Overton v. United Way of Allegheny County
Overton v. United Way of Allegheny County
2007 WL 9782781 (W.D. Pa. 2007)
September 24, 2007
Fischer, Nora B., United States District Judge
Summary
The court addressed the disputed discovery requests and found United Way's objections to be without merit for Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 9 through 17. The court also ordered United Way to fully and completely respond to Document Request No. 18 and produce the requested email attachments, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 concerning the production of ESI.
JAMES R. OVERTON, Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED WAY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, et al., Defendants
v.
THE UNITED WAY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 05-1787
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Filed September 24, 2007
Counsel
Douglas C. Hart, Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall and Furman, PC, Steven D. Irwin, Steven M. Reinsel, Leech, Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl, Pittsburgh, PA, Andrew L. Blattenberger, Urban & Blattenberger, P.C., Hollidaysburg, PA, for Plaintiff.Craig W. Snethen, Martin J. Saunders, Jackson Lewis LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.
Fischer, Nora B., United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM ORDER
*1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Second Request for Production of Documents Directed to the United Way of Allegheny County [DE 149], filed by Plaintiff James R. Overton (hereinafter, “Overton”) on August 13, 2007. On August 21, 2007, Defendant United Way of Allegheny County (hereinafter, “United Way”) filed Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Second Request for Production of Documents Directed to the United Way of Allegheny County. On August 27, 2007, Overton filed his Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Second Request for Production of Documents Directed to the United Way of Allegheny County. Finally, on August 31, 2007, United Way filed its Sur-Reply Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Second Request for Production of Documents Directed to the United Way of Allegheny County. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for ruling.
On May 4, 2007, Overton served a Second Request for Production of Documents on United Way. After a short extension granted by the Court, on July 5, 2007, United Way served its Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents, in which it asserted objections to sixteen (16) of the eighteen (18) document requests. On July 30, 2007, after attempts to resolve these discovery disputes, United Way clarified its responses to Document Request Nos. 3 and 4 but reiterated its objections as to the remaining document requests.
The Court will address the disputed discovery requests in turn.
As to Document Request Nos. 7 and 8, United Way objects, arguing the following: Document Request No. 8 requests information that is irrelevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); and Document Request No. 7 requests information that is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, among the others cited above. In response, Overton draws a distinction between admissible and discoverable evidence, asserting that these documents are relevant and discoverable.
The Court agrees with Overton and finds that United Way’s objections under the Federal Rules of Evidence are premature. As the parties well know, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that “[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). At this stage in the litigation and applying the liberal standards for discovery under Rule 26, the Court finds that the requested information is relevant and “appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). Further, the Court need not, and again given the early stage of the litigation, cannot, rule as to the admissibility of said evidence;[3] however, at a more appropriate time, the Court may do so.[4]
*3 As to Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 9 through 17, United Way objects, arguing that certain aspects of the document requests are unclear, such as the term “outsourcing” in Document Request No. 12, “executive employees” in Document Request Nos. 14 and 16, and the phrase “similar” in Document Request No. 15. Overton responds that United Way’s objections are “unsubstantiated general objections and vague specific objections” and thus United Way should be ordered to more precisely state its objections. Docket No. 149, at 8-9.
While the Court fails to see any ambiguity in words and phrases such as “similar” and “executive employees”, in the interests of full and complete discovery and in order to avoid future discovery motions as to “similar” issues, the Court orders Overton to provide clarifications as to the document requests enumerated by United Way, specifically the following: Document Request No. 12 and the term “outsourcing”; Document Request Nos. 14 and 16 and the phrase “executive employees”; and Document Request No. 15 and the term “similar.” As to the remaining document requests, specifically Document Requests Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, and 17, the Court finds United Way’s objections to be without merit and orders United Way to respond within thirty (30) days of this Order. Moreover, for future reference, United Way should use its best judgment and interpret the meaning of words (not defined) in good faith and in their common usage. Finally, as to Document Request Nos. 10 and 11, see infra.
As to Document Request Nos. 10 and 11, United Way objects, noting that these documents will be produced pursuant to the Confidentiality Order entered by this Court on June 11, 2007. Overton responds that not only is it entitled to “receive copies of those documents in United Way’s possession”, but that “United Way may have documents different than those possessed by others”, i.e., referring to United Way’s auditors.
The Court agrees with United Way. As to documents in the possession of its auditors, specifically KPMG, LLP and Pascarella & Wiker, LLP, this Court’s June 11, 2007 Confidentiality Order controls, and, to the extent that United Way also possesses copies of responsive documents, the Court finds that requiring disclosure of same is unnecessarily and unreasonably cumulative and duplicative as well as unduly burdensome to the Defendant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)). However, to the extent that United Way possesses responsive documents not in the possession of its auditors, the Court orders United Way to respond within thirty (30) days.
*4 As to Document Request No. 18, United Way asserts that it “recognizes its obligations under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 34 and has been diligently and in good faith attempting to locate electronic versions of documents already produced in discovery to date.” Docket No. 153, at 14. United Way represents that said responsive documents will be produced as soon as they become available, no later than August 31, 2007. Overton responds noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide no extra time to produce electronic documents, and that United Way should be ordered to produce all responsive documents.
Considering United Way’s representation, the Court orders United Way to fully and completely respond to Document Request No. 18 to the extent which it has not responded to date, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order as well as to produce the requested email attachments. Further, the Court directs the parties to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, concerning the production of electronically stored information.
5. Conclusion
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Second Request for Production of Documents Directed to the United Way of Allegheny County [DE 149] is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants the motion as to Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 13, 17-18, and specified email attachments, and orders United Way to respond accordingly within thirty (30) days of this Order. The Court further grants the motion as to Document Requests Nos. 12 and 14-16, but orders Overton to provide clarifications thereto, as outlined above, within ten (10) days of this Order and United Way shall respond within fourteen (14) days thereafter. The Court also denies the motion as to Document Request Nos. 10 and 11, except, to the extent that United Way possesses responsive documents not in the possession of its auditors, United Way shall respond within thirty (30) days.
Footnotes
Document Request No. 7 provides: “Kindly produce all documents relating to the severance [sic] compensation or benefits offered an/or paid to any employee who left their employment with the United Way from 2002 to date.” Docket No. 149, Exh. A, at ¶7.
Document Request No. 8 provides: “Kindly produce all documents relating to any charge, claim or complaint, whether formal or informal, external or internal, by any employee of the United Way (‘claim’) of discriminatory conduct on the part of the United Way from 2001 to date, including the United Way’s response thereto.” Docket No. 149, Exh. A, at ¶8.
For example, Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 408(b) provide exceptions for the admission of evidence that nevertheless fall under those Rules; still, at this stage, the Court cannot rule as to the admissibility of such evidence because the Court does not know the purpose behind such evidence and the Court declines to speculate.
While United Way provides string cites to numerous cases, the majority of which are from outside this Circuit, United Way discusses and relies upon one case in particular, Moorhouse v. Boeing Co., 501 F.Supp. 390 (D.C. Pa. 1980), aff’d 639 F.2d 774 (3d Cir. 1980). In that case, on a motion for new trial following a jury verdict for the defendant on an age discrimination suit, the Court held that the exclusion of testimony of other employees who were plaintiffs in additional age discrimination cases brought against the same employer-defendant did not constitute error so as to warrant a new trial. Id. at 394. The Court notes that the Moorhouse Court made such a ruling at trial. Based on the information currently before this Court, a similar ruling is not appropriate at this time.
Document Request No. 1 provides: “Identify and produce copies of any and all documents identified and/or relied upon Defendant in responding to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories directed to Defendant.” Docket No. 149, Exh. A, at ¶1.
Document Request No. 2 provides:
Identify and produce all documents that relate to Plaintiff in any way including, but not limited to: a) Any performance evaluations completed for Plaintiff; b) Any grievances and/or complaints filed and/or raised by the Plaintiff during, or following, his time of employment with Defendant; c) Any job descriptions and/or job responsibility summaries for any positions held by Plaintiff during his time of employment; d) Any and all promotions of the Plaintiff during his time of employment; e) Any complaints made against or about Plaintiff; f) Any and all disciplinary actions taken against the Plaintiff during his time of employment; g) All documents relating to Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff[’]s employment; and h) All correspondence, email, memoranda, notes of meetings, or notes of telephone conversations relating in any way to Plaintiff.
Docket No. 149, Exh. A, at ¶2.
Document Request No. 5 provides: “Kindly produce all minutes of all meetings of the United Way’s Board of Directors and any committee or executive session thereof from June 2003 through 2005.” Docket No. 149, Exh. A, at ¶5.
Document Request No. 9 provides: “Kindly produce all documents relating to the policy or position of the national United Way organization that the United Way adopt a written diversity policy, including all communication relating thereon, all draft policies, and any efforts by the United Way to comply with such policy.” Document Request No. 12 provides: “Kindly produce all documents relating to the United Way’s reassignment or outsourcing after Overton’s termination of any of the duties or responsibilities Overton had as an employee of the United Way just prior to his termination.” Document Request No. 13 provides: “Kindly produce all documents describing or discussing the scope of Robert Krasmen’s duties and responsibilities at the United Way from 2001 through 2005.” Document Request No. 14 provides: “Kindly produce all documents relating to how the compensation for each executive employee of the United Way, including base salary, fringe benefits, incentives and bonuses, was determined each year from 1999 through 2005, including all benchmark studies conducted or reviewed and any other comparative information consulted or otherwise used in making each such decision.” Document Request No. 15 provides: “Kindly produce all documents relating to or consisting of the 2004 Salary Report, and all other reports from that and other years similar to such Salary Report, from which the page marked DEF0040 was extracted and produced by Defendants in conjunction with their Rule 26 Disclosures.” Document Request No. 16 provides: “Kindly produce all documents in United Way’s possession relating to the compensation provided to executive employees of other United Way organizations from 1999 to date.” Document Request No. 17 provides: “Produce all documents describing or discussing Michael Ryan’s duties and responsibilities at the United Way from January 2005 to date and/or his compensation as it existed from time-to-time during that period, including base salary, fringe benefits, investments and bonuses.” See generally, Docket No. 149, ¶¶9, 12-17.
Document Request No. 10 provides: “Kindly produce all document relating to the audits of the United Way’s financial statements and records for the years ended 2001 through 2005.” Docket No. 149, Exh. A, at ¶10.
Document Request No. 11 provides: “Kindly produce all documents relating to KPMG and/or Pascarella & Wiker and/or any work performed by them for the United Way from 2002 through 2005.” Docket No. 149, Exh. A, at ¶11.
Document request No. 18 provides: “Kindly produce all electronically stored information responsive to either the foregoing document requests or Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories in PDF or equivalent form so that such data is searchable.” Docket No. 149, Exh. A, at ¶18.
Plaintiff asserts that while Defendant United Way produced a limited number of emails in response to Plaintiff’s various document requests, “a large number of the emails reference and/or contain attachments which were not produced.” Docket No. 149, at ¶¶18-19.