Mitch Goree and James Wherry, both of whom are African-American, are long-time employees of defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”). In 2010, Goree held the position of Full-Time Supervisor and Wherry held the position of Division Manager in Memphis, Tennessee.[1] In July 2010, James Buchanan allegedly met with Goree and Wherry and advised Goree that he had been awarded a promotion to Center Manager (sometimes referred to as Hub or Business Manager) at a UPS facility in Memphis. According to UPS, only employees who are included on a “Ready Now list” are eligible to be considered for a promotion. At the time, Goree was not on a Ready Now list. Before receiving his formal promotion, in October 2010 Goree allegedly began performing the job duties of a Center Manager. However, unlike Caucasian employees, Goree was not paid the salary commensurate with the Center Manager duties he performed.

In order for Goree to formally receive the promotion that he was promised by UPS, approval of the promotion was required from Ken Harms, UPS's District President for the Mid-South District.[2] However, Harms allegedly told Wherry that he could not promote someone who had filed a lawsuit against UPS.[3] Goree was then denied the promotion. The position UPS had allegedly promised to Goree was instead awarded to a lesser qualified, Caucasian employee (Brian Riley) who had not previously sued UPS for employment discrimination. In 2011, Wherry was demoted by UPS from his position as Division Manager to Business Manager, purportedly because he had failed to timely report misconduct by one of his hourly employees. As a Business Manager, Wherry is Goree's supervisor. From 2011 to 2014, Wherry reported to Rick Winters. After Winters was promoted to Operations Manager, he was replaced by Anthony Nuckles, to whom Wherry now reports.

*2 On June 30, 2011, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against UPS in Shelby County Circuit Court alleging that UPS demoted Wherry in 2011 and failed to promote Goree in 2010 based on their race and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, all in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”). That case proceeded to a jury trial, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in January 2014. In February 2014, plaintiffs sought reinstatement by filing a Motion for Equitable Relief, seeking promotion to the Center/Business Manager position that Goree was denied and reinstatement of Wherry to the Division Manager position from which he had been demoted.[4] On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs appeared in court, and less than three weeks later, they were allegedly denied promotions by UPS.

Plaintiffs then filed the present federal lawsuit on June 27, 2014, claiming that UPS retaliated against them for their participation in the state court lawsuit by refusing to reinstate Wherry and refusing to promote Goree following the state court trial. Although Goree did not actually apply for a promotion following the trial, he argued that UPS has a policy of refusing to promote employees who have sued the company, and therefore the only reason he did not apply was because it would have been futile to do so.[5] (ECF No. 92, Order Denying Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, May 27, 2015.)

On January 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed their first Motion to Compel and/or Stay of Deadlines in Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 41.) On February 25, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Second Motion to Compel and/or Stay of Deadlines in Scheduling Order and Request for Expedited Hearing, Shorten Response Time, and for Oral Argument. (ECF No. 67.) UPS responded in opposition to both motions. (ECF Nos. 54, 79.) On February 9, 2015, this case was transferred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge as the referral magistrate judge. (ECF No. 58, Order of Transfer, Feb. 9, 2015.) Plaintiffs subsequently filed several notices, which attached as exhibits discovery responses, deposition transcripts for Goree and Harry Wilson, and various documents produced during discovery. On March 2, 2015, the undersigned held a hearing on the motions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned ordered the parties to confer regarding the issues raised in the motions, including all disputes relating to discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”).

The hearing was continued to March 19, 2015, and then rescheduled to April 1, 2015. (ECF Nos. 74, 78.) On March 30, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to continue the hearing, in which the parties stated that they were attempting to resolve the motions and needed additional time. (ECF No. 81.) The motion was granted and the hearing was continued to April 17, 2015. (ECF No. 82.) On April 17, the parties filed a motion to continue the hearing. The motion was granted and a status conference was scheduled for May 20, 2015. (ECF Nos. 84, 86.) The undersigned ordered the parties to notify the court of their progress in resolving the motions by May 8, 2015. At the May 20, 2015 status conference, the court heard from the parties regarding the status of discovery, and continued the matter to June 23, 2015. (ECF Nos. 89, 94.) On June 29, 2015, the undersigned entered an order generally limiting the scope of discovery by imposing a temporal limitation of January 1, 2011 to the present, and limiting the geographic scope to the State of Tennessee.[6] (ECF No. 96.) Plaintiff filed an appeal of that order. (ECF No. 97.) At a July 9, 2015 status conference, the undersigned set the motions for a hearing for September 9, 2015. (ECF No. 98.) The parties then appeared before the District Judge for a status conference, at which time the court ordered the parties to submit a joint filing setting forth the remaining discovery disputes by August 24, 2015. (ECF No. 99.) The undersigned conducted another status conference on July 30, 2015. (ECF No. 103.) On August 24, 2015, the parties filed separate documents outlining all pending discovery disputes. (ECF Nos. 104, 105.) The undersigned conducted a motion hearing on September 9, 2015, and took the motions under advisement. (ECF No. 107.) With leave of court, plaintiffs supplemented the record with documents on September 15, 2015, and UPS supplemented the record with documents on September 22, 2015. (ECF Nos. 109, 116.)

*3 In their Third Amended Complaint, plaintiffs identify five Center Manager and/or Division Manager positions that UPS filled in 2014 in retaliation for the plaintiffs' state court lawsuit: J.C. Long (Oakhaven Business Manager), Andre Jeffries (Memphis Preload Manager), Anthony Nuckles (Memphis Package Division Manager), Steven Burtnette (Knoxville Package Division Manager), and J.B. Hardaway (Jackson, Mississippi Package Division Manager). (Third Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 17-19.) In response to UPS's argument that Goree and Wherry did not qualify for these promotions because they were not on the Ready Now list, plaintiffs assert that UPS has promoted employees in the past who were not on the Ready Now list, and that the Ready Now list is a “sham.” Plaintiffs also claim that they are qualified for promotion and should be placed on the Ready Now list. Plaintiffs claim Ken Harms is the ultimate decision-maker with regard to UPS's denial of promotions for Goree and Wherry. Plaintiffs have sought discovery relating to Harms's entire Mid-South District dating back to 2009, when Harms assumed the District President position.[7] Plaintiffs claim that without this discovery, they will be denied evidence needed to establish their qualifications for the jobs at issue; compare their qualifications to other candidates, including the successful candidates; establish pretext or intent through evidence revealing the knowledge and mental state of decision-makers, which might establish false or shifting explanations, comparators, retaliatory or discriminatory statements; and willful behavior meriting punitive damages.

After the plaintiffs filed their motions to compel, the undersigned ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding their disputes over the production of ESI. The undersigned directed the parties to involve their respective IT professionals in these consultations. Despite this directive, the parties did not reach an agreement regarding the appropriate custodians or search terms. As set forth in the Declaration of Mike Brown, Technology Support Manager for UPS's Mid-South District, plaintiffs submitted a proposed ESI query that resulted in hits on 2,630,096 items.[8](Ex. 1 to 9/9/15 hearing.) Plaintiffs' proposed custodians and search terms were as follows:

UPS proposed two of its own searches, identified in Brown's declaration as “Query No. 2” and “Query No. 3,” which resulted in hits on 139,499 items and 17,931 items, respectively. These queries were as follows:

UPS rejected the plaintiffs' proposed Query No. 1, and instead conducted its ESI search using Query No. 3. UPS gathered and reviewed the 17,931 items, which totaled in excess of 50,000 pages.[10] On June 5, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs sent an email to counsel for UPS requesting that UPS run additional searches on the eighteen custodians proposed by plaintiff and using the following searches:

(ECF No. 109-3 at 2-3.) Plaintiffs in that email also requested a search for “Wherry” or “Goree” from the following custodians: Harms, Nuckles, Winters, Wilson, and Bloedorn. (Id.) UPS objected to conducting plaintiffs' proposed modified searches, and instead relied on its Query No. 3 search. (ECF No. 109-3 at 5.) The documents were eventually provided to plaintiffs in an electronic searchable format. UPS provided plaintiffs with a chart/spreadsheet on August 6, 2015, comprised of 783 pages.[11] On August 26, 2015, UPS provided a revised chart/spreadsheet comprised of 1,017 pages, listing each document by Bates number and the corresponding document requests to which each document was responsive.

*5 The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally quite broad. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Parties may obtain discovery on any matter that is not privileged and is relevant to any party's claim or defense if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant evidence” is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. But the scope of discovery is not unlimited. “District courts have discretion to limit the scope of discovery where the information sought is overly broad or would prove unduly burdensome to produce.” Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007).

In assessing the proper scope of discovery, the court looks to the underlying claims and defenses. Courts in the Sixth Circuit analyze retaliation claims using the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973). See Allen v. Highlands Hosp. Corp., 545 F.3d 387, 393–94 (6th Cir. 2008); Godfredson v. Hess & Clark, Inc., 173 F.3d 365, 371 (6th Cir. 1999). Absent direct evidence that an employer engaged in retaliation, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer knew plaintiff engaged in this activity; (3) the employer thereafter took an employment action adverse against plaintiff; and (4) a causal connection exists between plaintiff's protected activity and the employer's adverse employment action. Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531, 544 (6th Cir. 2008); see also Sharp v. Aker Plant Services Group, Inc., 600 Fed.Appx. 337, 339 (6th Cir. 2015). “To establish the causal connection required in the fourth prong, a plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence from which an inference could be drawn that the adverse action would not have been taken had the plaintiff not filed a discrimination action.” Sharp, 600 Fed.Appx. at 339 (quoting Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2000)); see also Univ. of Texas S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2533 (2013) (holding in Title VII retaliation lawsuits courts must employ the “but for” causation standard). “In determining whether there is a causal relationship between a plaintiff's protected activity and an allegedly retaliatory act, courts may consider whether the employer treated the plaintiff differently from similarly situated individuals and whether there is a temporal connection between the protected activity and the retaliatory action.” Id. (quoting Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 516–17 (6th Cir. 2009)). Regarding the similarly situated analysis, “a plaintiff need only ‘demonstrate that he or she is similarly situated to the claimed comparator in all relevant respects.’ ” Id. (quoting Martinez v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 703 F.3d 911, 916–17 (6th Cir. 2013)); see also Bobo v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d 741, 751 (6th Cir. 2012) (stating that plaintiff “was not required to demonstrate an exact correlation between himself and others similarly situated; rather, he had to show only that he and his proposed comparators were similar in all relevant respects ... and that he and his proposed comparators engaged in acts of comparable seriousness”) (internal citation omitted).

Before the undersigned addresses each discovery dispute, a few general observations are in order. First, this case involves a total of five discrete promotions that plaintiffs claim they were wrongfully denied. All but one of these are positions at UPS facilities located in Tennessee. Plaintiffs have not pointed the court to anything in the record that would indicate that either of them previously sought a position outside of Tennessee. Second, the undersigned believes that discovery covering a period of four years (since 2011, which is also when the plaintiffs filed their state court lawsuit) should be more than sufficient to permit the plaintiffs to discover information about the qualifications of similarly situated employees and UPS's Ready Now process. Third, regarding plaintiffs' challenge to the Ready Now process, the court finds that plaintiffs may obtain discovery regarding their own performance to demonstrate that they are Ready Now. They may also obtain discovery regarding the scores and rankings of other employees who hold the same position as plaintiffs and who are on a Ready Now list. However, plaintiffs have also sought discovery of co-workers' personnel files. Personnel files are generally not ordered produced except upon a compelling showing of relevance by the requesting party. Jordan v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 3:10–cv–0051, 2010 WL 3024868, *1 (M.D. Tenn. July 28, 2010); Stratienko v. Chattanooga–Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., No. 1:07–CV–258, 2008 WL 4442492, *5 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 25, 2008).

*6 1. Request for Production No. 1: Please produce the Balanced Score Cards and monthly Operation ranking for each Package Division Manager and Business Manager since Harms became District President until the present date.

UPS's response/production: UPS specifically objects to this request because this request is overly broad, unduly and potentially encompasses a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The performance and ranking of every Package Division Manager and Business Manager in the Mid-South District since Mr. Harms became District President is not relevant to Plaintiffs' claims in this lawsuit. UPS further objects to this request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present[13] and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS will search, and, if available, produce subject to a mutually-agreed protective order operation rankings for the Memphis Package Center for the period February 2014 to the present. UPS [has now] produced monthly operational reports and rankings for the period January 1, 2011 to February 2015 and those documents are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_0000261-350 and 1115-1288.

Ruling: Plaintiffs argue that this request seeks discovery relevant to refuting UPS's argument that Wherry did not qualify for the 2014 promotions because he was not and is not “ready now” to be a Division Manager. Plaintiffs argue that Wherry is competing with other Business Managers for promotion to Division Manager. The court finds that limited discovery aimed at determining how Wherry's scores and rankings compare to other Business Managers since 2011 (some of whom are or may have been on a Ready Now list) is relevant and discoverable under Rule 26. In addition, although Wherry last held the Division Manager position in 2011, how Wherry's scores as a Division Manager in 2011 compare to other Division Managers is arguably relevant to whether he should have been on a Ready Now list in 2014. UPS has not shown that production of this information would be unduly burdensome. The court, however, disagrees with plaintiffs' argument that this ranking information should be provided from 2009 and for Harms's entire district.

The court orders UPS, within 30 days, to supplement its prior production by producing the monthly operational reports and rankings (referred to as Balance Score Cards/Casey Cup) for each Package Division Manager and Business Manager since 2011 who worked at UPS facilities within the State of Tennessee.[14] The court denies plaintiffs' motion to the extent they seek any additional records.

*7 2. Request for Production No. 2: Please produce all emails sent to or received by the BPU [Business Planning Unit], Ken Harms, Plaintiffs, Rick Winters, Anthony Nuckles regarding the goals or performance of centers in Wherry's former division. UPS's response/production: UPS specifically objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it contains no temporal limitation and potentially encompasses a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As framed, this request could encompass thousands of irrelevant emails that in any way relate to several centers in the Memphis Package Division, irrespective of the subject matter. This request is well beyond any permissible discovery. UPS further objects to this request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. UPS [has now] produced emails sent to or received by Ken Harms, Jack McDowell and Jeff Taylor regarding the goals or performance of centers in the West Tennessee Division since 2011 that are listed in the attached spreadsheet by Bates number. Additionally, UPS produced performance metrics for the West Tennessee Division for the period 2011-2015 and those documents are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_261-350, 1115-1288.

Ruling: Plaintiffs state that UPS's Business Planning Unit (“BPU”) is comprised of 9 or 10 individuals who purportedly meet at a “People's Meeting” to determine which UPS employees are “ready now” for promotion and to decide who to promote. In 2014, the BPU was comprised of Jeff Bloedorn, Jeff Taylor, Linda Nelson, Ken Kelly, Jack McDowell, Ken Watkins, Frank Bouyer, Steve Boulton, Pat Arthur, and Ken Harms. Plaintiffs contend that these emails among and between the members of the BPU, Harms, the plaintiffs, Rick Winters, and Anthony Nuckles relating to the “goals or performance” of centers in the Memphis Package Division would be relevant to show that UPS's decision to not put Wherry and Goree on the Ready Now list was pretextual. The court finds that the request for all emails regarding the goals or performance of centers in the Memphis Package Division centers is overly broad and seeks largely irrelevant information. UPS has already produced emails received by Harms, McDowell, and Taylor since 2011 found in its ESI search, as well as performance metrics for the West Tennessee Division since 2011. No further production in response to this request is warranted.

3. Request for Production No. 3: Produce all emails sent to or received by the BPU, Ken Harms, Rick Winters, Anthony Nuckles regarding Wherry's job performance.

UPS's response/production: UPS specifically objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it contains no temporal limitation and potentially encompasses a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As framed, this request encompasses every email that in any way relates to Wherry during the entire course of his 20+ year employment with UPS, irrespective of the subject matter. This request is well beyond any admissible discovery. UPS also objects to this Request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS will search, and, if available, produce subject to a mutually-agreed protective order Wherry's 2014 Quality Performance Review. UPS [has now] produced emails sent to or received by Jack McDowell, James Wherry, Ken Harms, Jeff Taylor, Rick Winters and Anthony Nuckles regarding Wherry's performance for the period 2011-2015 that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_0000203-210, 213, 228-231, 437-488, 490-503, 505-528, 533-537, 539-541, 574, 590, 592, 599. Also see the attached spreadsheet for additional responsive documents by Bates number.

Ruling: Plaintiffs ask for all emails relating to Wherry's job performance received by the BPU, Harms, Rick Winters (Wherry's supervisor 2011-2014) and Anthony Nuckles (who became Division Manager of the Memphis Package Division in 2014). Plaintiffs argue that these emails will show that Wherry is “ready now” and may reveal direct evidence of retaliation or discriminatory intent. UPS has produced those emails that were captured when it conducted its ESI search using Query No. 3, including emails that were received by Winters and Nuckles. The court finds that emails relating to Wherry's job performance sent to or received by Harms as well as Winters and Nuckles, since 2011, are relevant and must be produced. The court finds that the request for emails sent to or received by the members of the BPU (comprised of 9 or 10 individuals), as well as emails prior to 2011, is overly broad and unduly burdensome.

*8 A separate ESI search shall be conducted to locate these emails, since Query No. 3 run by UPS did not specifically include Winters and Nuckles as custodians. Within 30 days, the parties and their IT professionals shall jointly develop search terms tailored to capture these emails, and documents responsive to the search shall be produced within 60 days. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on search terms, the parties shall file a joint motion seeking review by the court within the initial 30-day period.

4. Request for Production No. 4: Produce all emails sent to or received by the BPU, Ken Harms, Plaintiffs, Rick Winters, Anthony Nuckles regarding Goree's job performance.

UPS's response/production: UPS objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it contains no temporal limitation and potentially encompasses a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As framed, this request encompasses every email that in any way relates to Goree during the entire course of his 20+ year employment with UPS, irrespective of the subject matter. This request is well beyond any admissible discovery. UPS also objects to this Request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. If Plaintiffs will clarify and narrow this request, UPS will attempt to respond. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS will search, and, if available, produce subject to a mutually-agreed protective order Goree's 2014 Quality Performance Review. UPS [has since] produced emails sent to or received by Jack McDowell, James Wherry, Ken Harms, Jeff Taylor, and Mitch Goree regarding Goree's performance for the period 2011-2015 that are listed in the attached spreadsheet by Bates number and Goree's QPRs Bates labeled UPS_ GWII_152-182.

Ruling: The court finds that emails relating to Goree's job performance sent to or received by Harms and Wherry (Goree's supervisor), since 2011, is relevant and must be produced. The court finds that the request for emails sent to or received by members of the BPU, as well as by Winters or Nuckles (neither of whom apparently supervised Goree), is overly broad and unduly burdensome. A separate ESI search shall be conducted to locate these emails, since Query No. 3 did not include Wherry as a custodian. The parties shall follow the same procedures outlined for Request for Production No. 3 above.

5. Request for Production No. 6: Produce an entire copy of all emails sent by or received by either Plaintiff.

UPS's response/production: UPS specifically objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it contains no temporal limitation and potentially encompasses a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request seeks every email sent to or received by either Plaintiff during the course of their 20+ year careers with UPS, irrespective of the subject matter, which is well beyond any admissible discovery. UPS also objects to this Request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. UPS [has since] produced emails sent to or received by Plaintiffs for the period 2011-2015 that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_0000203-210, 213-228, 231, 437-488, 490-503, 505-528, 533-537, 539-541, 599. Also see the attached spreadsheet for additional responsive documents by Bates number.

*9 Ruling: The court finds that the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and would result in the production of irrelevant information, even with the temporal and geographic restrictions set by the court. In addition, UPS has produced emails sent to or received by the plaintiffs for the period 2011 to 2015, which were captured using its ESI search. UPS need not provide a further response to this request.

6. Request for Production No. 8: Produce all emails or write-ups referencing Plaintiffs' job performance since Ken Harms has been District President.

UPS's response/production: See UPS's Response to Request for Production No. 1. UPS [has since] produced the following responsive documents: Bates labeled documents UPS_GWII_361-406; 418, 431-32, 433, 434-436, 441, 442, 443, 451, 452, 467, 477, 478, 479, 480, 484, 485, 489, 504, 531, 532, 538, 539, 540, 541, 544, 545-557, 572-573, 604-609. Also see the attached spreadsheet for additional responsive documents by Bates number.

Ruling: Plaintiffs argue that this request goes to qualifications, to establishing a basis for comparison to comparators, to establish discriminatory intent and pretext, and knowledge of decision-makers as to plaintiffs' performance. As discussed above, the court finds that emails relating to plaintiffs' job performance (which would include write-ups) sent to or received by Harms as well as Winters and Nuckles (as to Wherry) and Wherry (as to Goree), since 2011, is relevant and must be produced. A separate ESI search shall be conducted to locate these emails, consistent with the procedures for responding to Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4 outlined above.

7. Request for Production No. 9: Produce all write-ups, QPR's, or emails regarding Winters' promotion to Texas or his transfer to Memphis.

UPS's response/production: UPS objects to this Request because it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Mr. Winters' transfer to Memphis in 2011 and subsequent promotion [to Texas in 2014] are wholly unrelated to Plaintiffs' claims in this action. UPS also objects to this Request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. UPS further objects because Plaintiffs seek to improperly re-open discovery in the state court proceeding that is now on appeal in the Tennessee Court of Appeals. No documents produced per objections.

Ruling: Plaintiffs state that Winters was the Division Manager who replaced Wherry in 2011, and later was promoted to Operations Manager in 2014 and transferred to Texas. Plaintiffs argue that “[i]f Wherry's performance as Division Manager is comparable to, or better than, Winter's performance, this would cut against any allegation that Wherry is not ready now, establishing that this position is false and pretextual, as well as making out the qualification element of the prima facie case.” The court finds that this request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information. With regard to Request for Production No. 1 above, the court has ordered UPS to produce the monthly operational reports and rankings for each Division and Business Manager since 2011 who worked at UPS facilities within the State of Tennessee, which would include Winters. The court will further order UPS to produce, within 30 days, Winters's QPR scores from 2011 to 2014 in response to the instant discovery request. However, UPS need not provide any further response to this request.

*10 8. Request for Production No. 10: Identify each center manager, stating their race and whether they have sued UPS, who has been on the ready now list since 2010, in Tennessee. Please provide a copy of each person's personnel file, 360, and QPR. UPS's response/production: UPS objects this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it seeks a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and well beyond the permissible scope of discovery identified by the Court. UPS further objects because Plaintiffs seek to improperly re-open discovery in the state court proceeding that is now on appeal in the Tennessee Court of Appeals. UPS [has since] produced documents identifying each Center Manager in 2014 and their QPR rankings and ratings that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_00001128-1130. UPS also produced career development records, which includes QPR scores, for every Center Manager that was promoted to a Division Manager since 2011 that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_00001332-3978. UPS also produced a ready now list for Business Managers in 2014 that is Bates labeled UPS_GWII_841-842.

Ruling: The court finds that this request, to the extent it is limited to 2011 to the present, seeks relevant and discoverable information. Within 30 days, UPS shall provide a verified response identifying each Center Manager in Tennessee who has been on the Ready Now list from 2011 to the present, stating their race and whether they have sued UPS. For each employee, UPS shall provide his or her QPR rankings and ratings during the 2011 to 2015 time period. Because plaintiff has not shown compelling relevance of the personnel files, plaintiffs' blanket request for each Center Manager's personnel files is denied.

9. Request for Production No. 11: Identify each person considered to replace James Wherry when he was demoted, stating their race, whether they have sued UPS, and the reason each person was or was not selected. Please provide a copy of each person's personnel file, 360 and QPR.

UPS's response/production: UPS objects this request because it is overly broad and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UPS also objects to this Request because the Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. UPS further objects because Plaintiffs seek to improperly re-open discovery in the state court proceeding that is now on appeal in the Tennessee Court of Appeals. UPS produced career development records that include QPR scores for Wherry's replacement that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_00001324, 3979-4023.

Ruling: The court finds that UPS's decisions relating to other candidates who were not selected to replace Wherry in 2011 is irrelevant to the retaliation claim in this lawsuit or to the challenge to the Ready Now process. Plaintiffs are aware that Winters replaced Wherry in 2011. Within 30 days, UPS shall provide plaintiffs with a verified response stating Winters's race, whether he has sued UPS, and the reasons why he was selected. No further response from UPS is required.

10. Request for Production No. 12: Identify each supervisor, stating their race and whether they have sued UPS, who has been on the ready now list since 2010 in Tennessee. Please provide a copy of each person's personnel file, 360 and QPR.

UPS's response/production: UPS objects this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it seeks a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UPS also objects to this Request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. UPS further objects because Plaintiffs seek to improperly re-open discovery in the state court proceeding that is now on appeal in the Tennessee Court of Appeals. UPS [has since] produced career development records (including QPR scores) for every supervisor that was promoted to Business Manager since 2011 that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_1332-3978. UPS also produced a ready now list for Full-Time Supervisors in 2014 that is Bates labeled UPS_GWII_841-842. Ruling: As discussed above for Request for Production No. 10, the court finds that this request, to the extent it is limited to 2011 to the present, seeks relevant and discoverable information. Within 30 days, UPS shall provide a verified response identifying each Full-Time Supervisor in Tennessee who has been on the Ready Now list from 2011 to the present, stating their race and whether they have sued UPS. For each employee, UPS shall provide his or her QPR rankings and ratings during the 2011 to 2015 time period. Because plaintiff has not shown compelling relevance of the personnel files, plaintiffs' blanket request for each Full-Time Supervisor's personnel files is denied.

*11 11. Request for Production No. 16: Produce all emails sent to or received by BPU, Ken Harms, Plaintiffs, Rick Winters, Anthony Nuckles regarding Nuckles's transfer into Memphis.

UPS's response/production: UPS specifically objects to this request as vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. This request is vague because there is no “BPU” custodian of records. If Plaintiffs will identify the individuals they seek information from, UPS will revisit this request. This request is also overly broad and unduly burdensome because, as stated, it would include multiple documents that are wholly unrelated to Plaintiffs' claims in this action. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS will produce for inspection and copying documents related to Knuckles' 2014 transfer to the position of Package Division Manager in Memphis. UPS [has since] produced documents related to Nuckles' 2014 transfer to Memphis that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_714, 727, 817, 819-20, 823, 839-40, 860-61, 1324.

Ruling: The court finds that emails relating to UPS's decision to transfer Nuckles's into Memphis in 2014 is relevant and must be produced. The custodians shall be limited to Harms, limited key members of the BPU (to be mutually agreed upon by the parties), and Nuckles. A separate ESI search shall be conducted to locate these emails. The parties shall follow the same procedures set forth above regarding the procedures for additional ESI searches.

1. Interrogatory No. 1: Identify each and every person who was emailed about, consulted about, or participated in, any decision to fill the position of Package Division Manager since 2/1/14 within Harms' District. For each such individual identified, describe what participation of that individual was. Additionally for each of those individuals identified, list the individual's last known address and telephone number (if known) for service.

UPS's response/production: UPS states that the Mid-South District BPU Team consisting of Jeff Bloedorn, Jeff Taylor, Linda Nelson, Ken Kelly, Jack McDowell, Ken Watkins, Frank Bouyer, Steve Boulton, Pat Arthur, and Ken Harms would have been involved in any decision to fill a Division Manager position since February 1, 2014.

Ruling: In plaintiff's Discovery Brief (ECF No. 104), they state that “[d]uring final consultation on the Motions to Compel, UPS agreed to produce this information for each Package Division Manager filled since February 1, 2014 in Harms's District and identify each person's involvement. However, no such documents have been produced and/or specifically identified.” UPS did not identify this interrogatory in its August 24 filing as a matter still in dispute. As it appears that the parties have resolved this dispute, the court orders UPS to provide a verified response to this interrogatory within 30 days. The Package Division Manager position shall include the three identified in the complaint.

2. Interrogatory No. 2: Please identify all individuals considered for position of Package Division Manager since 2/1/14 within Harms' District, stating their race and whether they have ever sued UPS or engaged in a protected activity. If the individuals were ranked, please identify their rank and produce all documents that reflect said ranking.

*12 UPS's response/production: Due to the complexities of the West Tennessee Division, the Mid-South District BPU decided to fill the position vacated by Rick Winters in June 2014 by a lateral transfer, Anthony Nuckles who is African American and, to UPS's knowledge, has not engaged in protected activity. No further response required. Also see, subject to UPS's objections, documents Bates labeled UPS_GWII_ 1128-30, 1233-1292, 2728-2821. Ruling: In plaintiff's Discovery Brief (ECF No. 104), they state that “[d]uring a final consultation on the Motion to Compel, Defendant agreed to produce this information for each Package Division Manager filled since 2/1/14 in Harms' District, Defendant agreed to identify individuals considered for package division manager since 2/1/14 within the Mid-South District, their race, whether they have sued UPS or filed a corporate concern and produce their operations rankings from 2/1/14 to the present. Plaintiffs have not received these documents and/or they are not specifically identified.” UPS did not identify this interrogatory in its August 24 filing as a matter still in dispute. As it appears that the parties have resolved this dispute, the court orders UPS to provide a verified response to this interrogatory within 30 days. The Package Division Manager position shall include the three identified in the complaint.

3. Interrogatory No. 3: Please identify every person you or your attorney has communicated with, interviewed, with whom a discussion has been held, or from whom a statement (written, oral, or otherwise recorded) has been taken, with or without their knowledge, relating filling the position of Package Division Manager since 2/1/14 within Harms' District. For each such person, please state the substance of each conversation, interview, discussion, or statement, and identify all documents and things relating to, referring to, or otherwise memorializing said interview, discussion, or statement. (NOTE: This interrogatory does not seek privileged information).[15]

UPS response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this Interrogatory because it is confusing as drafted, impermissibly requiring UPS to speculate as to Plaintiffs' intended meaning. Additionally, while this Interrogatory specifically disclaims that it seeks any privileged information, without that qualifier, this Interrogatory reasonably could include within its ambit information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, and UPS accordingly asserts those privileges. No documents were produced.

UPS's additional response in August 24, 2015 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) the parties disagree on the relevant custodians; and (2) the parties disagree that every communication related to filling the position of Package Division Manager since 2/1/14 is within the permissible scope of discovery.

Ruling: The court finds that this interrogatory seeks information that is relevant, as the positions were ones that Wherry was allegedly wrongfully denied. A separate ESI search shall be conducted to locate responsive emails. Within 30 days, the parties and their IT professionals shall jointly develop search terms tailored to capture these emails, and documents responsive to the search shall be produced within 60 days. Although UPS asserts that, to date, the parties have been unable to agree on the relevant custodians and search terms, UPS did not attempt to run any additional searches proposed by the plaintiffs after the parties exchanged their initial set of queries. Without those additional “test runs,” the parties and the court cannot assess whether a more limited query is appropriate. The court will require the parties and their IT professionals to consult in good faith to reach an agreement on this ESI search. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the parties shall file a joint motion seeking review by the court within the initial 30-day period.

4. Interrogatory No. 4: Since Harms has been District President, please identify all persons employed by the Defendants as Package Division Manager by name, address, telephone number, race, date of hire, job title, job functions, pay rate, promotions, demotions, transfers, disciplinary actions, date of termination (if applicable) and reason for termination (if applicable).

*13 UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it contains no temporal or geographic limitation and potentially encompasses a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As framed, this request encompasses disciplinary information irrespective of the subject matter. This request is well beyond any admissible discovery. UPS also objects to this Request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. If Plaintiffs will clarify and narrow this request, UPS will attempt to respond. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS identifies Rick Winters (African American) and Anthony Nuckles (African American) as Package Division Managers in the Memphis Division. These individuals may be contacted through counsel. UPS will supply a job description for this position. We will be producing the job description and have produced documents related to J.B Hardaway, Bates labeled UPS_GWII_878-974.

UPS's additional response in August 24, 2015 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) Plaintiffs disagree with Judge Pham's temporal and geographic limitations; and (2) the parties disagree that information related to every individual that has occupied the position of Package Division Manager in the District is within the permissible scope of discovery, and that such individuals are proper comparators.

Ruling: Plaintiffs argue that this interrogatory “goes to qualifications, the promotional process itself, to establishing a basis for comparison to comparators to establish the intent elements at the prima facie and pretext stage, knowledge of decision-makers as to that performance, and could provide direct evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory intent.” The court finds that this interrogatory seeks irrelevant information, and any arguable relevance is outweighed by the burden of production. No further response is required of UPS.

5. Interrogatory No. 5: Please describe in detail every communication, including, but not limited to, correspondence, verbal conversations, memoranda, texts, emails, voice mail messages, and electronic communications, by and between any and all agents or employees of Defendants regarding filling the position of Package Division Manager since 2/1/14 within Harms' District.

UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad in that the position was filled by a lateral transfer and not a promotion. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS produced documents responsive to this request. UPS [has since] produced documents related to Nuckles' 2014 transfer to Memphis that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_714, 727, 817, 819-20, 823, 839-40, 860-61, 1324.

UPS's additional response in August 24, 2015 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) Plaintiff's disagree with Judge Pham's temporal and geographic limitations; and (2) the parties disagree on the relevant custodians; and (3) the parties disagree that any communication regarding filling the position of Package Division Manager in the District is within the permissible scope of discovery. Ruling: As with Interrogatory No. 3 above, the court finds that this interrogatory seeks information that is relevant, as the positions were ones that Wherry was allegedly wrongfully denied. A separate ESI search shall be conducted to locate responsive emails, in the same manner as described above.

6. Second Request for Production No. 2: Produce the original and color copies of all documents whatsoever maintained by the Defendant or its agents pertaining to Wherry's employment which includes, but is not limited their complete personnel file(s), employment application, resumes, hiring documents, assignments/titles, job descriptions and duties, acknowledgments of receipt of employment handbook and other documents, performance evaluations, deficiency notices, written warnings, security files, write-ups, criticisms, complaints, reprimands, wages records, W-2's, payroll records, rates of pay, promotion/demotion records, attendance records, time records, time cards, computerized time sheets, job evaluations or reviews, discharge papers, termination/separation notices, unemployment filings and/or documents, etc.

*14 UPS's response/production: Objection. UPS objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff James Wherry has been employed with UPS for 20+ years and these records are irrelevant to Wherry's claims in this lawsuit and could not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, UPS produces the following additional records related to Mr. Wherry's employment with UPS: Websir file; Concerns made by or about Plaintiff since January 2014; Current Employee History Profile; and Payroll History 2014 –present. UPS [has since] produced responsive documents Bates labeled UPS_GWII_ 0000203-210, 213, 228-231, 437-488, 490-503, 505-528, 533-537, 539-541, 574, 590, 592, 599, 683-689. UPS will produce additional corporate concerns and has produced career development records for Wherry UPS_GWII_1059-1114.

Ruling: The court finds that Wherry is entitled to obtain a complete copy of his own personnel file. Within 30 days, UPS shall produce Wherry's personnel file as it is kept in the normal course of UPS's business. UPS need not produce color copies of documents, nor will UPS be required to separately gather each of the documents listed in the document request.

7. Second Request for Production No. 4: If you contend that Wherry's or Goree's work performance was less satisfactory at any time during their employment with Defendant, please produce all documents which substantiate this claim.

UPS's response/production: UPS has made available for copying and inspection documents responsive to Mr. Wherry in its response to Request No. 2 above. See Response to Request No. 2. Also, see documents Bates labeled UPS_GWII_152-183, 418, 433, 485, 556, 684.

UPS's additional response in August 24, 2015 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) Plaintiff's disagree with Judge Pham's temporal limitation; (2) the parties disagree on the relevant custodians; and (3) the parties disagree that any document whatsoever related to Goree's and Wherry's performance is within the permissible scope of discovery.

Ruling: The court finds that the request seeks relevant information, in that the request asks UPS to produce documents only to the extent UPS contends that plaintiffs' work performance was less than satisfactory. If UPS does not take that position, then it need not produce any documents. UPS shall respond to this request within 30 days.

8. Second Request for Production No. 5: Please produce a copy of all documents or things in the possession or control of the Defendants with respect to promotion within UPS.

UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous such that responding would impermissibly require UPS to speculate as to Plaintiffs' intended meaning. UPS does not know what Plaintiffs mean by “documents ... of the Defendants with respect to promotion.” In addition, this Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Interpreted broadly, this Request could encompass any email, memo, or notation about a promotion at UPS, at any time and in any location. Compiling such information would be both impossible and wholly irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims in this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, see UPS's response to Interrogatory No. 6. UPS has already produced its Policy Book and produces MAPP policies. See documents Bates labeled UPS_GWII_1-60 and will be producing documents related to the MRE.

Ruling: Plaintiffs state that “there is training and other guidance provided to UPS managers and the BPU with respect to the promotional process and this information should be identified.” The court finds this request to be vague and overly broad. The request does not describe with any level of specificity the kinds of documents plaintiffs seek. UPS need not provide a further response.

*15 9. Second Request for Production No. 6: Please provide the original and color copies of each and every document in the possession of the Defendants pertaining to the employment of Ken Harms, Jack McDowell and any other employee identified in response to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2, including all security investigations and alleged policies violated.

UPS's response/production: Objection. UPS objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Several of the employees identified, including Mr. Harms and Mr. McDowell, have worked with UPS in excess of twenty years and all documents related to their employment during the course of that time are irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims in this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS is producing corporate concerns involving Ken Harms and Jack McDowell since January 2014. Subject to and without waiving its objections, UPS produced the following responsive documents: UPS_GWII_633-683.

UPS's additional response in August 24, 2015 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) Plaintiffs disagree with Judge Pham's temporal and geographic limitations; (2) the parties disagree on the relevant custodians; and (3) the parties disagree that any documents related to the employment of Ken Harms, Jack McDowell and members of the BPU is within the permissible scope of discovery. Ruling: The court finds that this request is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information, as it seeks all documents pertaining to the employment of Harms, McDowell, and other employees identified by UPS in response to the two interrogatories at issue. No further response is required of UPS.

10. Second Request for Production No. 8: Produce the original and color copies of all documents whatsoever maintained by the Defendant or its agents pertaining to the individual's identified in response to the above interrogatories' employment which includes, but is not limited their complete personnel file(s), employment application, resumes, hiring documents, assignments/titles, job descriptions and duties, acknowledgments of receipt of employment handbook and other documents, performance evaluations, deficiency notices, written warnings, security files, write-ups, criticisms, complaints, reprimands, wages records, W-2's, payroll records, rates of pay, promotion/demotion records, attendance records, time records, time cards, computerized time sheets, job evaluations or reviews, discharge papers, termination/separation notices, unemployment filings and/or documents, etc.

UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Several of the employees identified have worked with UPS in excess of twenty years and all documents related to their employment during the course of that time would be irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims in this case. If Plaintiffs will clarify and narrow this request, UPS will attempt to respond. See documents identified above for Goree and Wherry along with all career development records for individuals that have occupied a Business Manager and Division Manager Position in Tennessee since 2011 that are Bates labeled UPS_GWII_1332-4013.

*16 UPS's additional response in its August 24 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) Plaintiffs disagree with Judge Pham's temporal and geographic limitations; (2) the parties disagree on the relevant custodians; and (3) the parties disagree that any document related to the employment of Ken Harms, Jack McDowell, members of the BPU, and every individual that has occupied the position of supervisor, center manager or division manager in the District is within the permissible scope of discovery.

Ruling: In their August 24 submission, plaintiffs state that “[d]uring final consultation, with respect to persons promoted to Package Division Manager after 2/1/14, Defendant agreed to produce their Center File, write-ups, discipline, performance evaluations, security investigations and operational rankings. Plaintiffs submit that all requested information should be produced.” The court finds that this request, in its current form, is overly broad and seeks irrelevant information. No further response is required of UPS.

11. Second Request for Production No. 9: Please produce any and all photographs, emails, negatives, audio recordings and/or videotapes which pertain to the Plaintiffs or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.

UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it contains no temporal limitation and potentially encompasses a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As framed, this request could encompass thousands of irrelevant emails that in any way relate to Plaintiffs, irrespective of the subject matter. This request is well beyond any permissible discovery. UPS further objects to this request because the Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. For this period of time, there are no documents responsive to this request.

UPS's additional response in its August 24 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) Plaintiff's disagree with Judge Pham's temporal and geographic limitations; (2) the parties disagree on the relevant custodians; and (3) the parties disagree that any document related to Plaintiff is within the permissible scope of discovery.

Ruling: The court finds that this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of irrelevant information. No further response is required of UPS.

12. Second Request for Production No. 10: Please produce any and all documents that relate or pertain to any written statements or declarations (signed or unsigned), made by any person, which mention, discuss or refer to Plaintiffs or any complaints, whether formal or informal.

UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and not calculated to the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As framed, this request encompasses every email that in any way relates to Wherry during the entire course of his 20+ year employment with UPS, irrespective of the subject matter. This request is well beyond any admissible discovery. UPS also objects to this Request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, there are no declarations or written statements since 2014.

*17 UPS's additional response in August 24 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) Plaintiff's disagree with Judge Pham's temporal and geographic limitations; (2) the parties disagree on the relevant custodians; and (3) the parties disagree that any document related to Plaintiff is within the permissible scope of discovery.

Ruling: The court finds that this request, in its current form, is overly broad and seek production of irrelevant information. No further response is required of UPS.

13. Second Request for Production No. 11: Please produce any and all documents that relate or pertain to any of Defendant's policies, guidelines, training or procedures regarding discrimination, harassment, and retaliation which were in effect during the last five (5) years.

UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this request because it is vague and ambiguous such that requiring UPS to respond would impermissibly require it to guess as to Plaintiffs' intended meaning. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS will make available for inspection and copying responsive documents, and additionally will provide Plaintiffs with 30(b)(6) testimony on behalf of UPS on this topic.[16]

Ruling: The court finds that this request seeks relevant, discoverable information. Within 30 days, UPS shall produce its company policies, guidelines, training or procedures regarding discrimination, harassment, and retaliation which were in effect since 2011.

14. Second Request for Production No. 12: Please produce any and all emails sent to or received by the BPU and the individuals identified in response to Interrogatories # 1 and 2 since Plaintiffs 3/1/11 regarding the Plaintiffs, their job performance, their lawsuit, and whether Wherry is capable of performing the job of Package Division Manager.

UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this request because as drafted it is grammatically and syntactically indecipherable. To the extent Plaintiffs are seeking emails related to their job performance, UPS objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome insofar as it contains no temporal limitation and potentially encompasses a vast amount of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As framed, this request encompasses every email that in any way relates to Wherry during the entire course of his 20+ year employment with UPS, irrespective of the subject matter. This request is well beyond any admissible discovery. UPS also objects to this Request because the [District] Court has specifically limited the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present and this request far exceeds the temporal scope of that limitation. See documents identified above regarding Wherry and Goree.

UPS's additional response in August 24 submission: The parties were unable to resolve this request because: (1) the parties disagree on the relevant custodians; and (2) the parties disagree that any document related to Plaintiffs is within the permissible scope of discovery.

*18 Ruling: The court agrees with UPS that the wording of this request makes it difficult to decipher. In its current form, the court cannot conclude that the request seeks relevant, discoverable information. UPS need not respond to this request.

15. Second Request for Production No. 13: Please produce all emails that address, concern, or relate to the process by which UPS promotes management personnel.

UPS's response/production: Objection. In addition to its general objections, UPS specifically objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. There is no temporal or geographic limitation to this request and it would be impossible for UPS to meaningfully respond. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, if Plaintiffs will clarify and narrow this request, UPS will attempt to respond. Otherwise, see response to Interrogatory No. 6 and UPS's Policy Book that has already been produced. See response to Interrogatory No. 5.

Ruling: The court finds that, in its current form, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. UPS need not provide a further response to this request.

16. Second Request for Production No. 13: A copy of all job requisitions for all Grade 30 and above since 2/1/14 within Tennessee.[17]

UPS's response/production: Objection. UPS objects to this request because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. UPS also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks requisitions for any position above Package Division Manager, as that is the position Mr. Wherry claims he was denied in the Complaint. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, UPS produces any requisitions for Package Division Manager positions in Tennessee that became available to be filled between February 1, 2014 and the present. UPS produced documents Bates labeled UPS_GWII_1293-1331. Additional requisitions will be produced for Package Division Manager positions in Tennessee.

Ruling: The court finds that this request, to the extent it is limited to job requisitions for Package Division Managers, seeks relevant information. Within 30 days, UPS shall produce any requisitions for Package Division Manager positions in Tennessee that became available to be filled between February 1, 2014 and the present.

For the reasons above, the motions to compel are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Wherry has worked for UPS for over 31 years. (Decl. of Wherry, ECF No. 41-5.) In 2006, he was the first African-American man promoted to Division Manager in Memphis.

The original complaint also brought individual claims against Harms pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On October 30, 2014, the District Judge entered an order dismissing the individual claims against Harms. (ECF No. 36, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Oct. 30, 2014.)

Although not entirely clear from the complaint, Harms's statement was made apparently in reference to an employment discrimination lawsuit Goree had filed against UPS in this District Court in 2005. Paragraph 11 of the Third Amended Complaint states, “Mr. Goree had opposed discriminatory practices and participated in a lawsuit against UPS on numerous occasions, and Mr. Wherry was a witness to the discrimination Goree experienced.”

The Shelby County Circuit Court denied this motion.

The District Judge ruled in her order denying UPS's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings that Goree's failure to apply for these positions did not necessarily preclude him from bringing a retaliation claim.

The June 29, 2015 Order also ordered UPS to produce a copy of the career development records for J.B. Hardaway, the Division Manager in Jackson, Mississippi, and Gary Reed, the Division Manager in Jacksonville, Florida.

The Mid-South District encompasses four states (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee), twelve Package Divisions, and 102 package centers. Currently, there are approximately twelve Package Division Managers, 71 Business Managers, and 753 Full-Time Supervisions in the Mid-South District.

At the September 9, 2015 hearing, plaintiffs acknowledged that their original proposed search was overly broad.

Each of these locations represent a UPS center within the West Tennessee Division. (ECF No. 109-4 at 9.)

This page total does not include spreadsheet attachments, which were produced in native format and thus were not Bates numbered. UPS estimated that the total number of pages possibly exceeded 1 million, although no actual count was ever conducted.

UPS represented to the court at the September 9, 2015 hearing that the cost for the ESI review was approximately $26,000.

Each discovery request in dispute is set forth verbatim below, accompanied by UPS's objections and UPS's supplemental response as contained in its “Chart Response.”

This reference to the District Court “limiting the relevant time period of inquiry from February 1, 2014 to the present” relates to comments made by the court at the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference held on October 23, 2014. (ECF No. 35, Transcript.)

If UPS has already produced this discovery, UPS shall within 30 days serve plaintiffs with a supplemental discovery response confirming that it has provided these documents and identifying by Bates numbers all documents produced in response to this request.

Plaintiffs also sought production of a privilege log from UPS. A privilege log was produced to plaintiffs by the September 9 hearing.

UPS did not address this request in its August 24 submission.

There are apparently two “Second Request for Production No. 13.”