Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Expedited Consideration (R. Doc. 23) (“First Motion to Compel”) filed on July 25, 2018. After Defendant failed to file an opposition within the time allowed by Local Rule 7(f), the Court ordered oral argument on the motion to be held on August 29, 2018. (R. Doc. 27). The Court reset the date of oral argument to September 12, 2018 at the request of Plaintiff's counsel. (R. Doc. 28).

Defendant filed a Memorandum in Opposition on September 10, 2018. (R. Doc. 22). Given that Defendant did not seek leave to file an untimely opposition, the Court will ignore Defendant's written arguments in opposition to Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel. The Court has, however, considered the arguments raised by defense counsel at oral argument on September 11, 2018 (R. Doc. 34), as well as the arguments in Defendant's Motion for Discovery Protective Order (R. Doc. 31).

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Discovery and for Expedited Consideration (R. Doc. 30) (“Second Motion to Compel”) and Defendant's Motion for Discovery Protective Order (R. Doc. 31) (“Motion for Protective Order”), both filed on August 31, 2018. Both of these motions are opposed. (R. Doc. 35; R. Doc. 36). Given the timing of the oppositions, the Court did not address these motions at oral argument.

I. Background

Katina B. Herbert (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against her former employer, Ascension Parish School Board (“Defendant” or “APSB”), seeking relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (R. Doc. 1; R. Doc. 32). Plaintiff alleges that she began working for Defendant in August of 1999 as a first and second grade teacher at St. Amant Primary School, and, in May of 2011, she was involuntarily transferred to Sorrento Primary School to work as a second and fifth grade teacher. (R. Doc. 32 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that she “suffers from rhinitis, asthma, psoriasis, bronchospasm, dermatitis, and migraine headaches due to a longstanding history of exposure to strong odors, chemicals contained in industrial pollutants, certain cleaning products, perfumes, and other allergens.” (R. Doc. 32 at 1). Plaintiff further alleges that she informed her supervisors as to the nature and extent of her disability, and the limitations caused by her disability, and made at least five requests for accommodations between September 21, 2011 and June 1, 2015 prior to her termination. (R. Doc. 32 at 3-4). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant terminated her employment on July 10, 2015 rather than “provide reasonable accommodations to assist Ms. Hebert in performing her job.” (R. Doc. 32 at 5).

In its Answer, Defendant asserts, among other things, that it “based its decision to terminate plaintiff's employment as a teacher solely on objective performance data demonstrating consistent and objectively poor classroom performance, substandard/failing test scores, and inability to exhibit improvement in teaching performance despite implementation of enhancement plans.” (R. Doc. 14 at 2). Defendant further asserts that it “provided reasonable accommodations; provided to [Plaintiff] the accommodations she requested; and/or [denied further accommodations] because further accommodations would result in an undue burden and/or fundamental alteration of the programs or activities of the school and/or violate the rights of students, faculty, staff and visitors.” (R. Doc. 14 at 2).

Plaintiff served her First Set of Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production (“First Set of Discovery”) on May 25, 2018. (R. Doc. 23-2). After obtaining extensions, Defendant provided its responses and produced certain documents. (R. Doc. 23-3).[1] Plaintiff represents that the parties held a discovery conference on July 19, 2018, and reached an agreement with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11, and Request for Production No. 1. (R. Doc. 23 at 3). Defendant provided supplemental responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery on August 22, 2018. (R. Doc. 30-2).

Plaintiff also received responses to her Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (“Second Set of Discovery”) on August 22, 2018. (R. Doc. 30-3).[2] Plaintiff represents that Defendant produced approximately 800 pages of e-mails on the date the responses were provided. (R. Doc. 30-1 at 3).

Plaintiff further represents that the parties held a discovery conference on August 31, 2018, but were unable to resolve their differences with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10, and Request for Production No. 1 of Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery, and Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 22, and Request for Production Nos. 10 and 22 of Plaintiff's Second Set of Discovery. (R. Doc. 30-1 at 2-3).

Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel seeks relief with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 6, and Request for Production Nos. 2-7 of Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery. (R. Doc. 23). At oral argument, however, Plaintiff's counsel represented that in light of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant, the parties had reached a resolution with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 6, and Requests for Production Nos. 2 (subparts 3-4), 3, and 4. Plaintiff withdrew her First Motion to Compel with respect to those discovery requests. Accordingly, the only discovery requests still at issue in Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel are Request for Production Nos. 2 (subparts 1-2), 5, 6, and 7 of Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery.

Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel seeks relief with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10, and Request for Production No. 1 of Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery, and Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 22, and Request for Production Nos. 10 and 12[3] of Plaintiff's Second Set of Discovery. (R. Doc. 30).

Defendant's Motion for Discovery Protective Order seeks an order limiting the scope of discovery to Plaintiff's employment at Sorrento Primary School from 2014-2015, limiting discoverable documents to those “maintained and accessible” to Defendant, and relieving Defendants from producing any metadata or confidential information. (R. Doc. 31).

II. Law and Analysis

A. Legal Standards

“Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 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). The court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery 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).

“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)'s “good cause” requirement indicates that the party seeking a protective order has the burden “to show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int'l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n.3 (5th Cir. 1978)).

A party must respond or object to interrogatories and requests for production within 30 days after service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). This default date may be modified by stipulation between the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). If a party fails to respond fully to discovery requests made pursuant to Rule 33 or Rule 34 in the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party seeking discovery may move to compel responses and for appropriate sanctions under Rule 37. An “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).

B. Analysis

On the final day to complete discovery, Defendant filed its Motion for Protective Order, which seeks an order limiting the scope of discovery to Plaintiff's employment at Sorrento Primary School from 2014-2015, limiting discoverable documents to those “maintained and accessible” to Defendant, and relieving Defendants from producing any metadata or confidential information. (R. Doc. 31).

As an initial matter, it is unclear why Defendant seeks a limitation of the scope of discovery “to the actual documents and information that were produced or able to be produced from the records actually maintained and accessible” to it. (R. Doc. 31 at 2). Documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”) are discoverable only if they are in “the responding party's possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). To the extent Defendant is raising an argument regarding the accessibility of its archived ESI, including metadata, the Court addresses that issue below.

The Court will not limit the scope of discovery to information pertaining solely to Plaintiff. Information regarding similarly situated teachers bears directly on Defendant's purported legitimate, nondiscretionary reason for terminating Plaintiff's employment. The Court will, however, limit the scope of any additional discovery required by this Order, unless otherwise stated, to the time period beginning with Plaintiff's first documented request for accommodation and ending with Plaintiff's termination. While Plaintiff asserts in her pleading that she made requests for accommodations as early as September 21, 2011, the documentary evidence submitted by Plaintiff only support a finding that Plaintiff requested accommodations as early as November 25, 2013. (See R. Doc. 23-5).[4] Accordingly, the Court will limit the temporal scope of information sought in the discovery requests, unless otherwise stated, to the dates November 25, 2013 through July 10, 2015. Given that Plaintiff was employed at the Sorrento Primary School during these dates, the Court will further limit any additional discovery required, unless otherwise stated, to teachers employed at Sorrento Primary School.

Defendant has not made a showing that the specific information sought by Plaintiff through its motions are precluded from discovery based upon the various federal and state statutes and regulations listed in its brief, and that the issuance of an appropriate protective order governing the exchange of such information will not address Defendant's confidentiality concerns. The Court will not require Defendant to produce any information or documents it deems to be confidential until after the entry of a protective order governing the exchange of confidential information. The parties are required to meet and confer regarding the entry of a joint protective order governing the exchange of confidential information. To the extent the parties cannot agree on a proposed order, Defendant may renew its motion for protective order solely with respect to the exchange of confidential information.

Finally, Defendant has not made a showing that it should be precluded from producing “metadata” within discoverable ESI. Defendant seeks an order precluding the discovery of metadata on the basis that it cannot “redact confidential student information and personnel/teacher information or extract attorney-client or other privileged data” from the metadata. (R. Doc. 31-1 at 5-6). Defendant offers, with no explanation, that “it is not possible” for it “to even access all of the metadata related to any and all documents requested by plaintiff.” (R. Doc. 31-1 at 5). Defendant further represents that, in response to certain document requests, that it printed, reviewed, and produced responsive ESI, and that the “actual metadata file is redundant.” (R. Doc. 31-1 at 6). Defendant offers no specifics regarding any asserted undue burden that would be caused by producing responsive ESI in its native format (including metadata) as requested. Defendant's concerns regarding confidentiality can be addressed with the entry of an appropriate protective order, and its concerns regarding privilege can be addressed (and should have been addressed) with redactions and the production of an appropriate privilege log.[5]

Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 8, and 10 relate to the transfers, terminations, and efficacy ratings of other teachers and staff employed by Defendant. As discussed below, the Court will only require supplemental responses with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 10.

Interrogatory No. 3 seeks the identity of Defendant's employees who “were transferred from one school to another during the time of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant.” (R. Doc. 23-2 at 6). Defendant objected on various grounds, including overbreadth, vagueness, undue burden, confidentiality, and relevance, and, subject to those objections, stated that “other teachers were transferred, based on the unique factual situations involving those individuals, the transferring school and the transferor school.” (R. Doc. 23-3 at 5). In its supplemental response, Defendant asserted, among other things, that it does not have or maintain records of employee transfers, and that it would be overly burdensome to determining whether such transfers occurred. (R. Doc. 30-2 at 5-6).

This interrogatory, when limited to other teachers employed from November 25, 2013 through July 10, 2015, at the Sorrento Primary School, seeks information within the scope of discovery. The interrogatory seeks the identification of teachers who were actually transferred, not the reasons for such transfers. While determining this information may require review of specific files, Defendant has not provided any specific information bearing upon the asserted undue burden imposed by conducting such a review.

Interrogatory No. 7 seeks the identify of Defendant's employees who “were terminated in the year 2016.” (R. Doc. 23-2 at 6). Interrogatory No. 8 seeks the date and reasons of any terminations identified. (R. Doc. 23-2 at 6-7). In response to these interrogatories, Defendant objected on various grounds, including overbreadth, vagueness, undue burden, confidentiality, and relevance, and, subject to those objections, stated that “that all decisions to terminate employment of tenured teachers are done on an individual basis and that the decision to terminate plaintiff was not arbitrary or capricious” as decided in Plaintiff's 2015 administrative hearing. (R. Doc. 23-3 at 9). In its supplemental response to these interrogatories, Defendant asserted, among other things, that it does not have or maintain records of employee terminations, and that it would be overly burdensome to determining whether such terminations occurred. (R. Doc. 30-2 at 11-12).

Defendant need not provide any further response to Interrogatory Nos. 7-8 because these interrogatories seek information pertaining to the year 2016.

Interrogatory No. 10 seeks the identity of “all teachers employed by the Defendant who received a rating of ‘ineffective’ during the Plaintiff's employment at Sorrento Primary School.” (R. Doc. 23-2 at 7). Defendant objected on various grounds, including overbreadth, vagueness, undue burden, confidentiality, relevance, and, on the basis that the designation of “ineffective” may be reached on only one aspect of a teacher's overall importance and is based on individualized situations. (R. Doc. 23-3 at 10-11). Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Plaintiff represented that for the time period of May-July of 2015, Plaintiff was the only teacher with an overall rating of “ineffective” and “was the only teacher who scored ineffective in both VAM [Value Added Model] scores and SLT [Student Learning Target] ratings.” (R. Doc. 23-3 at 11).

This interrogatory, when limited to other teachers employed from November 25, 2013 through July 10, 2015 at the Sorrento Primary School, seeks information within the scope of discovery. Defendant has already provided a response with regard to the May-July of 2015 time period. Defendant has not made a showing that the review of the same files or other information to provide a response for those dates would be unduly burdensome for the time period provided above.

Plaintiff's Request for Production Nos. 1, 2 (subparts 1-2), and 5 seek communications and other documents and ESI pertaining to Plaintiff.

Request for Production No. 1 seeks the production of all ESI, including metadata, consisting of communications to or from Plaintiff's supervisors or Human Resources personnel concerning Plaintiff (including her requests for accommodation, reasons for termination, and job performance or evaluations), all of Plaintiff's performance evaluations and disciplinary files, and all files created by her supervisors pertaining to her personnel actions, request for accommodations, and actions taken in response to such requests.” (R. Doc. 30-1 at 7-8).

Defendant objected to this request on various grounds, including over breadth, vagueness, undue burden, relevance, confidentiality, privilege, and on the basis that it has produced certain exhibits to the September 15, 2015 administrative hearing held regarding Plaintiff's termination. (R. Doc. 30-2 at 17-18). Despite its objections, Defendant produced Plaintiff's “personnel record.” (R. Doc. 30-2 at 18-19). In its supplemental response, Defendant stated that it “does not have access to the electronic data or metadata relative” to the documents it has produced in hard copy format because the “database was archived.” (R. Doc. 30-2 at 19-20).

Request for Production No. 2, in relevant part, seeks the production of “physical documents (hard files, paper files, tangible documents, etc.)” containing “[a]ny and [all] communications, to or from the Plaintiff's supervisors or Human Resources personnel, that mention the Plaintiff, her requests for accommodations, and/or the reasons for her termination[, or] the Plaintiff's job performance and/or evaluation thereof.” (R. Doc. 23-2 at 18). Defendant objected to Request for Production No. 2 as redundant and produced certain exhibits to the September 15, 2015 administrative hearing held regarding Plaintiff's termination. (R. Doc. 23-3 at 17-18).

Request for Production No. 5 seeks the production of “any and all communications, to or from the Plaintiff's supervisors or Human Resources personnel, pertaining to the transfer requested by the Plaintiff, the availability of teaching positions at Ascension Parish schools other than Sorrento Primary School during the times of the Plaintiff's requests, any inquiries made into such availability, the denial of the Plaintiff's request, and the reasons therefore.” (R. Doc. 23-2 at 19-20). Defendant objected to Request for Production No. 5 on various other grounds, including redundancy, overbreadth, vagueness, relevance, and undue burden to the extent that it seeks ESI and privileged information. (R. Doc. 23-3 at 15, 18). Subject to the foregoing objections, Defendant produced Plaintiff's “personnel record.” (R. Doc. 23 at 16).

At oral argument, Defendant represented that all physical documents responsive to the foregoing discovery requests had been produced. Accordingly, the Court will not order the production of any additional documents responsive to Request for Production No. 2, which only seeks the production of “physical documents.”

The Court will, however, require Defendant to supplement its production in response to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 5. Communications between Plaintiff's supervisors and/or Human Resources personnel, whether in hard copy documents or ESI, pertaining to Plaintiff's transfer requests and the availability of other teaching positions, are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Defendants' supplemental production in response to these discovery requests must include responsive ESI (including metadata) for the time period of November 25, 2013 through July 10, 2015, to the extent such information has not been previously produced.

With respect to Request for Production No. 1, the Court will limit the production of responsive ESI to the communications outlined in subparts 1 and 2 that have not been previously produced for the time period of November 25, 2013 through July 10, 2015. The Court finds the hard copy productions by Defendant of Plaintiff's personnel record and exhibits to Plaintiff's September 15, 2015 administrative hearing sufficiently respond to Plaintiff's requests for information as identified in subparts 3 and 4 of Request for Production No. 1.

Defendant must, however, immediately commence with identifying relevant custodians and sources of ESI responsive to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 5, and collecting responsive information, if no such efforts have yet been made. To the extent responsive ESI has been “archived,” Defendant has made an insufficient showing that collecting such information (which remains within its possession, custody, or control) would result in undue burden.

Request for Production No. 6 seeks the production of “any and all documents” that (i) support Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, (ii) that Defendant relied upon in responding to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission, and/or (iii) that Defendant identified in its responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. (R. Doc. 23-2 at 20). Defendant objected to the request as a “vague, non-specific catch-all request,” and also as redundant in light of Defendant's responses to Request for Production Nos. 1-2. (R. Doc. 23-3 at 19).

At oral argument, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that after the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant, the sole concerns related to this document requests were Defendant's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9-10.

Interrogatory No. 9 seeks the identification of “all teachers employed by the Defendant whose students, during the Plaintiff's employment at Sorrento Primary School: 1. Achieved lower scores on District Benchmark exams than the Plaintiff's students; 2. Failed, to a greater extent than the Plaintiff's students, to achieve their Student Learning Target goals for performance on District Benchmark Exams; and/or 3. Achieved lower scores on iLEAP tests than the Plaintiff's students.” (R. Doc. 23-2 at 7). Defendant provided the following answer: “None.” (R. Doc. 23-3 at 10). The Court will require Defendant to produce all documents and ESI specifically relied upon in responding to Interrogatory No. 9. Similarly, the Court will require Defendant to produce all documents and ESI specifically relied upon in responding to Interrogatory No. 10 and in providing the supplemental response as ordered above.

The other category of Request for Production No. 6 that could apply would be any and all documents that support such response, without limitation as to whether they were used in any way in crafting the response. This “catch all” request is overly broad and not proportionate to the needs of the case. The Court will not compel the review and production of every document in any form that reflect District Benchmark exam performances, Student Learning Target goals and iLEAP test results for every teacher employed by Defendant during the applicable time period, if these were not specifically relied upon in Defendant's response.

Request for Production No. 7 seeks the production of “any and all documents evidencing the performance of the Plaintiff's students on District Benchmark Exams and iLEAP tests, as well as any documents indicating the performance of Plaintiff's students in relation to other teachers employed by the Defendant (such as percentile rankings), for the time period prior to the Plaintiff's transfer to Sorrento Primary School.” (R. Doc. 23-3 at 19). Defendant objected to the request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as seeking irrelevant information to the extent that Plaintiff taught grades not requiring testing, and in light of changes to standardized testing and the law applicable to testing and accountability. (R. Doc. 23-3 at 19-20). Subject to these objections, Defendant produced certain publicly available information from its website, noting it has also produced Plaintiff's entire personnel record and other information responsive to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 2. (R. Doc. 23-3 at 20).

Defendant has raised the defense that Plaintiff was fired in light of her ineffectiveness as a teacher without limitation. The information sought in the instant discovery request is relevant to that defense. Furthermore, through this request, Plaintiff is seeking documents regarding Plaintiff's own students' performance on District Benchmark Exams and iLEAP and any documents indicating the performance of her students in relation to other students. To the extent any such information exists, whether in hard copy documents or ESI, Defendant must provide the information in a supplemental production. Otherwise, Defendant may represent that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody, or control.

Interrogatory No. 19 seeks the “date(s) on which a new teacher or teachers were hired to teach the second grade during the 2011-2012 school year.” (R. Doc. 30-3 at 3). Defendant objected on the basis that it “does not have or maintain a database or record that contains a listing of new teachers or teachers hired to teach the second grade for the 2011-2012 school year” and that it would be unduly burdensome to create and produce such confidential information. (R. Doc. 30-3 at 3). The Court concludes that this interrogatory seeks information for a time period outside of the scope of discovery as defined by this Order. Accordingly, Defendant need not provide a supplemental response.

Interrogatory No. 22 seeks, for each teacher employed at Sorrento Primary School for the years 2012-2015, “the ‘achievement range’ listed on the teachers’ SLTs for ‘Insufficient Attainment of Target,’ ‘Partial Attainment of Target,’ ‘Full Attainment of Target,’ and ‘Exceptional Attainment of Target,’ and ... whether the SLTs were altered or amended after initially being entered into the ‘Compass’ system, as well as whether the teacher met the target.” (R. Doc. 30-3 at 4-5). Defendant objected to the request as overly broad, vague, and unduly burdensome, and on the basis of confidentiality, noting that “the ranges are noted on the SLT forms each year,” the forms are “not altered once in the system,” and “during a school year, individual student circumstances may arise that require individual student goals to be amended.” (R. Doc. 30-3 at 5).

The information sought in this interrogatory is overly broad. Given the supplemental response required by this Order with respect to Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production No. 6 of Plaintiff's First Discovery Request, the Court will not require any further response to this interrogatory.

Request for Production No. 10 seeks the production of all ESI consisting of communications concerning Plaintiff, information related to SLTs, and various test and performance results and reports. (R. Doc. 30-3 at 6-8). In response to this request, Defendant objected on the basis of overbreadth, multiple subparts, undue burden, relevance, redundancy to the extent other requests sought information in text form, and to the extent it seeks the production of metadata. (R. Doc. 30-3 at 8). The response does not indicate that any production was made.

Plaintiff argues that the information sought is within the scope of discovery and that an appropriate protective order would address Defendant's concerns regarding confidentiality. (R. Doc. 30-1 at 22). Plaintiff also represents that she has offered to narrow the scope of certain subparts of the request to address Defendant's objection of overbreadth. (R. Doc. 30-1 at 22).

In opposition, Defendant represents that it has, in response to this document request, “produced the actual documents (with redaction of privileged and confidential information) in the exact form as they were downloaded from the electronic storage device provided to counsel.” (R. Doc. 36 at 9). Defendant further states that it “produced all of the electronically stored information in its original form” and that Plaintiff has not been prejudiced “in any way, as the information was produced.” (R. Doc. 36 at 9).

As Defendant's discovery response does not indicate that any production in response to Request for Production No. 10 was provided, and Plaintiff's motion does not mention any production, it is unclear when Defendant produced ESI responsive to this document request. Plaintiff separately asked for the same information in “physical documents” in Request for Production No. 11, in response to which Defendant produced certain documents. (R. Doc. 30-3 at 10-11). It appears that Defendant may be referencing this production. Plaintiff does not specify what aspects of Defendant's production was insufficient. Given the record, including Defendant's representations that all responsive information has been produced, the Court will not require any supplemental production, other than the production of a privilege log identifying any withheld information on the basis of privilege.

Request for Production No. 12 seeks the production of documents “relied upon by the Defendant in performing the calculations referenced in connection with the Plaintiff's administrative termination hearing (including, but not limited to, all calculations referenced in the Defendant's pre-hearing and post-hearing memoranda).” (R. Doc. 30-3 at 11). Defendant objected to the extent the document request seeks privileged information, which Defendants states “are identified on the privilege log,” and produced a “timeline” in response subject to those objections. (R. Doc. 30-3 at 11).

Plaintiff represents that Defendant has not produced a privilege log as indicated, and otherwise seeks a supplemental production to the request on the basis that “a timeline is certainly not a calculation.” (R. Doc. 30-1 at 23). Defendant does not raise any argument regarding this particular document request in its opposition.

Other than privilege, Defendant did not objection to this document request. In the absence of any objections or arguments with respect to this discovery request, the Court will require a supplemental production. Defendant must supplement its response to this request by producing any documents relied upon in performing the referenced calculations, if any, in addition to the “timeline” produced. As with all other documents withheld as privileged, Defendant must also identify all documents withheld as privileged with respect to this discovery request on a privilege log.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Expedited Consideration (R. Doc. 23), Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Discovery and for Expedited Consideration (R. Doc. 30), and Defendant's Motion for Discovery Protective Order (R. Doc. 31) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as detailed in the body of this Order. The parties shall bear their own costs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer, with 7 days of entry of this Order, regarding the entry of a joint protective order governing the exchange of confidential information. A joint motion for a protective order for the Court's consideration shall be filed on or before November 9, 2018, with agreed upon terms regarding the handling of confidential information. If the parties are unable to agree upon terms, the areas of disagreement shall be noted in the joint motion. Separate filings will not be permitted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must supplement its discovery responses and production, as detailed in the body of this Order, within 14 days after the entry of a protective order governing the exchange of confidential information.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must produce a privilege log in compliance with Rule 26(b)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26(c) within 14 days of the date of this Order. Defendant must supplement this privilege log at the time of the supplemental responses and production described above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the deadline to file dispositive motions and Daubert motions is extended to February 15, 2019. All other deadlines remain unchanged.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 31, 2018.

Plaintiff represents that the agreed upon deadline to provide responses to the discovery requests at issue was July 9, 2018. (R. Doc. 23 at 2). Defendant's responses certify that they were served on July 9, 2018 (R. Doc. 23-3 at 20). While there appears to remain a dispute regarding the actual agreed upon deadline and when the responses were actually provided, given the record, the Court will consider the merit of Defendant's responses.

Plaintiff does not provide a copy of her Second Set of Discovery or otherwise indicate when those discovery requests were served.

The motion refers to Request for Production No. 22 (R. Doc. 30 at 1). The memorandum, analysis and attachments, however, pertain to Request for Production No. 12.

The Court makes no ruling on when Plaintiff first sought accommodations from Defendant. The Court merely finds that in the context of the instant discovery motions, Plaintiff has only demonstrated that the earliest date on which she sought accommodations was November 25, 2013. While Plaintiff submitted additional documentation dated September 18, 2013, that letter does not request any accommodations. (See R. Doc. 23-4).

It appears that Defendant may be conflating ESI as a whole with metadata. It is unclear what confidential or privileged information may be contained within the metadata as described by Defendant.