Areizaga v. ADW Corp.

Citations: 314 F.R.D. 428; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45494; 2016 WL 1305065Docket: No. 3:14-cv-2899-P

Court: District Court, N.D. Texas; April 4, 2016; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant ADW Corporation filed a Motion to Compel Written Discovery Responses and Production of Documents (MTC) to compel Plaintiff Efrain Areizaga to respond to interrogatories and produce documents. The MTC was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan by Chief Judge Jorge A. Solis. In response, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion for a Protective Order (MPO) to limit Defendant's discovery requests or delay the decision until a related petition for writ of mandamus was resolved. Both motions were referred to the magistrate judge. After reviewing responses and a reply from Defendant, the Court addressed the motions, ultimately granting in part and denying in part both the MTC and the MPO.

The case involves Areizaga, a former ADW employee, who claims unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), along with claims of breach of contract and misrepresentation. Previous orders dismissed most claims, leaving only the FLSA claims and one breach of contract claim. ADW asserts it has not received any substantive responses from Areizaga regarding its interrogatories or document requests since they were served on July 24, 2015. Plaintiff has not provided any documentation or specific objections and has only made vague, boilerplate responses to straightforward interrogatories about job duties and pay complaints.

Plaintiff has refused to engage in discovery, opting instead to file two motions—an Emergency Motion for Stay of All Proceedings and an Emergency Motion for a Protective Order—on August 14, 2015, aimed at avoiding written discovery requests. These motions were denied by the Court on August 17, 2015, and the Fifth Circuit subsequently rejected Plaintiff's appeal of this decision on December 16, 2015. Following the denial of Plaintiff's motions, Defendant ADW attempted to collaborate with Plaintiff to establish a timeline for discovery responses, extending deadlines for responses on two occasions, ultimately requesting responses by December 31, 2015. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide substantive responses or produce any documents. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's numerous general objections and refusal to respond are contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, prompting a request for the Court to order proper responses from Plaintiff. In response, Plaintiff acknowledges the lack of substantive responses but claims he should be exempt from providing them due to a pending mandamus petition concerning earlier Court rulings. Plaintiff accuses Defendant's conduct of being in bad faith and claims that the discovery requests are improper, as they seek information already admitted or documents within Defendant's control, asserting work product immunity. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's interrogatories aim to prolong litigation by compelling responses to already admitted matters and lists objections to each request for production.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) allows a party to file a motion to compel discovery if another party fails to produce requested documents (under Rule 34) or answer interrogatories (under Rule 33). An evasive or incomplete response is treated as a failure to respond under Rule 37(a)(4). Rule 26(c) permits the court to issue protective orders to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden, requiring the requesting party to demonstrate specific necessity rather than vague claims. The court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant such motions, considering the competing interests of the parties involved. 

Additionally, Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i) allows the court to limit discovery if it can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome source. The party resisting discovery must clearly state how each request is irrelevant or objectionable, as established in McLeod, Alexander, Powel, Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles. Responses to Rule 34 requests must indicate whether inspection will be permitted or provide specific grounds for objection. Under Rule 33, interrogatories must be answered separately and fully unless objected to, with any unasserted grounds for objection being waived unless excused by the court.

If a party objects to a discovery request, they must defend their objection in response to a motion to compel, or risk waiving it, as indicated in Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth. To establish that a request is overly broad or burdensome, the resisting party must provide affidavits or evidence of the burden involved, as seen in cases like Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc. The assertion of undue burden generally requires evidentiary proof regarding the time or expense required to comply with the discovery request.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 26(b), 26(c), and 34(b) were amended effective December 1, 2015. Rule 26(b)(1) establishes that discovery can encompass any nonprivileged, relevant matter related to a party's claims or defenses, provided it is proportional to the case's needs. Factors to consider for proportionality include the significance of the issues, the amount in controversy, access to information, party resources, and the balance between the discovery's burden and its benefits. Discovery need not be admissible as evidence to be discoverable.

Rule 26(e)(1) allows for protective orders to shield parties from annoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden, permitting actions such as forbidding disclosure, specifying terms for discovery, limiting inquiry, designating attendees, sealing depositions, and safeguarding confidential information.

The amendments apply to all civil cases commenced afterward and, as appropriate, to pending cases. The Court finds it just and practicable to apply the amended standards to the current proceedings. The amendments do not alter the burdens on parties resisting discovery; courts still must limit discovery that is disproportionate to the case's needs, even without a formal motion. A party resisting discovery must provide specific objections and demonstrate how the discovery fails the proportionality standard. Conversely, the party seeking discovery may need to present evidence supporting the proportionality factors to succeed in compelling discovery or opposing a protective order.

The party seeking discovery must adhere to the proportionality limits outlined in Rule 26(b)(1) and certify compliance with Rule 26(g)(1). This includes confirming that the discovery request is consistent with legal standards, not intended for improper purposes (such as harassment or unnecessary delay), and not unduly burdensome or expensive given the case's specifics. Sanctions under Rule 26(g)(3) may apply for violations without substantial justification. 

The amendments to Rule 26(b) and Rule 26(c)(1) maintain the burden on the party resisting discovery to object and demonstrate that the request falls outside the scope of relevance or imposes undue burden. If a motion to compel is granted under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the court must require the responsible party to pay reasonable expenses unless specific exceptions apply, such as a lack of good faith in attempting to resolve the matter without court intervention. 

Conversely, if the motion is denied, the movant may be required to cover the opposing party's expenses unless justified. For partial grants, the court can issue protective orders and apportion expenses accordingly. Rule 26(c)(3) indicates that Rule 37(a)(5) governs expense awards related to protective order motions.

Plaintiff's mandamus petition does not hinder the Court's ability to resolve the motions concerning discovery. The Fifth Circuit clarifies that while an appeal from a final judgment typically transfers jurisdiction to the appellate court, this does not apply to mandamus petitions, which seek extraordinary remedies in exceptional circumstances. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically stay district court proceedings during a mandamus petition, and no stay was granted in this case despite Plaintiff's attempts. Consequently, the Court's jurisdiction remains intact, leading to the overruling of objections to Defendant's discovery requests and denial of Plaintiff's motion for protective order.

Plaintiff's objections based on previously rejected legal arguments have also been overruled. He claims that all relevant factual questions are undisputed due to Defendant's failure to respond timely; however, the Court has consistently dismissed this claim. Plaintiff's refusal to answer interrogatories and respond to document requests on these grounds is deemed improper.

Additionally, several of Plaintiff’s objections regarding the accessibility of information to the Defendant have been partially overruled. His assertion that requested information is in the possession of the Defendant or third parties lacks merit, as he is a party to the case and a proper source for discovery. His vague objections do not provide sufficient information for the Court or Defendant to assess what documents he possesses that may be withheld. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the requested information is more easily obtainable from other sources, and his objections to specific requests for production and interrogatories have been ruled against.

The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections to specific interrogatories from ADW, namely Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7-8, 10, 12, 14, and 16, determining that the information sought is not already known or easily accessible to the Defendant. The Court emphasizes the necessity for candor in responses to interrogatories, stating that evasive answers or undisclosed objections are not acceptable. The requirement for a thorough response does not render an interrogatory improper, as long as the response demonstrates a conscientious effort to answer the question fully. The Plaintiff is not obligated to conduct extensive investigations but must compile a verified answer based on reasonably available information.

ADW's Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 16 are categorized as valid "contention interrogatories" under Rule 33, which allows inquiries relating to opinions or legal conclusions. The Court finds Plaintiff's objections regarding irrelevance, materiality, and privacy invasion concerning certain document requests and interrogatories to be without merit. Given the Plaintiff's claims of unpaid overtime and commissions, the requests for employment contracts, tax returns, and documents related to Plaintiff's employment history and income sources are deemed relevant and proportional to the case's needs. Consequently, all objections related to relevance, materiality, and privacy invasion concerning ADW's RFP Nos. 4, 16, 18, and 62, as well as Interrogatory Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, are overruled. Additionally, Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 15 are also affirmed as proper inquiries pertinent to the Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff's privacy regarding sensitive documents, including tax returns, necessitates that Plaintiff and Defendant's counsel negotiate a confidentiality agreement or protective order to regulate the use and disclosure of such records. They must submit an agreed protective order or notice of any confidentiality agreement to the Court by April 24, 2016. Until an agreement is in place, Defendant's counsel is prohibited from disclosing Plaintiff's records to anyone outside their legal team. The Court finds that certain discovery requests from ADW are not proportional to the case's needs, particularly those seeking extensive financial documentation and records related to other litigation or criminal history. As a result, the Court grants Defendant's request for a protective order concerning these specific requests.

Plaintiff has objected to many of ADW's requests based on work-product immunity and attorney-client privilege. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) mandates the disclosure of any trial witnesses and requires a written report for expert witnesses, detailing their opinions, the basis for those opinions, supporting facts, qualifications, and compensation. The federal work product doctrine under Rule 26(b)(3) protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. The burden lies with the party claiming work product protection to demonstrate that the materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation, and if established, the requesting party must justify why those materials should still be disclosed. Rule 26(b)(3)(B) further protects attorneys' mental impressions and legal theories from being disclosed.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A), discovery of documents prepared in anticipation of litigation requires the requesting party to demonstrate (1) a substantial need for the materials and (2) an inability to obtain equivalent materials without undue hardship. The work-product rule offers special protection for materials revealing an attorney's mental processes, with opinion work-product accessible only upon showing a compelling need. Unlike the attorney-client privilege, the burden to prove waiver of work product immunity lies with the party asserting waiver. The party claiming work product protection must clearly demonstrate that the materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation; mere general assertions are insufficient. Detailed affidavits or evidence are necessary to substantiate the claim, and while a privilege log or in camera review may assist, a thorough description of the disputed materials and reasons for the claim is required. The Court emphasizes that vague assertions of privilege are inadequate, mandating that the Plaintiff provide a privilege log that complies with Federal Rule 26(b)(5)(A) when withholding information. A specific objection to a request for production based on privileged communications was overruled since the request excluded attorney-client communications.

Plaintiff is required to respond to a potential award of expenses under Rule 37(a)(5) concerning a motion to compel discovery. According to Rule 37(a)(5)(A), if the motion is granted or discovery is provided post-filing, the court must order the party responsible for the motion to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, unless certain conditions are met: the movant did not attempt good faith resolution, the opposing party's actions were substantially justified, or other circumstances render an award unjust. Rule 37(a)(5)(C) allows the court to apportion expenses if the motion is partially granted. The Court has set a deadline of April 22, 2016, for Plaintiff to justify why expenses should not be awarded to Defendant ADW Corporation, noting that Defendant acted in good faith prior to filing the motion. Plaintiff must address whether their nondisclosure or objections were justified. Defendant may reply by May 13, 2016, and the Court will withhold its decision on expenses until after this briefing.

Moreover, the Court has partially granted and denied Defendant's Motion to Compel and Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order. Plaintiff must provide a privilege log by May 2, 2016, and must fully answer specific interrogatories and produce a range of documents, excluding those claimed as work product or privileged. The Court granted a protective order for certain requests.