Horn v. Robert Bosch Auto. Steering LLC
Horn v. Robert Bosch Auto. Steering LLC
2020 WL 13614937 (E.D. Mich. 2020)
June 1, 2020
Grand, David R., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court found that Bosch must supplement its prior responses to Horn's Requests for Production of Documents related to ESI that is potentially relevant to Horn's “regarded-as-disabled” claim. The court also noted the importance of the ESI, and ordered that if Bosch files a renewed motion for summary judgment, it should meaningfully address the impact of Horn's version of the events on his remaining claims.
Codie HORN, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE STEERING LLC, Defendant
v.
ROBERT BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE STEERING LLC, Defendant
Civil Action No. 19-cv-10336
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Signed June 01, 2020
Counsel
Codie Horn, Commerce Township, MI, Pro Se.Andrew Stuart, Stuart and Johnston, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Randall A. Constantine, Mazursky Constantine LLC, Atlanta, GA, James Andrew Merriman, Merriman Law Office, PLC, Clarkston, MI, Matthew A. Hood, Stuart & Johnston, LLC, Marietta, GA, for Defendant.
Grand, David R., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HORN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS [13]
*1 This is an employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff Codie Horn (“Horn”) against his former employer Robert Bosch Automotive Steering LLC (“Bosch”) arising out of his involuntary termination from Bosch. (ECF No. 1.)
Before the Court is a motion to compel production of documents filed by Horn. (ECF No. 13.) Bosch responded (ECF No 15), and Horn did not file a reply. This case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF No. 4.)
Background
On today's date, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation to grant in part and deny in part without prejudice Bosch's summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 20.) The Court included a detailed discussion of the facts of this case, which is incorporated herein by reference. For purposes of this motion, it suffices to say that Horn alleges his termination violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. The Court found that Horn failed to raise a material question of fact as to whether: (1) he was actually disabled; (2) he requested an accommodation; (3) his termination breached an implied contract or violated public policy; (4) Bosch violated the FMLA; and (5) his termination violated the ELCRA. But, the Court found that Bosch was not entitled to summary judgment as to Horn's claims that Bosch regarded him as disabled and retaliated against him for filing an EEOC charge.
While Horn's summary judgment response was deficient in many respects, and made vague and unsupported allegations of a fraud and a “cover up” by Bosch and its counsel that the Court will not entertain, he attached a copy of Bosch's responses to his Requests for Production of Documents (which responses Horn received only one week before Bosch filed its summary judgment motion) and challenged their completeness. He also filed a concurrent motion to compel that is the subject of this Order. The Court's recommendation to deny without prejudice the claims specified above goes hand-in-hand with the few discovery requests for which the Court finds supplemental responses are warranted.
Horn testified that on May 16, 2018, he met with his direct supervisor, Kikuko Clark (“Clark”), and an HR representative, Carrie King (“King”) because he wanted to inform them that he would need to take some time off work for his “pressing medical needs.” (ECF No. 12, PageID.310.) He claims Clark and King “demanded [he] inform them of [his] private medical issues.” (Id., PageID.311.) Horn claims he left a voicemail for Wesley Johnson, Bosch's Human Resources Vice President, complaining about Clark's and King's conduct. (Id., PageID.310, 332; see also ECF No. 15-2, PageID.335.)
A few weeks later, Horn went on a short work trip to Japan. He testified that when he returned, Clark and King again confronted him about his health, asking him, “Were you authorized to travel, was your health good enough?” (ECF No. 12, PageID.305.) Horn was suspended later that day, and was eventually terminated, though the Court found a question of fact on the present evidentiary record as to whether Horn's termination was on June 8, 2018 or June 15/16, 2018. It is undisputed that on June 12, 2018, Horn filed an EEOC charge.
*2 Although Bosch provided evidence showing friction existed between Horn and Clark, which included a May 7, 2018 e-mail from Clark to King in which Clark complained about Horn and raised the specter of his involuntary termination, overall the evidence Bosch presented regarding its termination decision was thin. Bosch did not provide affidavits from either Clark or King. Nor did Bosch provide other e-mails or documents subsequent to Clark's May 7th e-mail that might speak to the connection between the May 7th incident and Horn's ultimate termination. This is true despite the fact that throughout its summary judgment brief, Bosch asserts, “Ms. Clark contemplated Mr. Horn's ‘involuntary termination’ by email as early as May 7, 2018 and thereafter proceeded along those lines, by suspending him on June 1, 2018 informing him on June 15, 2018 that he was terminated, effective as of June 8, 2018.” (ECF No. 11, PageID.162 (emphasis added); see also id., PageID.180.)[1]
The only evidence Bosch provided that attempts to tie anything together was Johnson's affidavit. (ECF No. 11-1.) But that affidavit was vague and perfunctory, stating only:
5. On May 7, 2018, Mr. Horn submitted a travel authorization request to Hans Koehnle, requesting permission for international travel to Japan from May 23, 2018 through May 31, 2018.
6. Mr. Horn was required to obtain permission from and inform his direct supervisor, [Clark] regarding all international travel.
7. Mr. Horn failed to obtain permission from or to inform Ms. Clark of his international travel plans to Japan.
8. This failure to obtain permission from or to inform Ms. Clark of his international travel plans to Japan was insubordination and a violation of Bosch policy.
9. On June 1, 2018, I am aware that Mr. Horn raised his voice, insulted Ms. Clark and initially refused to return his Company phone and badge.
10. Mr. Horn was suspended on June 1, 2018. On that day, Mr. Horn was required to return his Company phone and his badge.
11. Between June 1, 2018 and June 8, 2018, the Company engaged in discussions regarding making a severance offer to Mr. Horn.
12. The decision to terminate Mr. Horn's employment was made on June 8, 2018.
13. On June 15, 2018, Mr. Horn was offered severance. Mr. Horn subsequently declined the Company's offer of severance.
(Id., PageID.189-90.)
Notably, Johnson's affidavit does not mention Clark's May 7, 2018 e-mail, any of the issues that precipitated it, or, as noted above, any connection between it and Bosch's ultimate decision to terminate Horn. Nor does his affidavit indicate how he became “aware” of Horn's alleged conduct on June 1, 2018.
The record also does not contain a copy of the “policy” Horn supposedly violated. At the hearing on this matter, the Court inquired whether any such written policy exists, and was advised by Bosch that it does not.[2] And, in the only document Bosch submitted to establish Horn's alleged “unapproved travel,” Clark asked a colleague, “Would you be so kind to confirm if you have signed Overseas (Japan) Authorization for Codie Horn in last 2 weeks? Sorry to bother you. I am checking to see if he had proper authorization since I did not process his request.” (ECF No. 11-6, PageID.258). The colleague responded in the affirmative. (Id.) The Court found that, at least without more, this raised a question of fact about the propriety of Horn's travel authorization.
*3 Finally, the record regarding the timing of Horn's actual termination appears incomplete. In its summary judgment brief, Bosch writes, “On June 15, 2018, Bosch informed Mr. Horn that he was being terminated, effective as of June 8, 2018.” (ECF No. 11, PageID.161) (emphasis added.) Bosch did provide an Administrative Change Form regarding Horn's termination that appears to be “digitally signed” on June 8, 2018. (ECF No. 11-12, PageID.276.) However, that same document indicates that Horn's “Last Day Worked” was June 15, 2018, and that his “Termination Date” was June 16, 2018. (Id.) The timing details are important because Horn filed an EEOC charge on June 12, 2018. With nothing in the record to explain this discrepancy, the Court found summary judgment was unwarranted on Horn's retaliation claim. While “temporal proximity, standing alone, is not enough to establish causal connection for a retaliation claim,” Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481, 494 (6th Cir. 2010), Horn is entitled to discovery as to Bosch's contentions about the timing of its decision to terminate him.
Against this backdrop, the Court turns to the few discovery requests that bear on these issues and for which Bosch must supplement its prior responses.
The Applicable Legal Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Analysis
Bosch argues that it provided “good” discovery responses to Horn (ECF No. 15-1, PageID.332), but the Court reviewed its answers to Horn's Requests for Production of Documents, and finds that, in light of the issues the Court identified above and in its Report and Recommendation, additional discovery is warranted as to the following Requests:
(ECF No. 16, PageID.370.)
It is true that this Request is broadly worded and somewhat vague. At the same time, the salient timeframe in this case is extremely narrow, lasting from mid-April 2018 to mid-June 2018, and involved only the few discrete issues discussed above and in the Report and Recommendation.[3] Clearly, to the extent (1) Bosch employees communicated via e-mail about any of those matters, or (2) there are documents related to any of those matters, they are relevant and must be produced to Horn.[4] So, too, must Bosch produce any e-mails it possesses that were sent from or to Horn regarding the allegations in his complaint and the events in question.
(Id., PageID.381.)
*4 Again, although inartfully worded, this Request speaks directly to the apparent discrepancy the Court identified above about the timing of Horn's termination. See supra at 5. Bosch must produce all e-mails and other documents related to the ultimate decision-making process to terminate Horn, and related to Bosch's contention that the effective termination date of Horn's employment was June 8, 2018, as opposed to the “Last Date Worked” of June 15, 2018 and/or the “Termination Date” of June 16, 2018, as reflected in the Administrative Change Form.
(Id., PageID.383.)
This Request relates to one of the central factual disputes in this case. Yet there is very little in the record on this issue. As explained above, Bosch claims that Horn was “insubordinate” and violated company “policy” when he failed to obtain Clark's approval for his May 2018 trip to Japan. Horn claims he acted appropriately by obtaining permission for the trip from a different supervisor, Hans Koehlen. However, the record contains no affidavit from Clark or Koehlen on these issues, and it turns out Bosch did not have a written “policy” requiring Horn to obtain Clark's approval for the Japan trip. Moreover, when Clark e-mailed Koehlen about the issue, she indicated that she was “checking to see if [Horn] had proper authorization since I did not process his request.” (ECF No. 11-6, PageID.258). Koehlen responded in the affirmative. (Id.) At least on the very limited present evidentiary record, this leaves a question of fact as to whether Horn had “proper authorization” for the trip. Horn is entitled to any e-mails, communications, or other documents Bosch has related to this matter.
(Id., PageID.388.)
*5 Horn has consistently maintained that prior to the issue about his failure to obtain Clark's permission for the May 2018 Japan trip, his personnel file reflected no discipline or negative remarks. (See e.g., ECF No. 1, PageID.14; ECF No. 16, PageID.348, 350-51.) In responding to Bosch's summary judgment motion, Horn provided a copy of his personnel file that appears to support his contention. While Horn's Request could have been more clear, it directly relates to Bosch's claim about “proceeding along” the lines of an involuntary termination as of May 7, 2018, and Bosch's overall decision-making process. Bosch must produce all correspondence and documents that support its denial of Horn's position about the contents of his personnel file.
(Id., PageID.403.)
Bosch first objects that this Request is overly broad and “seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” That objection lacks merit. Again, because Horn was fired for “insubordination,” the documents Horn requests are directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. While the Court concurs that this Request may be duplicative of Request 56, as noted above, Bosch objected to that Request and did not indicate that notwithstanding those objections it was producing responsive documents. While Bosch need not make multiple productions of the same document because the document is responsive to multiple requests, Horn has a right to know that he has received all responsive documents.
Conclusion
For all of the above reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Horn's motion to compel (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Bosch shall produce the discovery ordered herein by July 17, 2020.
Footnotes
The Court also notes that Horn contends and presented evidence that his personnel file contains no negative notations regarding the May 7, 2018 incident. (ECF No. 16, PageID.350; 413-45; ECF No. 16-1, PageID.446-85.)
Bosch contended that even if there is no such formal “policy,” any reasonable employee should have advised his immediate supervisor about an international work trip approved by a different supervisor. While the Court concurs with that general proposition, it was Bosch who interjected the notion of a “policy” violation and then failed to provide any additional evidence illuminating the decision-making process regarding Horn's termination for “insubordination.”
The same can be said about Request No. 103, which seeks, “Any and all emails, letters, or other forms of communication between [Bosch] and any current and/or former employees of Bosch (including [Horn]).” Obviously, read literally, this Request is objectionable as it is unlimited in scope. However, it can be reasonably interpreted as seeking responsive documents that discuss or relate to Horn's claims in this case and Bosch's decision to terminate him.
The Request also mentions voicemails, though only one seems to be in dispute. Horn claims he left a voicemail for Johnson in which he complained that during the May 16, 2018 meeting with Clark and King they asked him intrusive questions about his health. The context of this questioning is not clear from the present record, as Bosch presented no evidence related to the incident. The conversation is at least potentially relevant to Horn's “regarded-as-disabled” claim.
Horn asked for a copy of the voicemail and Bosch advised him that it could not locate it. Bosch then asked Horn, “Can you tell me what you think was said, and what you think it proves in your case? We may be able to stipulate to the conversation.” (ECF No. 15-1, PageID.332.) Just as he had testified, Horn responded that on the voicemail he told Johnson “that during the meeting with [ ] Clark and [ ] King, ‘the questions were very personal’ and that they were ‘very unprofessional’ during the meeting.” (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.335.) Yet, rather than submitting a stipulation to Horn that even remotely reflects Horn's version, Bosch sent him a stipulation which merely says, “In the voicemail, Mr. Horn asked Mr. Johnson if he would be present during future meetings with [ ] King and [ ] Clark.” (ECF No. 15-4, PageID.342.) Put simply, this was not much of an offer by Bosch, and Bosch did not meaningfully address the issue in its summary judgment motion papers. Bosch does not contest Horn left a voicemail, and at the hearing suggested it was willing to stipulate to Horn's version of the missing voicemail. Therefore, if Bosch files a renewed motion for summary judgment, it should meaningfully address the impact of Horn's version of the events on his remaining claims.