Othon v. Wesleyan Univ.
Othon v. Wesleyan Univ.
2019 WL 13291272 (D. Conn. 2019)
November 25, 2019

Merriam, Sarah A. L.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Audio
Failure to Produce
Video
Proportionality
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The court granted in part and denied in part Christina Othon's motion to compel responses from Wesleyan University to her second set of interrogatories and requests for production. The court denied the motion to compel responses to RFPs 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11, as they were found to be irrelevant or disproportionate. The court also denied the motion to compel responses to RFPs 1 and 4 without prejudice, pending resolution of Wesleyan's Motion to Dismiss.
Additional Decisions
CHRISTINA OTHON
v.
WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY
Civ. No. 3:18CV00958(KAD)
United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Filed November 25, 2019

Counsel

Heena Kapadia, Carmen Chapman, Law Office of Heena Kapadia, Trumbull, CT, for Christina Othon.
Emily McDonough Souza, Patricia E. Reilly, Murtha Cullina LLP, New Haven, CT, Martha McNamara Royston, Gartner, Inc., Stamford, CT, Matthew K. Curtin, Murtha Cullina, Hartford, CT, for Wesleyan University.
Merriam, Sarah A. L., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. #79]

*1 Pending before the Court is a motion to compel filed by Christina Othon (“plaintiff” or “Othon”), seeking to compel responses from defendant Wesleyan University (“defendant” or “Wesleyan”) to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and requests for production (“RFP”). See Doc. #79. For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. #79) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
I. Background
Plaintiff, a former employee of Wesleyan, brings claims asserting gender-based retaliation and discrimination in employment, under both state and federal law. See generally Doc. #57. Plaintiff also brings state law claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. See id. at 27, 32. Plaintiff “was hired on a tenure-track appointment[ ]” as an Assistant Professor in Wesleyan's physics department in July 2010. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that she was denied tenure in February 2017 due to ongoing and systemic gender bias within the department generally, and in Wesleyan's methods of evaluating tenure candidates. See generally Doc. #57. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant retaliated against her for seeking to address that alleged bias through defendant's office of Diversity and Equity. See id. at 12-15. Plaintiff resigned from her position with defendant on August 1, 2017, and began employment at Ripon College on August 18, 2017. See Doc. #66 at 10, 12; Doc. #68-4 at 4.
II. Legal Standard
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the scope and limitations of permissible discovery:
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). “The party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing why discovery should be denied.” Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79, 80 (D. Conn. 2009).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff's motion to compel seeks responses to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and requests for production. See Doc. #79. After conducting “meet-and-confer” sessions, the parties have narrowed the issues for Court review. See Doc. #139 (status report).
A. Defendant's Objection to Number of Interrogatories
The Court notes that defendant asserted in its objections to interrogatories 1-3 that plaintiff had exceeded the number of interrogatories permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. See Doc. #79-1 at 3, 5, 7. Plaintiff addresses this objection in her motion. See id. at 3-4, 6-7. However, defendant does not pursue this argument in its Opposition to Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel. See generally Doc. #98. Therefore, the Court considers this argument waived.
B. Interrogatory 1 and RFP 7
*2 Plaintiff moves to compel responses to interrogatory 1 and RFP 7. Interrogatory 1 states: “Please identify each and every tenured faculty member that has been involuntarily removed from his/her employment after obtaining tenure and state the reason for the removal.” Doc. #79-1 at 2-3. RFP 7 asks defendant to “produce a copy of all documents which memorialize or concern the removal of any faculty member identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1.” Id. at 13. Defendant objects to interrogatory 1 and has provided no response. See id. Defendant objects to interrogatory 1 on numerous grounds, including that it is “vague and ambiguous[,]” “that it is not limited to a reasonable timeframe[,]” and that “[t]he information sought is not relevant and not proportional to the needs of this case.” Id. at 3. Defendant further objects because “this interrogatory seeks to invade the privacy of Wesleyan's former employees by requesting sensitive and confidential information that has no bearing on this matter.” Id.
Plaintiff asserts that she “seeks to show the jury that the designation of tenure is significant because it equates to job security and guaranty of employment for life.” Id. “It is Plaintiff's belief that Wesleyan has not involuntarily removed any tenured faculty member.” Id. In response to defendant's relevance objection, plaintiff contends that “[t]he information sought is relevant to Plaintiff's claim for damages.” Id. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that “Defendant disputes that Plaintiff is entitled to front pay for the years that she would have worked had she obtained the status of tenure and that tenure equates to job security.” Id.
Interrogatory 1 seeks some information that is relevant, as plaintiff contends, to her claim for damages. However, the identification of any specific individuals who have been involuntarily removed after receiving tenure at Wesleyan is unnecessary. The apparent goal of plaintiff's interrogatory is to ascertain whether any tenured Wesleyan faculty member has been involuntarily removed from his or her position. As plaintiff indicates, she believes that no tenured faculty members have been involuntarily removed from their positions. It is sufficient for Wesleyan to respond so that plaintiff will know whether this belief is accurate; the actual identities of any individuals involved is not relevant.
Further, as currently framed, interrogatory 1 is temporally overbroad. Limitation of discovery to the general time frame of plaintiff's employment is appropriate. See, e.g., Holloway v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., No. 3:14CV01661(VAB), 2015 WL 3606326, at *3 (D. Conn. June 8, 2015) (“[T]his request shall be limited from her first date of employment ... to the present.”); see also Munoz v. Manhattan Club Timeshare Ass'n, Inc., No. 11CV07037(JPO), 2012 WL 479429, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2012) (“[T]he request to compel discovery ... is granted ... for the time period of Plaintiff's employment by Defendant[.]”); Sundaram v. Brookhaven Nat. Lab., Associated Univs., Inc., No. 94CV02330(TCP), 1996 WL 563829, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 1996) (“The court will only compel discovery on Dr. Sundaram's discrimination claims for the time period from approximately one year before his employment status changed through one year after his termination.”).
Plaintiff was employed by Wesleyan from 2010 to 2017; an appropriate time frame for this inquiry is 2008 to 2018. Therefore, the Court limits interrogatory 1 to the following: State whether any tenured Wesleyan faculty member was involuntarily removed from his/her employment during the years 2008 to 2018. The fact of whether any tenured faculty member has been terminated is sufficient; it is not necessary that any documents be produced once defendant answers interrogatory 1. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatory 1 is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP 7 is DENIED.
C. Interrogatory 2
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to interrogatory 2, which states:
*3 Please identify each and every tenure-track faculty member who has given a limited appointment in the 3rd year review, as Plaintiff, and required to undergo another review in his/her 5th year, and for each individual identified, state the department in which the individual worked and the reason for the limited appointment and the 5th year review.
Doc. #79-1 at 4-5 (sic). Defendant objects on the grounds that interrogatory 2 is “vague and ambiguous[,]” is “not limited to a reasonable time frame in that it has no temporal limitation[,]” and “is not relevant and not proportional to the needs of this case.” Id. at 5. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory “because it seeks information concerning Wesleyan faculty members who are not parties to the lawsuit[.]” Id. Defendant also asserts that “[t]his interrogatory seeks to invade the privacy of Wesleyan employees[.]” Id.
Plaintiff contends that “[i]n the third year of teaching, the Advisory Committee, relying solely on the gender biased student teaching evaluations, decided that Plaintiff would undergo a second interim evaluation after her 4th year. This is a step that is not a part of the normal evaluation process at Wesleyan.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that, therefore, the information sought in interrogatory 2 “is comparator information that is central to the issues presented in this case.” Id.
Interrogatory 2 seeks information regarding all tenure-track faculty members in the entire university. “[I]ndividuals in different academic departments of the university ... are not appropriate comparators as they are not similarly situated.” Jauhari, 2017 WL 819902, at *3. The Court has already identified three comparators “appropriate for discovery purposes.” Doc. #118 at 11 (identifying Tsampikos Kottos, Greg Voth, and Francis Starr as comparators). The appropriate scope for interrogatory 2 focuses only on these three comparators. Interrogatory 2 is thus limited to the following: State whether any of the three comparators was required to undergo a review in his/her fifth year. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatory 2 is GRANTED, in part.
D. Interrogatory 3 and RFP 9
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to interrogatory 3 and RFP 9. Interrogatory 3 states: “Please describe in detail the information that was communicated to Plaintiff on the requirements for tenure at the time of her hire and the identify of the individual(s) who communicated the information.” Doc. #79-1 at 7 (sic). RFP 9 asks defendant to “produce a copy of documents informing Plaintiff on requirements for tenure when she was hired.” Id. at 14.
Defendant objects to interrogatory 3 on the grounds that it is “vague and ambiguous[.]” Id. at 7.
Plaintiff contends that “[u]nder Defendant's policies and procedures, the physics department was required to clearly communicate the requirements for tenure to Plaintiff at the time of hire.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he individual who was the chairman when Plaintiff was hired is still with Wesleyan,” id., indicating that plaintiff believes this is the person who has the responsive information.
At least some of the information sought by interrogatory 3 is relevant to plaintiff's breach of contract claim, which is asserted as Count Seven of the Amended Complaint. See Doc. #57 at 27. Interrogatory 3 seeks information regarding the employment offer that Wesleyan made to plaintiff at the time of hire. However, interrogatory 3, as currently framed, seeks information that was communicated to plaintiff by anyone at the time of plaintiff's hire. The relevant scope of interrogatory 3 is limited to the person communicating this information to plaintiff as a part of Wesleyan's formal offer of employment.
*4 The Court orders defendant to provide a response to interrogatory 3 as limited to the following: State the information provided by the physics department chairman to plaintiff, at the time of hire, as part of her formal offer of employment, regarding the requirements for plaintiff to obtain tenure at Wesleyan.
Defendant shall respond to RFP 7 by producing any documents provided to Othon during, and as a part of, Wesleyan's formal employment offer to her. Defendant has also indicated its willingness and ability to produce a copy of the 2010-2011 Faculty Handbook; this should be produced. See Doc. #98 at 7 n.2.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to interrogatory 3 and RFP 7 is GRANTED, in part.
E. RFP 1
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to RFP 1, which asks defendant to “produce the underlying data/information that was relied upon to create each of the documents produced by Defendant and attached hereto as Exhibit A.” Doc. #79-1 at 7. Exhibit A appears to be charts and graphs summarizing the student evaluations of plaintiff that were prepared by Wesleyan during the investigation of plaintiff's Title IX complaint. The Court previously ordered defendant produce all student evaluations of plaintiff. See Doc. #118 at 7. Plaintiff therefore now has the most significant component of the “underlying data/information[.]” It thus appears that the only remaining “underlying data/information that was relied upon” in creating the charts and graphs would be the gender of the student evaluators.
The Court has previously denied, without prejudice, plaintiff's motion to compel the gender information, pending resolution of defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See Doc. #148. For the reasons set forth in that order, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP 1 is DENIED, without prejudice, pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
F. RFP 2
The parties’ joint status report dated July 25, 2019, indicates that the disputes regarding this RFP have been resolved. See Doc. #139 at 4.
G. RFP 3
The parties’ joint status report dated July 25, 2019, indicates that the disputes regarding this RFP have been resolved. See Doc. #139 at 4.
H. RFP 4
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to RFP 4, which asks defendant to “produce all documents reflecting the identity of the individuals to whom the charts depicted in Exhibit A were sent or presented.” Doc. #79-1 at 11. Defendant objects to RFP 4 “on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in this lawsuit[.]” Id. As previously noted, the “charts depicted in Exhibit A” are the charts and graphs created by Wesleyan as part of the investigation into plaintiff's Title IX complaint. The documents sought in RFP 4 are relevant only as to plaintiff's Title IX claims.
The Court has previously denied, without prejudice, plaintiff's motion to compel information relating solely to the Title IX claims, pending resolution of defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See Docs. #146, #148. For the reasons set forth in that order, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP 1 is DENIED, without prejudice, pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
I. RFP 5
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to RFP 5, which states: “With respect to the task force reference in Exhibit B please produce all documents relating to or reflecting the creation of any such task force.” Doc. #79-1 at 12 (emphases in original) (sic). Exhibit B includes an email from Deborah Colucci, Equity Compliance Director/Deputy Title IX Coordinator at Wesleyan, dated November 11, 2016. See Doc. #79-3 at 25. The email, which appears to relate to the investigation of Othon's Title IX complaint, states, in relevant part: “[W]e also learned that the faculty leadership (FCRR) is planning a task force to research national trends regarding evaluations including gender bias in student evaluations of faculty.” Id. (emphasis added).
*5 Defendant objects on the grounds that this request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably proportionate to the needs of the case, and seeks irrelevant information. See Doc. #79-3 at 10-11. Plaintiff argues that she “is entitled to show the jury that Defendant failed to take any action, if that is the case.” Doc. #79-1 at 12.
The question of whether Wesleyan ever created a task force to research national trends regarding possible gender bias in student evaluations is tenuously relevant, at best, to the claims in this case. Even if such a task force were created, the research of “national trends” would have no particular bearing on the question of whether Wesleyan discriminated against Othon, and would not make any fact at issue in this case more or less likely. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP 5 is DENIED.
J. RFP 6
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to RFP 6, which asks defendant to “produce a copy of all documents related to any complaints or concerns based on race by a student, employee or faculty against any tenured physics faculty member.” Doc. #79-1 at 12. Defendant makes numerous objections, including that RFP 6 “seeks irrelevant information that is not proportional to the needs of this case.” Id. at 13. Defendant asserts that “[t]his case involves the denial of tenure for a female assistant professor of Wesleyan's physics department. This case is not about race[.]” Id. Plaintiff makes no specific argument as to the relevance of the information requested by this RFP. See id. The Court does not see how information relating to complaints or concerns based on race is relevant to this matter. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP 6 is DENIED.
K. RFP 8
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to RFP 8, which asks defendant to “produce a copy of the teaching evaluations of all female faculty who worked in the physics department for the last twenty years.” Id. at 14. Defendant objects to RFP 8 “on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant[.]” Id. Defendant also objects that “it is not reasonably proportionate to the needs of this case to require Wesleyan to produce every student teaching evaluation for every female faculty member of the physics department for the last twenty years.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that she “seeks to show the jury that Defendant has been on notice of the gender bias that female faculty in the physics department faced but allowed the situation to continue.” Id.
The Court agrees that RFP 8 is disproportionate, overbroad, and seeks irrelevant information. To the extent that plaintiff seeks information regarding evaluations within the physics department, the Court has previously identified three comparators and ordered production of their complete tenure dossiers. See Doc. #118 at 11. Information regarding these individuals’ teaching evaluations is included in their tenure dossiers. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP 8 is DENIED.
L. RFP 10
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to RFP 10, which asks defendant to “produce copies of all video and audio tapes of Plaintiff's classes.” Doc. #79-1 at 15. Wesleyan objects to RFP 10 “on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant[.]” Id. Defendant also objects that “this request has no temporal limitation, and it is not reasonably proportionate to the needs of this case to require Wesleyan to produce every video or audio tape of Plaintiff's classes for the seven (7) years that she was on the faculty at Wesleyan.” Id. Defendant also asserts: “Again, Plaintiff was not denied tenure on the basis of her student teaching evaluations. Any video or audio recordings of Plaintiff's classes were not part of Plaintiff's tenure file.” Doc. #98 at 8.
*6 Plaintiff argues that Wesleyan's “reference to 7 years makes no sense” because “[t]he taping did not start until after the 4rd year, which Defendant knows.” Doc. #78-1 at 15 (sic). The only argument offered by Othon as to this request is: “Plaintiff seeks to show the jury the lengths to which she had to go to address the issues that surfaced by way of the gender biased student teaching evaluations.” Id.
In response to defendant's relevance objection, plaintiff offers no comprehensible rationale for the relevance of the video and audio tapes of plaintiff's classes, and the Court is unable to identify any. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP 8 is DENIED.
M. RFP 11
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to RFP 11, which asks defendant to “produce a copy of documents reflecting, concerning or relating to training provided to Advisory on bias as referenced in Exhibit B.” Doc. #79-1 at 15. Exhibit B provides a copy of an email sent from Ms. Colucci to plaintiff, dated November 11, 2016. See Doc. #79-3 at 25. Defendant objects on the grounds that RFP 11 is “vague and ambiguous[,]” as well as “overbroad, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant[.]” Doc. #79-1 at 15.
In response, plaintiff argues:
The Advisory Committee recommended Plaintiff's firing during her 5th year review because some of its’ members’ dissatisfaction with Plaintiff's student teaching evaluations. Plaintiff then went to the Title IX office for assistance. Plaintiff is entitled to know what, if anything was ever done to address the situation and educate Advisory. See above discussion on Defendant's obligation to address discrimination and remedy the situation.
Id. at 15-16 (sic).
The investigation into plaintiff's Title IX complaint was conducted from June 2016 to November 2016. See Doc. #57 at 14. The date of the email expressly referenced in this request, November 11, 2016, indicates that it was sent at the conclusion of the Title IX investigation. See Doc. #79-3 at 25. The only mention of “training provided to Advisory” in the email is this statement: “[O]ur investigation shows that Advisory group has received training around understanding bias[.]” Id. (emphasis added).
As noted, plaintiff's argument regarding this request is that she is “entitled to know what, if anything was ever done to address the situation and educate Advisory.” Doc. #79-1 at 16. In other words, plaintiff wants to know if the Advisory group received bias training in response to Othon's Title IX complaint. But the language of the email clearly uses the past tense, indicating that the Title IX investigation revealed that the Advisory group had already received bias training.
Wesleyan did represent to Othon, through Ms. Colucci, that the Advisory group had received bias training. The Court agrees that information regarding this training is potentially relevant to the claims in this case. Accordingly, Wesleyan shall respond as follows: Produce any and all documents identifying or describing the “training around understanding bias” previously received by the Advisory group that is mentioned in Deborah Colucci's November 11, 2016, email to Christina Othon.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP 11 is GRANTED, in part.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. #79) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
The Court finds that the information requested in RFPs 1 and 4 is potentially relevant only to plaintiff's Title IX claims. Accordingly, consistent with the Court's prior orders, see Docs. #146, #148, the motion to compel as to these requests is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile her motion to compel responses to RFPs 1 and 4 within 14 days after the Court issues a ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15, Doc. #59), if that motion is denied, and the Title IX claims remain in the case.
*7 It is so ordered at New Haven, Connecticut, this 25th day of November, 2019.