*1 Plaintiff Perry Hopman alleges that Union Pacific Railroad (“Union Pacific”) discriminated against him due to his disability and failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. Before the Court is Mr. Hopman's motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 14). Union Pacific responded (Dkt. No. 15), Mr. Hopman replied (Dkt. No. 17). The parties indicated to the Court that they resolved the issues raised in the motion to compel, with the exception of Mr. Hopman's request that Union Pacific supplement its responses to Interrogatories No. 2 and 16 and Request for Admission No. 15. The Court conducted a hearing on these remaining issues on November 20, 2018. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to compel as to Interrogatories No. 2 and 16 and Request for Admission No. 15 (Dkt. No. 14).

I. Legal Standard

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

In resisting otherwise relevant discovery, “the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost .... If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). When weighing the proportionality of the discovery to the needs of the case, courts should consider “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

II. Discovery Requests

While the parties represent that they have reached an accord on most of the outstanding discovery requests, Mr. Hopman argues that Union Pacific has not completely answered Interrogatories No. 2 and 16 or Request for Admission No. 15. The Court's rulings on each objection and request at issue are below.

In Interrogatory No. 2, Mr. Hopman asks Union Pacific to “identify any of the essential functions of Plaintiff's job(s) which you contend plaintiff was unable to perform, or substantially limited in performing while working for you.” (Dkt. No. 14-1, at 2). Union Pacific initially responded by directing Mr. Hopman to “its Trainman job description ....” (Id.). Union Pacific later amended its response, stating that:

(Dkt. No. 14-3, at 2). Mr. Hopman argues that “[t]his is not an answer, but rather poses more questions back at the plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 14, at 4). In response, Union Pacific argues that, because the “uncontroverted evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that [Mr. Hopman] continues to work as a Trainman (Switchman) without a service dog,” he can perform the essential duties of his job (Dkt. No. 15, at 6). Alternatively, Union Pacific argues that, if Mr. Hopman “cannot work as a Trainman without his service animal at his side,” then he cannot perform any of the essential functions of a Trainman (Id.).

The Court agrees with Mr. Hopman that Union Pacific's response is inadequate. First, Interrogatory No. 2 seeks relevant information. The ADA makes it unlawful for a private employer to discriminate against any “qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). “To be a qualified individual under the ADA, an employee must ‘ ... be able to perform the essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation.’ ” Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corp. Servs. Inc., 691 F.3d 925, 930 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 712 (8th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court finds that the information sought by this interrogatory may be relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case. Second, Union Pacific's current response, phrased as it is, is not responsive. Union Pacific's current response turns the question back on Mr. Hopman; the question seeks Union Pacific's response and information regarding Union Pacific's defense in this case. If there are “essential functions” Union Pacific contends Mr. Hopman “was unable to perform, or substantially limited in performing while working for” Union Pacific, Union Pacific must identify the essential functions or, if none, state none. The Court therefore directs Union Pacific to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 2 and produce all non-privileged, responsive information, if it exists, or refer to such information in response to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent non-privileged, responsive information is already a part of this record.

In Request for Admission No. 15, Mr. Hopman asks Union Pacific to “admit or deny that Plaintiff was, at all times relevant, qualified for the position he holds within the meaning of the ADA.” (Dkt. No. 14-4, at 4). Union Pacific originally objected to this request “to the extent it seeks a legal conclusion” and later amended its response to state:

(Dkt. No. 14-5, at 4). Mr. Hopman objects that this response “does not answer anything,” especially given that “[t]he request does not inquire about the future.” (Dkt. No. 14, at 10).

*3 Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(1)(A), “[a] party may serve on any other party a written request to admit ... the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to ... facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either ....” Furthermore, Rule 36(a)(4) states that “[i]f a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” As Request for Admission No. 15 seeks an admission regarding whether Mr. Hopman “was” a “qualified” employee under the ADA “at all times relevant,” the Court concludes that the information sought by Request for Admission No. 15 may be relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case. Furthermore, Union Pacific's response to Request for Admission No. 15 is inconsistent with the requirements of Rule 36. The Court therefore directs Union Pacific to amend its answer to Request for Admission No. 15 to admit or deny the request for the relevant period, or to state in detail why Union Pacific cannot truthfully admit or deny the request, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4).

In Interrogatory No. 16, Mr. Hopman asks Union Pacific to “[i]dentify all conductors with disabilities who have been accommodated by Union Pacific from 2008 to the present, and describe the accommodations you agreed to extend to each of these conductors.” (Dkt. No. 14-1, at 6). In response, Union Pacific objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is disproportional to the needs of the case, though Union Pacific did agree to provide Mr. Hopman “with a list of conductors from 2013 through present who have requested an accommodation for use of a service dog, if any.” (Id.). The Court understands that the parties reached agreement on this time period.

Union Pacific later amended its response to this interrogatory, stating that:

(Dkt. No. 14-3, at 6).

Mr. Hopman alleges that the information sought by Interrogatory No. 16 is relevant to the two affirmative defenses asserted by Union Pacific: undue hardship and unreasonableness (Dkt. No. 14, at 5). Furthermore, Mr. Hopman alleges that he is entitled to discovery on Union Pacific's “system-wide” accommodation requests because Union Pacific “adheres to a company wide policy on accommodations” and because “policy, and decisions about reasonable accommodations, are made and administered by departments and individuals with company wide responsibilities.” (Id.). In Union Pacific's response to the motion to compel, Union Pacific retorts that limiting discovery to the Southern Region is appropriate “because [Mr. Hopman] worked in the Southern Region,” and because evidence of other accommodations unrelated to a service dog is “not relevant or necessary for [Mr. Hopman] to prove Union Pacific discriminated against [Mr. Hopman] ....” (Dkt. No. 15, at 9).

First, the Court notes that, in response to Mr. Hopman's discovery requests, Union Pacific did not initially object to Interrogatory No. 16 on relevance grounds. Regardless, the Court overrules the relevance objection. The Court concludes that information regarding accommodations unrelated to a service dog is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Second, the record evidence before the Court indicates that national Union Pacific officials— including Pauline Weatherford, the Disability Management Program Manager, and Rod Doerr, the Vice-President of Safety for Union Pacific—were involved in the decision to deny Mr. Hopman's request for an accommodation (Dkt. No. 15, at 4). Further, record evidence demonstrates that Union Pacific has a nationwide “Reasonable Accommodation Policy” which requires all accommodation requests to be forwarded to a centralized “EEO Hotline.” (Dkt. No. 14-6). Based upon the record evidence and arguments before the Court, the Court finds that a nationwide scope of discovery is appropriate. Semple v. Federal Exp. Corp., 566 F.3d 788, 794 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that a requesting party must show a “particularized need” for the requested information).

*4 Third, while Union Pacific has objected to nationwide discovery as disproportionate, there is little evidence in the record that demonstrates how burdensome such discovery will be on Union Pacific. The record evidence does indicate that, in response to Interrogatory No. 16, Union Pacific identified “30 employee accommodation requests from the Southern Region” and that Union Pacific needed to “manually view each person's medical director's file and person[nell] file to determine if they [were] indeed responsive.” (Dkt. No. 14-9). This process involved “a Health and Medical Service employee [providing] ... the medical files from a separate medical records data base ....” (Id.). The record evidence does not indicate how many other regions are implicated by a nationwide search. The record evidence also indicates that Union Pacific conducted a nationwide search in response to Interrogatory No. 17, which is specifically directed at service dog accommodation requests (Id.). Given that Union Pacific's search of the Southern Region alone found only 30 responsive accommodation requests, the Court cannot say, based upon the record evidence, that a nationwide search of Union Pacific's accommodation requests is so burdensome as to be disproportionate to the needs of the case.

The Court therefore directs Union Pacific to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 16 and to produce all non-privileged, responsive information that identifies all conductors with disabilities who have been accommodated by Union Pacific from 2013 to the present and to describe the accommodation Union Pacific agreed to extend to each of these conductors, if such information exists, or refer to such information in response to Interrogatory No. 16 to the extent non-privileged, responsive information is already a part of this record.

III. Conclusion

Consistent with the terms of this Order, the Court grants Mr. Hopman's motion to compel discovery responses of Union Pacific (Dkt. No. 14).

So ordered this 6th day of December, 2018.