*1 Plaintiff Peter Garcia alleges defendant Primary Health Care, Inc. discriminated against him based on age and disability during an interview process for the position of Medical Director which he did not obtain. Dkt. 1. He further claims defendant retaliated against him for expressing concerns about discriminatory actions during the interview process. Id. Those concerns relate 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 Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories, Responses to Requests for Production, and Document Production (Dkt. 22). Defendant requests an order from this Court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(A) and (B) compelling Plaintiff to supplement his initial disclosures, fully answer certain interrogatories and produce documents responsive to certain requests for production of documents. Id. p. 1. Defendant contends “Plaintiff has failed and refused to serve meaningful written discovery responses or produce responsive documents, asserting meritless objections predicated on his own interpretation of scope and relevance.” Id.

Plaintiff filed a Brief in Resistance asserting many of Defendant's requests “go well beyond any reasonable boundaries of discovery.” Dkt. 26 p. 2. Plaintiff contends certain demands for discovery by Defendant are burdensome, or seek irrelevant information, or are unnecessary. Id. pp. 4-8, 13. In addition, it is indicated many of the requests “have been answered to the best of Plaintiff's ability.” Id. pp. 2, 8-13. Plaintiff insists many of the facts Defendant now seeks to discover “have absolutely no connection to the case.” Id. p. 14. Plaintiff therefore urges the Court to deny the motion. Id. Defendant filed a Reply Brief reiterating Plaintiff should be compelled to provide full answers and responses to certain discovery requests and produce responsive documents. Dkt. 27.

The Court considers the motion fully submitted. Although requested, oral argument is not necessary. L.R. 7(c). As set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

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. Under Rule 26(a)(1), a party must make certain initial disclosures to the other party “without waiting a discovery request,” including:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(i–iii).

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), and unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery in general is as follows:

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

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).

A party who has made an initial disclosure, or responded to an interrogatory or request for production, “must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(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 make an initial disclosure required by Rule 26(a), or fails to answer an interrogatory under Rule 33, or fails to produce documents under Rule 34. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A); 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).

“The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018). Here, the Court has considered all arguments asserted by both parties in their submissions and the proportionality of the discovery to the needs of the case under the asserted claims and defenses at issue. Upon doing so, the Court reaches the following decisions as to the disputed discovery requests by defendant Primary Health Care, Inc. and responses thereto by plaintiff Peter Garcia. The discovery requests are addressed by the Court as grouped by Defendant into categories A through F in its supporting Brief (Dkt. 22-1).

A. Defendant contends Plaintiff should be compelled to identify the persons who have knowledge and information regarding the claims and defenses raised by the parties and the general subject matters of that knowledge and information as required Initial Disclosures and requested by Interrogatory No. 1.

In his Initial Disclosures (Dkt. 22-3), Plaintiff listed nine persons, including himself and his wife, as purported individuals likely to have discoverable information but did not describe, as required by rule, the “subjects of that information ... the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(i). The discovery request and response at issue under Category A is as follows:

*4 Dkt. 22-4 p. 5.

In its Brief supporting the Motion to Compel, Defendants ask for the following relief:

Dkt. 22-1 p. 4.

Court's Decision Under Category A: Defendant's motion to compel is granted as to Category A. Not only is the information requested by Interrogatory No. 1 within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) but is required to be produced under Rule 26(a)(1)(i). Plaintiff's objections are without merit and overruled in whole. Plaintiff has not established the responsive information is protected from disclosure under any applicable privilege. Moreover, the scheduled period for discovery is completed and there is no reason for Plaintiff to further delay providing this information to Defendant. Notably, according to Defendant, the discovery requests were served in June 2021 and Plaintiff served his responses in August 2021. Dkt. 22 ¶¶ 1, 3. The deadline for the parties to complete discovery expired January 19, 2022. Consequently, Plaintiff must now provide a full, substantive answer to Interrogatory No. 1 sub-parts (a)-(d) and supplement his initial disclosures to fully comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(i). While Plaintiff may have discussed this discovery during a conference with Defendant's counsel and provides some limited information in his Brief (Dkt. 26 p. 3), a signed substantive answer to this interrogatory and signed supplementation to initial disclosures are required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1), 26(g)(1).

B. Defendant contends Plaintiff should be compelled to disclose information regarding his prior lawsuits and previous attempts to secure employment as requested by Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4 and Request for Production Nos. 8 and 37.

The discovery requests and responses at issue under Category B are as follows:

Dkt. 22-4 p. 6.

Dkt. 22-4 p. 7.

Dkt. 22-5 p. 3.

Dkt. 22-5 pp. 6-7.

Court's Decision Under Category B: Defendant's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as to Category B. As to Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant's request for Plaintiff to “[i]dentify every lawsuit and legal proceeding to which you have been a named party” is overbroad and seeks information beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). However, lawsuits or legal proceedings to which Plaintiff was a party and involved claims similar to those alleged in this case would fall within the scope of permissible discovery. With this limitation, Plaintiff's objections on the grounds the interrogatory seeks information that is “in the possession of, known to, or otherwise equally available to [Defendant] and/or contains multipart questions” are without merit and overruled. Nor is there an undue burden on Plaintiff to provide this limited information. Therefore, Plaintiff must provide a full, substantive answer to Interrogatory No. 2 as to lawsuits or legal proceedings to which Plaintiff was a party and involved claims similar to those alleged in this case. Again, while Plaintiff may have discussed this discovery with Defendant's counsel and provides some limited information in his Brief (Dkt. 26 p. 4), a signed substantive answer to this interrogatory as herein limited by the Court is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).

Regarding Interrogatory No. 4, it is not necessary for Plaintiff to “[d]escribe with specificity all efforts Plaintiff has taken to obtain employment from 2010 to present date.” Such a request is overbroad. However, Plaintiff's answer fails to provide any substantive information. Given the claims and defenses at issue in this case, including Defendant's assertion that Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages (Dkt. 4 p. 26), information as to Plaintiff's efforts to obtain employment is, in general, within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff must provide a reasonable substantive answer to Interrogatory No. 4 as to efforts Plaintiff has taken to obtain employment from 2010 to present date. Plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that providing a reasonable, substantive answer to the interrogatory is “extremely burdensome” or constitutes an “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive.” Again, while Plaintiff provides some limited information in his Brief (Dkt. 26 pp. 5-8), a signed substantive answer to this interrogatory is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).

*6 In that regard, in its initial Brief, Defendant “agreed to narrow this request to those positions for which [Plaintiff] actually interviewed.” Dkt. 22-1 p. 6. This limitation is repeated in Defendant's Reply Brief (Dkt. 27 p. 3). Plaintiff therefore may limit his answer to Interrogatory No. 4 accordingly.

As to the request for “[d]ocuments reflecting any effort by Plaintiff to obtain employment within the last ten years” under Request No. 8, Plaintiff responded he “has not kept such records and therefore has none in his possession.” Dkt. 22-5 p. 3. If correct, no further response is required. If incorrect, Plaintiff must supplement his response pursuant to Rule 26(e)(1) and produce any such documents to Defendant as to employment positions for which Plaintiff actually interviewed.

Regarding Request No. 37, the request for “all applications submitted for employment and the results of those applications submitted from 2010 to present date” falls within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) given the claims and defenses being asserted in this case. Plaintiff's objections to this request as overboard, burdensome and not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation are without merit and overruled. Plaintiff must produce to Defendant any documents responsive to Request No. 37 as to employment positions for which Plaintiff actually interviewed.

C. Defendant contends Plaintiff should be compelled to disclose and produce any claims for disability insurance or compensation payments and produce any responsive documents as requested by Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production No. 13.

The discovery requests and responses at issue under Category C are as follows:

Dkt. 22-4 p. 9.

*7 Dkt. 22-5 p. 4.

Court's Decision Under Category C: Defendant's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as to Category C. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims Defendant “subjected him to a negative job action based on disability” in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and retaliated against him because of his alleged disability. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 54-64, 79-88. Citing to legal elements of such claims, Plaintiff alleges he is a disabled person within the meaning of the Act because he “has a profound bilateral hearing loss and is the recipient of a cochlear implant.” Id. ¶¶ 57-61. Plaintiff further alleges, as an element of his claim, he “is capable of performing the essential functions of the job with or without accommodations.” Id. ¶ 62.

Given these claims, and the required legal elements to be proven by Plaintiff and potential defenses available, the request for information under Interrogatory No. 6 as to whether Plaintiff has filed any claims for worker's compensation, social security disability or similar claims for compensation or disability payments within the last ten years falls within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiff's objections on grounds such discovery is overbroad, or requests irrelevant, immaterial or inadmissible information, or is protected by privilege, or contains multipart questions are without merit and overruled. Therefore, Plaintiff must provide a full, substantive answer to Interrogatory No. 6.

In his Brief, Plaintiff represents that “Plaintiff has stated there has been no application for disability for any program Defendant has listed or wants to list during the past ten years which is responsive to the discovery request made by Defendant.” Dkt. 26 p. 8. Again, while Plaintiff may have discussed this discovery with Defendant's counsel and provides this information in his Brief, a signed substantive answer to Interrogatory No. 6 stating Plaintiff has not applied for disability benefits is still required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).

If any exist, Plaintiff must produce responsive documents to Request No. 13 as to documents relating to Plaintiff's efforts to obtain disability benefits within the past ten years. Again, given Plaintiff's claims of disability discrimination and retaliation against Defendant in this case, and the required legal elements to be proven by Plaintiff, such documents fall within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). If there are no such documents, as indicated in Plaintiff's Brief, a signed response to Request No. 13 indicating there are no responsive documents is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).

Finally, as objected to in Plaintiff's response to Request No. 13, production of documents as to Social Security benefits unrelated to disability is not required. To the extent Defendant is requesting such documents, Defendant has not sufficiently established such information or documents are discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1).

D. Defendant contends Plaintiff should be compelled to provide information regarding his claimed damages as required Initial Disclosures and requested by Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 17 and Request for Production No. 50.

*8 In his Initial Disclosures, Plaintiff stated as follows: “Plaintiff has not fully assessed damages at this time. Discovery will assist with this calculation.” Dkt. 22-3 p. 3. The discovery requests and responses at issue under Category D are as follows:

Dkt. 22-4 p. 10.

Dkt. 22-4 p. 13.

Dkt. 22-5 p. 8.

Court's Decision Under Category D: Defendant's motion to compel is granted as to Category D. The information requested by Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 17 is within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) and is required to be produced under Rule 26(a)(1)(iii). Plaintiff's objections to those interrogatories are overruled in whole. As previously noted, the scheduled period for discovery is now closed and there is no reason for Plaintiff to further delay providing to Defendant the requested, and procedurally required, information as to his claims for damages. Consequently, Plaintiff must provide full, substantive answers to Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 17 and supplement his initial disclosures to fully comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(iii).

Regarding Request No. 50, contrary to his response, Plaintiff explicitly seeks relief “[f]or liquidated damages” in his Complaint. Dkt. 1 p. 19. Therefore, Plaintiff must supplement his response to Request No. 50 indicating whether there are any documents upon which he relies in support of this claim for liquidated damages and, if so, produce any such documents to Defendant.

E. Defendant contends Plaintiff should be compelled to identify and disclose his communications with Defendant and the Iowa Primary Care Association as requested by Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 and Request Nos. 16 and 17.

*9 The discovery requests and responses at issue under Category E are as follows:

Dkt. 22-4 p. 11.

Dkt. 22-4 p. 12. As explained by Defendant, Iowa Primary Care Association is the organization through which Plaintiff initially applied for a position with Defendant. Dkt. 22-1 p. 11.

Dkt. 22-5 p. 5.

Dkt. 22-5 p. 5.

Court's Decision Under Category E: Defendant's motion to compel is granted as to Category E. The information requested by Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11 is within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). The interrogatories are not impermissibly compound, and Plaintiff's objections are without merit and overruled in whole. Consequently, Plaintiff must provide full, substantive answers to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11.

Request Nos. 16 and 17 also request materials which fall within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiff's objections are without merit and overruled in whole. Consequently, Plaintiff must produce materials responsive to Request Nos. 16 and 17.

In his Brief, Plaintiff argues he does not need to disclose the requested information or documents as to Iowa Primary Care Association because Defendant served a subpoena on Iowa Primary Care Association for records of communications with Plaintiff. Dkt. 26 p. 13. The argument is without merit. A party is required to answer interrogatories based on its own knowledge and produce responsive documents in its own possession, custody or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b), 34(a). Defendant's subpoena of a third party does not excuse Plaintiff of this requirement.

F. Defendant contends Plaintiff should be compelled to produce his federal and state income tax returns and all records showing his income from any source from 2015 to the present as requested by Request for Production Nos. 4 and 5.

The discovery requests and responses at issue under Category F are as follows:

Dkt. 22-5 p. 2.

Dkt. 22-5 p. 2.

In its Brief in support of the Motion to Compel, Defendant indicates Plaintiff “has admitted in the parties' Rule 37 conference that he files a federal income tax return every year jointly with his spouse.” Dkt. 22-1 p. 12. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to protect the privacy of his spouse's earnings, Defendant would agree to a protective order. Id. p. 13. In his Brief, Plaintiff states “he had no taxable income during the years including 2015 to 2020 [and] had no W-2 forms and no 1099 forms during the same time period.” Dkt. 26 p. 11. He insists “[t]here are no tax returns to turn over.” Id. p. 12. He further asserts “Defendant is not entitled to Plaintiff's wife's tax return.” Id.

*11 Court's Decision Under Category F: Defendant's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as to Category F. In his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant for “lost wages and benefits, including future losses.” Dkt. 1 p. 19. Therefore, and based on all the claims and defenses at issue, the request for production of Plaintiff's federal and state income tax returns from 2015 to the present is within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiff has not established any applicable privilege protects his federal and state income tax returns from production to Defendant in this case. Consequently, Plaintiff must produce to Defendant any federal and state income tax returns, including all schedules and attachments thereto, filed by or on behalf of Plaintiff from 2015 to the present. This includes any tax return filed jointly with Plaintiff's spouse.

If this production is made, then Plaintiff need not produce any further documents responsive to Request No. 5. As written by Defendant, Request No. 5 is overbroad and cumulative in seeking “all” documents and “records showing Plaintiff's income from any source, from January 1, 2015 to the present.

As set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories, Responses to Requests for Production, and Document Production (Dkt. 22) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Peter Garcia must produce the information and materials to Defendant Primary Health Care, Inc. as ordered herein by February 7, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.