eDiscovery Assistant

Garcia v. Primary Health Care, Inc.

2021 WL 6618843 (S.D. Iowa 2021)

October 18, 2021

Jackson Jr., Stephen B., United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

The Court granted the motion to compel more complete answers and disclose documents from Defendant, ordering them to produce the names and resumes of all individuals who have held the position of Medical Director at PHC over the past 10 years, as well as any other information relied upon by all the managers and selecting officials to not select Dr. Garcia for the position in question.

Additional Decisions

PETER GARCIA, Plaintiff,
v.
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant

CIVIL NO. 4:20-cv-00391-JAJ-SBJ

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division

Filed October 18, 2021

Counsel

Peter Garcia, Orlando, FL, Pro Se.
Thomas M. Cunningham, Kevin Bernard Patrick, Nyemaster Goode PC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

Jackson Jr., Stephen B., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

*1 Plaintiff Peter Garcia alleges defendant Primary Health Care, Inc. discriminated against him based on age and disability during an interview process for a Medical Director position which he did not obtain. Dkt. 1. He also claims defendant retaliated against him for expressing concerns about discriminatory actions during the interview process. Id. Those concerns related to plaintiff's hearing loss and use of a closed caption system during telephone interviews. Id. Plaintiff claims defendant violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216. Id. He also asserts claims of fraud and defamation. Id. Defendant contends its actions did not constitute discrimination or retaliation and denies it has any liability to plaintiff. Dkt. 4.

Now before the Court is a Motion to Compel More Complete Answers and Disclose Documents (Dkt. 11) filed by plaintiff, with a supporting Memorandum (Dkt. 11-1). Plaintiff indicates he served defendant with a First Request for Production of Documents, First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Admission on April 14, 2021. Dkt. 11 ¶ 1. Defendant served responses to his discovery requests on May 14, 2021. Id. ¶ 2. In plaintiff's view, defendant “failed to provide a significant portion of the requested information.” Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff maintains his discovery requests seek “relevant and admissible information, proportional to the needs of the case.” Id. ¶ 5.

Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34 and 37 for the Court to compel defendant “to answer fully the disputed interrogatories in plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admission and to respond to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents.” Id. p. 1. Plaintiff did not attach a copy of the disputed discovery requests and responses thereto as required by Local Rule 37(b). Instead, plaintiff set forth the purported discovery requests and responses within the text of the Memorandum, followed by plaintiff's objections to defendant's responses. Dkt. 11-1 pp. 2-11.

Defendant filed a Brief in Resistance (Dkt. 12) and urges the Court to deny the motion. Defendant attached a copy of its Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories (Dkt. 12-1) and Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions (Dkt. 12-2). Defendant also attached a copy of its Initial Disclosures (Dkt. 12-3) which lists individuals likely to have discoverable information and documents it may use to support its defense. Defendant indicates a copy of the EEOC case file which contains all but one of the documents listed was produced to plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed a pleading captioned as a “Response” (Dkt. 14) but under this Court's Local Rules it is considered a reply brief which must be limited to 5 pages in length and “to assert newly-decided authority or to respond to new and unanticipated arguments made in the resistance.” L.R. 7(g). Although the “Response” does not meet those limitations, the Court has fully considered plaintiff's assertions and arguments therein.

*2 The Court considers the motion fully submitted. Although requested by the parties, oral argument is not necessary. L.R. 7(c).

II. RULES AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOVERY

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedure in all civil actions before this Court, including the discovery process. The rules “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), and unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery in general is as follows:

Parties 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, considering 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. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Subsection 26(b)(2) provides for certain limitations on discovery, including the following mandatory requirement:

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or

(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

Under Rule 33, a party may serve an interrogatory which “may relate to any matter that may by inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). “An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Under Rule 34, a party may serve a request to produce documents or electronically stored information within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

Finally, pursuant to Rule 37, a party is permitted to move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery including if the opposing party fails to answer an interrogatory under Rule 33 or fails to produce documents under Rule 34. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).

Usually, “[t]he motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the ... party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Similarly, pursuant to this Court's Local Rule 37(a)(1), “[n]o motion relating to discovery may be filed unless counsel for the moving party” attaches a declaration attesting that “[c]ounsel, in good faith, has conferred personally with counsel for the opposing party in an attempt to resolve or narrow by agreement the issues raised by the motion.” L.R. 37(a)(1).

*3 However, Local Rule 37 further provides: “No declaration is required under this rule where one party to the discovery dispute is proceeding pro se.” L.R. 37. Plaintiff Peter Garcia is proceeding pro se in this case. While therefore no declaration is required, the parties should still strive to confer in good faith to resolve or narrow discovery disputes. The Court now turns to address the discovery disputes at issue.

III. DECISIONS ON DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE

The Court has considered all arguments asserted by both parties in their submissions. Upon doing so, the Court reaches the following decisions as to the interrogatories by plaintiff and answers thereto by defendant.

1. Identify all persons answering or supplying information used in answering these Interrogatories.

Answer: PHC objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3). PHC states that these answers were prepared by counsel and the phrasing of the answers is that of counsel. Since these interrogatories are directed to an entity, these answers do not constitute, nor are they derived from, the personal knowledge of any single individual, but include record information, knowledge obtained that cannot be attributed to any single individual, recollection of employees and general knowledge of the answering defendant and others. Subject to and without waiving these objections, PHC's answers were prepared by legal counsel with the assistance of: Sherry Gomis, Rachael Miller, and Dr. Heidi Shreck.

Court's Decision: Defendant's answer is sufficient. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

2. State and describe in detail all evidence including documents, affidavits and/or statements upon which you intend to rely, or submit at trial.

Answer: PHC objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3). PHC further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information concerning any “oral statement,” which is essentially the disclosure of any potential witness interviews. Whether PRC has interviewed a witness is privileged from discovery as attorney opinion work product as it invades the mental impressions and trial strategies of counsel. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 512-13 (1947) (“Under ordinary conditions, forcing an attorney to repeat or write out all that witnesses have told him and deliver the account to his adversary gives rise to grave dangers of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness” and “[N]o legitimate purpose is served by such a production.”). Further, any written or recorded witness statement obtained need not be produced or its contents disclosed to Plaintiff absent a showing of undue hardship and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent. See Fed. of Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Subject to and without waiving these objections, PHC has not yet decided what documents, affidavits and/or statements it will introduce at trial and will provide a witness and exhibit list in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Trial Scheduling Order.

Court's Decision: Given the information already provided in defendant's Initial Disclosures, along with production of listed documents, defendant's answer to this interrogatory is sufficient at this present time. As acknowledged by defendant, the parties will be required to identify trial exhibits and witnesses pursuant to the rules of procedure. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

*4 3. Provide a copy of any and all recordings made by PHC personnel during the two interviews with Plaintiff documenting each event.

Answer: PHC states there are no recordings responsive to this request.

Court's Decision: Defendant's answer is sufficient. In addition, defendant indicates it produced to plaintiff the notes taken by its personnel during the interviews. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

4. Explain fully the safeguards used, if any, employed and put into place by the Selecting and/or recommending officials and communicated to the supervisors/managers involved in the candidate selection for the purpose to protect against possible or potential bias or discriminatory actions prohibited by law in the selection process.

Answer: PHC objects to the interrogatory as phrased in that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in that the term “safeguards” is undefined, requiring PHC to engage in speculation and conjecture about what information the interrogatory is seeking. Subject to and without waiving these objections, PHC states that it has a policy to provide equal employment opportunities to employees and applicants on the basis of individual qualifications and without regard to race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and all other characteristics protected by applicable law. PHC also has a policy to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (and similar state laws) and a robust procedure for providing reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities who request or need an accommodation unless undue hardship would result.

Court's Decision: Defendant's answer is sufficient. In addition, defendant indicates it produced to plaintiff its various anti-discrimination policies. Further information if sought by plaintiff may be obtained by depositions under Rule 30. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

5. Provide the names and Resumes for all individuals that were interviewed for the Medical Director position at PHC.

Answer: PHC objects on the ground that the information sought is irrelevant to, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information concerning, any issue in this case. To date, no other applicant or interviewee has been hired for the position. The position was not filled and still remains open. An Interim Medical Director (Dr. Jason Kessler, DOB: 02/13/1972) was appointed on July 1, 2019. Not having found an acceptable candidate, PHC made the interim appointment a regular appointment on July 26, 2020. However, the Medical Director position remains open as Dr. Kessler is a pediatrician and PHC is interested in hiring a Family Practice or Internal Medicine Medical Director. In addition, requiring PHC to provide “names and Resumes for all individuals that were interviewed for the Medical Director position at PHC” is unduly intrusive and not proportional to the needs of this case. The resumes of the individuals who applied for the Medical Director position contain confidential professional and personal information. In addition, disclosure of whether a person applied for this position for purposes other than is absolutely necessary for this litigation would be inappropriate, could unnecessarily interfere with the applicant's current employment, could unnecessarily interfere with PHC's personnel relations, and could unnecessarily invade the deserved and expected privacy of other people involved simply because they applied for this position.

*5 Court's Decision: Defendant's answer is sufficient. The names and resumes for all individuals who interviewed for the Medical Director position is information outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b). Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

6. List all administrative officers of PHC that attended and / or participated in each of the phone interviews with each of the candidates for the Medical Director position.

Answer: PHC incorporates herein by reference its objections to Interrogatory No. 5.

Court's Decision: The identity of administrative officers who attended and/or participated in phone interviews with candidates for the Medical Director position is information within the permissible scope of discovery under Rule 26(b). It has not been shown such information is privileged or its production is disproportional to the needs of the case. There is no showing the burden or expense of this proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is granted and defendant must produce the information.

7. Provide the names and Resumes for all individuals that have held the position of Medical Director at PHC over the past 10 years.

Answer: PHC objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought by this interrogatory is beyond the scope of discovery, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs and issues involved in this case, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning any issue in this case. Presently, Plaintiff's allegations begin and end in timespan less than two months. Information about “all individuals that have held the position of Medical Director at PHC” over a period of 10 years is irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims.

Court's Decision: The names and resumes of the individuals who have held the position of Medical Director over the past 10 years is information within the permissible scope of discovery under Rule 26(b). It has not been shown such information is privileged or its production is disproportional to the needs of the case. There is no showing the burden or expense of this proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is granted and defendant must produce the information. As for the resumes of such individuals, defendant is required to produce such documents only if currently within its possession.

8. Please list all information relied upon by all the managers and selecting officials to not select Dr. Garcia for the position in question.

Answer: PHC objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is unduly burdensome in that it requires PHC to list literally every piece of information it considered. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the principal and material information relied upon by PHC in deciding that Plaintiff was not a good fit for the position was: Plaintiff's resume/Curriculum Vitae, including work history; Plaintiff's email correspondence; Plaintiff's performance in his interview with Dr. Heidi Shreck, Chief Medical Officer, and Sherry Gomis, Chief Human Resources Officer, including his manner, tone and at times, his word choice; Dr. Shreck's and Ms. Gomis's impressions and opinions based on all said information as to Plaintiff's suitability to meet the expectations of the position and mission fit, particularly in regard to his potential ability to effectively supervise, evaluate, and collaborate with subordinates, and interact and relate with PHC's patient population.

*6 Court's Decision: Defendant's answer is sufficient. Further information if sought by plaintiff may be obtained by depositions under Rule 30. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

9. Explain in detail what was meant by Rachel Miller in her email of January 8, 2020 when she stated, “.I am not certain that he would be the best fit, but I like him more than the last candidate for PCA.”

Answer: PHC objects to the interrogatory as phrased in that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome to ask that PHC explain “in detail” what a speaker meant, when such information is more appropriately procured through a deposition. Subject to and without waiving this objection, PHC states the statement is principally explained in Ms. Miller's January 16, 2020 email to Dr. Shreck. PHC further states that these statements are the opinion of an individual who despite her concerns, recommended Plaintiff for a second interview conducted by the Executive Committee.

Court's Decision: Defendant's answer is sufficient. Further information if sought by plaintiff may be obtained by depositions under Rule 30. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

10. If you claim that Dr. Garcia was rude, arrogant or condescending during any part of the first interview with Rachel Miller state in detail the question that was being asked, the answer that he gave and why it was offensive.

Answer: PHC objects on the grounds that this request as phrased is unduly burdensome and that this information is best obtained by the taking of a deposition. Subject to and without waiving these objections, PHC incorporates its response to Interrogatory No. 9.

11. If you claim that Dr. Garcia was rude, arrogant or condescending during any part of the second interview with Rachel Miller and Heidi Schreck state in detail the question that was being asked, the answer that he gave and why it was offensive.

Answer: PHC objects on the grounds that this question as phrased is unduly burdensome and that this information is best obtained by the taking of a deposition. Subject to and without waiving any objections, PHC clarifies that the “second interview” that took place on January 17, 2020, did not involve Ms. Miller. That being said, PHC incorporates herein by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 8. In addition, Dr. Garcia's statement that he was the best candidate for the job, in response to a question as to why he should be hired - came off as arrogant given his tone and that he knew nothing about any other candidates.

12. State each question asked during the second interview. State the answer to the question. State whether the question was answered by Dr. Garcia or his wife who was assisting him.

Answer: PHC objects on the grounds that this request as phrased is unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving this objections, the notes of each interviewer have been produced to Plaintiff. The questions and answers were not recorded by PHC other than in the interviewers' notes. Additional information is more appropriately obtained through deposition testimony.

*7 Court's Decision: Defendant's answer is sufficient. Further information if sought by plaintiff may be obtained by depositions under Rule 30. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

The Court has also reviewed plaintiff's requests for admissions and defendant's responses thereto. Dkt. 12-2. The Court has not been presented with sufficient reason or basis to compel defendant to respond further. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to the requests for admissions is therefore denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

As set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel More Complete Answers and Disclose Documents (Dkt. 11) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant must produce the information as ordered by November 1, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.