EEOC v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
EEOC v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
2022 WL 657444 (S.D. Ohio 2022)
March 4, 2022
Gentry, Caroline H., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court granted Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce documents in response to its First Request for Production of Documents. Defendant was ordered to produce the documents no later than March 9, 2022, and to provide a privilege log no later than March 9, 2022. Plaintiff was ordered to identify any privilege log entries it wished to challenge by noon on March 10, 2022, and Defendant was ordered to submit the documents relating to any such privilege log entries to the Court under seal for in camera review no later than noon on March 11, 2022.
Additional Decisions
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
RED ROOF INNS, INC., Defendant
v.
RED ROOF INNS, INC., Defendant
Case No. 3:20-cv-00381
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
Filed March 04, 2022
Counsel
Aimee L. McFerren, Alysia Robben, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Louisville Area Office, Louisville, KY, Alessandra M. Rosa, Sarah Doty, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.Katherine Lynn Kennedy, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Andrew Weber, Smith, Rolfes, & Skavdahl, LPA Co., Cincinnati, OH, for Defendant.
Gentry, Caroline H., United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
*1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 44). Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents in response to its First Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30 and 31. This Court ordered expedited briefing and held a hearing on the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits parties to move for an order compelling the disclosure of discovery responses, including an order compelling the production of requested documents that have not been produced by the responding party. A discovery response that is incomplete is treated as a failure to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The losing party may be assessed attorneys' fees incurred in relation to the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents in response to its First Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30 and 31. The Court rules on each of these requests as follows:
Nos. 6, 10 & 11 (all documents and communications relating to the Charging Party, his EEOC complaint, Defendant's investigation, the Property Connectivity Coordinator position, and/or the informational seminar). Defendant admits that it has not yet produced responsive and non-privileged documents consisting of emails involving Jennifer Wayman. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to these requests. Defendant is ORDERED to produce these documents no later than March 9, 2022.
No. 9 (personnel files of Cheryl Eichelberger and Jennifer Wayman, and an unredacted personnel file of Elizabeth Shepherd). Defendant admits that it has not yet produced responsive and non-privileged documents. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to this request. Defendant is ORDERED to produce these documents no later than March 9, 2022.
No. 19 (policies and/or procedures relating to workplace discrimination). Defendant admits that it has not yet produced responsive and non-privileged documents. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to this request. Defendant is ORDERED to produce these documents no later than March 9, 2022.
No. 20 (expert witness documents and communications). Defendant asserts that it has produced all responsive and non-privileged documents but concedes that it has not yet provided a privilege log that describes each responsive document that is being withheld on the grounds of privilege. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to this request. Defendant is ORDERED to provide a privilege log no later than March 9, 2022.
Nos. 22, 23 & 26 (documents supporting Defendant's affirmative defenses and statements that the Charging Party was not a qualified individual with a disability and was not fully qualified for the position at issue). Defendant asserts that it has produced all responsive and non-privileged documents. However, it has also objected to producing documents based on privilege, without producing a privilege log. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to these requests. Defendant is ORDERED to provide a privilege log no later than March 9, 2022.
*2 No. 29 (other visually impaired or blind employees). Plaintiff has withdrawn its Motion to Compel with respect to this request. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED with respect to this request.
Nos. 30 & 31 (tax benefits or credits based on recruiting or employing individuals with disabilities). Defendant is continuing to investigate whether responsive documents exist. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to these requests. Defendant is ORDERED to provide responsive and non-privileged documents, or confirm in writing that no such documents exist, no later than March 9, 2022.
Time is of the essence with respect to production of the privilege log, given that the discovery cutoff is March 7, 2022 and the summary judgment deadline is March 15, 2022. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to identify any privilege log entries that it wishes to challenge by noon on March 10, 2022. Further, Defendant is ORDERED to submit the documents relating to any such privilege log entries to the Court under seal for in camera review no later than noon on March 11, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.