Owens v. Sprint/United Management Co.

Citations: 221 F.R.D. 649; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10642; 94 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 765; 2004 WL 1292004Docket: Civ.A. No. 03-2371JWL-DJW

Court: District Court, D. Kansas; June 2, 2004; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, filed to obtain complete answers to her Opening Interrogatories and production of documents, has been partially granted by the Court. The case involves allegations of sex and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA, claiming that Defendant demoted her based on her gender and age when relocating her position and hiring a younger male. Plaintiff served her discovery requests on November 24, 2003, and after receiving incomplete responses from Defendant, attempted to resolve the issues informally before filing the motion on January 22, 2004.

The Court identified two unresolved disputes concerning Plaintiff's Opening Interrogatory No. 3 and First Request for Production No. 17, as well as Requests Nos. 9 and 10. Interrogatory No. 3 seeks information regarding any investigations into Defendant's employment practices related to discrimination from March 2000 to the present. Request No. 17 requests documents related to other discrimination charges against Defendant from January 2000 onward. Defendant objected to both on grounds of irrelevance, over-breadth, and privilege, asserting that the requests do not lead to admissible evidence.

Defendant has raised relevancy objections to Interrogatory No. 3 and Request for Production No. 17, claiming that the information sought is irrelevant and not likely to yield admissible evidence. Plaintiff contends that testimony from other employees regarding their treatment by Defendant is pertinent to establishing the employer’s discriminatory intent. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery can include any non-privileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense. Relevancy is broadly interpreted, allowing discovery requests unless it is clear that the information has no potential bearing on the case. The burden is on the resisting party to prove the lack of relevance, while the requesting party must demonstrate relevancy if the request is deemed overly broad.

In employment discrimination cases, especially under Title VII, discovery is extensive, and general employer practices are relevant, even for individual disparate treatment claims. The court recognizes that information indicating a pattern of discrimination is discoverable, particularly when the employer's intent is in question. The Court finds that the requests for information on other discrimination charges against Defendant are relevant and likely to lead to admissible evidence, thus overruling Defendant’s relevancy objections.

Regarding the overly broad objection, Defendant argues that the discovery requests should be confined to the geographic area and work unit where Plaintiff was employed. They assert that the requests for information about other discrimination charges should be limited to the Business Support Services unit, where Plaintiff worked at the time of the alleged discrimination.

Plaintiff contends that discovery requests should pertain to Defendant's Global Markets Group rather than its sub-unit, Business Support Services, referencing the case Doebele v. Sprint Corporation to support her argument for investigating other discrimination charges linked to her employing group. In response, Defendant argues that the Court should identify the more relevant source of information regarding employee treatment, advocating for the definition of 'business unit' to include only the Business Support Services unit. Defendant emphasizes the size of the Global Markets Group, noting that most employees within it are not similarly situated to Plaintiff, and asserts that the Group's large scope makes it impractical for discovery purposes. Legal standards suggest that in non-class action employment discrimination cases, discovery is typically limited to the employing unit unless the plaintiff demonstrates a specific need for broader inquiry. Courts assess the employing unit by examining the supervisors responsible for the employment decisions affecting the plaintiff and others in similar positions. The Court is tasked with determining which corporate division constitutes Plaintiff's work unit, focusing on the supervisors involved in the alleged discriminatory actions. The Court concludes that the decisions regarding Plaintiff's position and subsequent demotion were made by her supervisors in the Business Support Services unit.

Emails from Mike Reilly, Plaintiffs' supervisor, to Tim McKinley, a vice president, establish that they were key decision-makers within Defendant’s Business Support Services unit, which should be the focus for limiting the geographic scope of Plaintiffs' discovery requests. An internal bulletin dated September 30, 2002, titled 'An Important Message for Sprint Business Support Services Associates,' further emphasizes this unit's relevance, as it outlines organizational changes related to Plaintiff and her successor. The consistent internal reference to the Business Support Services unit, rather than the Global Markets Group, supports the Defendant's claim that this unit is the appropriate employing unit for discovery limitations. 

Plaintiff argues that a previous court decision in Doebele, which limited discovery requests to Kansas employees within Defendant’s PCS business unit, supports her request to expand discovery to include the Global Markets Group. However, the Doebele ruling did not define the scope simply as the PCS business unit, but rather specifically focused on Kansas employees. The Court agrees that a restriction solely to Kansas, as in Doebele, would be too narrow given the geographical spread of the Business Support Services unit. Consequently, unless Plaintiff demonstrates a specific need and relevance for broader discovery concerning the Global Markets Group, the Court determines that the appropriate scope for discovery will be limited to Defendant’s Business Support Services unit.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's discovery requests are overly broad, particularly concerning the selected time frame beginning in January 2000, and asserts that the relevant period should extend only two years prior to the alleged discriminatory behavior through the present. However, it is recognized that in Title VII cases, evidence from both before and after the liability period may be pertinent, with courts allowing a reasonable extension of the discovery period. Specifically, Plaintiff's requests involve investigations into age or sex discrimination from March 2000 to the present and documents related to similar charges from January 2000 onward. Plaintiff claims discriminatory actions by her employer began in September 2002, when she was questioned about relocating her position, leading to her filing discrimination charges in March 2003 and her subsequent demotion. The Court finds that the temporal scope of Plaintiff’s requests, covering two and a half years prior to the alleged discrimination, is reasonable and consistent with precedents. Consequently, the Court denies Defendant's request to limit the time frame of the discovery requests.

Additionally, Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 3 based on attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. The Court notes that this objection has not been addressed in the motion briefs, and thus the status of the objection remains unclear. The Court plans to discuss this issue at the final pretrial conference on June 8, 2004, urging the parties to be prepared to resolve it.

Plaintiff's First Request for Production Nos. 9 and 10 seeks the complete personnel files of management and supervisory employees who supervised Plaintiff from January 2000 to the present, specifically requesting files for Mike Reilly, Tim McKinley, and Jo Blagovich, including work evaluations and alpha ratings. Request No. 10 extends to documents related to these individuals' performance, compensation, or duties not included in their personnel files. The Court limits the scope of the motion to the files of the three named supervisors due to ambiguity regarding other potential supervisors. Defendant has agreed to produce the personnel files of these supervisors but has not yet provided updated information. The Court orders Defendant to produce this updated information within ten days. 

In regard to sanctions, the Court defers any ruling until after the final pretrial conference. The Court partially grants and partially denies Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendant is instructed to submit a supplemental answer to Plaintiff's Opening Interrogatory No. 3 and produce documents responsive to First Request for Production Nos. 17 within ten days, limited to the Defendant's Business Support Services unit. Defendant is not required to answer Interrogatory No. 3 if claiming attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. The Court denies Defendant’s request to limit the temporal scope of the discovery requests to two years prior to the alleged discrimination. The privilege objection will be addressed at the final pretrial conference scheduled for June 8, 2004.

Defendant is ordered to produce updated personnel file information for three of Plaintiffs' supervisors within ten days. The court will postpone any decision on sanctions until after the final pretrial conference. The order references several legal statutes and case law that support the discovery process, including 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 29 U.S.C. § 621, along with various court decisions that outline the limitations and scope of discovery related to employment discrimination cases. It emphasizes the importance of reasonable timeframes for discovery, allowing for information up to four years prior to the alleged discriminatory conduct and one year after. Specific citations to case law illustrate the court's approach to determining the appropriate scope of discovery relevant to employment and liability periods.