Lurensky v. Wellinghoff

Citations: 271 F.R.D. 345; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92613; 2010 WL 3488255Docket: Civil Action No. 2008-1199

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; September 7, 2010; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Marcia A. Lurensky, proceeding pro se, has filed a Second Motion to Compel the Production of Documents against Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Lurensky asserts five claims: discrimination based on gender, religion, and disability; retaliation; and a hostile work environment. Her allegations include the revocation of disability accommodations in June 2003, denial of reassignment by Deputy General Counsel Marsha Gransee in September 2003, and a lack of credit for absence during Jewish High Holy Days in 2003, along with ongoing hostility in the workplace.

Lurensky's Amended Complaint highlights additional grievances, including a disputed performance evaluation in June 2004 and a rejected job application in November 2003. She also claims that FERC has surveilled her since engaging in Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activities. In March 2009, she served 109 document requests to FERC, which moved for a protective order, citing the excessive volume of requests. The court previously granted Lurensky's motion to compel responses while denying FERC's protective order without prejudice concerning requests for admissions.

The current motion to compel is noted for its excessive length and complexity, comprising 86 pages with 38 footnotes, and is criticized for seeking largely irrelevant information. The court is now considering Lurensky's motion following the unsuccessful mediation ordered by Judge Kennedy.

A party is entitled to discover information that is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is relevant to any party's claim or defense, as outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance in discovery is broadly interpreted, with courts required to administer rules to ensure just and efficient case resolution (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). However, discovery may be limited if the burden or expense outweighs its potential benefit, considering factors such as case needs, controversy amount, parties’ resources, and issue importance (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)).

In examining the plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding specific document requests, the requests were categorized for efficiency. The categories included awards and performance evaluations of others, accommodations for employees with disabilities, monitoring of the plaintiff, internal reassignments, witness information, disciplining of employees, and communications related to the plaintiff and others.

The document requests concerning awards and performance evaluations of FERC employees (requests 17-20) were deemed overbroad. The plaintiff's claim focuses on a single 2004 evaluation, making the request for comprehensive evaluations over a decade unreasonable. The defendant provided a chart detailing evaluation ratings relevant to the plaintiff's claims, which the plaintiff criticized as insufficient. However, the court found the defendant's production adequate, as the plaintiff did not establish that additional information would meaningfully support her claims of failure to accommodate, retaliation, or a hostile environment.

Document request 25 seeks records related to employee awards, which the court finds irrelevant to the plaintiff's claims since she has not alleged a lack of awards received compared to others. Document request 50 pertains to workload reports for attorneys in the Energy Projects section; the defendant states it does not recognize the term "workload reports" and the plaintiff has failed to clarify its relevance to her case. Document request 91 requests personnel information for thirteen employees, which the court deems excessive; the mere listing of employees as potential sources of information does not justify access to their entire personnel files.

Requests 22, 24, 27, and 64 focus on accommodations for employees with disabilities. Request 22 seeks documents on disability accommodation requests from 2000 to present; request 24 seeks similar documents for specific employees; request 27 involves authorizations for remote work from 2003 to present; and request 64 looks for lists of employees allowed to work at home as accommodations. The court finds that these requests, particularly those not limited to disability accommodations, are irrelevant to the case. The plaintiff's motion to compel regarding requests 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 50, 91, 22, 24, 27, and 64 is denied. The defendant has already produced all relevant accommodation documents from 2000 to 2005, and the plaintiff's objections about redactions do not warrant further disclosure.

Document requests 16, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 92, and 93 pertain to the plaintiff's allegations of improper monitoring of her and her computer by the defendant. The requests cover a range of documents, including those related to the authorization and facilitation of monitoring, retrieval of documents related to the plaintiff, and any images of her in the defendant's custody. 

Defendant asserts that all employees, including the plaintiff, were informed of monitoring policies when using FERC computers, and the plaintiff received a copy of this policy. An IT examination on November 5, 2004, led to the creation of a CD-ROM with data from her computer, which was provided to her. The defendant claims that besides this event and the universal warning, no extensive monitoring occurred as alleged in the requests. 

The plaintiff argues that the search of her computer implies the existence of additional monitoring documents. However, the defendant contends that speculation without evidence cannot compel the production of documents regarding monitoring that did not occur. 

Regarding video surveillance, the defendant found no recordings from 2003 to 2005, the period in question, and stated that reviewing twenty years of tapes to fulfill the request would be overly burdensome. The defendant concludes that the requests lack substantive evidence and that discovery cannot be based on unfounded claims. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents related to these requests will be denied.

Document requests 47, 48, and 49 pertain to reassignments within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), specifically regarding the Solicitor’s Office. Request 47 seeks all documents related to reassignment requests to and within the Office of General Counsel from 1997 onward, despite the plaintiff only applying in 2003. The defendant has provided all relevant requests made by the plaintiff and a chart detailing reassignments from December 1998 to August 2004, covering a range of employee levels. The defendant also agreed to furnish additional documents supporting the plaintiff's claims. Requests 48 and 49 are focused on applications and reassignments to the Solicitor’s Office; the plaintiff applied for a vacancy that was later withdrawn, but she has not claimed failure to hire as a cause of action. The defendant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to this information and has been unable to locate documents concerning the withdrawn vacancy. Consequently, the motion to compel for these requests is denied.

Requests 56-59 seek documents related to potential witnesses identified in the defendant's Rule 26 disclosures, including their counseling, disciplining, hiring, reassignments, and awards. These requests are deemed irrelevant. Request 60 seeks organizational documents detailing office locations and assignments, based on allegations about incorrect listings of co-workers. The plaintiff contends that a witness misrepresented their proximity to her workplace and seeks to prove this through proposed discovery. However, the demand for extensive documents regarding the listed individuals is considered overly broad and unjustified.

A request for discovery concerning a plaintiff’s personnel file related to comp time for Yom Kippur was deemed overly broad, as it could lead to endless discovery in Title VII cases against the government. The defendant asserted a thorough search revealed no relevant documents. Document request 65, which sought information about awards and absences related to another employee, Jane Doe, was rejected as irrelevant since the plaintiff did not raise concerns about being denied a detail or an award. The plaintiff's connection of the award to a hostile work environment was dismissed as unfounded. Requests 75 and 97, targeting documents about the disciplining of employees for inappropriate internet use, were also denied because the plaintiff did not claim any discipline related to this issue. Document requests 74, 76, and 77 focused on a sexually explicit video linked to allegations of gender discrimination. While the defendant provided a CD-Rom containing the email transmitting the video, the plaintiff's inability to access it led her to request access to a FERC computer, which was countered by the defendant offering assistance through her technical consultant. Overall, the plaintiff’s motions to compel regarding requests 56-60, 65, 75, 97, and 74-77 were denied.

Defendant asserts that plaintiff has not responded to an offer of assistance regarding the production format of a video, while plaintiff contends that the assistance offered is inadequate because it does not meet her request for a non-Outlook format. The court finds this situation a waste of judicial resources, stating that plaintiff must first attempt to access the information using the provided format before seeking further court intervention. The defendant has produced metadata and native format information of the video distribution on CD-Roms, but plaintiff's requests for distribution information to other employees are deemed irrelevant to her claims, leading to the denial of her motion to compel regarding requests 74, 76, and 77.

Regarding document requests related to communications about plaintiff, the court notes that several requests (36, 61, 83-86, and 96) are overly broad or duplicative. While the defendant has produced some documents, the plaintiff's expansive requests lack specificity and relevance to her claims. The court emphasizes that plaintiff has a duty to conduct discovery efficiently and cannot make broad, catch-all requests. Consequently, the court denies the motion to compel for these document requests as well.

Document requests 37 and 95 pertain to advanced leave documents. Request 37 seeks all advanced leave requests and related documents from the Office of the General Counsel since 2002. The defendant objects, claiming it's beyond permissible discovery, but has produced documents related to advanced leave requests from the Energy Projects Section in the 2005 Report of Investigation, along with all available records and time cards from that period. Request 95 seeks documents showing FERC manager Christin's decisions on administrative leave requests. This request lacks specificity regarding timeframes relevant to the plaintiff’s claims. The defendant has produced documents related to the plaintiff's requests for administrative leave and all relevant leave documents from 2002 to 2005. The plaintiff claims she cannot locate these documents, prompting both parties to agree to confer and confirm their existence. If it is determined that the plaintiff lacks the documents, the defendant will re-produce them.

Requests 13, 72, 73, and 98 concern documents or communications about Jack Kendall. Request 13 is overly broad, seeking all documents from Robert F. Christin related to Kendall without any limitations, which the defendant argues includes irrelevant materials. The defendant asserts it has provided all responsive documents relevant to this litigation. Request 72 seeks records relating to the search of Kendall’s computer, which is deemed irrelevant to the case. Requests 73 and 98 similarly seek overbroad information regarding the search results and are found objectionable. The defendant states it has produced relevant data from Kendall’s computer, but the plaintiff claims she has not received metadata without justifying its necessity. Consequently, the motion to compel regarding requests 13, 72, 73, and 98 is denied.

Document requests 54 and 55 concerning Robert Christin are deemed irrelevant. Request 54 seeks emails related to Christin's involvement with Americans Against Discrimination, which lacks relevance to the plaintiff's claims. The court finds the plaintiff's rationale for needing this information for cross-examination unconvincing, asserting that any potential bias can be addressed directly with the information already available from FERC. Request 55 seeks documents about Christin's resignation, which is also considered irrelevant. Consequently, the motion to compel regarding these requests is denied.

In addressing miscellaneous document requests, request 51 for FERC meeting agendas is denied due to lack of demonstrated relevance. Request 66, regarding complaints of inappropriate sexual behavior by FERC employees, is rejected as the plaintiff has not claimed such harassment nor justified her interest in unrelated incidents. Request 70 for the plaintiff's work product is partially acknowledged, with the defendant having provided relevant emails, but the court agrees that producing all work product would be excessively burdensome and irrelevant outside the context of specific retaliatory evaluations. 

Request 94 seeks all documents about religious compensatory time without time limits, which the defendant argues is unduly burdensome. While the plaintiff claims relevance due to alleged disparate treatment, she dismisses the defendant's offer for a more targeted response. The court emphasizes the need for reasonable cooperation and denies the motion to compel for this request as well.

Request 101 is denied as the court finds the relevance of documents concerning conversations among employees about the plaintiff's truthfulness to be insufficiently tied to the plaintiff's claims. Request 106, which seeks documents related to goods and services authorized by FERC due to plaintiff's protected activity, is also denied. Although plaintiff received a contract between FERC and outside counsel through a FOIA request, she has not demonstrated the necessity for further production from the defendant.

Regarding documents withheld by the defendant under claims of privilege, the plaintiff has requested an in camera review of over 550 documents listed on the defendant’s privilege log. The court emphasizes that parties asserting privilege must clearly describe the nature of the withheld documents in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court finds privilege logs generally ineffective and prefers to conduct in camera reviews only when necessary. Given the complexity and confusion surrounding the privilege log and the plaintiff's objections to thirty-five specific entries, the court decides to order an in camera review of those thirty-five documents. Additionally, the defendant must submit a brief memorandum supporting its privilege claims for these documents.

Plaintiff requests the Court to compel the defendant to timely supplement and correct its disclosures under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff is concerned about changes in job status for several individuals listed and the omission of a phone number for one individual. Although the plaintiff has acquired this information, they express concern about the potential for further inaccuracies in the defendant's disclosures. Rule 26 mandates that parties must update disclosures if they learn that their information is materially incomplete or incorrect and has not been previously communicated. Despite the plaintiff's concerns, the Court finds the issue largely moot since the plaintiff already possesses the relevant information. However, the Court will require the defendant to review its disclosures and update them if it identifies any material inaccuracies. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to compel is partially granted and partially denied, with a separate order to follow.