'g Co., 84 F.3d 144, 148 (5th Cir. 1996)). As in Atkinson, before production of such documents might be ordered, it appears that an in camera inspection of some of the documents would be appropriate to determine both their relevance and their need for confidentiality, if any.Id. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant must provide the five personnel files to me for in camera review no later than February 4, 2004. After receiving defendant's response to this order, I will rule on this portion of the motion without further briefing or oral argument.
The motion is dismissed as moot as to Requests for Production No. 5, 9 and 10. Counsel advised during the hearing that they have agreed that defendant will supplement its responses to these requests by February 4, 2004.
The motion is granted in part as to Requests No. 7 and 8, but only as follows: Defendant must produce all non-privileged documents and other tangible items relating to complaints of race discrimination against any RPM employee, limited to the time period January 2001 to the present and also limited to the restaurant location(s) at which plaintiff's were employed or over which Steve Joliff exercised supervisory authority during that time period. As limited, the requests seek information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the claims or defenses asserted in this action that may be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), among other ways. In all other respects, the objections were sustained, and the motion is denied as to Requests No. 7 and 8.
The motion is granted in part as to Requests for Production No. 11 and 12, but only as follows: Some of the requested information about defendant's financial status is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information relevant to plaintiff's' punitive damages claim, without violating the limitations imposed by Fed.R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2). Thus, defendant must produce its annual reports, financial statements and federal income tax returns from January 2001 to the present. In all other respects, the objections are sustained and the motion is denied as to Requests No. 11 and 12.
The motion is denied as to Request for Production No. 13, which seeks information that is wholly irrelevant, either to any claims or defenses or to the subject matter of this action.
The motion is dismissed as moot as to Interrogatories No. 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14. Counsel advised during the hearing that this portion of their discovery dispute has been resolved by defendant's agreement to supplement its responses to these interrogatories by February 4, 2004.
The objections are sustained and the motion is denied as to Interrogatories No. 2, 8, 15 and 16, which seek information wholly irrelevant to any claim or defense asserted in this matter. To whatever questionable extent, if any, that these far afield interrogatories seek information relevant to the subject matter of this action, plaintiff's have failed to show good cause sufficient to order responses. Fed.R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).
The motion is granted in limited part as to Interrogatory No. 9. The objections are sustained. However, defendant must provide an answer to this interrogatory, sworn under oath as provided in Fed.R. CIV. P. 33(b)(1) and (2), limited to the question of identifying any insurance agreement, if any, under which any person or entity carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy any such judgment. No answer beyond the information required herein need be provided, since further such information is wholly irrelevant to any claim or defenses asserted in this case.
The motion is denied as to Interrogatory No. 12, which is overly broad and seeks much that is irrelevant. Relevant and sufficiently responsive information concerning this interrogatory will be provided in response to Requests for Production Nos. 7 and 8, as limited above, such that requiring a similar response to this interrogatory would be needlessly duplicative. Fed.R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(I).
In addition, the answers to interrogatories that have been provided to me in connection with this motion do not contain the verification, signed under oath by a duly authorized representative of defendant — not its counsel — as required by Fed.R. CIV. P. 33(b)(1) and (2). The verification, along with all other additional information ordered herein, must be provided by February 4, 2004.
The motion is denied insofar as it seeks an award of fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion. The motion has been granted in part and denied in part. Under these circumstances, I find that a just apportionment of fees and costs is that each party should bear its own. Fed.R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4)(C).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for protective order, Record Doc. No. 26, is GRANTED, but only as provided herein. Any information ordered produced herein deemed confidential by defendant either as proprietary business information or as personal information concerning individual employees or ex-employees may be marked as such and produced only subject to the provisions of the protective order previously entered in this case. Record Doc. No. 20.