Kim, Young B., United States Magistrate Judge
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the City of Chicago (the “City”) to produce documents regarding other acts of sex discrimination in the Chicago Fire Department Academy (the “Academy”). For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part:
In their motion, Plaintiffs initially sought to compel the City to produce documents responsive to Nos. 24 and 25 of their second set of document requests and No. 1 of their third set of document requests. In between the filing of the motion and Plaintiffs’ reply, the City produced some of the documents Plaintiffs seek in the motion. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs are still seeking the production of the following documents:
1. [C]omplaints regarding sex discrimination (including sexual harassment) in the paramedic academy since 2011, and
2. [C]omplaints regarding aggression, violence, or threats of violence directed at women in the firefighter or paramedic academy from 2008 to the present, including documents and ESI regarding incidents involving Juan Lopez and Robert Leventopoulos.
(R. 307, Pls.’ Reply at 3 (emphasis in original).) Plaintiffs argue that other instances of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual violence against women in the workplace are relevant to support their allegations of a “deep-seated pattern or practice of intentional sex discrimination at CFD[.]” (R. 287, Pls.’ Mot. at 7.) The City opposes the motion and asserts that the information Plaintiffs seek is not relevant and not proportional to the issues in this case, pointing out that at its core this case is about Plaintiffs’ failure to pass two physical tests that were prerequisites for graduating from the Academy. Plaintiffs disagree and charge that the City is deliberately narrowing the issues in this case to reduce the pool of relevant information.
The court agrees with the City that the discovery Plaintiffs seek here is not relevant and not proportional to the needs of this case. Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Here, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in January 2020. (See R. 259.) In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that because the City was barred from using certain discriminatory pre-hire physical testing to weed out as many female applicants as possible from joining the Chicago Fire Department (“CFD”), in 2014 the City installed new post-hire barriers to make it difficult for female cadets to graduate from the Academy. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the City―without any input from professionals―designed and implemented the “Step Test” and “Lifting and Moving Sequence” to prevent female cadets from meeting the graduation requirements to remain with CFD as paramedics. As a result, CFD terminated Plaintiffs’ employment. Plaintiffs claim that the administration of these tests in 2014 and 2015 amounted to intentional sex discrimination, that these tests had a disparate negative impact (as designed) on female cadets, and that these tests violated their constitutional right to equal protection.
The court agrees with the City that “complaints” of sex discrimination or violence in the workplace are not relevant in this particular case because they are merely complaints and not findings of discrimination or violence in the workplace. (R. 298, City’s Resp. at 2.) The City correctly points out that for these “complaints” to have any relevance whatsoever, the court or the jury would have to engage in mini-trials for each complaint to resolve whether there was indeed underlying sex discrimination. Moreover, complaints going back 12 years, even if deemed somewhat useful, are too far removed from the alleged wrongdoing to be considered proportional to the needs of this case. As Plaintiffs have claimed in their amended complaint, the “principal focus of [their] complaint is the City’s discriminatory use of physical testing of candidate Fire Paramedics that is not job related and operates as a barrier to employment for women[.]” The scope of discovery must be tied to the claims and defenses of the case and cannot be dictated by every extraneous assertion Plaintiffs add in their complaint, especially in this case where, according to the amended complaint, those Plaintiffs who have returned to CFD have experienced a productive working environment, including a promotion. (See R. 259 ¶¶ 36, 43, 45, 47, 49.)
Not only do Plaintiffs seek information that is not relevant or useful in this case, the scope of their requests is unduly burdensome and broad. According to Plaintiffs’ claim, the City actively designed the subject tests with the specific intention to fail female cadets so that they are unable to graduate from the Academy. However, the “City” cannot design or intend anything without its agents and employees. Plaintiffs fail to explain in their motion any link between the complaints they seek, going back 12 years, and the City official or officials responsible for designing the subject tests and/or deciding (or recommending) to implement them as graduation requirements for the Academy in 2014 and 2015. Without some information linking other acts of sexual discrimination to the officials responsible for the allegedly discriminatory conduct, the scope of the requests in question is too broad and therefore unduly burdensome.
Having said that, the motion is granted to the extent that the City is ordered to produce those documents pertaining to the City officials who designed the subject tests and/or decided/recommended to implement them as graduation requirements for the Academy in 2014 and 2015, and showing that they engaged in sex discrimination or any form of violence (including the threat of violence) against women in the workplace. To be clear, the City is only obligated to turn over those documents if after an investigation, grievance, or litigation, the official was deemed to have engaged in misconduct. The temporal scope for this production is for the duration of the relevant officials’ employment with the City.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.